![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
Champagne: The Monster Cable of wine.*
*Don't sue me, Monster Cable or Champagne province.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-483565-100x100.png\")
@G.O.B.: Come on!: To be fair, Champagne did at least initiate champagne, while monsters considerably pre-date Monster Cable.
The best part of Monster Cable's lawsuit craziness is that, until last week, I assumed Monster Cable was Cable TV company. I had no idea they made cables.
Good thing they protected that \"distinctive\" name
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-525207-100x100.png\")
Cheap-ish Cava works for me!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-332258-100x100.png\")
I thought the EU was already moving toward trademarking products named after places. Cheddar cheese could only be called such if it comes from Cheddar, England. Parmesan cheese, Champagne, etc.
Or is this group just an arm of the EU?
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-48863-100x100.png\")
Yeah well stop using the internet we invented! And keep your champagne, jerks!
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-601731-100x100.png\")
The headline is false. ANYTHING is better than champagne.
\"Appellation d'origine contrôlée\"
It's a good thing for consumers. Do you really want Chinese-made tequila, or Ontario wine sold as something it's not?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-447062-100x100.png\")
@balthisar: Umm, actually, Canadian wines have a serious issue with their legal designations of place. \"Cellared in Canada,\" wines can have up to 75% foreign grapes (many buy bulk wines from California, Chile, the Languedoc, and Argentina), and merely need to be assembled and cellared in Canada (IIRC, it's for a fairly short period, too -- like 3 months -- although don't quote me on that).
If it's from China and good, what's the problem?
Same with sparkling wine. If it's good, it shouldn't matter if it's made in Napa, Argentina, or France. I've had really crappy champagne's and stellar sparkling wines(Gloria Ferrer Royal Cuvee 2001). Who cares where they are grown?
Stupid people, that's who.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-37033-100x100.png\")
Any liquor from China that is over 70 proof is VILE.
They some good liquor, don't get me wrong. (Find anything that comes in a bamboo shoot and is less than 35% alcohol, and you're golden.) Just that anything higher than that isn't useful as anything other than a disinfectant.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-98237-100x100.png\")
@balthisar: Uh-huh. Like the French equivalent of the statement \"We'd really prefer you didn't lie about the origin of this product\" is going to keep that from happening.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-177102-100x100.png\")
I realize that a sparkling wine, if made properly, can hold its own against Champagne. In fact, it could be better than Champagne, if done right. I totally agree with this.
And I disagree with the idea that sparkling wines made outside of Champagne, France are \"imposters\" in the Champagne market -- as long as those sparkling wines are labled \"sparkling wines,\" and not Champagne.
What I agree with is the idea that regional producers can use law, whether it is French wine laws or American trademark laws, to distinguish their products from other products. This can be wine laws in France that protect the name \"Champagne,\" or American laws that protect Idaho Potatoes, or Washington Apples.
I'm totally down with the idea that regional growers and producers -- even if amongst themselves they are competitors -- would take pride in what they grow in their little part of the world, and that they would band together to protect the identity and integrity of the brand name they created.
Shady sparkling wine producers don't want to label their wines \"Champagne\" because it's a French word that means \"sparkling wine.\" They want to label their sparkling wine Champagne because that word carries with a cachet that represents nearly 200 years of quality wine making that they had no part of, and they want to cash it on it.
I'd be equally irritated if potato farmers in Peru decided to start marketing their potatoes as \"Idaho Potatoes.\" It's the same thing.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-132151-100x100.png\")
@XianZomby: Agreed. Agreed. Applause.
