Talk:Champagne

message: anything on this?  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.108.16.189 (talk) 05:19:15, August 19, 2007 (UTC) 
::Please read the Rosé article on Wikipedia. Cheers. Zanusi 10:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pink champagne ?

message: Some content in the varieties section are from the merged articles Blanc de noirs and Prestige cuvée. AgneCheese/Wine 05:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Attribution note

message: This one seems more B than not but some extra thoughts are welcomed. Here are my thoughts...
:*The referencing needs to be improved throughout the article.
:*I think there can be some work down with the structure and flow of the article. For instance, the "Varieties" section starts by talking about grape varieties and then segways into different wine styles in a less than smooth transition. The serving Champagne & Champagne etiquette section could be merged together. The bubbles section seems out of place from the rest of the Champagne production etc. The health benefits and alcohol absorption should probably be merged.
:*In terms of comprehensiveness, there doesn't appear to be any major section lacking which is what tilts it more to the B side. The only thing that would be a major concern is the absence of a viticulture section. AgneCheese/Wine 22:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Thoughts on assessment

message: From what I have heard, the english (technically) invented champagne. They imported green, flat wine from Champagne and added sugar and molasses to start it fermenting. They also developed the strong coal-fired glass bottles and corks to contain it. As the records of the Royal Society show, what is now called méthode champenoise was first written down in England in 1662. The French added finesse and marketing flair, but it wasn't until 1876 that they perfected the brut style. Any more info on this?
Not the best source ever, but I found this information in "The Book of General Ignorance". It contains information suitable for use on the TV program QI. 
By the way, I am a newcomer (this is actually the first thing I have written on Wiki), so please do not bite me if I have done something against Wikipedia policy!
--Timdpr (talk) 16:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since Champagne is well-known and equated with luxury and so on, many want to say that they were before Champagne in producing this style of wine, including the sparkling Limoux wines from further soouth in France. As to the overall history of sparkling wine (rather than just Champagne) I thought that some of this information would be available in the article Sparkling wine, but I can't see it there. Some history is included in the Champagne (wine region) article, but not that much about the production method. I believe you're partially right in that a light "fizz" initially occurred and was appreciated due to second fermentations in buyers' cellars, both in England and e.g. Paris. In those days wine was shipped and sold in barrel. The English definitely had an influence on the production possibilities of today's Champagne in another day, because they were the leaders of glass manufacture during the era when bottled wine became more common. The first strong, thick-walled bottles were (mass)produced in England.A minor point, the brut style only refers to a quite dry wine, not the rest of the production process. At least during the 19th century, the standard style was quite sweet, probably because of a combination of sugar being luxurious in those days and the ability of sweetness to make a mediocre wine more palatable. Tomas e (talk) 08:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's an excellent history of Champagne here which says that sparkling Champagne was being drunk in England well before 1662. The website is French, is run by on behalf of the champagne producers and cites it's sources. Richerman (talk) 15:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Another thing: it was also the distribution of wine and Champagne from France by the English / British to the far corners of its Empire (and the British love of good booze) that largely helped in creating the popularity and good reputation of not just Champagne but French wine in general. There were vineyards in Italy - for example - that were producing wines of equal quality to French wines, but suffered because of the Alps - so to speak - being where they were. Perhaps the artice could reflect the British influence on Champagne rather more than it does.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.35.87 (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed the British influence has played a prominent role in the historical development of Champagne. That is why it is so prominently discussed in History of Champagne. This article is already very long and meant to provide an overview on the modern entity of Champagne. We have splinter articles such as Champagne (wine region), Sparkling wine, Sparkling wine production, History of Champagne and Champagne in pop culture that more fully explore those topics. Trying to cram them all into this article would be counterproductive. AgneCheese/Wine 20:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops - hadn't seen the "History of Champagne" article. Thanks... actually, "cheers" may be a more apposite comment. 86.174.35.87 (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about England? 

