This.
I’ve tasted the majority of top CA sparklers that vary from somewhat reasonable priced to way overpriced (Iron Horse); more important, they don’t compare to grower and main stream champagnes. I’m not saying I’ll never drink another sparkling wine but I’ll probably never purchase another. (Except in a pinch)
I get what the naysayers are saying about a general perceived style. That’s long been my experience - flabby, unfocused, fruity, uninteresting. But, there’s long been exceptions. Now there seems to be a new movement towards leaner and more site expressive takes. I’ve had a non-commercial multi-winemaker project wine that really hit the mark. Other interesting stuff seems to be in the works. Under the Wire sourcing from Brosseau Vineyard seems like a good choice, especially if it’s a blancity blanc. Done properly they should reflect the distinctive sites they are sourced from and embellish it. That means if you think the still wines from those sites are fairly priced, you should also think the sparkler is worth a bit more. Otherwise it is a failure.
For CA Sparkiling- the soon to be released Ultramarine BdB from Heintz Vineyard… duuuuuuude.
The biggest problem in California historically has been making a sparkling wine producer profitable. Most who started off with a vision of just bubbly have been forced to make still wines to survive. Chandon is a great example. They went all in and soon had to add still wines and had all sorts of stock that didn’t sell and was released too old IMO. Additionally, most land in California associated with bubbly hasn’t been passed down in the family for hundreds of years as in Champagne. There are lots of other aspects too like the caves, equipment, etc… Basically, the economics are very different. It is hard to make a profit in California on sparkling wine. A lot of producers are very interested in bubbly and have small side projects, but to really dive in, it takes investment and there is normally a far better ROI on still wines so the bubbly usually stays as an occasional side project. As had been mentioned many times in this thread - why buy the California sparkler when you can get quality Champagne for $30? Producers understand this and if their sparkler is going to be in the neighborhood of $30, they often have their answer unless they are extremely passionate, have a good vision, and a bit of good crazy in them.
It is hard for California to compete against quality $30 Champagne unless it is expressing something unique and different and that is what California needs to do - be itself. I will say that I think Roederer Estate’s L’Ermitage at $40-$50 probably beats almost all $30 Champagne and compares well at its price point, but it isn’t inexpensive.
Good point. I find room for both. I like the CA sparklers for their refreshing and approachable nature – one can just enjoy them without thinking too much. I also have a weak spot for Grower Champagnes. For me, the choice comes down between those two – I rarely buy the basic or prestige cuvees from the large houses.
And to be fair here is the full closing statement:
“My conclusion? Save for the last three wines, which were unique (and therefore divisive—some tasters loved them while others did not), the California sparkling wines represent an appealing midway point of both price and complexity between prestigious Champagne and fun but forgettable Prosecco. They were solid and reliable, even if their image could use a bit more, well, sparkle”. WSJ
When CA sparkling wine discussions fire up I’m always shocked that the base level Domaine Carneros vintage brut isn’t brought up. I find it so much more pleasing than most sub $40 Champagnes and the only CA sparkling wine that’s as good or better is the Roederer l’Ermitage. I don’t get the love for the basic Roederer Estate and don’t see the charm in Mumm or Gruet. I consider myself pretty picky when it comes to sparkling wine, maybe that’s my problem.
Last week I posted on L Mawbry sparklers from. MICHIGAN … yes Michigan … Specifically the Traverse City area.
Certainly cool enough if that’s your issue.
I’m not a Champagne expert but I bought a mixed case and have been enjoying them.
I like buying domestic products and do whenever possible.
I suspect that just as we’ve seen an increase in high quality chardonnay that eschews the oak and butter style, we’ll see soon see a lot more prestige bubbles. Particularly if these initial projects do well. However, at high prices and miniscule productions these cuvees won’t really change the overall conversation about CA sparkling wine, at least not for most people. This conversation is not really about the one or two best wines CA can offer, but rather the role of the category as a whole. I think that champagne on the whole, at least what we see imported, represents a high qualitative bar, particularly considering the scale involved. Some houses may lag, and growers may shine, but even the readily available big house bubbles are a serious step above CA in quality IMO.
I don’t have access to a lot of great grower champagne at $29, but there is a lot around $40. It would take a lot for me to want to spend $50 or more on CA bubbles when there is so much good Champagne in that range. I’m glad it’s out there and certainly the hope is that those outliers affect an overall style movement when they garner attention, sales, prices and accolades.
Also I agree that the Roederer Estate at < $20 is a good, solid buy, and if pressed for bubbles it’s readily available and enjoyable. I think it’s more detailed and complex than most, and less offensively ripe.
I had a talk with Chris about pricing and costs when they were still deciding how to price Under the Wire. They are keenly aware of the price pressures from grower Champagne. They calculated the costs of secondary fermentation, disgorgement, and bottle aging to be in the ballpark of an extra ~$15/bottle.
Here’s the problem with making a quality sparkler in California - the first UtW release, which is a Brosseau vineyard chard and Bedrock vineyard zin, would have both sold out as still wines under the Bedrock label for mid- to upper-$30s. It’s therefore impossible for them to recoup the costs of the bubbles given the price pressure from grower Champagne and CA still wine. This is an ironic converse to the situation in Champagne, where the Champenoise would need to establish an entire new market segment to even try to sell still chardonnay for that price. Unlike California, there is no price pressure from below for them to make a still wine.
The argument against buying these wines is the same as, and as valid as the argument against making them in the first place. So, why then? For Chris and Morgan, clearly it’s about passion and wanting to explore the possibilities of translating CA terroir into sparkling. That passion is absolutely something I feel as well, so it’s not so much a matter of “can I find something better for $5 or $10 less?” But it’s not the same thing, so better or worse isn’t so much the argument for me, as it is wanting to see what’s possible, and the price anyway is in the ballpark.
BTW those who think that California is all sun and warmth, should visit the Sonoma or Mendocino coast in summer time
The reason these areas aren’t developed is because nobody in their right mind would want to live there.