Does Champagne go bad?

I have a bottle of Corbel Champagne I received for my wedding three years ago.
The bottle has never been opened.
Does champagne go bad? Does the taste change after three years if the bottle is unopened?
I know some will say "just taste it" but, since I'm not a champagne drinker, I want to give it to someone else. I don't want to end up giving them cider <G>.
Any advise will be greatly appreciated.

"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." -- H. L. Mencken.

Ian, don't forget the transvasement method (described in another posting of mine). It does not seem to have much following, but, as I have said, one major (and highly regarded) company here in Austria,
Johann Kattus, does it this way:

<http://www.kattus.at/flash4.html>

M.

Nay laddie. How about "Hamilton ground (or not) Canadian Mustard Seed Mixed
With Miscellaneous and Incidental Ingredients Dijon (France) Style".

We do many things well here in Hamilton at the Western end of the Niagara
Wine Route ;>)

Absolutely. And, may I cite another example: After WW I the term of "Champagne" and "Cognac" were forbidden to the loser parties of the war (and their successor states) - and what happened? Without any problem they found alternatives ("Sekt" &amp; "Weinbrand" in the
German speaking part of Europe).

It's a pity the war winners did'nt feel like doing the same, so that's why we have "Champagne" in the US and "Kognak" in Russia.

Korbel, a California sparkler deliberately mislabeled as "Champagne."

There is no reason for you to want to taste Korbel, it is on the low side of the quality spectrum, a California wannabe distinguished by high acidity and large-bubbled bright fruit. It is decidedly not
Champagne, by the way. Closer to bad Cava.

As far as it keeping: any sparkling wine will go bad as any still wine will, just a matter of time (the goal of any wine is to become vinegar)
and the quality of the cork, the integrity of the winemaking process and so on. I would expect a three year old Korbel to be ready for
Halloween as a trick, not a treat.

"Pétillant" - as "frizzante" - designs a sparkling wine with discernably less CO2 pressure. Full sparklers would be "mousseux" or "spumante".

Not taken that way, at least not by this American. US producers who label their product "champagne" (the lower-case "c" does not excuse their dishonesty) are a blight on the industry.

Not sure about a wine label, but it was on a record label -
Neil Diamond "Crackling Rose".

Salut/Hi Steve Grant,

What is really sad in this for me is that these products are mainly quite good enough to stand on their own merits.

I've seen it said that names like champagne &amp; chablis (which for me are _clearly_ names of wine regions) sherry &amp; port (which are slightly different in that they are anglicisms for wines imported from particular ports, can not now be protected by right of long usage in many places other than those of origin. It may be legally true, but in that case the law is an ass and shold be changed. As someone who lived in a country which regularly passed off all sorts of muck with prestigious names (Burgundy, Claret, Sherry and
Port to name but a few) I know just how the misuse of these names debased the general view of the genuine article. I was delighted to see European style legislation introduced to ban such passing off and would very much like to see much more stringent legislation of this type world wide. No, in fact I'd far prefer it if producers, importers and retailers would be meticulous on a voluntary basis. But if they aren't prepared to do so then I believe it may be necessary to introduce legislation to do so.

ALL countries (and again, please don't take this as in any way intended as a sideways swipe at America) need to be far more meticulous in their handling of international trade. Size or wealth make no difference. It's a matter of equity above everything else. If laws allow injustice then that's not a justification of the action, it's a demonstration of bad laws - which after all are nothing sacrosanct, but the creation of the administration in power when the law was enacted. At the moment in France M Chirac is President, and we see laws enacted which reflect his political stance and beliefs. One could argue that legislators should be above such things, but that would be unduly naive. When it comes to international trade, and the protection of wine (and cheese and ham and all sorts) names the game is even more complex, with, no doubt all sorts of horse trading going on. I'd prefer it - by FAR - if such agreements didn't descend to different sides fighting nationalist interests, but that a real attempt were made to find just and equitable solutions, but that's obviously hopelessly idealistic. But just as I find the argument "You can't copyright "Blue Mountain" because it is a colour followed by a geographical description" morally bankrupt, in its effect on
Jamaican coffee growers, so I find the reduction of such matters as wine and cheese names to sterile legalism to be the same.

Clyde, what is your winery? Where is it?

Do you mean to say "Schramsberg"? If so, where exactly do you find the word
"Champagne" on the label? Schramsberg is a sparkling wine from California made in the "Methode Champenoise." "Method Champenoise" is the method by which Champagne is made, but it does not imply that it is Champagne, the region in France. There is a HUGE difference in calling a sparkling wine
"Champagne", which some very cheap wines do, and indicating that you make it in the "Methode Champenoise".

