In the next few weeks, a preliminary decision will be made on the biggest
expansion of the champagne vineyards for 80 years.

Sales of champagne all around the world are fizzing, and the existing
vineyards have almost reached the limits of what they can produce without
diluting the quality of the world's favourite celebratory drink.

For the first time since the official boundaries were drawn in 1927, the
land entitled to grow champagne grapes is to be significantly increased, by
as much as 15 per cent by 2015.

Interesting article courtesy of The Independent (UK)

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/6/...0472457&pnum=0

On Oct 27, 12:20 am, "st.helier" > wrote:
> In the next few weeks, a preliminary decision will be made on the biggest
> expansion of the champagne vineyards for 80 years.
>
> Sales of champagne all around the world are fizzing, and the existing
> vineyards have almost reached the limits of what they can produce without
> diluting the quality of the world's favourite celebratory drink.
>
> For the first time since the official boundaries were drawn in 1927, the
> land entitled to grow champagne grapes is to be significantly increased, by
> as much as 15 per cent by 2015.
>
> Interesting article courtesy of The Independent (UK)
>
> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/6/...jectid=1047245...

I can see why this is creating quit a stir in the Champagne growing
and surrounding regions. However from the viewpoint of one who has
nothing to gain or lose in respect to value of land in the region, I
still wonder how this will play out. If I were the Champagne Tsar who
could decide the outcome, I think preliminary surveys of the quality
of the soil, microclimates, wine growing history, etc as being
considered now are just a first step. For parcels of land that seem
promising from this respect, I think the owners should be allowed to
grow grapes for sparkling wine on a provisional basis. This might be
sold as Lesser Champagne or something of the sort. After official
blind tastings of about 10 years of production, the property might be
elevated to part of Champagne. If the wine does not quite meet what is
expected for at least a non vintage Champagne, but is not far behind,
it might continue be allowed to be sold as Lesser Champagne or
whatever. Of course absolutely no Lesser Champagne would be allowed to
be blended into anything sold as Champagne. If the wine is clearly not
close to Champagne, it would not be entitled to continue to sell the
wine with mention of anything concerning Champagne in the name of the
wine. If I really were the Champagne Tsar, I would also require the
blind tasting tests for all present Champagne properties. Those that
did not pass would be demoted to Lesser Champagne or whatever.

Mike Tommasi > wrote in
:
>
> What you propose makes a lot of sense sense, but the fact is that 61%
> of french wine is sold under the formerly prestigious AOC label,
> including Champagne of course. The label was initially conceived to
> allow consumers to identify clearly the top 10% of french production.
> Today most AOC bottles are in the "barely drinkable" category.
>
> So while your procedure for Champagne is reasonable, the rest of the
> system is not. IOW, one should apply your procedure over again to the
> entire national production!
>

Mike,

it is very interesting that we went from a 10% to a 61% under AOC. Two
different ideas came to mind inmediately:

- First is that probably, the average wine of 2007 is better than the
average wine of 1935 (Appellation d'Origine Contrôlée were founded). So,
if the quality of the standards to belong to an AOC is the same as 70
years ago, probably it is not absurd to think that the average wine is
now of a regular quality (if not of outstanding quality), which is good
for the market and the average consumer.


- Second is that, as a large part of wine sold within AOC standards is
now of average quality, many top quality producers are getting out of
the AOC system.


With respect to Champagne: the most interested part on this expansion
are, obviously, the big houses, who are making 95% of the production
(it's a guess on my part, I am ready to stand corrected). Not a small
part of the production (conscious use of the word here) of big houses is
"barely drinkable wine", no matter they have a huge leverage on their
brands. So, is Brut Imperial able to become a more ordinary wine? Not
even if they used grapes from Penedes in Spain. I do not see a problem
with the expansion. Besides, on a recent trip to Champagne, I was said
by a small grower that the areas to be expanded had belonged to
Champagne production in the past, mostly for lesser known grape
varieties. So, it is really not clear if it would be correct or not to
get back to these areas.