I don't see where there is a problem. It's not some super secret handshake, it's the name of the town. If you're not producing in that town you can't claim that you are. Cognac is another example. They are following traditions that are centuries old and they have their own set of rules and regulations to ensure the producers adhere to those traditions. To me this falls under truth in advertising. I would think Consumerist would be for this.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-6173-100x100.png\")
@TinkishDelight: I think what they're against is the trade group complaining about INFERIOR imposter Champagne. If it were just imposter Champagne they were saying shouldn't be labeled as Champagne, that's cool. But saying all sparkling wine that isn't Champagne is bad, that's brand whoring, a la terrior. ;)
@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!):
saying all sparkling wine that isn't Champagne is bad
Where do they say that? Chris didn't post the entire press release and didn't make any mention of that in his article (that I saw at least).
Your second paragraph, and whole post really, are spot on.
Non-Champagne sparkling wines not \"imposters\" at all. Many times, they are completely different products that don't even TRY to be Champagne-like, they just happen to have fizz. Prosecco and Champagne are as different as, say, Bratwurst vs. Italian sausage.
They both have similar elements but no one would say they are the same thing, or that one is an \"imposter\" of the other.
They are different products.
@XianZomby: Shady sparkling wine producers don't want to label their wines \"Champagne\" because it's a French word that means \"sparkling wine.\"
I think this sentence would read better: Shady sparkling wine producers don't want to label their wines \"Champagne\" because they beleive it's a French word that means \"sparkling wine.\"
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-8966-100x100.png\")
Guys, we have an alcohol law similar to that in the states too. Bourbon can only be called bourbon if it's made in Kentucky. Otherwise it's just whiskey aged in a barrel that was once burned on the inside.
@quail: Bourbon can only be called bourbon if it's made in Kentucky.
Wrong. There's no appellation for Bourbon (even though the name comes from Bourbon County, KY). The standard is set out in 27 CFR 5.22 -- 51% corn, at most 160 proof, no caramel coloring added, only new charred oak barrels used for aging, minimum barrel proof of 125, 2 year aged Bourbons can be called \"Straight Bourbon,\" 4 year and younger Bourbons must include the aging duration, and any age listing must be the youngest Bourbon in the blend. See [edocket.access.gpo.gov] for the full cite.
Oh, and Bourbon is only made in the US -- no foreign use of the name is allowed. Not unlike the CIVC's protection of the Champagne designation.
Now, you can't call it Kentucky Bourbon without making it in Kentucky -- and there's at least one great Bourbon made in Tennessee (no, not Jack Daniels -- that's a Lynchburg Process Tennessee whiskey); Prichard's Double Barrel (they also make a hell of a rum).
@quail: And Scotch is only made in Scotland, et cetera.
I have no problem with laws like this -- I was actually disappointed when the EU threw out the German brewing purity laws. (Note that many German brewers still follow them anyway.)
If I do want a specific item for some reason, one that's identified by its place of origin, then I want to be sure that's what I'm getting.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1220420-100x100.png\")
@CumaeanSibyl: I completely agree and see nothing wrong withe French law about Champagne.
Many sparkling wines, however, are rather tasty and well-worth the \"risk\".
It was good that the German \"purity\" laws were tossed.
Most beer styles are made best with only barley malt, yeast, water and hops but not all. If you're making a quality dunkle, pilsner or helles you probably should only use those 4 ingredients unless you're artisanally expriementing with rye or something.
It made it illegal for a brewer to experiment. We wouldn't take away a Chef's restaurant in America if he thought about adding, say, cinnamon to a beef stew.
Under the purity laws if you tried to sell, say, some Belgian style beers (which, depending on the style, are brewed with fruits, bacteria, spices and sugar) your beer would be taken away from you.
Furthermore, one of Germany's most traditional styles, wheat beers of various sorts, was technically forbidden under the law(but allowed through loopholes due to popularity).
It was also greatly outdated. The purity laws were originally put in place for safety and cost. We don't have modern concerns about rationing barley only for brewing so we can save the other grains for baking bread (which is part of why the laws were enacted). Also, even AB/InBev wouldn't try to preserve beer with soot instead of hops these days. Additionally, the laws were to control the prices of certain items but obviously the prices of today and the prices of yore have no relation to each other.
