Avenue Vine

So, given its popularity, people must be knocking back Champagne fairly often, right?

Wrong. Paradoxically, people don’t seem to drink much Champagne at all. Even though sales of Champagne have risen in the United States since the millennium, most people still think of Champagne as something to be reserved for special occasions. Unless there’s a wedding or a birthday, or a ship to be christened, the corks tend to stay unpopped. The great exception, of course, is New Year’s, when more Champagne is consumed, or sprayed, then at any other time of the year.

That’s fine. But given the intrinsic pleasure of Champagne, wouldn’t it make sense to treat ourselves to a few bottles every now and then for no other reasons than that it’s good, that it’s good with food and that we don’t require a celebration to open a bottle of good still wine?

With a firm belief that the answer to all of the above is a resounding yes, the wine panel recently tasted 25 bottles of Champagne. It was not just any Champagne but blanc de blancs Champagne, made only of Chardonnay, the lightest and most refreshing Champagnes of all, and just as right for an August afternoon as for a midnight in December.

As much as I love Champagne, I would be the first to admit that it is sometimes not very good. Too often it is made industrially, as if it were slapped together without care or precision. Perhaps if you are opening a bottle ceremoniously it matters less. But when you sit down with a bottle for dinner, a Champagne that is oddly sweet, harsh, out of balance or just plain dull is a tremendous letdown, especially if it was expensive.

Yet, over all, we were all taken with the consistently high quality of the blanc de blancs we tasted. Some were sheer and delicate, as fine as lace. Others exhibited more power yet still showed finesse and elegance.

“I’m surprised to be surprised,” Mr. Flosse said, capturing in a phrase both the expectations that Champagne creates and its occasional disappointments.

Champagne, of course, is not the only bubbly in the world. Almost every wine region in the Old World offers its own spumante, cava, sekt or crémant, while the New World produces Champagne-style sparklers of increasingly high quality.

But whatever its flaws, Champagne remains the standard by which other sparkling wines are judged. Its elegance and complexity and its ability to combine power and grace are simply unmatched.

The vast majority of Champagnes are made with three grapes: pinot noir, pinot meunier and chardonnay. Pinot noir contributes a robust body, complexity and a berryish quality to the blend. Pinot meunier offers fruity and floral aromas, while chardonnay offers elegance, lightness and citrus and floral flavors.

It’s a winning combination, but broken down into its constituents Champagne can offer new and varied characteristics.

Champagne made solely of pinot noir can be more robust and taste distinctly of raspberries and strawberries. It’s rare to find a Champagne made solely of pinot meunier, but one I’ve had, Egly-Ouriet’s perfumed and substantial Vignes de Vrigny, is superb.

Blanc de blancs are far easier to find than the other two. They tend to be the lightest and driest of Champagnes. Delicate blanc de blancs make delicious aperitifs, though it’s a shame to restrict them to that role since blanc de blancs go so well with light seafood preparations and sushi. The more robust versions would go well with poultry and pork as well as seafood.

Champagne is not cheap. For the tasting, we restricted ourselves to bottles under $100, which ruled out well-known luxury cuvées like Krug’s Clos du Mesnil, Salon and Taittinger’s Comtes de Champagne.

Blanc de blancs age very well, a surprising notion since many people assume that wines made of red grapes age better than whites. I’ve always felt that white Burgundies, made of chardonnay, age as well if not better than red Burgundies, made of pinot noir, so why shouldn’t the same be true of Champagne?

The Champagne trade is dominated by the big houses, which purchase most of their grapes and sometimes even buy already-produced wines.

But the grower-producers are a rising category whose Champagnes tend to be more distinctive if perhaps less consistent than those from the big houses.

Not that the bigger houses are not capable of making great Champagnes. The 1998 Pol Roger Extra Cuvée de Réserve, a most expensive bottle at $95, is richly satisfying, while the lighter, more elegant Billecart-Salmon is bright and refreshing.

Are you surprised when I call Champagnes wines? I know you’re thinking, There he goes with the questions again. But this one is important.

Many people distinguish between Champagne and wine, the difference apparently being that wine is something that you drink all the time while Champagne is for celebrations. But Champagne, of course, is a wine, and you might be even more surprised at how happy you’ll be when you start treating it like one.

To read Eric Asimov’s complete article: “First, who likes Champagne?,” New York Times, August 17, 2007–(LEFT CLICK HERE)