Geeky and pedantic Champagne question.....

Here’s a geeky and pedantic question regarding Champagne.

I was sitting on my Ryan Air flight reading the beverages menu and saw they were selling a 20cl bottle of Champagne. (11.99 = 44.80 per 75cl)

One of the features that makes Champagne Champagne is that the secondary fermentation takes place in the bottle that the wine is sold in. And that involves the tricky process of disgorgement to remove the lees of the secondary fermentation.

There are easier methods of removing the secondary fermentation waste , such as doing the second fermentation in a tank (cuvee close), or decanting the wine through a filter into a clean bottle (transfer method)

But these are said to be inferior ways of making sparkling wine whereas the Champagne method, it is argued, offers better bubbles, makes a finer wine, and is one of the factors that makes Champagne unique.

So, if secondary fermentation in the final bottle is part of what makes Champagne special, is that 20cl bottle labelled and sold as Champagne the real thing?

The second fermentation did not take place in that bottle, the wine was decanted into it, similar to the transfer method.

So is it really really Champagne?

[James Roscoe]

I don't have the answer, but isn't Champagne a region anyway? What are the AOC rules? If the second fermentation took place in a bottle and then the wine was transferred into a smaller bottle, is that still the traditional method? I see these small bottles of Pommery (POP?) all the time and I never wondered about it.

...So is it really really Champagne?

Of course! The even hired Mini Me to riddle those tiny bottles.

[James Roscoe]

...So is it really really Champagne?

Of course! They even hired Mini Me to riddle those tiny bottles.

A mini Howie?!?!?!?!

Great question, Peter.

You should send it to those who watchdog the misuse of the Champagne name.

Maybe the stuff in the little bottles is what flies out of the big bottles during disgorging

It's OK to call it Champagne. Only for bottle sizes 37.5 cl - 3 litres does the secondary fermentation have to take place in the same bottle. To be precise the regs state:
Art. 9. - (Ajouté D. 18 mars 1998). - Les vins à appellation " Champagne " doivent être élaborés et commercialisés dans la bouteille à l'intérieur de laquelle le vin a fermenté pour être rendu mousseux, à l'exception des vins vendus dans :
- des bouteilles d'un volume de contenu inférieur à 37,5 centilitres ;
- des bouteilles d'un volume supérieur à 3 litres.

According to CIVC ( who several years ago were writing scolding letters to newspapers here when they included articles or advertisements for "Champagne Breakfast" events and it was clear that local vino was being served - and sometimes not clear), they say to call a sparking wine "Champagne", it has to come from the Champagne region in France. A letter I saw a copy of did not mention production methods.

Cheers,
Sue

Peter, Hi....


Indeed the above is correct in that bottres of under 37.5 cc. may be made by transfering wines that have been fully made by the method champenoise to the smaller formats. Interestingly, such small format bottles are used almost entirely by airlines and that partly because the pressure in them is somewhat lower, that because of the very transfer process, and less likely to explode aboard planes if any loss of pressure is encountered.

Indeed as well, as ladies and gentlemen the world over know (or if not, are being taken to court over) that only wines made by the traditional method and coming from within the boundaries of the Champagne region may carry that name. The only exception is the still wine of the village of Champagne in French Switzerland and the village was named some three hundred years before the good Dom Perignon was born.

Best
Rogov

Interestingly, such small format bottles are used almost entirely by airlines* and that partly because the pressure in them is somewhat lower, that because of the very transfer process, and less likely to explode aboard planes if any loss of pressure is encountered.

Well, with due respect**, many airlines carry standard size normal Champagne bottles from which they serve to passengers who turn to the left when they board long haul flights.

You've no doubt been on more business class flights than I have - every heard of the Champagne bottles exploding?

* I see more and more promotion of these quarter size bottles in bars and shops -- Pop is one such brand.
** part of the welcome package to WLDG. Gloves may come off at some time in the future

In order to be called Champagne the wine has to meet ALL the requirements of the Champagne AOC. It is no different to any other French AOC in that respect, and like most (if not all) other AOCs it includes allowable areas of production, grapes varieties and winemaking practice. It's a whole lot more than area and secondary fermentation technique. In my last post I was assuming that the only aspect Peter was questioning was the fermentation in such small bottles.

...many airlines carry standard size normal Champagne bottles from which they serve to passengers who turn to the left when they board long haul flights. You've no doubt been on more business class flights than I have - every heard of the Champagne bottles exploding?

Indeed the airlines do carry standard size bottles of Champagne, largely for business and first class passengers, but whereas food served, even in those "classes" is made more salty because everything tastes more bland at 20,000 feet or more above sea-level (even in a pressurized cabin), so those regular format bottles are allowed to lose some of their pressure before the final corking process. That's primarily why crew members may swipe miniatures of alcohol but never Champagne bottles. When on the ground those Champagnes taste rather flat.

Best
Rogov

but whereas food served, even in those "classes" is made more salty because everything tastes more bland at 20,000 feet or more above sea-level (even in a pressurized cabin).

Best
Rogov

Huh? I thought food on airlines, in any class, just plain sucks because it can. What are you going to do--leave?

