![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}
The old phrase “Liquor before beer, never fear; beer before liquor, never sicker” comes from the concept that carbonation increases the body’s absorption of alcohol. Didn’t believe it til I heard a science podcast discussing this very issue. Interesting.
Between the bubbles and the high acidity, Champagne is rough on my digestive tract (e.g. - heartburn), so I only drink it when I’m hanging out with Brad Baker and some of our similar minded friends.
One thing I do GET about Champagne is that almost no one can distinguish between prestige tete de cuvee Champagnes versus well-made standard cuvees, when tasting blind. For over 17 tears, I have been serving Champagne blind at one tasting group, and alternatively having it served to me. The expensive/rare luxury cuvees are largely wasted when served blind. They should always be served non-blind, IMO, because almost everyone can taste the labels.
I think Champagne is especially enjoyable if you’re into cellaring wines for maturity. Because they generally develop in a “safer” and more consistent way than Burgundy and seem to last longer in most cases (especially with the pre-mox thing).
There are so many things I love about champagne that the list is long. But one is the extreme variation of style, winification and terroir. It’s like burgundy times ten. In addition to all the different vineyards and villages you have the variables of blending and varying length of aging on the lees and so on, all in addition to the “normal” variation of battonage, use of wood etc.
I love the versatility that you can find a bottle of champagne to go with almost any dish (or occasion).
But my #1 tip for “getting” champagne is to seek out some older bottles. I would say it is very rare for a vintage champagne to reach it’s full potential before 15 years after the vintage, and I prefer most around the age of 25. Fortunately it’s much easier to find mature bottles since they are released so late after the vintage. Make an effort to find some bottles from 1995 or 1996 which are generally drinking well now. And generally at a much lower cost than comparable burgundy. Tasting a top aged rose champagne can also be a big eye opener. Try a Veuve Clicquot Rose Cavee Privee 1989 if you can find it.
Which is another thing I like about chamapagne: production numbers are manipulated by the producers in such a way that they hit “price points”. So even though the market for Bordeaux and Burgundy goes crazy every time a decent vintage is released, champagne prices are always “competitively priced”. So now you can get a bottle of Cristal for the fraction of the cost of a Bordeaux 1er while it was the other way around a few decades ago.
My cellar is now 39.8% champagne, 30,4% bordeaux and 29,2% burgundy.
If you like chablis, you could try seeking out some very chablis-like champagnes to compare as they are very close topographically. Try some Mesnil wines from the likes of Pierre Peters, Guy Charlemagne or Salon. But note that wines from this particular village require extreme cellar aging.
This sounds like my house!..I was with you Steve. I never really got it, though many people with palates similar to myself were fans. When I moved in with my wife I started buying and opening more champagne for her. Drinking many different examples and playing around with how long the bottle was open, the temperature, etc really turned me on the the variations and subtleties, and more importantly gave me an opprotunity to develop a taste for the stuff. Champagne is now one of my favorite categories.
If you feel like you are missing out on something play around with it. Follow bottles for a couple days and in different glasses…If you are happy without it than enjoy your current drinks because it sounds like you are drinking well!
I really do enjoy it personally, though I wish that it offered better value, as I’d drink a lot more. Still, I’ve come to appreciate it more over time.
huh? so if you take a shot of whiskey, you won’t get more inebriated than if you drink it over time?
My boyfriend has the same issue. So no Champagne for celebrations in our house 
. He can manage Moscato d’Asti though so that’s become our default. Took us a while to figure out that his bouts of heartburn were always coming after I opened Champagne.
This is a great thread. I have not tasted much Champagne but will be interested in exploring more. Have a bit of Krug and one bottle of Selosse which I believe all need to sit awhile.
I may have to try more older Champagne. I do like my wines with age on them, likely the same would apply to champagne, I guess.
I’m fine with sparkling wine and agree that it can complement food. I just don’t see the quality differential between a good domestic (say Roederer L’Ermitage) and the pricey, snooty high-end French stuff.
A bottle of bubbly without the bubbles—all 10 million of them—would be a sad thing indeed, admits Liger-Belair. “It wouldn’t be a very good wine,” the scientist said in his lab at the University of Reims. “The heart of champagne lies in the bubble.” (September, 2012) Gérard Liger-Belair, Ph.D., professor, University of Reims Champagne-Ardenne, France
RT
Mike, I won’t speak ill of the Roederer (or a number of other quality domestic sparklers) but I do think that if I forced you to drink the french stuff – you know, tied you to a chair and all – you’d see the difference. You might ultimately prefer the domestic and I wouldn’t quibble, but they are different beasts, just as burgundy and CA pinot are different. (Well, maybe not to that degree but you get my drift)
Neal, I do get that. Frankly I haven’t bought or tasted Champagne in several years, so my comments may have been just a tad ill-informed! 
What I do know is that even the humble domestic sparklers can be pretty satisfying!
No disagreement there. One of these days, we are bound to be in the same place at the same time and we’ll open some of each.
Digression: one of the most idyllic afternoons I have ever spent was on the flagstone patio at Chandon drinking glass after glass of their domestic and French output, eating some really tasty food, feeling the NoCal sun on my face. A very long time ago.
You’re on Neal!
Yes, but it’s, you know–sniff–French. 
It was a bottle of '96 Jacquesson that made me pivot from “enjoy it but don’t worship it” to “am willing to exceed certain budgetary guidelines.”
And I can cop out on styles: I love the angular, precise style, but on occasion I love the brioche-in-a-bottle, which is what my wife adores. So there are no real misses out there, unless the wine is simply thin, shrill, or silly-fat.
Only this past year have I started to really enjoy Champagne. In agreement with the above, it is definitely not a starter, it pairs really well with almost any type of food, I always serve it in a stem meant for still wine, almost all who I serve it to appreciate and enjoy it, and I gain all the pleasure and enjoyment I need from NV and less grand bottles. Maybe I need to cellar some or source some back vintages to truly appreciate older stuff.
Regarding the bubbles, though, I wonder if they actually enhance rather than detract from the nose and palate. Similar to the technique one uses to aerate wine through the mouth when tasting still wine, I wonder if the gas helps deliver more to the olfactory nerves in the nasopharynx. Most of what we call taste is actually olfactory as evidenced by the complete loss of taste one experiences when the sense of smell is compromised. I discussed this issue with one Champagne producer and she agreed that to decant a Champagne was not something she recommends at least with her wines.