Salut/Hi Clyde,

I think so, yes. There's another "Cuvée sur Lie" which has become the private preserve of the Muscadet growers. Whenever I meet one, I tell him clrealy what I think of it. If you can protect "cuvée sur lie" you would be able to protect "Bottle fermented", it seems to me. A bad decision, typical of protectionism.

As Dana said, someone could use very large bottles and then decant and legally call it "bottle fermented". If you want to use french expressions (which I'm not very much in favour on a CA bottle of wine for the same sort of reasons I'm against the use of french wine names) on the label, then the expression "Methode Traditionnelle" is the one that is used throughout
France.

Well, all wines with bubbles can be called that. Remember that there are three ways of introducing CO2 into wine. Pumping it in. Fermenting in vats (I'm tempted to say that I see little difference between that and using large bottles), followed by filling the bottles under pressure, and fermenting in the bottles in which the wine is sold with the concommitant operations of disgorging and dosing. I think it's reasonable to want to specify that you're bottle fermenting.

Well, I'd strongly suggest a powerful brand name, "Dom Pérignon" doesn't really NEED to say anything other than that. I would lean towards the english language expression "Tradionally bottle fermented" (if it's legal).

One could argue that this is an unhappy conflation. I _could_ interpret that to mean that the term champagne may appear in lieu of the class designation
"sparkling wine" in the case of champagne, while the other expressions could appear in the place of "sparkling wine" in the case of crackling wines.

Pétillant is a nice word, but in France it is often used to describe wines slightly LESS fizzy than champagne and others of the same type. France uses the word "Crémant" as in "Crémant de Bourgogne" "Crémant d'Alsace" and so on, for wines made by the Methode champenoise.

I once read an article on this. For example Schramsburg is also labeled as
Champagne.

The rationale was that the actual vines were from that region in France.
Somehow I think that was felt to justify the naming of it.

Not sure but I don't think they operate outside the scope of the law. They just choose not to show the respect for France by doing so.

This is interesting as France has Dijon Mustard which is the best in the world. However the mustard seed comes from Canada for most. Should the name be changes to Canadian Mustard Seed Dijon Style?

There seems to be a minor difference between "some referring to a tissue as a kleenex" and others labelling their tissues "kleenex", don't you think so?

No. Since Kleenex is trademarked you can do neither in countries that
Kleenex is trademarked in.

Champagne issue is questionable. Its a question of law and from the articles I have read its somewhat in the WTO's hands now. I can go either way on it. I personally refer to California Sparkling wines and Sparkling wines. However that is out of respect.

But it is not misleading in anyway unless a California producer claims his product is from France but it is not. However it might one day change if laws change.

Actually, I tend to believe most consumers (not the savvy consumers that won't be fooled in any case like us) blame producers far more than regions. If, in the consumer's mind, "champagne == all sparkling wine", then it will do no harm to the reputation of Champagne.

Blah blah blah.

Consumers that give a sh*t understand the difference between "champagne" from California and Champagne. Other consumers don't matter (they don't care... they just don't know the difference and don't care anyway).

Now, I'm a guy that's uptight enough to call sparkling wine from California "sparkling wine" in casual conversation. I *get it*. I also don't buy much French wine. If worrying about your name is a big deal, I'm not interesting in your wine. The reasons should be obvious.

M.

Salut/Hi Dana Myers,

I have to say that I use neither as generic terms. However I _do_ use "Biro" for ball point pen, I guess. I quite accept that is what happened in the past, but (just as for Alsace producers who claim that it is "too difficult" to re-educate consumers not to ask for "Tokay d'Alsace" quite independantly of what's legally incumbent, I feel that a punctilious winemaker wouldn't
WANT to tread on the toes of colleagues elsewhere, if only out of enlightened self interest some time down the line.

Without any doubt. At least it was when it started. American "chablis" is so wildly different from the real thing that it's difficult to claim that there's a serious attempt to pass off. In this case, the name itself is being debased - in the eyes of the great mass of consumers. If Joe Public has no idea that Chablis (a wine made with Chardonnay grapes near the town of Chablis in France) is a fine wine, their image of the name will be coloured by the Gallo (or whoever it is) plonk of that name.

Nope. In terms they have been taught to recognise (incorrectly). If
Californians had never ever called their sparklers "champagne" then the problem wouldn't exist now. The reason _originally_ was that everyone had heard of "champagne" as a prestigious sparkling wine, so winemakers (abusively) _used_ it as a generic term in the hope their wine would benefit from the glow of the real thing. Well, in a sense that's _their_ problem.
They have to live with the expense of refocussing the public.

