No other part of the world has the right to call their sparkling wines "Champagne".

Many American wine makers in particular are still breaking the law by calling their stuff "Californian Champagne" etc.

I agree that the area should be protected but I really wouldn't get too excited about it. The Austalians make Port, Tokaji and all sorts of things as do the Americans.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Francois

Why do they not do what they preach?

---

Because it does not suit them and who is going to tell them to stop?

If the French government feels strongly about it then there is only the option of trade sanctions and I am afraid to say that there would be no winners with that one but the French would come out worse.

this is fantastic news. Congratulaitons for finding this article. It is the proof that there is more to making Champagne that simply using the Méthode Champennoise and produce a wine with bubbles!

Even better, now the fraudsters can be caught and hopefully taken to justice.

I was also amazed to see that some US wine makers call their wines "Italian", this is unacceptable.

"Many American winemakers" are NOT breaking any law and are NOT calling their product "Californian [sic] Champagne". If the clever M. Francois will kindly show me a bottle of American sparkling wine that calls itself Champagne.... Even charmant bulk producers, the cheapest of the champagne immitators, don't label themselves Champagne. Calling people names, like "American crooks," based on ignorance, is a reflection on the writer and makes him a fool to people who know better.

Of course, true Champagne is French only, as are Burgundy, Bordeaux and Cognac. But champagne and burgundy are used informally to refer to a wine category. (And no American brandy producer calls itself Cognac!) When we say California (not Californian) champagne we are merely referring to the sparkling wine made in California that corresponds to Champagne.

There are wonderful American champagnes such as Schramsberg and Jordan, and the "boutique" labels. In fact, many of the major French Champagne Houses have California labels - Mumm, Chandon, Louis Roederer, Taitinger, Piper Heidsick. To object to calling California Chandon or Mumm is improper is not only silly pedantry but betrays a philistine.

I regret that you choose to insult me, as my intention was never to hurt honest people. But at least you bring some interesting information to the debate.

So Champagne is better than the American sparkling alternatives. Thank you for that. You obvioulsy have good taste.

But unfortunately I regret to say that, contrary to your affirmation, some American sparkling wine producers do put the word "Champagne" on their labels. Thank you to ARB for also bringing his witness on this. And this is what I have a problem with: I find it unacceptable and I am sure that the law in America does not allow that. Just type "California Champagne" in Google and scrolling the 709,000 results you will find, like me, those who put the word "Champagne" on their labels. As I type these lignes, I can read a label that says:

Méthode Champenoise
K***
California Champagne

Now if you are trying to convince yourself that by putting the word "Champagne" on the label of a wine is merely to refer informally to a wine category without the intention to commercially use/abuse the value created over the centuries by hardworking people... you may find yourself alone in your way of thinking. (I may have misread you, so please confirm).

As for the contested validity of the expression "Californian champagne" you will have to forgive my better handling of the "langage de Molière" than the "language of Shakespeare", mais je serais ravi de continuer le débat en Français si vous le souhaitez ou si vous m'offrez le choix des armes...

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrice

If the clever M. Francois will kindly show me a bottle of American sparkling wine that calls itself Champagne.... Even charmant bulk producers, the cheapest of the champagne immitators, don't label themselves Champagne.

---

I'm not M. Francois, or even particularly clever, but I do know what I'm talking about. A look in any US wine store will show bottles of US sparkling wine labelled as 'champagne'. The worst offenders are in fact the cheapest stuff, which has been injected with carbon dioxide. I had the misfortune to taste one called 'Andre' .

Few of the serious methode champenoise makers now misuse the word champagne, except for Korbel in California's Russian River. They make an excellent range of methode champenoise sparklers and say they've been making and calling their wine champagne for over 100 years and will continue to do so. Their argument -which has some merit - is that it is only in recent years thatt he Champenois have gone to law to restrict the usage of the word and that it was a generic name for sparkling wine when they started using it and that there was no objection from the Champenois at that time.

My understanding is that US wine law now requires US wines not to use the word champagne on its own but to put California or other origin before it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Francois

But unfortunately I regret to say that, contrary to your affirmation, some American sparkling wine producers do put the word "Champagne" on their labels. And this is what I have a problem with: I find it unacceptable and I am sure that the law in America does not allow that.