Same has happened in many areas in France in the past. Chateau Latour is
now much bigger that it was in 1855, with vineyards purchased to
neighbours and now sold under the Ch. Latour name, even if they were not
classified as 1st Growth in 1855. And no one doubts about the quality of
Latour 2005.

An intriguing discussion, for sure.

Best,

Santiago

Mike wrote on Sat, 27 Oct 2007 12:23:37 +0200:

MT> santiago wrote:
??>> it is very interesting that we went from a 10% to a 61%
??>> under AOC. Two different ideas came to mind inmediately:
??>>
??>> - First is that probably, the average wine of 2007 is
??>> better than the average wine of 1935 (Appellation
??>> d'Origine Contrôlée were founded).

MT> Yes and no. The overall average is probably much better
MT> today than 1935, but the idea of AOC was not to apply it to
MT> average wines, but rather to exceptional ones. The AOC
MT> wines of 1935 were far fewer and far better than today.

??>> - Second is that, as a large part of wine sold within AOC
??>> standards is now of average quality, many top quality
??>> producers are getting out of the AOC system.

MT> True in Italy, where it is a form of snobbery to make top
MT> wines under a Vino da Tavola or IGT label.

??>> With respect to Champagne: the most interested part on
this
??>> expansion are, obviously, the big houses, who are making
??>> 95% of the production (it's a guess on my part, I am ready
??>> to stand corrected). Not a small part of the production
??>> (conscious use of the word here) of big houses is "barely
??>> drinkable wine", no matter they have a huge leverage on
??>> their brands.

MT> Also true. But notice that it is not enough to expand the
MT> territory. All grapes in Champagne must be harvested by
MT> hand, this is the law there. So if you expand the surface
MT> area, you also need to find the hands to pick the grapes.
MT> The large houses rely mostly on small farmers that harvest
MT> and sell the grapes. Not easy to expand so fast. OK, EU
MT> expansion helps a little...

Sorry but I had a sneaky thought that, given the success of
French companies in making what they like to call "sparkling
wine" in Napa, they might extend the boundaries to California:-)


James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

"James Silverton" > wrote in
news:SdGUi.102$a01.79@trnddc06:



>
> Sorry but I had a sneaky thought that, given the success of
> French companies in making what they like to call "sparkling
> wine" in Napa, they might extend the boundaries to California:-)
>
or Yara valley Australia where Chandon has a property!

They could make a true World Class Champagne - what does that mean
anyway, "world class" one assumes it must mean good but what marketing
agency came up with that one for a truly meaningless accolade?




--
Joseph Coulter, cruises and vacations
www.josephcoulter.com

877 832 2021
904 631 8863 cell

On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 14:44:46 +0200
Mike Tommasi > wrote:

> James Silverton wrote:
> > Sorry but I had a sneaky thought that, given the success of French
> > companies in making what they like to call "sparkling wine" in Napa,
> > they might extend the boundaries to California:-)
>
> I was expecting Grand Cru Kent
>

we have certainly heard of the major houses buying land in the South Downs
(Sussex). So perhaps Kent is not far behind!

-E
--
Emery Davis
You can reply to ecom
by removing the well known companies
Questions about wine? Visit http://winefaq.hostexcellence.com

Mike Tommasi wrote:

>
> So while your procedure for Champagne is reasonable, the rest of the
> system is not. IOW, one should apply your procedure over again to the
> entire national production!

The problem IMO as regards Champagne is that most of the vineyards
sourced by the big houses are horribly overcropped, overfertilized and
sterile. Photos I've seen of those vineyards look like the moon: no
weeds, no grass, nothing but exposed earth and vines. If by expanding
the AOC they can then impose some realistic production limits, I would
be all for it. Until then, I'll just look for "grower" Champagne.

Mark Lipton
--
alt.food.wine FAQ: http://winefaq.hostexcellence.com