With respect, not legitimate. There's a desire and an understandable one.
But just as I might have an understandable desire to label my homemade word processor "Word" so their desire to do so doesn't make it legitimate.

At the most basic level, so that the people who have laboured over centuries to give their wines an identity and excellence should not see their work debased.

I can't speak to the sophistication or lack of it of American consumers, but
I do know that in the UK they were able to move from a wholesale abuse to a respect of wine names. Wine consumption has increased steadily. I can't believe that this wouldn't happen in the States.

Salut/Hi Dana Myers,

I'm sorry, Dana, I find that a little arrogant towards the millions of people who buy "champagne" in those countries which allow their local sparklers to be called that, and all similar attempts to pass off local products using prestigious names from elsewhere. It's not JUST dishonest vis-a-vis the people in the areas whose product names are being usurped, but worse, it's fraud against the consumer. As you say, they may well not know the difference, or that "Tokay d'Alsace" or "Tokay" from Rutherglen are attempts to pass off their products (decent enough to stand on their own names) as "the real thing".

They aren't. Not to me anyway. Passing off is passing off whether it's "Feta cheese" or "Tokay" or "Parma ham" from France or "Champagne" from the USA or
Australia or "Blue Mountain Coffee" from Sumatra. It cheats both the producer and the consumer. And saying that because the consumer is not yet knowledgeable enough to know, s/he doesn't matter, is as arrogant and dishonest as anything I've read recently. Sorry, but that's how I see it.

Ignorance can be cured by knowledge. An ignorant consumer (I have lots of visitors who are ignorant about wine here) can usually tell the difference when they get a chance to taste one wine against the other. As to which they will prefer, that's another matter. But I CANNOT accept that it right that laws don't forbid producers/ entrepreneurs/importers from passsing off, no matter how long the fraud has been going on. This isn't in any sense to be taken as anti-American, because I feel JUST as strongly about French and
British passing off. More so in fact, as these countries take a strong stance against it when it is their products whose names are being misused.

That clinches it. A day-trip to Anderson Valley to visit Roederer is in order tomorrow. I'll report back in the evening. My 3G wireless data doesn't work up there so you'll have to wait. Let's see what Josh has in the barrels at Lazy Creek...

The only effect is that any wine labelled thus cannot be exported/imported into the EU.

In fact, even if that specific wine was not being exported, but the producing winery exported other wines into the EU - they *may* experience
*problems*.

It may come as a surprise to some US contributors to this forum - but the UK market is vastly more important than the US market to most antipodean wineries.

I know that here in NZ when the EU says "Jump!" - we just say "How high!!!"

Mind you - some NZ wineries export up to 50% of their production - so they are "sensitive" to say the least.

The word "Méthode" is the locally used word to describe sparkling wines made from the Méthode Traditionnelle.

"Méthode Champenoise" is now *never* used (even in the local market) for fear that its use will jeopardise exports.

And use of the geographic words "Burgundy", "Chablis" or "Champagne" to describe NZ made wine is illegal.

................

Sorry, no. "Fermented in this bottle" describes methode champenoise/traditionelle, while "fermented in the bottle" describes what is usually called "transvasement method". Austria's second largest (and quote reputable) producer of sparkling wine,
Johann Kattus, works along this line. It starts like methode traditionelle with second fermentation and ageing on the lees, but there is no riddling and disgorgement. Instead the content of the bottles is transferred into pressure tanks, filtered, and bottled into (new, btw) bottles.

Gallo makes a wine that they call Burgundy. I don't think it is pinot noir, though.

That's EU legislation for some years now.

<http://www.cnn.com/interactive/food/9910/buying.guide/ schramsberg.
label.rose.jpg>

or

<http://makeashorterlink.com/?M27921656>

It clearly reads "NAPA VALLEY CHAMPAGNE".

Sorry, you're plain wrong. From their Homepage:

<http://www.schramsberg.com/jschram.html>

M.

I humbly suggest that you not try marketing products of your own design as
"Kleenex" or "Coke" under the premise that the names have become "generic."
You will get sued out of your underwear in no time flat. And you will lose.
Quickly, massively, and decisively.

Wow, did not realize we have a wine of the Ozarks.

Thanks for informing me. I live in North Carolina and we also as you know have some wineries here. Some are actually making some drinkable products now. Takes a while.

All depends on conditions of storage. Three years at room temperature will ruin everything bubbly, even the very best.

Kept cool, there are chances it might be drinkable. Never tasted
Corbel (isn't that "Korbel", btw?) here in Europe, so I can't give further help.