---

I suggest that American sparkling wines using the methode Champennoise call themselves "Champaign" so that everybody will be happy.

quote:

---

As for the other wines with bubbles let them rot.

---

Don't say that Francis. Ignoring the passing off aspect which I deplore, you'll be surprised by the quality out there - in Champagne style and method and quite deliberately different.

I tried the Australian Hanging Rock Macedon On-Lees Non-vintage recently and was blown over by the smoothness and yeasty richness.

Also, does anyone here know the term beeswax? :)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Waldo The Wino

I'm wondering if these American wine producers actually export their products with names like American Burgundy or California Champagne. Do they, or are they just for American consumers?

---

Defintely not to Europe. I remember when Paul Masson wines appeared in Britain. It was probably the first US wine in the supermarkets and came in the one litre carafe (I still use one for decanting). I'd been in California in the '70s where it was called 'Hearty Burgundy', here it was sold as California Red. I have examples of labels from both if anyone is interested.

Korbel are - I think - the only reputable California maker of sparkling wine misusing the Champagne name; we don't get Korbel but we get several others. Mumm Napa use a slightly different name here (Mumm Cuvee Napa Brut instead of Brut Prestige, and they sell more in the UK than the US AND its cheaper here than at the winery.

quote:

---

Also, does anyone here know the term beeswax? :)

---

Only as a furniture polish.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=businessNews&storyID=2005-03-15T162543Z_01_N15622885_RTRIDST_0_BUSINESS-TRADE-EU-USA-DC.XML

If you are at all confused as to if you have real champagne or not, the word 'champagne' will be clearly branded into your cork.

As regards 'best' sparkling wines, this is a) too general and b) too subjective. If one compares a bottle of Champagne at £15, a bottle of cava at £15 and say, Pelorus Sparkling (Cloudy bay's fizzy effort) at £15, the Champagne, objectively, will not come out on top. They are also completely different styles, with different flavours.

However, if you look at the top end of the market, Champagne currently has no competitoin. The soils, the expertise of the winemakers, the money they can invest in equipment and research and the climate, mean that vintage Champagnes are lnger-lived, more balanced, more refined and more complex than any other fizz. That does not mean that other regions could no in the future produce something as good.

However there is a place called Champagne in Switzerland and I understand they are arguing they should be able to trade under the name.

There is a city called Champaign in Illinois(US) and of Champaign County in Illinois (Notice the different spelling)

www. answers.com/topic/champagne-2

However the Brands of Champagne united in 1882 to organize the fight against the phylloxera and protect the naming wrongly used "Champagne". It has been protected in European law and International law for a long while now.

www. maisons-champagne.com/traduction/english/presentation_umc_gb.htm

Mostly others just want to trade on the name as Champagne is a powerful name (because of the quality of the wine originating from France from the Champagne region with that name).

To cut a long story short, yes Champagne is and should only be French, but even within France it must come from the Champagne region. If it came from Bordeaux it would be Bordeaux etc. (If it came from Nice it would be a biscuit - sorry poor attempt at humour)

If its Italian its Supmanti, (if from Asti, Asti or Asti Supmanti). If Spanish its Cava etc.

'Suse me if my punctuation or grammar is off, been having a bit of Napa Zinfandel: Is that Napa or Zinfandel?

Those who do know what they are talking about, and discuss the issues in an open-minded and reasonable manner (such as Peter May and MisterChris) are appreciated.

It is legal and permissible for American sparkling wines to be labelled as "Champagne", but (as Peter said) the name should be accompanied with the source designation ("California Champagne", but not "Californian Champagne"). Anyone can argue that it should not be proper, but they cannot maintain that it is illegal. Such practice is allowed by US law and statute, in part because the US was not party to the international agreement of Champagne/Methode Champenoise being restricted (there was this little social experiment in America at the time called "Prohibition", so no one bothered to ask the US to join in the agreement), and partly because some time ago (right or wrong, and I think wrong, but what I think isn't the law) the government decreed that certain wine terms were deemed "generic"---Burgundy, Chablis, Rose, Port, Sherry, and others. But those terms, when used, also require a statement of source or "appellation", as in "California Chablis" or "New York Burgundy".

