So much for terroir
 

See http://www.reuters.com/article/scien...51984520080313
"Champagne expands domain to answer demand surge By Brian Rohan PARIS
(Reuters) - Faced with surging demand, France's champagne producers have
decided on a very simple way to boost production -- by widening the
vineyard...."

How far can you "widen the vineyard" to increase production/profits before
you dilute the "terroir"?

Cheers!

Martin

So much for terroir
 

"Martin Field" > wrote:

> "Champagne expands domain to answer demand surge By Brian Rohan
> PARIS (Reuters) ...
>
> How far can you "widen the vineyard" to increase
> production/profits before you dilute the "terroir"?

Nobody knows.

But it's a fact that Champagne has *doubled* its planted surface
from 18,000 hectares in the 1960s to 36,000 hectares nowadays.

M.

So much for terroir
 

On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 10:00:57 +1000, "Martin Field"
> wrote:

>How far can you "widen the vineyard" to increase production/profits before
>you dilute the "terroir"?

This article partly addresses your question
http://www.wine-pages.com/guests/tom...-expansion.htm

--
Steve Slatcher
http://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher

So much for terroir
 

Steve wrote on Sat, 15 Mar 2008 10:12:04 +0000:

??>> How far can you "widen the vineyard" to increase
??>> production/profits before you dilute the "terroir"?

SS> This article partly addresses your question
SS>
http://www.wine-pages.com/guests/tom...-expansion.htm

It all sounds very plausible but industrial flacks are good at
that! I will await the rationalizations when the zone is
expanded to include California :-) In some ways, I was reminded
of a common preamble to Vatican announcements of a radical
changes: "As the church has always said.........".


James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

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

So much for terroir
 

On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 14:54:04 GMT, "James Silverton"
> wrote:

> Steve wrote on Sat, 15 Mar 2008 10:12:04 +0000:
>
> ??>> How far can you "widen the vineyard" to increase
> ??>> production/profits before you dilute the "terroir"?
>
> SS> This article partly addresses your question
> SS>
>http://www.wine-pages.com/guests/tom...-expansion.htm
>
>It all sounds very plausible but industrial flacks are good at
>that! I will await the rationalizations when the zone is
>expanded to include California :-) In some ways, I was reminded
>of a common preamble to Vatican announcements of a radical
>changes: "As the church has always said.........".

Are you saying Stevenson is an industrial (industry?) flack? Why do
you think that?

--
Steve Slatcher
http://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher

So much for terroir
 

Steve wrote on Sat, 15 Mar 2008 18:20:42 +0000:

??>> Steve wrote on Sat, 15 Mar 2008 10:12:04 +0000:
??>>
??>>>> How far can you "widen the vineyard" to increase
??>>>> production/profits before you dilute the "terroir"?
??>>
SS>>> This article partly addresses your question
SS>>>
??>>
http://www.wine-pages.com/guests/tom...-expansion.htm
??>>
??>> It all sounds very plausible but industrial flacks are
??>> good at that! I will await the rationalizations when the
??>> zone is expanded to include California :-) In some ways, I
??>> was reminded of a common preamble to Vatican announcements
??>> of a radical changes: "As the church has always
said.........".

SS> Are you saying Stevenson is an industrial (industry?)
SS> flack? Why do you think that?

I used to think that Elliot Spitzer was an honest crusader
against fraud too!




James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

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

So much for terroir
 

"Martin Field" > wrote in
:

> "Champagne expands domain to answer demand surge By Brian Rohan PARIS

He must drink a lot to singlehandedly cause Champagne to answer his demand.

Fred.

So much for terroir
 

On Mar 15, 3:32�pm, "James Silverton" >
wrote:
> �Steve �wrote �on Sat, 15 Mar 2008 18:20:42 +0000:
>
> �??>> Steve �wrote �on Sat, 15 Mar 2008 10:12:04 +0000:
> �??>>
> �??>>>> How far can you "widen the vineyard" to increase
> �??>>>> production/profits before you dilute the "terroir"?
> �??>>
> �SS>>> This article partly addresses your question
> �SS>>>
> �??>>http://www.wine-pages.com/guests/tom...-expansion.htm
> �??>>
> �??>> It all sounds very plausible but industrial flacks are
> �??>> good at that! I will await the rationalizations when the
> �??>> zone is expanded to include California :-) In some ways, I
> �??>> was reminded of a common preamble to Vatican announcements
> �??>> of a radical changes: "As the church has always
> said.........".
>
> �SS> Are you saying Stevenson is an industrial (industry?)
> �SS> flack? �Why do you think that?
>
> I used to think that Elliot Spitzer was an honest crusader
> against fraud too!
>
> James Silverton
> Potomac, Maryland
>
> E-mail, with obvious alterations:
> not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

Stevenson is probably the most respected independent expert on
Champagne. Certainly he is a fan (would be ridiculous to become an
expert if one didn't like), but he is scarcely a flack, as he is very
capable of slamming vintages or individual wines he dislikes.

