The problem with Prosecco for those of us who don’t understand it is that it doesn’t taste the way we expect it to. It’s made differently, so it’s sweeter and not as bubbly. That makes it difficult to judge Prosecco as Prosecco, and not in comparison to Champagne, cava, or any sparkling wine made in a more dry and bubbly style.
Which is even more difficult if you’re one of the world’s greatest living advocates of cava and someone whose only criticism of Champagne is that it’s too expensive.
But the Wine Curmudgeon is nothing if not persistent, and my exploration of Prosecco over the past month or so has helped me get a better idea of what it is and why so many people like it. Because they do: Two-thirds of the increase in imported sparkling wine sales in 2012 in the U.S. came from Italy, and most of that was Prosecco. The key to understanding Prosecco? To accept it for what it is, and not to make the mistake that Champagne snobs make when dismissing cava for no other reason than it isn’t Champagne. Prosecco is supposed to taste like Prosecco, and nothing else.
The Adami ($15, sample, 11%) is a big step in that direction. It tastes like quality Prosecco, with more character and interest than many others at this price. That means more structure — a beginning, middle, and end, instead of just a sweetish, fruity middle — and apple fruit instead of softer tropical flavors. The bubbles are also a little sturdier. All in all, very nicely done, and you could do much worse tonight when toasting the New Year.
Suggestions for New Year’s bubbly from around the cyber-ether:
? Dave McIntyre of the Washington Post has almost every possibility covered, from Greek sparkling wine (who knew there was any) to more conventional — if pricey — suggestions. The Deutz Rose Brut is terrific wine, and that Dave got to an interview with the legendary Maximilian Riedel of wine glass fame when he tasted it makes the experience all that much more fun. And that Dave wants to argue with Riedel about wines glasses — I can only hope to be invited to watch.
? Jon Bonne at the San Francisco Chronicle discusses the state of American sparkling wine, and his assessment is intelligent and evenhanded — including his comments that “sweet wines are getting sweeter and more market-driven.” Among his suggestions: an Iron Horse, one of my choices for a celebration if the cheap wine book ever makes a lot of money, and Gloria Ferrer, perhaps the best value bubbly in California.
? George Yatchisin recommends California sparklers on the KCET television website, and I include his choices for three reasons. First, one of them is Schramsberg, which may be the best bubbly house in the United States and always delivers something worth drinking. Second, because KCET is the public television station in Los Angeles, and how many public TV stations do wine writing? And third, because there are no prices listed for the wines. Damn, that’s impressive, to be able to write about wine and not care how much it costs.
Call it champagne with small c (but not in front of a European), Champagne with a capital C, bubbles, or any of its other synonyms — sparkling wine deserves to be served more than at dinner on Dec. 31, for a toast at midnight, or at brunch on Jan. 1.
• I’m still trying to make sense of Prosecco, the Italian sparkling wine that has become hugely popular over the past year. It’s usually sweeter than cava, California sparkling, or Champagne, and since it’s made differently, the bubbles aren’t as tight. Price can also be a problem, since there are some $15 Proseccos that taste like fizzy 7-Up. Having said that, the widely available Mionetto ($13, sample, 11%) is a safe bet — not so much sweetness that it overwhelms, with a little green apple fruit and decent bubbles.
• Regular visitors here know that Spain’s cava is one of the great cheap wines of all time, and that it’s almost impossible to go wrong no matter what you buy. The Dibon Rose ($10, purchased, 11.5%) may be even more enjoyable than the Dibon Brut, which is headed to the $10 Hall of Fame. Look for strawberry and orange peel, plus a little yeastiness. All in all, an amazing value.
• Sparkling is made throughout the world, including Oregon, where Argyle does a terrific job. The 2010 Brut Rose ($50, sample, 12.5%) is no exception, with lots of tart cranberry fruit, wonderfully crisp bubbles, and a long, clean finish. Yes, it’s expensive, but it’s exceptionally well made. Weltevrede’s The Ring Blanc de Blanc Brut 2009 ($23, sample, 11.5%) is a high-quality South African sparkler that offers value along with subdued lemon fruit and refreshing acidity, perfect for a New Year’s Day brunch. And don’t overlook New York’s Chateau Frank Brut 2006 ($24, sample, 12%) — a lovely, fresh, and fruity wine from one of the state’s premier winemakers. There is even caramel and vanilla, just like Champagne, as well as almost tropical fruit.
Add another change to the wine business, and one that may be even more surprising than moscato and sweet red wine or cheap pinot noir: The popularity of sparkling wine that isn’t from Champagne.
Because, for most wine drinkers for most of the last 60 years, there were only two kinds of sparkling wine — French Champagne and the very cheap U.S. stuff that tasted like flat 7-Up (and that still dominates U.S. sales). There was bubbly from elsewhere, of course, but quality was poor and there wasn’t much of available, even if someone wanted to try it.
That has changed over the past couple of years, as I wrote in a story in this month’s Beverage Media trade magazine — and just in time for the holiday bubbly season, when we drink as much as half of all the sparkling wine sold during the year. In this, it ?s not so much that Champagne fell out of favor; rather, improvements in quality, increased availablity, and very good prices helped introduce consumers to the Spanish-made Cava, the Italian Prosecco and even fizzy moscato. And, as with sweet red and cheap pinot, consumers discovered they liked the wines.