Champagne (France) challenged Champagne (Switzerland) for the use of the name as it applies to sparkling wine. Champagne (Switzerland) lost in the European courts. As an aside, I often wondered why Campania couldn't challenge Champagne for their use of the name, since, as another poster mentioned, "Champagne" is descended from the Latinate campagna/campania, meaning loosely "open, rolling fields" (hence its use in Cognac: Champagne/open fields; Bois/wooded areas. Which became a quality designation eventually as it became consistently clear that the fields produced better quality grapes than the wooded areas).

Peter May was once again correct (I find he usually is) when he describes Korbel's philosophies and practices (disclosure: I work for a company that markets Korbel in the US). The owner of Korbel does maintain that Korbel began using the term "California Champagne" in the late 1880s and that the term has become by usage a part of their brand identity. And by the way, the owner of Korbel also owns other wineries in California that sell sparkling wines, but since none of those wineries had a long tradition of using the name, they are not called "California Champagne", but "California Sparkling Wine".

Korbel "Californa Champagne" has not been sold in the European and other foreign markets, as those countries are signatories to the treaties that protect the name convention. However, Korbel did sell a sparkling wine under a totally different label/package, "Korbel Grand Brut California Sparkling Wine", for a few years. It could not, however, compete in price in most markets, and was unable to establish a market share sufficient to sustain it, so it was discontinued.

One point in the French Champagne argument I always found....interesting...was that at the time the Champagne trade associations were arguing so long and loud for the protection of their name birthright, one of the largest and most well-known of the Champagne producers, Moet et Chandon, was also producing copious amounts of sparkling wine in its Argentine plants and calling it, oddly enough, "Champana". They have since stopped that, as I understand. However, when Moet Chandon wished to compete in the American low-priced market, they elected to create an extension of the "Chandon" line in America called Chandon Fresco. It was not, as most consumers thought, from the Domaine Chandon facility in Napa Valley, but from.....Argentina! But one had to look very, very hard to discover that fact because it was not easy to find on the label. Plus, the blend was composed of some very non-traditional grapes, such as Malbec. {I find this hypocritical of the French, but don't think it justifies or excuses the American practice either.)

Also, the rules changed in Piemonte some years ago: what used to be called "Asti Spumante" is now only "Asti". By regulation. And in practice, many Italian sparkling wines--including some very fine ones--avoid the use of the word "spumante" because it has become connotative of cheap swill (and usually is). But since the Italian rules and regulations are difficult to learn, follow, or comprehend at times, the word didn't necessarily get distributed as well as it should.

And just how, pray tell, is it "clearly trying to mislead their customers" when the label clearly--even boldly--states that the bubbly is "California Champagne", Deep South? Seems abundantly clear to me that it is from California. If it also says "Methode Champenoise" on the label, that makes it even more definite for me. So again: how is that trying to mislead? You should be more careful in your blanket denunciations. I don't quibble that your short list of California sparkling wine producers is correct, for they all do make good sparkling wines. That does not mean, however, that the mere appearance of "California Champagne" on a label means the contents of the bottle must be inferior to your cited wines. That's far too simplistic.

1.) True Champagne only comes from France.

2.) True California Champagne only comes from California, some of which is good quality and will continue to annoy the French both because it's good stuff but also because some wineries are using 'Champagne' as a generic term for a sparkling wine rather than an indication of origin (which in itself is clearly indicated by the use of the word ''California' in the title).

3.) Other areas of the world produce excellent fizz, some choose to market it using the term Champagne and others like the Spanish come up with their own name and say that it has it's own style and on a given day their product is better than their galllic neighbours could produce.

4.) The French have got the top spot in terms of fizz production at the top-end and seek to protect the value of their brand by actively pursuing anyone they percieve to be in a position to de-value it.

5) Above all, in a tasting, if you put Louis Roederer next to Roederer Estate, next to a top Cava like Dolores Sala, next to Cloudy bay Pelorus and got a hundred people in to taste them, different folks would like different wines. Get a wine professional in and if they know their stuff they'll be able to pick out which one comes from where. They're all made in roughly the same way, but the weather, grape blend, ageing period and soils are all different.
Only one is Champagne.