As noted, all of the villages proposed to be added are well within the
historic area that is noted for Champagne production, it's not as if
there an expansion into Ile de France (or Belgium) - or even into
greater Champagne-Ardennes.

I certainly don't know the geography of the area enough to know
whether the expansion will decrease the quality of the wine overall.
If it does, eventually it will rebound as the appeal and value of the
name "Champagne" will suffer. One could certainly make that argument
re Chianti or Crozes-Hermitage. But to me its their choice to make.

So much for terroir
 

DaleW wrote on Sun, 16 Mar 2008 09:36:54 -0700 (PDT):

D> On Mar 15, 3:32�pm, "James Silverton"
D> > wrote:
??>> �Steve �wrote �on Sat, 15 Mar 2008 18:20:42 +0000:
??>>
�??>>>> Steve �wrote �on Sat, 15 Mar 2008 10:12:04 +0000:
�??>>>>
�??>>>>>> How far can you "widen the vineyard" to increase
�??>>>>>> production/profits before you dilute the "terroir"?
�??>>>>
�SS>>>>> This article partly addresses your question
�SS>>>>>
�??>>>>
http://www.wine-pages.com/guests/tom...-expansion.htm
�??>>>>
�??>>>> It all sounds very plausible but industrial flacks are
�??>>>> good at that! I will await the rationalizations when
�??>>>> the zone is expanded to include California :-) In some
�??>>>> ways, I was reminded of a common preamble to Vatican
�??>>>> announcements of a radical changes: "As the church has
always
??>> said.........".
??>>
�SS>>> Are you saying Stevenson is an industrial (industry?)
�SS>>> flack? �Why do you think that?
??>>
??>> I used to think that Elliot Spitzer was an honest crusader
??>> against fraud too!
??>>
??>> James Silverton
??>> Potomac, Maryland
??>>
??>> E-mail, with obvious alterations:
??>> not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

D> Stevenson is probably the most respected independent expert
D> on Champagne. Certainly he is a fan (would be ridiculous to
D> become an expert if one didn't like), but he is scarcely a
D> flack, as he is very capable of slamming vintages or
D> individual wines he dislikes.

D> As noted, all of the villages proposed to be added are well
D> within the historic area that is noted for Champagne
D> production, it's not as if there an expansion into Ile de
D> France (or Belgium) - or even into greater
D> Champagne-Ardennes.

I must admit that I was not aware of Stevenson's reputation but
the web site seemed a paraphrase of the information I have seen
from the Champagne Growers Cartel. I accept that very good
sparkling wine is made in Champagne and by French Champagne
companies in California. It sometimes seems that the expansion
is a grandfathering and legalisation of current practice.

I know that Champagne growers are an altruistic organization,
whose greatest concern is the greater glory of Champagne, France
and probably God and who are concerned that I should not be
mistaken about the sources of the Champagne that I drink :-)


James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

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

So much for terroir
 

On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 17:01:08 GMT, "James Silverton"
> wrote:

>I must admit that I was not aware of Stevenson's reputation but
>the web site seemed a paraphrase of the information I have seen
>from the Champagne Growers Cartel.

Did the "Champagne Growers Cartel" also criticise the dismissal of the
echelle system and the way yields are managed?

--
Steve Slatcher
http://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher

So much for terroir
 

Steve wrote on Sun, 16 Mar 2008 18:33:58 +0000:

??>> I must admit that I was not aware of Stevenson's
??>> reputation but the web site seemed a paraphrase of the
??>> information I have seen from the Champagne Growers
??>> Cartel.

SS> Did the "Champagne Growers Cartel" also criticise the
SS> dismissal of the echelle system and the way yields are
SS> managed?

You are getting way beyond my knowledge of champagne and I don't
really care what is the correct name for the growers
association. I'm a consumer not a producer but I've always had a
suspicion of organizations that restrict production and tell me
it is for my own good and others that allow expansion for
themselves but try to prevent others using names. I have to
admit that the French-owned Champagne companies do make good,
possibly the best, "California Champagnes" even if they don't
want to call them that.

