Comments on: California Cremant?

By: Nikos Lampert

Nikos Lampert — Tue, 21 May 2013 09:25:46 +0000

Cremant should be used only for French Wines…but “California Cremant”, why not…it needs to find its own identity…

By: Diana Combs

Diana Combs — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 05:35:32 +0000

I was in California during Christmas, and was looking for French cremant for Kir Royale. ALL THEY HAD was California white sparkling wine. I took a long time to decide what I want because I really didn’t know what would be dry enough. I finally bought something, and it was fine. But yea, they are making it. And in California, wine stores sell it instead of French cremant. I couldn’t gotten French cremant in New York for less money; so I was peeved even though it tasted fine.

By: Jason Brandt Lewis

Jason Brandt Lewis — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 01:02:24 +0000

Considering it isn’t a sovereign nations, it’s not surprising that California did not sign the agreement “back in the day.” Thus, it was certainly legal to label wines “American Champagne,” “California Champagne,” “Napa Valley Champagne,” etc. It was also completely legal to label wines “советское шампанское” (“Soviet Champagne”) as well. But just because it was legal does not make it right.

It was also perfectly legal for U.S.-based wineries to produce — and understandable as to why — wines labeled “Burgundy,” “Claret,” “Chablis,” and “Rhine,” but few think that practice should continue today. The same is true for “Champagne.”

Daniel, I, too, have worked (admittedly, past tense) for wineries. Indeed, I was in the trade from 1969-2001. Every U.S. winery used the term “Champagne” for their sparkling wines, regardless of production technique, until 1973 when Moët opened the then-named “Domaine Chandon.” Within a relatively short period of time, every high-end producer had dropped the term Champagne with the exception of Schramsberg — the late Jack Davies vowed *never* to do so; Schramsberg changed once Jack passed away in the late-1990s — and Korbel, which still refuses to do so.

On the low-end, André, Cook’s, Great Western all continue to (mis-)use the name.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 23:15:57 +0000

Considering California didn’t sign the agreement to not call their sparkling wines Champagne back in the day, it doesn’t really matter a whole lot. But I work at a winery and we’ve been calling our SW’s by Blanc de Noir/Blanc, Rose, and Cremant and that goes over better than the “champagne” that most of CA uses (note, the lower case c)

By: doug wilder

doug wilder — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 21:10:29 +0000

I don’t think there needs to be any change in how US Sparkling Wine is referred to. With a minimum of consumer education and market comparison, it is straigforward to tell the difference between Charmat and Methode Champenois, as well as $4.99 (plastic stopper), and $29.00 vintage dated. Nothing put forward so far can be considered serious for the industry to adopt. Brut, BdB, BdN are the language of this style and don’t translate to any other type of wine. If we can just get people to understand what Extra Dry means…

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 03:37:16 +0000

I know Korbel’s perception, but didn’t it just win the sweepstakes/best of show for sparkling wines in the San Francisco Chronicle Wine Competition? Can’t be all that bad.

By: Jason Brandt Lewis

Jason Brandt Lewis — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 23:58:41 +0000

Crémant was a term used for Champagne exclusively (unless you count Schramsberg) until the mid-1970s, when they agreed with other regions of France to let them use it (Crémant de Bourgogne, Crémant d’Alsace, and so on) as a way to distinguish their vins mousseux — cuve close vs. méthode champenosie. And in exchange for that, the producers of these types of Crémants agreed not to use the term “méthode champenoise,” but instead label their wines as “méthode traditionelle.”

So what sort of firestorm do you actually think labeling wines as “California Crémant” — as opposed to “California Champagne” — will avoid?

Sorry. Dumb idea.

By: Olivier

Olivier — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 17:09:01 +0000

We should not forget that even France doesn’t only produce “Champagne”. From Blanquette to Crémant d’Alsace or Clairette, many other sparkling wines have been able to find their place on the market. Why not encouraging then each terroir of California to adopt their own denomination, along with a distinctive style?
Some of them may become more famous than others according to their soil and to their attention to quality which is a good incentive for producers as well as a good recognition tool for consumers…
From my marketing class I remember that differentiation is the key

By: Dr. Vino

Dr. Vino — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 14:15:41 +0000

Philippe – Sparkler has good potential — not so sure about Sparky!

Steve – Yes, people may continue to call it champagne along with all sparking lines (Cava, etc). That’s one thing. It’s like calling all facial tissues Kleenex or all photocopies Xerox–nobody is going to bust you for that verbal expression in the copy room.

Nate and Gabe – Bubbly or Bubbles could work providing no individual firm already holds the rights…

But what’s happening in California is 16 labels continue to place the term “Champagne” (modified by a geographic designation) on the label. That would be like putting Kleenex on tissue boxes made by producers other than who holds the rights to Kleenex or a photocopy machine having Xerox written on it even if its made by someone else. A big difference in my view.

By: Steve Howe

Steve Howe — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 04:00:17 +0000

It doesn’t really matter what you name it. If the sparkling wine tastes good, people will buy it.

Will the confusion on the term “Champagne” ever end? I doubt it. Many will always call sparkling wines Champagne…the word is entrenched in our culture.

By: Nate

Nate — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 23:12:17 +0000

+1 for Bubbly!

By: gabe

gabe — Sat, 19 Jan 2013 17:11:00 +0000

i’ve been saying for years that people will keep calling it champagne until we come up with a better name than “sparkling wine”. i would go with “bubbles” or “bubbly”, since it is already popular, perfectly descriptive, and easy to spell and pronounce

By: Philippe Newlin

Philippe Newlin — Sat, 19 Jan 2013 14:42:56 +0000

Stars is pretty close,and it fits into the American ‘Stars & Stripes’ nomenclature. Sparkler is already in the lingo of both the trade and the general consumer. Why not go laid-back California style and officially establish a fun term as only we Gringos can: I’ll have some of that California ‘Sparky’ by the glass please!

By: Dr. Vino

Dr. Vino — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 17:04:50 +0000

Robin – Nice, though I wonder if it may be too many syllables?

Weston – Yes, Britagne and Merret have been thrown out there though the industry hasn’t reached a consensus for a term yet.

Franco – Thanks for extending the discussion.

By: Franco Ziliani

Franco Ziliani — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 04:42:59 +0000

Hi Tyler, herewith the link to my post about your article and the very interesting discussion I wrote for my wine blog Lemillebolleblog, all about sparkling wines
link
http://www.lemillebolleblog.it/2013/01/18/california-cremant-un-simpatico-dibattito-su-quale-nome-per-gli-usa-sparkling-sul-blog-dr-vino/