Anyway, yeah, getting rid of \"purity\" laws = good for beer.
I love the Consumerist but I have to disagree with this.
I'm honestly dismayed to see this because the only issues I've ever hated that Consumer Reports covered is \"matters of taste\" stuff because they tend to get the details wrong. I remember Consumer Reports coffee and beer reccomendations being all wrong because they evaluated coffee and beer as if it was all the same stuff. That is, beer=light lager and coffee=diner style black caffeine drinks. The coverage ignored the great taste that good coffee or good beer can bring.
Champagne is a place. Bordeaux is a place. Burgundy is a place. Chianti and Rioja. Both places.
Wine is an agricultural product. Thus where the grapes were grown is a factor in its taste.
In the case of Champagne for instance the soil is part of the character of the stuff. Furthermore, Champagne is also only made from certain grapes. It is kind of like how Kobe beef must not only be from a certain place but also fufill certain other conditions to be Kobe beef. No one seems to argue with that.
No one would say that you can make wine anywhere and call it Bordeaux.
That being said, any wine lover would agree that you can find great Cabernets, Merlots and blends of Cab, Cab Franc, Merlot, Petite Verdot, Malbec (which is what Bordeaux wine is) from all over the world.
Same goes for sparking wines. Some of the best new world sparkling wine is made in, of all places, New Mexico (Gruet Winery) because the soil imitates that of Champagne so well. There are wineries in California, Australia, South Africa and elsewhere that make great sparkling wine. There are also many good sparklers that come from other regions of France (such as cremant d'Alsace or Bourgogne or just general Vin De Pays stuff). No one would dispute that.
And I'm only talking about champagne style sparking wines. If you want to talk about any sparkling wines I could tell you that, for something completely different, the prosecco of Italy can also be quite wonderful. Germany and Spain also make sparklers of their own and other regions of France make sparklers using the grapes they have there (like Sparkling Vouvray).
So not only can the soil differ between sparkling wine and Champagnes but the basic ingredients can as well. Champagne is always some combo of Chardonnay, Pinot Noir and Pinot Meunier but Sparkling Vouvray is all Chenin Blanc and a Cremant d'Alsace would be Pinot Blanc (and some other stuff I think) and Spain's cava would be all sorts of grapes I can't spell.
Also, keep in mind what your personal tastes are. If someone drinks mostly \"new world\" wines and they like the fruitness of some California and Austrailian wines their might like new world sparklers even MORE than Champagne because it tends to be more fruit forward as well. Again, you might not even like champagne-style sparking wines. You might like prosecco the best and no Italian would call his prosecco Champagne. He wouldn't want to. It isn't Champagne and he wouldn't want it to taste like Champagne. It is apples and oranges.
Point being, there is nothing wrong with Champagne reserving the name of Champagne.
As another poster said, no one would think anything of requiring Idaho potatoes to be from Idaho and no one would try to call their California Cabernet a \"Bordeaux\". If Vidalia Onions can own their name why can't Champagne, France?
Try sparkling wines from anywhere and love them for what they are. There are so many good ones from all over the world and trying a non-champagne sparkler can give you a great wine for less money.
Just, whatever you do, please don't buy Korbel : )
Did my post just get eaten? Grr!
I'm shocked that my \"sparkling wine\" of choice (J.Roget Brut) isn't on that list.
I love the bottom shelf.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-326595-100x100.png\")
I love Cava. I went to a wine tasting in Spain and Cava was part of the menu. It's truly delicious.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-14575-100x100.png\")
@dumblonde:
YES! There are some fantastic Cavas readily available everywhere. It's an excellent alternative (and often superior) to French sparkling wine.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-21970-100x100.png\")
I'm not agitating for the release of the champagne brand so that anyone can use it. I'm pointing out that it's only a brand name, and any value it has comes from the history of quality of the product attached to it. It turns out that there are plenty of high quality sparkling wines that can't share that brand name but are just as good. In fact, some of them are made around the world by the same houses that originate in the Champagne region.