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

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

So much for terroir
 

On Mar 16, 4:01�pm, "James Silverton" >
wrote:
> �Steve �wrote �on Sun, 16 Mar 2008 18:33:58 +0000:
>
> �??>> I must admit that I was not aware of Stevenson's
> �??>> reputation but the web site seemed a paraphrase of the
> �??>> information I �have seen from the Champagne Growers
> �??>> Cartel.
>
> �SS> Did the "Champagne Growers Cartel" also criticise the
> �SS> dismissal of the echelle system and the way yields are
> �SS> managed?
>
> You are getting way beyond my knowledge of champagne and I don't
> really care what is the correct name for the growers
> association. I'm a consumer not a producer but I've always had a
> suspicion of organizations that restrict production and tell me
> it is for my own good and others that allow expansion for
> themselves but try to prevent others using names. I have to
> admit that the French-owned Champagne companies do make good,
> possibly the best, "California Champagnes" even if they don't
> want to call them that.
>
> James Silverton
> Potomac, Maryland
>
> E-mail, with obvious alterations:
> not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

No one has claimed that the CIVC is anything but a trade organization,
dedicated to their own well-being. However, their efforts can often
have ancillary benefits for consumers, since their self-interest in
maintaining reputation leads to regulations that are aimed at
maintaining quality.

I'm not especially interested in refighting the "what is champagne"
issue, as to me it's self-evident that those who made the reputation
should reap the benefits. But it's factually inaccurate* to say that
the CIVC has sought to "restrict production" - their position (and
the position of virtually every wine region in the world) is that it's
fine to make the wine, just don't name it after another region. I've
had good sparkling wines from CA, Germany, Loire, NM, & Franciacorta,
all are proud enough of their origins not to have to pretend to be
from Champagne. The CIVC has never sought to stop production, just to
stop mislabeling.

*well, there are yield restrictions, but as Stevenson has pointed out
the Champagne ones are scarcely stringent.

So much for terroir
 

On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 18:05:36 -0700 (PDT), DaleW >
wrote:

>But it's factually inaccurate* to say that
>the CIVC has sought to "restrict production".

Production WITHIN Champagne is restricted and, as Tom Stevenson
pointed out towrds the end of the article, the mechanism they
cuurrently employ has little effect on quality - it's about
restricting supply to keep prices high.

I agree with everything else you said though, Dale.

--
Steve Slatcher
http://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher

So much for terroir
 

On Mar 14, 7:00 pm, "Martin Field" > wrote:
> Seehttp://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSL1351984520080313
> "Champagne expands domain to answer demand surge By Brian Rohan PARIS
> (Reuters) - Faced with surging demand, France's champagne producers have
> decided on a very simple way to boost production -- by widening the
> vineyard...."
>
> How far can you "widen the vineyard" to increase production/profits before
> you dilute the "terroir"?


Likely only time will tell. The place to check is likely the NV wines
of the major houses that also produce vintage wines and some very
expensive ones. I would not expect the quality of the more expensive
wines of the house to change much, since the company likely will just
increase their price to what the market will bear. For the standard
brut range of a house, many of the better houses will try to keep the
quality, but some may not. Wines not up to present standards likely
will end up in the NV except for Krug multi vintage wine and a few
others. Or if a house does not wish to lower the quality of their NV
wine, they may make a second label wine or perhaps make house label
Champagne for discount chains.

So much for terroir
 

On Mar 17, 3:21�am, Steve Slatcher > wrote:

> Production WITHIN Champagne is restricted and, as Tom Stevenson
> pointed out towrds the end of the article, the mechanism they
> cuurrently employ has little effect on quality - it's about
> restricting supply to keep prices high.
>


Sorry I was unclear, I meant that the Champagne association had not
tried to restrict the production of OTHERS. Within the region, they
have yield restrictions, but I believe they are 1.5 to 2 X what other
areas allow, so scarcely a quality guarantee.

So much for terroir
 

Mike Tommasi > wrote:

> Interesting Dale, but the problem right now is not so much
> pricing but having enough supply to meet the demand, at any
> price. Champagne is booming and even the small Champagne
> producers I know are offered incredible prices for still wine
> for the large houses, yet their own demand for finished
> Champagne is increasing each year.

When demand increases, you can react in three ways:

- increase planted area
- increase yields
- increase price

Champagne is doing all three.

But, not surprisingly (at least to the insider), Champagne has
done has done that for ages. Planted surface has doubled in the
last 40 years (from 18,000 to 36,000 hectares); yield went from
around 60 hl/ha to currently around 100 hl/ha -- and what's with
prices? Everybody knows.

M.