6) We can debate the rights and wrongs of it all we like (Zinfandel vs. Primitivo debate anyone?) but the French mass-produced, marketed and got it right first, and the region they did it in was Champagne. The day that someone elsewhere in the world uses the same grape blend on the same soil type as a Champagne house, ages for the same time then puts their product into a blind tasting against that Champagne house and gets a pro to write detailed notes on them which come out as being roughly the same is when we can really re-visit this question. Personally, my money is on Kent or Sussex in England Where the chalky soils, rolling hillsides and success of Pinot Meunier mean some serious contenders.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MisterChris


some wineries are using 'Champagne' as a generic term for a sparkling wine rather than an indication of origin (which in itself is clearly indicated by the use of the word ''California' in the title).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hoke

"Interestingly those who use "Champagne" for wines from the States are clearly trying to mislead their customers while those US sparkling wines that proudly state where they are from and that they are sparkling wine -- such as Iron Horse, Schramsberg, Domaine Carneros, Roederer Estate, etc. -- are really good."

And just how, pray tell, is it "clearly trying to mislead their customers" when the label clearly--even boldly--states that the bubbly is "California Champagne", Deep South? Seems abundantly clear to me that it is from California. If it also says "Methode Champenoise" on the label, that makes it even more definite for me. So again: how is that trying to mislead? You should be more careful in your blanket denunciations. I don't quibble that your short list of California sparkling wine producers is correct, for they all do make good sparkling wines. That does not mean, however, that the mere appearance of "California Champagne" on a label means the contents of the bottle must be inferior to your cited wines. That's far too simplistic.

And there is abundant evidence to support my contention. To cite only one, a modestly priced ($10 or less) "California Champagne" received this year's California State Fair Competition award for "Best of Class, Sparkling Wine" and Double Gold Medal. This competition has carefully vetted judges and all tastings are blind. The competition was open to ALL California sparkling wines, and the great majority of them were entered--including most, if not all, of the ones you cited. So the appearance of "California Champagne" does not automatically signal inferior product.

---

Now you might think that's dissembling---but he owns the place. And he's not doing anything that's not allowed by US law.

I'll also add that the same company/owner, which owns other wineries in the same area, produces sparkling wines under those brand names---but all of those wines are identified as "Sparkling Wine" only, not "champagne". And that's because those wines don't have the 123 year heritage of doing it, so it's not part of their identity.

To make it clear: I don't mind at all that you question what someone does or does not do with their property; I do mind when you casually impute dishonest motives to people when that is IMO not the case.

Of course, there's never been anything like that cross-channel over the centuries, has there? :^)

The French argument must surely be that the right to exclusively label their sparking wine as ‘champagne’ was attained through the inspiration, perspiration, fortune, or whatever else it was that resulted in them first perfecting and distributing good sparkling wine. The question which follows is whether other producers are then unfairly benefiting from that, if they are not benefiting why do they do it (as asked earlier), and finally whether they are causing detriment to those who are entitled to that exclusive right.

Anecdotal evidence, such as is cited above, may suggest that consumers do not confuse real champagne and other forms of sparkling wine. The reality may be very different, though it is quite impossible to know for certain. For my own part, I find it quite common for people to refer to any form of sparkling wine as champagne, and ‘credit’ for that must, in part, be attributable to previous, and/or current, lax labelling practises. Arguably the easiest way of reaching some conclusion to the question of ‘why label it champagne then?’ is to address the second of my questions; why else do it if not to pass your sparkling wine over as champagne? To label the wine 'California sparkling wine' would more accurately describe the contents of the bottle, would it not? In the absence of any realistic alternative motive a lawyer might argue res ipsa locquitar; it must simply be the only explanation which is left; that they are attempting to cash in on the heritage and prestige attached to a deserved French reputation for the production of excellent sparkling wines from a little place called Champagne. The addition of the

Whether any damage is caused to the French must clearly be answered in the affirmative, such is the nature of competition and global markets. The French wine industry has famously suffered damage over recent decades due to competition from other countries, though for reasons it has little grounds to argue against. The perceived unfairness of the practice in question, however, is a step too far in my humble estimation.