If you're looking to shop wisely, going by the brand name of champagne alone won't save you any money, and possibly won't get you a better product.
And I know this is probably common knowledge to wine connoisseurs, but if you don't buy champagne frequently you may not be aware that the only distinction between the two products is a brand.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-943594-100x100.png\")
@Chris Walters: It's not a brand name, any more than Chianti is a brand name. It is a type. Or rather, a region denomination. Different parts of Europe do wine differently. Spain calls wines by the grape, Italy by the region (Chianti, for example, is a region in Italy, the wine being made primarily of Sangiovese grapes).
Champagne is a region in France. They have made the local wine there since the 17th century, but there is no one brand (say Mon Frere's Champagne) that they ALL produce, though there are brands (Dom Perignon, anyone?).
Bourbon, scotch, and others mentioned in the comments aren't brands. Champagne isn't a brand. I hate the stuff, but I recognize their right to keep their name intact.
@subtlefrog: You're right, I was wrong to call it a \"brand name\" when it's really called a \"geographical indication\". Geographical indications are often protected by law the way trademarks are, but I shouldn't have glossed over that or confused the issue by calling it a brand.
@Chris Walters: Education is one thing, but I also value authenticity. Sprinkling Old Bay on a frozen 95% bread crab patty does not make it a Maryland crabcake and it certainly doesn't warrant that $35+ price tag.
@TinkishDelight: After being handed something the bar claimed was champagne at a new years eve party I could see why the wine producers in France would not want their branding identified as that. It was the worst wine of any sort ever. It tasted like wine vinegar gone bad with some carbonated water and nail polish remover added. Made me want to be ill after two sips.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-479856-100x100.png\")
@TinkishDelight: I value authenticity too, but what's at issue here, as you seem to point out, is quality. With champagne (or anything else) quality and authenticity aren't necessarily the same thing. When a mediocre champagne costs $40 but a great sparkling wine costs $20, non-wine connoisseurs are getting jacked when they buy the mediocre champagne.
And Old Bay has no business on a crabcake; it's for the crabs themselves. (Just MHO.)
@thesadtomato: But isn't part of being a good consumer educating yourself on what you are purchasing? It's not like it's a secret.
Champagne has become synonymous with quality because they have worked for centuries to build that reputation. The only reason why a wine producer would want to label itself as such is to appeal to an already exisiting fan base. Champagne producers don't want someone else capitalizing on their reputation or operating on their behalf. Trademark laws have the same basic concept.
If your sparkling wine is good, find a way to sell it on its own name. A new company independently establishing itself in a pre-existing market happens every day.
And Old Bay has no business on a crabcake
If you're eating a frozen carby \"crab\" cake then yeah, you're only seasoning the bread. If you're eating a real Eastern Shore/Baltimore CRABcake it's like eating a fresh crab and thus makes Old Bay totally appropriate. Plus in Baltimore Old Bay is practically pepper.
@thesadtomato: Has anyone tried veuve clicquot and is it worth the price and reputation?
I was looking for something to stock in the bar but hate to waste the money if it is being sold on branding rather than quality.
@bohemian: I have had Veuve -- most recently at a tasting yesterday (ahh, the joys of working in the alcohol business. I got paid to sit and taste Champagne for 6 hours yesterday!). Veuve is a very straightforward Champagne, and they suffer from their scale of production (they're the second-largest house in Champagne, so they buy a TON of grapes, and get substandard grapes more than smaller, more-selective houses do).
My recommendation on Veuve? Save the money. If you've got access to a good wine store, ask the staff for a good \"Recoltrant-manipulant\" (or \"RM,\" or \"Grower,\" -- the phrases are interchangable) Champagne. It's wine made by the people who actually grow the grapes, and you can get amazing, grand-cru wines for the same price as a bottle of the yellow label.
