I actually heard a post on BBC that one of the largest pub chains in the UK has made the decision NOT to bring in any EU sparkling wines moving forward due to increased tariffs coming down the line. They are looking both to Australia as well as in their own backyard for sparklers . . .
I have had bad Champagne. I call it battery-acid-grade Champagne. I think a lot of that never makes it to US retail outlets because we culturally view Champagne as a luxury indulgence, so tend to skew the stock to middle-to-high tier offerings.
Corked happens, albeit at a seemingly lower rate than still wines. I have no explanation for that other than perhaps the construction of the corks.
Cheers,
fred
The exit part is not until next year.
I had a corked bottle of 2009 Prevost Fac-Simile last month 
I have plenty of bad bottles from favorite producers. Champagne, even young Champagne, can turn early.
Low to no dosage. I have had a few ups and downs with these, too…
Hi Alan
Well the initial fall in sterling (post vote) could reasonably be attributed to Brexit, so that will have had an effect. Beyond that who are we to know what would have happened over the last couple of years had the vote gone the other way.
The crunch of course comes when we finally discover what Brexit really means, from a soft Brexit that keeps us closely aligned to the EU in terms of non-EU tariffs / EU free trade, to the hard Brexit that puts distance from Europe in order to have greater control over non-EU tariffs, at the cost of zero tariff EU trade.
It’s not only not happened yet, but we’re barely any closer to understanding exactly what it is. As such there may be a bigger effect ahead, but that really does depend on the ongoing political machinations.
Regards
Ian
I’ve had bretty Champagne. It did NOT add complexity.
Go to France, lots of dreck there. Veuve Cliquot Yellow Label, even in it’s worst period wasn’t bad, just boring. Wasn’t brave enough to get the Champagne they had at McDonalds.
the worst champagne i have tasted by far is vranken demoiselle. it had a distinctly artificial hazelnut aroma you could also find in those flavored coffee creamers.
I find “BAD” and interesting word. I really love Champagne and have had many different bottling for a number of different makers. I recently attended a Champagne tasting where we were served a Bollinger Grande Année. This wine was so different from what I was used to drinking I thought it bordered on “bad”. Others at the tasting said that this was the Bollinger style. Hummm, maybe so. Live and learn, I guess I’m sticking to Taittinger and Krug. 
That reminds me, I also had a premoxed Bollinger Grande Année once. I think it was a 1985. I had another bottle that we drank later that was excellent.
What? 
Srsly, the best bottles of the best vintages of LGA are IMO some of the best Champs out there! Truly, to each their own.
Yes, but IMO, not in 30+ years.
I have been pondering the question, and frankly I have had very few truly “bad” champagne experiences when you take corked/heat damaged/over the hill out of the equation and just focus on fundamentally flawed wines.
That said, I have not done much experimenting when it comes to Champagne- the vast majority of my TNs are for the various wines of the established high end houses (notes covering NV all the up to the tete de cuvees.)
Only one wine really stands out in my mind as being a great disappointment- and that is 1992 Dom Perignon. Given that the excellent 1990 suddenly became unavailable in distribution right before Y2K and then came back right after- it seems pretty clear that the 1992 was an attempt to milk 12-31-99 for all it was worth, but whatever the reason it was just not a wine worthy of the name.
Edit- I should also note that I have had a number of experiences with overly sherried bottles of Bollinger Vieilles Vignes- but vintages I greatly enjoyed at a younger age. This, I think, might be more a matter of market perception/price than anything else- but it is clear to me those wines are not intended for very long term aging (100% Pinot Noir.) Thus, maybe not fair to say they were “bad”- but it is worth pointing out for potential buyers that these are not terribly ageworthy- though they are absolutely magnificent in youth.
Veuve Clicquot has been mentioned here in more general terms- and I think that could well be a valid point, but I never stuck around to find out.
In their defense, once upon a time Clicquot made some very fine wines, if not destined to make old bones and show the greatness that can come with decades of aging. The 1988 and 1989 Grande Dame Rose were magnificent- though I am not sure I would chance them today. And the mid-range 91s and NV wines that were shown at a trade tasting in the spring of 1999 were head and shoulders above the 91-92 vintage wines and NV selections presented by others for the most part.
But when the orange label made that dramatic change to a sugary mess- I walked away, as did many of us. The wine is inevitably forced upon me at occasional social events and actually seems far more back on track in the past 3-5 years- but even so, I have not been able to force myself to give the better wines a chance again. Probably in part because I know that even in the past they were not ever going to have the very long term potential of the houses I have followed all along.
VC hanged winemaker a few years ago no? Recent bottles here have been perfectly acceptable but not what I would choose in a free market.
Wow, that’s a bit harsh.
Shows they’re serious about quality, I guess.
Ha.
I meant changed of course.
Very few, but all were California sparkling wines.