About a month ago I wrote about an upcoming wine salon called “La Grande Degustation” or “The Great Tasting.” Media pass in hand I set out like a kid on Christmas morning to sample what the enormous wine and spirits salon had to offer at the Palais de Congrès. There were, in fact, so many amazing quality wines to try that I went on two of the days. And I didn’t write about everything I’d tried right away because, well, it’s overwhelming, all those wines in one go. All those photos and notes and remembering tastes and bubbles and producers. And then there’s the fact that most of what I tried was REALLY expensive and also only available by private importation, which means it comes in through wine importation groups in the city or by restaurants, and so is only available to the general public in these restaurants or through these importers. Not at the SAQ (the Quebec liquor store).
But when Christmas is this great and you get over 30 different tastes of champagnes (Actually I don’t even think my Christmas is generally this boozy, and I’m from Newfoundland for goodness sake…land of rum and eggnog), at least 30 white wines, and 5 fabulous reds, you really have to write about it. So, with pictures, here’s what I drank, and sadly, spit out (it broke my heart every time), because there’s a big different between tasting and drinking, as I talked about with the Taittinger Champagne export director at the salon, Clovis Taittinger. The next time I’m France (aka the first time I’m in France…) I’m looking him up. And drinking an entire glass of his family’s fine products. The whole point of these expos is to meet the producers and company reps. Sometimes they’re just hired and given the low-down on the products, but often they’re the owners or producers, or family, and have been drinking and improving their products for years. M. Taittinger more than gave me the time of day, which I appreciated very much. I was not there to drink, after all, I was there to taste and learn.
I first heard about the prestige of Taittinger through a cute wine non-fiction story called “Love By the Glass: Tasting Notes from a Marriage”, written by the married creators of the Wall Street Journal Wine Column. It’s about honeymoons, and wine tasting journeys and making the whole experiencing wine thing less chi-chi. What did they know when they started drinking wine? Nothing! Admittedly! And their column reflected their inquisitive but unpretentious approach to the often snobbish wine world. When they couldn’t afford much of anything, they could always afford a few special bottles packed into a long distance train vacation – the original budget gourmet.
All they needed was love, but a good bottle of bubbly didn’t hurt.
This Quadrille Crémant de Loire is what Dorothy J Gaiter and John Brecher would have been drinking if it had been available in Miami or New York when they were just getting into wine. A “Crémant” is a sparkling wine that can’t be called a “Champagne” because it doesn’t come from the Champagne region of France. But often on the bottle you’ll see the words “méthode champenoise” which means it follows the same traditional method of making Champagne, with the whole rotating the angled, stored bottle thing over a long period of time and then chopping off the top of the up-turned bottle to remove the sediment before topping it up. Double fermentation and all.
Same goes for Cavas and Proseccos, and Blanquette de Limoux. Most people have heard of Prosecco as the generally less expensive alternative to Champagne, but besides the bubbles, Champagne-makers will say all three are very different things altogether. They’re made from different grapes, first and foremost, but they just can’t taste like Champagne if they don’t come from the same soil, in the same way that Basmati rice is from a certain part of India, and while “Tex-mati” is similar, it’s just not the same. But we can talk about geographical indications another time.
What I love about the Louis Picamelot Crémant above and the Quadrille Crémant du Loire is that Bourgogne and the Loire Valley both use very natural wine practices. Isn’t all wine natural? I was asked condescendingly by a representative at another of the booths. Yes, but when you hear the words “vins naturel” or “natural wine” it’s usually referring to the fact that no chemicals or preservatives are added to either the grapes on the vines or directly in the wine-making process. It’s easy to cover up a poor quality Champagne by adding a lot of junk – mostly sugar, but often stabilizers and other preservatives that essentially neutre the flavour of the wine and make every bottle of every year taste pretty much the same. Do you think the weather was exactly the same each year? There’s so much talk about “terroir” and the taste that comes from the land and the weather without any human/chemical interference, and yet Baby Duck always tastes like Baby Duck. And the same goes for slightly better quality, affordable options like Henkell Trocken.