Or, as one very perceptive retailer told me: “They really don ?t care where it ?s coming from, as long as it ?s different. They aren ?t the same old, same old California sparkling wines or the same Champagne. They ?re not the same wines that have been around now and forever. ?
The story ?s highlights and a few other thoughts:
? Bubbly consumption increased by 14 percent from 2007 to 2012, compared to four or five percent (depending on the report) for all wine. Much of that growth came from non-Champagne categories, and especially from Spain (up almost five percent in 2012) and Italy. The Italian surge has been phenomenal, accounting for two-thirds of the increase in imported sales in 2012.
? It’s almost impossible to underestimate the improvement in quality over the past several years. It started with Cava and moved on to the Italian wines, all of which are cleaner, more consistent, and with fewer off notes. They taste better, as simple as that may sound.
? Bubbly drinkers are more open minded than ever, willing to try something that doesn’t come from Champagne. Much of this can be traced to price, since these wines cost as little as one-tenth of Champagne, but it’s also about more adventurous palates. That a sparkling wine made with xarel-lo or glera could be worth drinking never occurred to previous generations of sparkling wine drinkers, who were quite snobby about their bubbly.
? We’re drinking sparkling with dinner more than ever before, which is a very welcome development (as regular visitors here well know). Again, this rarely happened with Champagne, which was seen — and is still marketed — as something for a special occasion.
? Sweet sells, and especially for the Italian brands. The difference is that some of the wines are not just sweet, but well made, something that isn’t necessarily true for many of the sweet reds.
? The generational divide that we’ve seen elsewhere in the wine business has shown up here, too. Younger wine drinkers are more likely to try non-Champagne wines, not only because they’re less expensive but because they don’t know or care that they’re only supposed to drink Champagne. That’s one reason why cocktails made with sparklers are so popular. Who else but someone who wasn’t a Champagne snob would want to drink something like a Bellini, which is made with peach juice?
Reviews of wines that don ?t need their own post, but are worth noting for one reason or another. Look for it on the final Friday of each month.
? Beach House Sauvignon Blanc 2013 ($10, sample, 13%): South African white was much different than I thought it would be — young and fresh and citrusy, with a bit of a pithy finish. It ?s a one-note wine, but delivers value for price.
? Trump SP Brut 2008 ($30, sample, 12%): Virginia sparkling wine from the former Kluge Estate continues the Kluge tradition of excellent bubbly. Lots of tight bubbles, crisp cherry fruit, an even finish, and a noticeable and welcome lack of oak.
? Hedges Family Estate Red Mountain 2011 ($25, sample, 13.5%): One of the best wines I’ve tasted this year — classic Washington state red blend with rich, black fruit and where the Washington state syrah stands out. Highly recommended.
? Joseph Drouhin Bourgogne Laforet 2011 ($17, sample, 12.5%): Pinot noir from France has some Burgundian character, which means it has a little earthiness and not that much fruit. But it’s a little thin, and the price is problematic.
The occasion required a sparkling wine for celebration, and it required more than cava. So the Wine Curmudgeon, spotting the Heidsieck ($56, purchased, 12%) on the shelf at a local wine bar, opted for Champagne. And why not? How often does the Cheap Wine Book go on sale?
Champagne has long been one of the great contradictions in my wine drinking life. I love Champagne, but I have little use for the Champagne business. It embodies everything that makes me crazy about the way wine works ? little regard for consumers, pricing that bears almost no relationship to reality, and the idea it can operate like it ?s 1953 and not 2013.
But they do make nice wine, and the Heidsieck is no exception. Look for lots and lots of caramel at the front, giving way to layers and layers of flavor, including white fruit and a mineral finish that has been described as almost iodine by some of my colleagues. This is not a subtle or especially elegant Champagne, and bears more than a passing resemblance to the mass Champagnes, like Veuve Clicquot, that I don ?t much care for. But it is incredibly well made and a perfect example of this style. And we had a fine time celebrating the book.
How much did this Cava impress me? The bottle had a neck hanger with a Winestream Media blurb, but I bought it anyway.
And why not? The Dibon ($10, purchased, 11.5%) is a sophisticated sparkling wine with layers of flavor that is made more in the style of Champagne than Cava — creamy and caramel-like with candied pineapple in back and not as much tart apple. In this, it's got more winemaking going on than I like, but you can't argue with the results. This is an incredible value for $10.
My guess is that this wine, made by the largish Spanish producer Bodegas Pinord, is a one-off ? made because there were so many quality grapes available, thanks to the euro crisis and the collapse of the Spanish economy and its 25 percent unemployment rate. Cava sales in Spain were down six percent in 2012, so it makes sense that some producers would re-label bottles or make wines especially for the export market. The Dibon is not listed on the Pinord website, and even Robert Parker had not heard of it when he reviewed it.
Highly recommended, and a candidate for the 2014 $10 Hall of Fame. Drink this chilled on its own or with Sunday brunch or something like a crabcake appetizer.
by Wine Curmudgeon Posted On
