A GLASS OF CHAMPAGNE

It being five o'clock on a Sunday afternoon, and only a few minutes after the obligatory walk after lunch, I've been musing about wine and its whole class/classification.  The bottles are still on the table so I can tell you that today's lunch was, in vinous terms, worth remembering - a bottle of Clos Blanc de Vougeot, Domaine de la Vougeraie 1999 followed by a bottle of Hermitage (Cheron) 2004 - both in peak condition.

So the table was well set but what of the aperitif?  Champagne, of course, (actually I had a rather obscure gin - Broker's - 47%) but in brand terms an inconsequential one: Antoine de Clevency - one of those not unusually on discount at Sainsbury's.

Actually AdeC is a perfectly acceptable Champagne, at least I think it is, but I in common with many other wine enthusiasts don't know.  I do know that I shy away from Cava, Prosecco or the recently touted South African fizzes but I don't know whether this is pride or prejudice.  And I don't know what a really great Champagne tastes like - vintage Krug to take a name out of the air - because I have never drunk one nor, indeed, been offered one.

Please understand, in no sense am I criticizing those who offer Champagne, either privately or corporately, for not handing out the good stuff, but I am beginning to wonder - and this is a British thought - whether the word 'Champagne' (if used accurately) is enough when pouring out a glass and that anything extra in terms either of commentary or quality, would be considered, at least in my bibulous circles, de trop.

Do the British, at least in my experience of 'us', cancel critical faculties when the 'C' word is uttered (despite the fact that per capita we are among the world's largest consumers)?  Or, with certain extreme exceptions - occasioned either by poor manufacture or poor storage - can we not make a sensible judgement, one glass to another, when the wine offered is fizzy. OR - and this is my surmise - does no one serve the major (vintage) Champagne names even if one is serving great whites or reds?  And if not, why not?

For a moment I thought this might be a reaction against branding - and arguably Champagne is the most branded wine until perhaps one reaches stellar price levels.  Veuve Cliquot's orange label is as quickly recognizable in alcoholic circles as Coke's crimson script is among soft or soda drinkers.  But this can't be true; Veuve C, Moet & C, Pol R, Taitt + Boll are all well known and, importantly in this context, frequently offered/imbibed.

Is it about the price of the boutique producers?  Not really: a look through one of the lists of same finds a series of interesting growers from the wonderfully named towns of Ay, Dizy and Bouzy (to name but three) whose prices march with the more familiar names.  

Is it about the price, full stop?  Ah ha.  Yes, sadly I think it is.  Sad to say that while one can snob it up with a great Rhone or Burgundy (let alone a Claret), it's harder to do with a Champagne.  And why?  Because, at least in the British convention, Champagne is served first - the opening salvo in the war between sobriety and, well, stupor.  And at that point in the proceedings (as at the very end), more or less any drink will do provide it sounds right and, as we say, 'hits the spot'.