message: The Varieties sections states that 'Blanc de noir (white of black) Champagne is pressed from 100% Pinot Noir or black grapes', the Blanc de Noirs section states is it made from 'either Pinot Noir, Pinot Meunier or a blend of the two', which is it, a quick google seach is not conclusive. --Stefan talk 06:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oxford Companion to Wine says that 'either Pinot Noir, Pinot Meunier or a blend of the two' is correct. Camw (talk) 06:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I updated the page. --Stefan talk 07:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is Blanc de noirs? 

message: The French would like us to believe that champagne must be produced in Champagne. I have in front of me two empty bottles of U.S. champagne from a New Year's party. The first bottle is Domaine Chandon and says it's made with the méthode traditionnelle but does not include the word 'champagne' anywhere on the bottle. Bear in mind that Domaine Chandon is a subsidiary of Moët & Chandon, the company that produces Dom Pérignon. The second bottle is André, which denotes itself as 'California Champagne' because its parent company E & J Gallo Winery does not bother to use the traditional method. My question is, why should we say that the Domaine Chandon--made the EXACT same way as champagne from the region of Champagne--is not champagne and relegate it the title of 'California Champagne'? The French have created a dichotomy whereby companies like E & J Gallo are allowed to turn the term 'California Champagne' into a reference to a wine that is not even made using the method of the Champagne region WHILE other companies are making champagne THROUGH the traditional method IN California, but they refuse to call it 'champagne' either for fear of losing standing in the international wine community or because their parent companies are French. The U.S. and France have no trade agreement on the terming of champagne, though France has such an agreement with fellow members of the European Union. My dispute with this article is that the opening states: "It is produced exclusively within the Champagne region of France,[1] from which it takes its name." The only source for this claim is [J. Robinson (ed) "The Oxford Companion to Wine" Third Edition pg 150–153 Oxford University Press 2006 ], which I claim is biased. Look at the third entry in the Wiktionary definition of champagne: "(informal, and legally incorrect in some jurisdictions) Any sparkling white wine." I would like to propose a middle ground, saying that since the term 'champagne' legally CAN be applied to 'any sparkling white wine' regardless of the method used or the place produced WITHIN THE U.S., saying that champagne "is produced exclusively within the Champagne region of France" is NOT accurate for all jurisdictions. It's a minor change to the article I'm proposing, but an important one that merits consideration. All I want is a disclaimer that not all jurisdictions RECOGNIZE the Champagne region's claim to the term 'champagne' and that some jurisdictions will allow the term 'champagne' so long as the method was traditional, and others will allow the term 'champagne' so long as the product is a bubbling white wine. Personally, I believe U.S. labeling law on this subject is too permissive in allowing André to be called champagne even though it is not made using the traditional method, but I refuse to accept Wikipedia telling me that the Domaine Chandon is NOT champagne. It is made using the traditional method, and the only reason--as far as I can tell--that Domaine Chandon doesn't call its 'Brut Classics' champagne is that its parent company is French. Domaine Chandon is made the EXACT same way as champagne made in Champagne. Since the U.S. allows André to call itself 'champagne' (it is only by the company's choice that it includes the term 'California'--there is no Californian or federal statute specifying that the term 'California' must immediately precede the term 'champagne', so André COULD decide to just call itself 'Champagne' and put 'Made in California' in tiny print along the bottom of the label and it WOULDN'T be false advertising), the Wikipedia article should recognize IN THE INTRODUCTION that not all jurisdictions recognize the Champagne region's claim and that different jurisdictions have different laws concerning the degree of similarity a product must have to the Champagne region's product in order to call itself 'champagne.' That's all I ask.Beeswax07 (talk) 01:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're confusing Champagne with sparkling wine, which has its own article. AgneCheese/Wine 02:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, BTW it is not just the Oxford Companion but pretty much every reliable source relating to wine. We can pull up references from Tom Stevenson's Champagne & Sparkling Wine Guide, Katherine MacNeil's Wine Bible, Andre Domine's Wine, Gordon's Opus Vino...hell even Wine for Dummies. They all say the same thing. While Champagne and sparkling wine are the same type of wine, they are as different as Bordeaux wine and a Meritage. Champagne (wine) is a brandname that is recognized by governments such as the European Union. Sparkling wine is a wine that anyone is free to produce, in any method that produces bubbles. As I noted before, we already have a sparkling wine article to cover stuff like Andre's. AgneCheese/Wine 02:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Counterpoint: A quick search reveals that Merriam-Webster, Collins, Random House, Princeton's WordNet, and the American Heritage Dictionary all recognise the use of 'champagne' as a term for some sparkling wine not produced in Champagne, France. Are you really asserting that all of these dictionaries are simply incorrect? 203.24.97.8 (talk) 12:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That issue is dealt with in the introduction. Legally, Champagne is a certain product from a certain place. That Webster promotes a common misconception doesn't mean that Wikipedia should do so as well, hence this article's introduction.--Nwinther (talk) 16:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Funnily enough, the part of the introduction that deals with this issue was written by me about three hours before your comment. If you check the history of the page, you will find that the previous intro (which was current at the time of my earlier comment) didn't deal with it at all. I agree that Wikipedia shouldn't endorse one definition over the other. An encyclopedia is a descriptive, not a prescriptive, work. (as, ostensibly, is the Merriam-Webster dictionary)  203.24.97.8 (talk) 06:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if your counterpoint should stand, how would you propose the article should be written? Pretty quickly you'd have to use the word "sparkling wine" and also quite fast have to seperate real Champagne from all the rest, and it'd just get confusing. Where dictionaries have one purpose, Wikipedia - or any encyclopedia - has another. Try looking up America. To many people, it defines the USA, but in reality it's much more than that. This doesn't justify that we make an article "America" that's about USA. Same goes for England - often used in the sense of the UK.--Nwinther (talk) 12:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sparkling wine is (and should be) a separate article from Champagne; the latter is a specific type of the former.  Making the clear distinction is no more incorrect than having distinct articles on quartz and amethyst, or on mammal and horse. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

