Have WS gone too far with this question? I can hardly believe this.

I have only tasted Shramsberg, some Moet spin-off and something else uninteresting from Cal. Give me a break. No contest.

Discuss.

I came here for a good argument!

AH, no you didn't, you came here for an argument!

i didn't even bother to read the article

geez-

i wonder who will win this riveting poll of the people ?

So you've tried two and decided. Good, that should wrap up this argument.
Next!

------
It's not over-supply. It's under-consumption. Do your part!

Bir,

We had a blind tasting last year of 20 wines. 10 from Champagne and 10 from California. It was one of the greatest blowouts in the history of our tasting group. We have never had the entire group on the same page like this tasting.

CHAMPAGNE BY A KO!

If you've only tried 2 CA sparkling wines, one of which was so "uninteresting" you can't remember the label, how can you be so dismissive? Surely you've tried more than 2 Champagnes and there must have been some that were less enjoyable. Personally, I also prefer Champagne over most other sparklers, however, there are some very pleasant bubblers available here: Roederer and J are two that come to mind; and at a significantly more attractive price than Krug!

por vino

I didn't read the article -- did they include sparkling cider????

RRV

So, brocolli, Mother says you're very good for me. Well, I'm afraid I'm no good for you!

Bir,
I thought the exact same thing.

This is one genre that the original is often immitated, but NEVER duplicated. Hard to find a better wine than a fine Krug Champagne.

One California wine I do remember was a ridiculously expensive, but quite good bubbly from the Kendall-Jackson stable about 10 years ago? called Kristone. It had a big, barrel fermented, riper base wine than most Cali. bubblies, smelled like it may have undergone ML and was a dead ringer for some good French stuff. I have no idea where that stuff is now, but I really thought it was an ambitious effort and a great wine from an unlikely source. Does anybody remember this? It was like $50 bucks!

Maybe that price tells you where it went!

I can't comment on the Californian stuff, but it's only in the last 2 years that I've had Southern Hemisphere bubbles that I thought could hold their own against Champagne. (Pelorus and Ninth Island).
Without getting into the debate of whether they could be mistaken for a real Champagne or not, I thought on tasting that they were getting to the quality of real Champagne.

------------------------------
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. -Herbert Spencer

Agreed Pauly that Vintage Pelorus is getting to the quality of mid-range vintage Champagne but it is a different style as are the Californians fizzies that I've had. I see no point in doing direct comparisons on the wines; they are different.

The major houses like Moet & Chandon and Roederer that make Cali fizzies recognise that they are making something different and I'm happy to have both Roederer Champagnes and a Roederer Cali in my collection, knowing that they are both good. Although let's face it: the Cristal is going to win.

Lady K has started the website: www.KillerB.biz

If you are upset by this, wait until you read next month's article, entitled:

"First Growth Bordeaux vs. Ripple - A New Dawn for American Wine"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rothko:
If you are upset by this, wait until you read next month's article, entitled:

"First Growth Bordeaux vs. Ripple - A New Dawn for American Wine"

---

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Pauly and KillerB,

I'm with you on the Vintage Pelorus. I gone through several bottles (and still have several more) of the 1998, and I too enjoy it more than many NV Champagnes and even a couple Vintage Champagnes that I've had.

I brought a bottle to the Swamp n Stomp in New Orleans last July, so maybe some comments from people who tasted it down there will be forthcoming.

Actually I think you are a LOT fixated.

----------------------------
Forgive me for I have Zinned, and will again ...

again, because there is not really a canned and sufficiently descriptive term for a rhonelike wine.

anyway, it is no contest, but some claifornia bubblies are good. i like piper-sonoma and pacific echo well enough.

That rug tied the whole room together

Mission achieved. Did everyone note the lack of silly comparison article on the home page today? Hey, it was even a good debate(?).

For the record, I think the Cali sparklers I have
tried are no better/worse than Australian, New Zealand or English bubbles. But certainly no match for Champagne, particularly vintage champers. Even V Moet normally rates highly in my book (along with many of the bigger houses).

Happy drinking!

I came here for a good argument!

AH, no you didn't, you came here for an argument!

no kidding, NE1. Hey wop -- get over it.

______________________________
Member #19

slight recant here - the silly article was demoted from headline to sub headline status.

The fight continues!

I came here for a good argument!

AH, no you didn't, you came here for an argument!

Their bubbly experiment died a fairly quick death, as nobody was prepared to pay $40 to $50 for a bottle.

A year ago, the remaining Kristone bubbly (vintages 1994 and 1995) was dispatched in the wholesale marketplace. I got lucky and grabbed 10 cases before it all disappeared, and sold it out in less than three weeks for $6.99 a bottle. Dang, was it good stuff.I still have a bottle in the fridge at home.

highdesertwine

Bird- next time I come over there maybe I'll bring a bottle of Shramsberg Blanc de Noirs. They make a vintage sparkler out of Pinot Noir that is very high quality. They also make a reserve called "J Shram" that is usually v.v.good (although I think it's about $80/bottle). Other than them I agree, no contest.

********
Yes, but I came here for an argument.

Oh! Oh! I'm sorry, this is abuse.

cdr-11,

I bought two cases of Kristone 1992 Rose. I tried the regular and Blanc de Noir also but didn't care for them, all at $20 per on closeout. The 1993 was sold under the Brewer Clifton name.

Our house bubbly for the past ten years is Chandon Blanc de Noir at $12.99. I just can't stand the Brut.

Actually, I don't like any California brut. Too my palate they are monolithic, boring, tart.

I have never had a california sparkler that is even as good as basic NV like Mumm Cordon Rouge or Montedon. I am going to set up a blind tasting to compare the two objectively. This is a very interesting topic for me.

Passion turns intentions into habits.

And on the Seventh Day the wine was sour...

Who are you calling a monolithic, boring tart?

Lady K has started the website: www.KillerB.biz