Failing that, if you're buying at a grocery or not-so-well-stocked wine store, look for Heidseick Monopole (\"Blue Top\" as it's sometimes called), or Pommery. They're both fairly widely available, and higher quality (Pommery is crisp and dry, Heidseick is a bit heavier).
@bohemian: Is it worth the price? Depends which Veuve Clicquot you mean--the Ponsardin, which is anywhere from $30-$50 depending on the vintage and shop you buy from. $30 isn't a lot to spend on a good bottle of any kind of wine, IMHO. Does it meet the reputation? Yes. Yes, it does, it tastes very nice. Does the $95 bottle exceed it in taste? Not really.
I always go for Moet & Chandon White Star which runs right around $30 and I think is delicious. And I go for it like, twice a year on New Year's and a birthday.
\"If you're looking to shop wisely, going by the brand name of champagne alone won't save you any money, and possibly won't get you a better product.\"
Well, I would agree with that.
If anything you'll be getting a WORSE product. Most stuff that says \"champagne\" these days that isn't from Champagne is pretty poor stuff. Kind of how the generic non-burgundy \"Burgundy\" is Carlo Rossi/Franzia/Gallo bulk wine.
Most bottles that still use the phrase \"California Champagne\" are stuff like Andre, Cooks, Korbel, ect
As a person who is intimately involved in the wine scene today, I can (somewhat) understand the Champagne producers trying to protect their brand. That said, there are plenty of incredible Cremants (from other parts of France), Cavas (from Spain), Brut Sparkling Wines (from the USA to Australia to Canada) that can compare with most Champagnes. Frankly said, yes the best sparkling wines in the world are still made in Champagne, France. BUT Many, many great sparkling wines are made elsewhere.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-350988-100x100.png\")
@Savvy1982: My view is always to drink what you like and not be snobbish about origin, price, etc. I've bought sparkling wines I liked that weren't from Champagne but were made in the US. I've bought cheap wines I liked and had more expensive ones from a local winery I didn't really like.
@Savvy1982: Here, here. My favorite sparkler is a Cap Classique from South Africa... and it's half the price of the least-expensive Champagne in my store ($15 versus $30). It beats the pants off of most Champagnes, both in absolute quality and in value for dollar.
I would also offer that Fred Franzia (who makes 2 Buck Chuck, not Franzia box wines oddly enough) tried to make a wine called \"Napa Oaks\" or something like that, something that had Napa in the name but had nothing to do with Napa.
He was forced to change the name because the wine he was making was not wine from Napa grapes.
If the US (or maybe it was just the State of California) won't let an Californian produce a product bearing the name of another region of California why should we feel that a Californian making a product bearing the name of a part of France is acceptable?
I'd like to see a winery in Chile start calling their Cabernet a \"Napa\" and see how quick US Trade authorities and California vinters start throwing a fit.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-7284-100x100.png\")
But I love Asti!
:(
@Bryan Price: Also a protected place name -- Asti is a DOCG (wine guaranteed to be from a particular place, made from a specific blend of grapes, and tasted by a board of experts to make sure it is a good representative of the style of wine made in that place).
Oh, and great with cake. Asti is a wonderful wine with lemon-creme cake.
@corkdork: Asti Spumante was served at my wedding. The only good use for the champagnes that I've tried is for mimosas. :)
@Bryan Price: Good choice for wedding cake. There are Champagnes that go well with cake as well; there's a sweetness designation called \"demi-sec\" that works well, and if you can find it -- or are in Russia, where they drink it like it's going out of style -- the sweeter-still \"doux\" wines pair wonderfully with cake.
It always amazes me that people toast at weddings with dry brut wines -- sweet cake with low-sugar wine makes the wine taste bitter and nasty.