text: No, that's not honest because it is incorrect. Champagne is a sparkling wine that is made in Champagne which is an unique product that reflects the particular people, place, history, soil and climate conditions of that region. It's just like the sparkling wine made from Chateau Ste. Michelle is a sparkling wine made from Washington State and reflects the people, places, history, soil and climate conditions of that region. Calling the Domaine Ste. Michelle sparkler is just as dishonest as calling a Krug a Washington wine. There is a reason why we have a Napa Valley AVA, a Chianti DOCG, a Cote Rotie AOC, a Rioja DOC, etc. It is because a wine made in a particular place is unique. AgneCheese/Wine 22:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

text: It is interesting that Gallo's so-called California Champagne should be mentioned.  Our article on the winery notes that even the United States has come around to barring the misleading use of 'Champagne' on new U.S. wine labels.  Due to a certain amount of inertia and lobbying, labels which existed before 2006 were grandfathered.  Gallo isn't selling five-dollar 'Champagne', any more than the guy in Times Square is selling you a five-dollar 'Rolex'.  Unscrupulous producers have been allowed to trade on the reputation of real quality brands, generally with the tacit understanding that they aren't selling the genuine article.  It's fair for us to acknowledge that there is a popular misconception (principally in the United States) that all sparkling wines are 'Champagne', but where there are questions about nomenclature we ought to rely on the consensus of both the world at large (which includes far  more than just the U.S.) and on wine experts (including those in the United States) for determining correct usage.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: French bias?

