Once he decides to make a sparkling wine, a vintner is faced with a dilemma, the same question a brutal detective places before a defiant perp: Does he want to do this the easy way, or the hard way?
Just because the winemaker doesn't risk cracked ribs and black eyes doesn't mean that there is no pain at stake. He can elect to effervesce his product in a relatively simple way, or he can do it the way they do it in the Champagne region of France: via the absurdly intensive méthode traditionelle. In English, it is known as the traditional method; in our interrogation analogy, it's the cop's rolled-up phone book.
The sine qua non of the traditional method is the in-bottle secondary fermentation. When the first fermentation turned puritanical grape juice into intoxicating still (non-sparkling) wine, all the carbon dioxide was allowed to escape. To make more CO2, the wine needs to ferment again. Since the traditional method dictates that the wine must undergo this second fermentation in the bottle, the winemaker fills the bottles — the very same ones that will be exploded in the World Series champion's clubhouse or eased open with a gentle sigh in hushed dining rooms — with still wine, then adds something called liqueur de tirage, which consists of still wine, yeast and sugar. As the yeast eats the sugar, CO2 is produced, captured in solution, and it stays there until you or Jay-Z pops the cork.
This process doesn't happen overnight. The laws of Champagne production dictate that the wines spend at least 15 months on the lees, i.e., in contact with the dead yeast cells that precipitate during the second fermentation. Getting these cells to collect into the neck of the bottle, from which they can be neatly disgorged, used to require months of riddling — which, until the relatively recent advent of a labor-saving machine, had to be done by hand. Now riddling doesn't take as long, but making Champagne — and other wines in the same method — is still a very real pain.
All this extra labor that the Champagne buyer pays for — does it actually yield a better product? Yep. The effect of the yeast on the wine is maximized during the aging, and the prized flavors that are associated with fine Champagne — those of brioche toast, etc. — are the by-products. Also, longer aging is associated with a finer mousse, so your tongue is likely to be delighted by a beaded string of tiny bubbles in a true Champagne. Forget the prestige: The process and the provenance of the grapes make Champagne worth the price tag, which currently bottoms out (in Nashville, anyway) at just under $50 per bottle — too much to spend every day, probably, but definitely not out of reach for occasions that merit a modest splurge.
When you are drinking a traditional method wine from anywhere else in the world, you are most likely drinking that region's best sparkling wine. While the terroir of Champagne can't be replicated, the process can: Spain's cava, Italy's Franciacorta, and many excellent California sparkling wines are produced this way. France even has a special name — crémant — for regional sparkling wines that are made elsewhere by a somewhat more relaxed set of Champagne's rules.
Champagne — our great nation is plastered with gaudy banners promising the august libation to tippling brunchers, about 1 percent of whom are actually served the real thing. I feel bound to inform you that, if you have ever drunk "champagne" through some kind of "bottomless" arrangement, chances are you drank something made in another style altogether: the charmat, or tank method.
In no way am I meaning to impugn. Italy's prosecco is probably the most recognizable sparkling wine made by this simpler method, which saves headaches and capital by eschewing the riddling, disgorging and concomitant fuss that define traditional method wines. In the charmat method, the second fermentation takes place in a large tank, and then the beverage is bottled. Is the final beverage as finely effervescent, complex, and toasted as Champagne? Nope — the bubbles are clumsier, and its characteristics are more fruity and less complex. It can, however, be purchased for well under $20, thus paving the inroads prosecco has made as a practical go-to bubbly for many.
An oft-overlooked method that produces offbeat but tasty wines is the ancestral method, which, unlike the traditional and charmat methods, does not involve a second fermentation — the wines are simply bottled during the initial (and only, I guess) fermentation, which ensures that there is still sugar and yeast in the wine when it is bottled. The sugar and yeast then continue to do what they had been doing in the tank, only now the resultant CO2 cannot escape, and the wine gets bubbly. It's an old method that results in a fragrant, slightly sweet and disturbingly drinkable wine.
With bubbly, there's just too much to discuss in a 1,000-word column. Begin your hands-on learning with a few of the following wines (multi-vintage, unless noted):
Barnaut Grande Réserve — Grand Cru, Champagne — It's tough to go wrong with some of the bigger names in Champagne, but this relative unknown is a sleeping star. Made from grand cru fruit via a solera (trust me, it's cool) dating back to the late 19th century. $36 per half-bottle, approximately $60 per bottle.
Juvé y Camps Cava Brut Nature, Spain, 2010 — This bone-dry (brut nature by definition contains no residual sugar) vintage cava is a fantastic value at approximately $16 a bottle.
Schramsberg Blanc de Blancs, California, 2012 — A delicate traditional-method California bubbly made from 100 percent chardonnay. Extremely elegant. +/- $40
Prosecco — Fun and fruity; there are a ton out there that fit the bill. Try Flor or Zonin, for just under and just over $20.
Patrick Bottex La Cueille Bugey-Cerdon, France — You have probably never tried a bubbly like this before. This gently sparkling rose-colored wine is a great holiday aperitif and conversation piece. +/- $27
Email arts@nashvillescene.com