Oh, and don't waste the $$$ on Champagne for a mimosa. Buy a Cava instead; you cover any subtlety in flavor of the wine with the OJ as it is, so the bubbly is there to provide effervescence. Might as well buy cheap (but good!) bubbles for it.
What is the Appellation d'origine contrôlée for Muscatel?
@H3ion: Muscatel is a grape, grown in any number of places (just in Europe, I can think of Navarra, Beaumes de Venise, Tokaj, St Jean Minervois...).
@H3ion:
It does not need one.
It is a grape type.
Think of it this way.
Apples are grown in California, Washington, Chile, Argentina, New Zealand, all sorts of places.
A batch of a certain apple type (say, McIntosh, I don't my apples) could be from New Zealand or Washington and still be called McIntosh because that is what it is. A McIntosh apple.
The McIntosh from New Zealand could not be a Washington Apple (a protected name in the US) because it is not from Washington and was not grown in those soils and climates.
I am just a general fan of good wine no matter what it's called but I get the cultural preservation aspect. If there is a drink named after your region (and there are loads beyond champagne) I think it's fair tha they try to protect something that may be instantly attached to them if it's crap as well.
Plus the French are touchy.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1029606-100x100.png\")
@thisistobehelpful: The French are touchy because they've contributed very little to modern society...so they must cling tightly to what they've already got. So, for the sake of good int'l relations, I'll let them have \"cham-pag-nee\".
@RogerTheAlien: The French get a pass, their culinary and artistic contributions make up for any lacking in other areas.
@RogerTheAlien: I will be thanking them my entire life for impressionism. And for so much tasty tasty cheese. Mmmmm brie. *drool*
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-389492-100x100.png\")
i'm going to just keep getting bottles of vino verde sparkling wine from trader joe's for a few bucks and then put it in a blender with frozen strawberries. i'll be too busy slurping it up to call it anything.
and while EU laws specify that port wine sold in the EU needs to come from portugal [which i also like] i'm going to keep buying port labelled as such that is also clearly labelled as coming from australia.
Unless you live in the EU what does it matter?
To be fair, I am not a big fan of port, but still, I lived in England for a year and those people love that shiz. I could not escape it :(
Yeah...but it's not as good as a nice glass of Gentleman Jack on the rocks...GUARANTEED!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1180992-100x100.png\")
Hmmmm. I wonder if this is where Monster Energy drink got it's business model...
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-345620-100x100.png\")
My favorite local bar has a \"Feel'n Fancy\" meal deal: a can of sparkling wine and a hotdog for 10 bucks. Raised pinkies required.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-580579-100x100.png\")
@robocop is bleeding: That is superb. One of our local places has a dinner that includes two grilled Roquefort sandwiches and a bottle of cheap champagne (actual champagne, not sparkling wine) for $100.
@h3llc4t has a slow work day: Hey, one of the best food pairings I've ever had was a lunch consisting of a thick-cut bologna sandwich with mayo on rye, and a leftover bottle of Bollinger Grand Annee 1996 (we'd had it the night before with dinner).
@h3llc4t has a slow work day: Oh, no, the bologna and mayo was perfect with it. The weight of the wine matched the thick-cut meat, there was enough acidity that the oil from the meat and the mayo got cleansed off my palate, and the yeastiness of the wine paired phenomenally with the bread.
I actually seriously recommend this pairing. Really. Like, at work, selling wine. \"Having a picnic lunch on the boat? Cold-cut sandwiches? Here, have some Champagne to go with it.\" The two times someone's taken me up on it, they specifically came back to thank me for the recommendation.
There is a difference between Champagne and sparkling wine from elsewhere... same as there's a difference between a Stag's Leap District cabernet and cabernet from elsewhere, or an Islay Scotch Whiskey and whiskey from elsewhere.
In Champagne, the soil has a huge quantity of chalk, and they're so northerly that the grapes never really lose their acidity (if you've ever tasted the still mother wines that Champagne is blended out of, you'll think you accidentally picked up a cleaning product!), which is part of why Champagne is so much crisper than sparkling wines grown in warmer climes (like, say, Sonoma county).