Ultimately of course our debate over fairness and justice is moot, as previously allured to commercial influences prevail and things ultimately distil down to a question of international competition. Whether any international duty to 'fight fair' is owed by one sovereign state to another is an entirely different economic and philosophical debate, quite beyond the scope of this forum.

As I said, interesting debate, please excuse my display of enthusiasm in this overly long post...

jm

And, by the way, you've framed it in such a way that it's thoughtful and non-critical, for which I thank you.

It's always interesting when two passionate parties meet in the public forum to discuss whose ox has been gored. Or as you so precisely describe it, when 'fairness and justice' collide with commercial interests and the law, dispassionate reasoning replaces passionate partisanship. The trouble then is in deciding whom to pick as a disinterested judge.

There is merit on both sides of the discussion---if there wasn't, then there wouldn't be this much discussion about it, would there?

I do believe though, in the long run, that this specific issue will eventually fade away, whereas the generic issue will continue to provoke the international markets. Thus has it always been; thus it likely will always be.

Well argued, and I am in agreement with you.

The reason that other want to use the 'champagne' name is that they want to attach the cachet and fame of that wine to their own.

Just leaping into this thread, which I happened upon when searching Google, to add my 0.002 Euros.

On a recent visit to the Cellier Des Templiers (one of the producers of 'Banyuls', a magical sweet red wine down here in the south of Roussillon), the oenologist was discussing the 1860s outbreak of Phylloxera.

During the epidemic which devastated french grape vines, he explained, important healthy grape rootstock was shipped out of the country, chiefly to the USA, for safekeeping until the threat had passed.

In gratitude for their part in saving some very important Champagne rootstock, he added, certain American vineyards were granted the right to use the name 'Champagne' for their own 'méthode champenoise'.

I have yet to find other references to this, however.

The name "Champagne" on wine is otherwise protected throughout Europe by its "AOC" (appellation d'origine contrôlée).

While the USA has not signed up to this protection, per se, one would hope that it is respected there in the same way as, for example, the RIAA would like USA copyright law to be respected here in Europe.

Sparkling wine, spumanti, cava, Champagne - at the end of the day it is the quality that counts and, as has been pointed out already, there is merit all over the world, but only one Champagne, and it is an hour and a half's drive north east of Paris.

Paris, France, that is :)

That's a wonderful story....but I don't think it is true. I may be wrong, of course, but it smacks of urban legend to me: a story that got a little twisted around in all the re-tellings.

The eventual response to the phylloxera epidemic was to replace all the devastated vines with rootstock from American grapevines, as the American grapevines were more resistant to the louse. Thus, the Texan T. V. Munson was awarded the French Legion of Honor Award in recogition of "saving" the French wine industry.

As far as I know, no vine stocks were shipped to the U.S. for the purposes of "stockpiling" them to save them....and this would be sort of counterintuitive in any case, since the phyloxera orginiated in American anyway, and why would you send you vines to the place where the louse that devastated them orginated???

It's more likely that the vines were shipped to the U.S. for research purposed, and from this research came the concept of grafting the vinifera vines on the American rootstock.

And no one can "give permission" to use the term "Champagne". Nor would they.

quote:

---

Originally posted by charliek

In gratitude for their part in saving some very important Champagne rootstock,

---

I'm with Hoke here.

Champagne rootstock? Whats that?

"Certain American vineyards" were "granted the right" - well they mostly all used the word Champagne then for fizz, and most of the wineries operating in the US at that time are no more thanks to the passage of years and especially prohibition.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter May

quote:

---

Originally posted by charliek

In gratitude for their part in saving some very important Champagne rootstock,

---

Champagne rootstock? Whats that?

---

The 'racines', I guess - stock plants from which new rows of vines are planted.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter May

"Certain American vineyards" were "granted the right" - well they mostly all used the word Champagne then for fizz, and most of the wineries operating in the US at that time are no more thanks to the passage of years and especially prohibition.

As to why he tells that story? Maybe he was told it by someone, maybe it got garbled in the telling...

---