Joel to Morgan: “Are you … insane?”
The article’s findings and content are actually rather inconsistent with the headline. The headline implies that quality is nearing parity, while that article says that except for Morgan’s wines " the California sparkling wines represent an appealing midway point of both price and complexity between prestigious Champagne and fun but forgettable Prosecco."
I’ve always found that California sparklers serve a purpose - easily found and good to serve a mid-size crowd when you don’t want to spend for champagne. Even there I find that Loire/Jura and some cava is probably better at a comparable price, but hard to find in my market.
I don’t know. I just bought a bunch of grower champagnes for $29; what is the rationale for buying CA sparklers unless they offer something qualitatively different?
A lot of them are under $20?
If I could regularly find good growers under $30 I’d almost always go that route. The exception being, as mentioned, large groups of individuals who likely think that Korbel is champagne.
+1
The article does sort of answer the question as to why producers in California don’t make quality sparklers. If the production cost is so high the retail price would probably end up being equal or more than that of the real deal in better Champagne. I always wondered why, in a state where so much quality Pinot noir and Chardonnay is produced, terroir aside, are there not better sparklers.
Additionally, even France has the U.S. market cornered for appeal to the 98% of consumers. The non-geek consumer, if they are going to splurge for that bottle of “celebratory” Champagne will reach for the recognizable labels such as Veuve Clicquot lining the aisles at Whole Foods and Costco. (Nothing against VC, I think it’s good stuff)
As Neal mentions above, I have no trouble finding good grower and NV Champagne in the sub $40 range.
this
I think that the problem is sites too. In Champagne the cool climates and appropriate soils give you steely wines with which to make your sparklers. That is why zero-dosage in Champagne means steel and acid. OTOH, California yields lots of ripe, ripe wines. Sure, we’re now seeing Chardonnay and Pinot from CA in a cooler-climate mold, but those wines tend to be limited in production, very expensive, and, as I understand it, involve very difficult farming of isolated high-altitude vineyards. I doubt that there’s anywhere in CA cool enough to produce very high yields of acidic, mineral chardonnays and pinots to serve as base wines for sparklers. So the result tends to be wines that lack focus and are somewhat flabby. Not so say it can’t be done, just that what I see out of CA doesn’t seem to indicate the ability to reproduce champagne-quality sparklers on a large scale.
Michael, I see the point you are making in the rest of the post, but disagree on this point. It gets quite cool, cold even, in many of the wine growing regions. Santa Cruz mountains, Sierra Foothills, even Sonoma County. I do think there is the terroir here to make very good quality sparklers, but the market doesn’t support doing so.
I’d be interested to here what winemakers think about that. It seems that discussion here focuses on the fact that terroir for leaner styles that still express appropriate complexity are rather limited. I don’t know enough of CA climatology to do more than guess. I know that the CA wines I have liked most tend to come from Santa Cruz Mountains, and other cooler areas, but I don’t know what type of vineyard availability there is in those areas. Would it require lots of new planting? What would the price point have to be, etc.? I base my comment mainly on the fact that French champagne houses in CA are producing sparkling wine in a much fatter, riper, rounder style than they do in France. It suggests that it is too difficult/expensive or frankly impossible in to produce the traditional style. Or at least to do so in any large volume.
However, I don’t know that the market isn’t there. I don’t see a lot of CA sparkling offerings in the leaner style so we don’t know if the market would move towards that option were it available.
Exactly 
There’s no way those places are as cool and un-sunny as Champagne. There might be a couple of places in the state that are, but not the ones you mentioned. I mean, Sierra Foothills???
Doug, I’ve not compared the climate differences between the two regions, but my only point is I believe there is the capacity for making better sparklers here. The aforementioned regions certainly are not as cold and “un-sunny” as Burgundy, yet excellent quality Chard and Pinot are still achieved.
Fog, snow, clouds, rain, hail, all of it on my daily commute in southern Marin (mainly lots of fog, clouds, occ rain during the growing season). It’s not all sun and bikinis here.
As I’m not a climatologist, winemaker, ITB, etc, perhaps I’m just talking outa my ass, but the evidence suggests California can do better.
I really don’t see traditional CA sparklers serving a purpose at all. Great grower stuff can be had in the $30-$40 range which is nice but probably above the typical price point of a CA sparkler. If we are talking in strictly the $20 range I’d rather drink cremant from a wide range of producers and regions.
Quite a few Lompoc/Sta. Rita Hills winemakers do sparkling, and do it quite well, and have been for some time. They are not trying to compete with Champagnes in the market. And trust me, these are the people who drink grower champagne often! They just love it, and love to have it in their portfolio, and most sell locally/directly and have a strong following. I admire CA folks doing sparkling on a smaller scale. There’s nothing more celebratory than cracking your own bubbles during the end of harvest…along with several grower champagnes of course. ;-D
I have become a big champagne fan over the past few years, especially grower stuff for $50 or less. I just don’t get much enjoyment from CA sparkling wine. In a pinch the Mumm Cuvée M is pretty easy going, but obviously a fruitier style and for $20 it works. I hope Under the Wire changes my view.
Mila Handley used to make a hell of a nice rosé in Mendocino…
Roederer Estate is pretty nice for what it is and what it costs
California sparkling wines are not Champagne and should not try to be Champagne. They should do their best at expressing what they are and where they are from. Heck, how can you even say what Champagne should taste like? Take something from the Northern Marne Valley, Cote des Blancs, and Cote des Bars - they are three completely different animals. A lot of California wineries fail by trying to make something like Champagne. In fact, for many wineries, I find the entry level bubbles better than the upper end because the entry level bubbles are made with better respect to the raw materials (fun, fruity, not so complex) and the upper end stuff tends to try and imitate Champagne rather than be itself (Mumm and Chandon instantly come to mind here)
In California, my favorites are:
Gloria Ferrer Royal Cuvee - this can be fat, fruity, and a bit clumsy on release, but with just 3 years of age, it really grows up. If you give it 5-10 years, it is an absolute steal for the price as it gains nice complexity and has multiple dimensions of fruit, bread, and mineral based flavors. Anything from 92 forward is still drinking very well and shows no signs of slowing down.
Roederer Estate L’Ermitage - Probably the most Champagne-like wine in California, but still pure Anderson Valley. Sleek, elegant, but with a lot of fruit and great ageability. Magnums from the 94 vintage are still going very strong. In general, the Anderson Valley and Mendocino area vineyards tend to yield the most Champagne-like bubbles.
Equinox from the Santa Cruz Mountains is another wonderful wine that is pure California and nothing like Champagne, but so unique and wonderful.
Iron Horse also deserves a mention as they are essentially a California sparkling wine grower with all estate vineyards and a production similar to a well known grower from Champagne. The wines have been up and down over the years, but they express their vineyards pretty well.
For sub-$20, it is hard to go wrong with Roederer Estate Brut, Mumm Napa’s Rose, and Gloria Ferrer’s Blanc de Noirs. They aren’t Champagne, but they are very tasty and each bring good value in my book.
Brad, have you had the Breathless blanc de noirs from Sonoma? Really good! LOVE the label too:
In many places on the CA coast it is too cool to consistently ripen wine grapes. At least in the context of CA-style ripeness. May and June on the central coast are usually cloudy due to a persistent marine layer that burns off later in the day. In general, the Pacific ocean dictates the coastal weather. The more prolific wine regions tend to be up-valley or a valley over from the coast.
The climate is vastly different from Champage. The weather is not continental, winters are mild, and the growing season is usually long. But there are cool, un-sunny areas of CA. The real obstacle is either the land is expensive or the area is wilderness, perhaps by government designation.