Is it worth the premium in price? I mean, Champagne starts at $30 a bottle, and goes up into \"hey, how much were you thinking of spending\" territory. Ultimately, it's up to the purchaser, but there are a number of excellent sparkling wines out there (I'm particularly fond of Cap Classique, sparkling wine from South Africa -- very high quality, good acidity, and half the price of Champagne).
Should other regions be allowed to co-opt the Champagne name? No. Every time you see \"California Champagne,\" (a loophole in the Treaty of Paris of 1918 allows the appellation to be used with a modifier in the US) on a bottle of Korbel or Cooks, it's an affront to the Champenois and the work they've put into producing and protecting their appellation.
@corkdork: Korbel is an affront to lots of things. Namely, my digestive tract, my internal firewall, and the switch that keeps me from thinking I am a genius in the kitchen when I'm drunk.
@h3llc4t has a slow work day: Oh, I'm with you there. At $10 a bottle here, I think it's overpriced by about $7. There's a ton of Cava that's way better for less.
but don't e-mail them, that's a French invention..LOL
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-540576-100x100.png\")
There are also laws as to when a watch manufacturer can label their watches \"Swiss Made\". The only difference is that the general public believes the name \"champagne\" to refer to a generic thing and not a designation of where it came from.
because their rail system, food, and landscape is SO inferior to the USA (sarcasm). ...I will take Provence over anything America has to offer..simply stunning.
We do make better cars...oh wait, i'm thinking of Japan.
Just thought I'd chime and proselytize about my favorite sparking wine, Mionetto's \"Sergio\" Prosecco. It rocks! and it's cheap (15-25 bucks)
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-968286-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-321187-100x100.png\")
Wait, am I actually reading a Consumerist article describing how a government law creates an unfair market advantage for one group at the expense of other groups, and eventually the consumers?
Satan may want to check that thermostat, maybe turn up the heat a little?
@TheFlamingoKing: The Consumerist is not for or against market regulation and laws directly. What they support is consumer choice and the idea that real consumer friendly competition only works when it thrives only upon providing quality goods and services at competitive prices. What they are against is anti-competitive business practices, low quality goods and service, and monopolistic scenarios in general. Corrupt market regulation/laws are very capable of producing what The Consumerist is against. However, properly developed, enforced, and funded regulations run by the right people can be extremely beneficial to any capitalistic society.
@TheFlamingoKing: So let me get this straight, a country that wants to protect the name so that anyone who buys Champagne can be assured that it is Champagne is getting French Champagne from the Champagne region is BAD?
And the DOC in Italy which assures that your Chianti is, in fact, Italian Chianti from the Chianti region is bad?
And your California Winegrowers association which ensures that a wine labeled \"Napa\" or \"Sonoma,\" doesn't import their grapes from Texas and just slap a label on there to make you feel good about the regional wine isn't good?
Kentucky Bourbon is protected as well - BY LAW.
Honestly, you probably were all up in arms that country of origin labeling laws for meat and vegetables weren't good enough. But, oh, if the FRENCH come up - let's pile on!
Honestly, most of your better wines, cured meats and cheeses are protected by massive treaties and laws to ensure consumers are getting what is labeled. They don't want someone to pick up a Champagne Bottle with all sorts of French-sounding stuff on it only to research and find out that it was bottled in Hackensack last Tuesday.
Oh - and 1997 called - they want their article back on good Sparkling wines that aren't Champagne:
[www.nytimes.com]
@TheFlamingoKing:
You may well be the stupidest person ever to get a comment posted on this site.
@TheFlamingoKing: Wait, not all laws are beneficial to consumers? shocking! Wait, not all laws are beneficial to corporations? shocking!
Maybe we should have no laws at all? Damn pesky laws, getting in the way of everything.