What Does It Say About This Board's Readership . . . Or Any Board Really

. . . that a thread about “Kirkland Champagne” has more hits than most TNs?

Not sure it says anything. But maybe it does.

BTW- In case I am not transparent I have an opinion about that wine . . .

Morbid curiousity mainly? Just a guess.

Now we just need someone with another permutation spelling of “Kaiser” to post a positive review. Third time’s a charm!

I’m with the “Roedy Estate for $14” crowd.

Probably because it is one of few ‘affordable’ Champagnes…and there are fans of it, but no QPR’s

So far we no answers.

Everyone loves Costco>

Perfectly transparent. I wish you would post your thoughts in the thread as I would love to hear other opinions on it. I fully expected to hear some groaning about a positive review for a 79 point Champagne with a Costco label on it! I for one enjoy it. Now, I haven’t tasted enough Champagne to fairly compare it to its peers, but viewed merely as a wine it’s perfectly decent. It’s slightly banal but It has a nice flavor, it’s food friendly, and it has decent texture and good length. I have tasted a few popular Champagnes on the market for considerably more money that lack all of those traits. White Star and R. Dumont and Fils Brut Tradition come to mind. I wasn’t especially enamored with Thierry Triolet BdB either. I think the Kirkland is worth $25.00. It’s not a screaming bargain, I can even think of a few Loire sparklers in that price range that are superior, but it’s a good sparkling option at a tough price point for quality bubbly.

It’s $22.00 in my market. I would agree that at $14.00 it would be the smarter buy.

That many Wine Berserkers are open minded?

Did you mean to snub the tasting note on this wine or were you expressing genuine curiosity? Would you be equally curious if someone posted yet another tasting note on the 1996 Salon? I have yet to try the Kirkland Champagne and I have tasted the Salon numerous times, I would read both tasting notes.

Or looking for cheap Champagne!!


1- Buying at the bottom of the appellation is not one of my recommended purchasing strategies.

2- Key words seem to fuel interest on this board.

It says that people are marking “all threads read” more often. [wink.gif]


I am not a fan of the Kirkland Brut or Brut Rose Champagne, but at least they are reasonably priced and maybe it will open the gates for someone to start exploring Champagne.

I do agree that with some searching you can find better Champagne for a similar price. Today’s email inbox had a nice Bonnaire Blanc de Blancs for under $30. I would much rather have that than Kirkland, but where else can you get a Mag of Champagne for $50?

[quote=“John Liotta”]. . . that a thread about “Kirkland Champagne” has more hits than most TNs?

Not sure it says anything. But maybe it does.

BTW- In case I am not transparent I have an opinion about that wine . . .[/quote

I think this post is borderline mean. If you aren’t interested don’t read the post. Why pick on it? It was someone sharing their opinion. What else is this board, or any board really, here for??

If you can afford to drink vintage Champagne and 1st growth Bordeaux everynight more power to you. The vast majority of us aren’t able to do so. Even if I could, the notion that there isn’t any worth while wine at the bottom of an appellation hierarchy is patently absurd.

As far as the Kirkland goes, without trying it, how would one even know that it’s at the bottom of the the AOC? The fact that it’s $25.00 and repackaged says nothing about the quality of the juice. It merely says there is excess inventory that the house needed to unload without weaking its long term pricing structure. The entire AOC is awash in surplus inventory. In 1996, a Champagne producer with enough excess inventory to sell repackaged wine cheaply to Costco should have raised all kind of red flags. In 2009, there has been debate about not making any wine in order to balance the supply and demand equation. It was entirely possible that the Kirkland could have been the QPR of the decade. Obviously, It wasn’t. (And yes, the odds were probably against that). However, I think spending $25.00 to find out is a reasonable “strategy.” I will be trying other Costco branded wines as well.


The Kirkland Champagne has been around for a few years (started when demand was outstripping supply) so it isn’t a case of excess juice just a good business deal for each party… that is probably even better for both or at least one side right now. Absolutely nothing wrong with this or the Rose Kirkland Champagne. It may not be my personal choice, but I do try it every year and a glass goes down rather easy. Costco has also managed to hold the price despite any Euro fluctuations.

Thanks for your TN in another thread.

I was hoping to start a reasonable discussion in this thread. Instead I get posts like this that completely miss the point. Do whatever you like dude. Buy however you like. I’m happy to know that you think the way I purchase is absurd. I looked through the thread and I am confident that I didn’t make any derogatory remarks about the Kirkland Champagne or about the purchaser(s) of it. Thanks for taking the opposite route. Stay golden pony boy.

Lighten up, Francis! I didn’t attack you personally or accuse you of saying negative things about me. I merely criticized your suggestion that only the top wines of an appellation are worth drinking or talking about. There is nothing inappropriate about that and I stand by that critique.

The point of your thread appears to be to crticize the widespread interest on the board in Costco wines. That is a perfectly fair subject for discussion and/or derision. It’s also perfectly fair for me to respond to such a critique and argue for my opposing point of view. I fail to see why you would take such umbrage to my comment.