message: I think that "White of blacks" and "White of whites" is a poor translation - better would be "White from black (grapes)" and "White from white (grapes)", since it refers to White wine being made from black / white grapes. Wine is not made of grapes, it is made from grapes. (Yes, you could say that it is made of grape juice, but that is singular). DonaldQ (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Blanc de noirs" and "Blancs de blancs" 

message: From unregistered reader: I believe the chapter on sinking champagne should be erased. I read the Swedish articles referred to in Swedish Wikipedia article on "sinking" (may easily be found following the link from this article) and it appears that some rich guys occasionally sink a bottle or two, but it's by no means common behavior. I don't think occasional showings of bad manners deserve to be mentioned here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.113.36.73 (talk) 05:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sinking 

message: I was about to do some copy-edits and noticed AOC was spelled out mostly as 'Appellation d'Origine Contrôlée,' though 'Appellation d'origine contrôlée' appears as well. I did some poking around and found Appellation d'origine contrôlée only capitalizes the first word, as does its French counterpart. After reviewing a few French sites, Legifrance, Confédération Nationale des Appellations d'Origine Contrôlée, and Institut National des Appellations d'Origine, it appears that the French capitalize the first word only. Obviously if it's introducing AOC as an acronym, the standard is capitalize each word, but I figured it only made sense to follow suit. Thoughts? Encycloshave (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization of AOC 

message: For several years now it has been reported that etchings and imperfections in glassware are incapable of producing nucleation points for champagne bubbles, and that the true nucleation points are dirt.  Didn't want to step right in and edit something without a discussion first though.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1013069,00.html
The article cites this study- Uncorked: The Science of Champagne (Princeton University Press; 152 pages)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.96.105.84 (talk) 05:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perhaps a rewrite is in order regarding bubble formation? 

message: I will leave it to others to edit this item, but I would like to point out that as it stands this article perpetuates a common misunderstanding, that "ripeness of the grapes" has something to do with the sweetness of the final product. This is in fact not the case.
Sugar is typically used three times in the Champagne-making process. The first use is at the time of primary fermentation, to permit grapes offering 9-10% alcohol equivalence from their natural sugars at harvest to yield a completely dry wine of 11% following the initial fermentation of their juices. The second, sometime after 1 January of the year following harvest, adds enough sugar (with yeast) to bring the wine to 12% following a further fermentation in the bottle; this process also provides the bubbles but again typically leaves the wine completely dry, or "nature". The third, at least fifteen months (not 1.5 years) after this second addition, when the yeast has fermented all the sugar in the base wine and has died or become dormant, is the "dosage" and is intended to give not simply "sweetness" but also to optimize the expression (nose, mouth and finish) of the wines in the cuvee being dosed. Of course, in the case of a "nature" wine, there will be no dosage, and the wine remains in the zero sugar state following the second step.
I note too that the sweetness rank given in the article lacks the 0 dosage group known as "brut nature", "non dose", or "dosage zero.". These, obviously, have not been given any sugar dosage at the third stage and contain less than 3 grams of sugar per litre.
GianniBGood (talk) 15:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously added sugar plays a big role in determining the sweetness of champagne, but the ripeness of the grapes is a factor too surely, as it would be for any other wine? The article currently says both play a role, which is surely right – if you're starting with riper grapes, you need to add less sugar to get the same end point. As for the terminology, is there not a distinction between phrases of the sort you mention, which are used to indicate that no sugar has been added, and the terms used to describe the end-levels of sweetness? Most of the detail in that section is sourced to the NYT article cited. I'll happily accept that the NYT may have it wrong, and/or that this page may misrepresent exactly what that article says.  N-HH talk/edits 15:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

text: No worries (and I have this page marked, such that any changes to it or the talk page get flagged up whenever I log in). I'm half clued up on much of this – eg the role of chaptalisation in some French wines, and the dosage in champagne, as well as on the fact that champagne base wines would be pretty undrinkable – but was just trying to clarify some of the detail and the process as you describe it, and that the point is, in effect, that at the pre-dosage stage it's always a level playing field in terms of sweetness. Are you aware of any verifiable and reputable/authoritative source that explains this in that way, ideally one that can be used and linked to online as a reference? The next problem for WP is that it can't just take for granted what people say on a talk page, however right they may be, especially when it comes to more obscure technical matters. I looked for something a while back when I worked on this section and it was harder than I expected to find anything. N-HH talk/edits 21:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