But Bourgogne and Loire and Rhone Valley and Languedoc-Roussillon wines are generally very natural, so I’ve been told. I think because it’s difficult to add anything to these wines for some reason. The yields are small (there are relatively few grapes for the size of the vineyards) and the tastes are unique. All this to say that you don’t need to spend a fortune on wines from these regions, since most even average bottles will be of a fairly high quality. Sulfites are added for shipping for everything that’s sold at the liquor store, but there’s often less in a glass than there is in a few pieces of dried fruit. Just ask the headache I got after eating some apricots and staying stone sober at a restaurant launch a few weeks back…
Then there’s the added technical term of “zero-dosage” or “brut nature”, which means no sugar has been added to kick-start that second fermentation. Often these sparkling wines are a bit unusual – they can taste bare or rocky or just not sweet and fun like you think of most sparkling wines. This Antech “brut nature” was lovely, though. And cheap because it’s from another of those southwestern France regions that isn’t Champagne and generally has to be more natural (Be careful, though. there are lots of less good wines from everywhere). Champagnes range from zero dosage to extra brut (not extra dry – 0 to 6 grams of sugar per litre), to brut (not dry), to extra-sec (extra dry), to sec (dry – 18 to 35 grams of sugar per litre), to demi-sec (half-fry), to doux (50+ grams of sugar per litre! That’s about a quarter cup of straight sugar).
But zero-dosage is risky in the same way natural wines are risky, because there’s nothing to cover the faults of a wine. The grapes need to have a stellar year to get away with this method, and there has to be enough residual sugar after the first fermentation to get that second one going.
Another country getting on the zero-dosage bandwagon, however, is Spain. Its Cava sparkling wines are the new Prosecco. Inexpensive, often just as tasty as big Champagnes, and made with the “méthode champenoise.”
Turns out 2007 was a good year for Juve y Camps, as their Brut Nature Cava came at the end of my 30+ sparkling wine sampling day and I still loved it. Bone dry and refreshing. It would have cost a few extra coupons, but 1) Nobody cared about the coupons anyway and 2) the media pass is an incredible thing. Willy Wonka-style amazement on my part…
The Brut Rosé was interesting. Did you know that’s a thing? I didn’t. Sparkling rosé. And it’s not junk. Rosé has a stereotype of being not the greatest quality, but here there’s just a little colour and fruitiness from using a little of the grape skins, so it’s a fuller, richer sparkling wine without getting carried away. Merlot sparklings are a long ways off if they even are possible.
I’ll admit that that I couldn’t often taste the difference between all the Champagnes. Or the Proseccos and Cremants, and Cavas and Blanquettes de Limoux. The smaller the bubbles are the more refined the wine generally is, and there were some awfully dainty little bubbles. I stayed away from the sweeter wines, looking for the cleanest, purest, lightest sparklers available. A huge headache after drinking what you think will be refreshing is a bit of a disappointment, after all.
Getting back to Prosecco, here was a lovely one. The female man and wife team of a tiny enoteca wine shop in Pavia Italy once shook their heads at me when I asked for a good Prosecco under $15 CAD. You’ve got to pay if you want good quality, they said. No cheap, sugary types go for that amount. Clearly they don’t know the Rhone Valley, but Prosecco comes from different soil, so of course it’s subtly different. Just try saying “Valdobbiadene” after 20 samples of wine…
And another from Jeio. Yes it’s a beautifully shaped bottle, but what’s inside this slightly more expensive Prosecco is also good. Often Proseccos don’t indicate the amount of sugar, so you can really be caught off-guard by too much sweetness. This was refreshing. Perfect for all the Northern Italian seafood it’s meant to accompany.
The thing is, these are all better with food. While sparkling wine is one of the few wines I enjoy drinking on its own, it’s just better with aperitifs – nothing too sweet or too spicy or too heavy to cover it, though I’ll often forget about what I just wrote, because it’s good with everything. Seriously, Champagne goes with everything. Hence, sparkling wines of all types go with everything. They can start a meal – the bubbles enticing the appetite, and they can wash down a steak if you so desire. They’re delicate and feminine but luxurious and dignified. Just choose wisely. You don’t need to spend a fortune, but the world has come a long way from Baby Duck.
Leave a Reply