text: Also, this producer site – "The quantity of residual sugar in the bottled wine (the remaining natural sugar from the grapes, and any sugar that is added)" – and this one – "For the 'Terre de Vertus' Non Dosé', it's simple: we add no sugar at all. Generally speaking, there is about 1 gram of residual sugar anyway. We prefer to favour the maturity of the grapes and their natural sugar rather than adding sugar when the bottles are disgorged" – both appear to suggest that the grapes themselves do have an impact on the residual sugar levels; and that there can be some residual sugar, however little, even without any dosage. As I say, I'm genuinely trying to get the correct answer here, and to find verifiable, third-party material than can be used for footnotes in the article. N-HH talk/edits 21:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

text: Look closely enough at any WP entry and you'll find it riddled with errors, as well as sloppy writing and bias (that's the problem with trying to build something with amateur – even ignorant, yet committed, in some cases – and often very occasional contributors). Anyway I quickly did what I thought I could with the section a while back and am not sure I want to get stuck in any more either. It may need further elaboration and minor correction but I'm not sure there are any egregious errors in it (I hope). There are a few others who keep an eye on this page, some from the wine project who might be more clued up than me, so we'll see if anyone else picks this point up. Hopefully someone will .. (and feel free to flag up any of the other problems here; all of us doing that is the only way errors get sorted) N-HH talk/edits 08:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Champagne - Sweetness 

message: I reverted this addition originally, as my edit summary clearly explained, not only because it was in an odd place, out of chronological context, but because – quite apart from it being oddly phrased (and with a spelling mistake when originally inserted) – the citation/quote was unsourced and its relevance was not explained. Both those two problems remain. Once it was removed, the burden is on the person adding it to sort that out and explain the point on the talk page rather than simply reinserting it, as they have now done. I'm not going to immediately join in the edit war  has started, but unless those problems are sorted out, it is problematic content and should be removed, or clarified and sourced. N-HH talk/edits 22:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Samuel Butler 

message: The wines of:  Bordeaux wine, Burgundy wine, and Champagne have similar price ranges and reputation.
174.22.10.232 (talk) 12:43, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Price range and reputation 

message: Particularly Champagne is a registered protected name and there is abundant evidence for its common usage AgneCheese/Wine 06:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: See threads above regarding capitalization

message: Dont beleive article mentioned "WHY" drinking of Champagne "Lucky" to do on New Years Eve. or for that matter why is Christening a ship with Champagne done? ThanksEddson storms (talk) 00:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is drinking Champagne considered the "thing" to do New Years Eve? 

message: What is the sense of this sentence?  "In France the first sparkling Champagne was created accidentally"  The "oldest recorded sparkling wine" is mentioned a few sentences earlier - nothing is said there of accidents.  If this "sparkling wine" is meant to be not Champagne, why is it mentioned? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 01:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  created accidentally? 

message: I was under the impression there were several regions and producers of Champagne outside of France that were allowed to produce Champagne due to old treaties and loopholes in the law, granted the most major one I am vaguely aware of went under during the 2007 recession.  Should these be added somewhere?
Jyggalypuff (talk) 15:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: American Champagne Producers

message: When (about) did the word “champagne” (mostly) mean sparkling wine. Was there a few-hundred-years of “brisk” champagne; or some other 2-word term to distinguish it from non-bubbly?
And, I mean in English; I expect it was different in French. 
MBG02 (talk) 21:12, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning of champagne  

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Giggle water and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 12#Giggle water until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Mdewman6 (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Giggle water" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]