In any case, low end dining facilities, airlines included, learned a long time ago that salt and sugar are the opiates of the masses, I don't think 20,000 feet has much to do with it.

Oh, welcome to the nicest place on the Internet.

Rogov,
Very interesting observations and I look forward to reading more. I think the pressurized cabin of a longhop jet is about the same as 5000-8000 feet above sea level (say, Denver to Aspen, Colorado) where Champagne certainly doesn't explode. I take your point about loss of pressure, but with unprotected exposure to 40000 feet aren't there other exploding things to worry about?
That said, I can't argue with intact bottles of Champagne for my last sip.
Charles

Daniel, I am not sure I understand why Champagne bottles sold for consumption in the air have a lower pressure. You seem to imply it is something to do with the taste. Is that right? I really do not believe it can be anything to do with the risk of explosion. For one thing bottles are designed to withstand something like 15 atms of pressure, while the internal pressure is "only" around 5. Also many bottles carried in aircraft are bought by passengers from normal retail outlets. Or perhaps the airlines (some of them at least) also get thinner and weaker bottles to save weight...?

Am double-checking. I've sent off a few emails to some of the good people in Champagne. Will re-post when I have responses.

Best
Rogov

Am double-checking. I've sent off a few emails to some of the good people in Champagne. Will re-post when I have responses.

Many thanks Rogov. Look forward to hearing the details.

I have heard from several of my contacts in Champagne. Indeed most airlines insist that there be less pressure in the bottles and that for two possible reasons.

1. Considering that in most cases the cabin is pressured to somewhere between 6,000-8,000 feet, that would mean that under normal bottle pressure the least bit of vibration would have the wine shooting out much as is done to celebrate sporting victories. Vibration on airplanes is constant and often quite enough to have this effect. Not nice for the paying customers!

2. Even though bottles under standard Champagne atmospheric pressure will not explode under normal circumstances in the cabin or in pressurized cargo holds, they can explode when a sudden loss of pressure in the cabin occurs.


Interestingly, several airlines have special containers in first and business class for carrying Champagne, those meant to reduce vibration by a significant amount and those airlines order the standard bottles. I was not told which airlines those were but at a guess I would suggest that Singapore Airlines would be one of them.

From a purely personal point of view, I have shipped cases of Champagne from Europe to Israel. I make a point, as I do always with all wines, of wrapping the bottles in bubble wrap even if that means opening and re-sealing the original case. I have never had a bottle explode but then again, I always check to be fully certain that the wines will be shipped in a pressurized cargo hold.

Best
Rogov

Thanks. Reason 1 makes absolute sense to me. I'm not so convinced about reason 2, partly because there are potentially other Champagne bottles onboard anyway, partly because I am not convinced that there would be a problem with a sudden decompression, and partly because if some airlines DO accept full pressure bottles. I am not an expert on the effect of strain rate on the fracture of glass, but I do happen to have a PhD in fracture mechanics . But then again, there are many airline security rules that make little sense to me.

there are many airline security rules that make little sense to me.

Such as raising the window shades for landing?

Champagne and I have traveled between CDG and SFO many times with no problems. However, I always ship in a secure box that is then wrapped and sealed in a garbage bag inside a suitcase (acknowledging that it could be opened). LVMH, in its carbon footprint/sustainability docs, declares that it now ships Veuve Clicquot by boat but until it "got green" the widow was shipped exclusively by air cargo. Champagne is also testing lighter bottles (see carbon footprint story in Wine Enthusiast May 08).
As an aside, last week at BOD the ticket agent said I could not ship more than TWO bottles of wine in the hold. I asked her to verify this. 10 min later she returned and said that only applied to wine with ABV higher than 14.5% (and chose not to share the regulation). Would therefore apply to Cognac, Armagnac, Rhone, Port, some Italians, Spanish, Portuguese, California, Australia etc. ...and some BOD 2003s. I haven't heard of this before. (Perhaps this is a way to bring those alcohol levels down ).

there are many airline security rules that make little sense to me.

Such as raising the window shades for landing?

One I particularly had in mind was the requirement to carry liquids in a resealable plastic bags. I bet terrorists worldwide are cursing the guy that devised the resealable plastic bag bit of the rule.

[Robin Garr]

Such as raising the window shades for landing?

That one's not crazy. In a bad landing crew need to be able to see out RIGHT NOW.

Such as raising the window shades for landing?

That one's not crazy. In a bad landing crew need to be able to see out RIGHT NOW.

Ok.

One I particularly had in mind was the requirement to carry liquids in a resealable plastic bags. I bet terrorists worldwide are cursing the guy that devised the resealable plastic bag bit of the rule.

As someone who has to carry liquid medicine in my hand baggage, I think the bag rule makes sense.

1) the bag must be clear - so contents can be seen
2) placed in a bag means they are not loose but kept together
3) a sealed bag means the contents don't fall out
4) resealable means that the bag can easily be opened for examination if necessary and closed again.

The rule that seemess pointless to me is the one banning knives and sharp objects (which include nail scissors and corkscrews for crying out loud) and the use of plastic cutlery on board.

OK, the 9/11 hijackers used blades, but it wasn't the blades per se that allowed them to succeed, it was that the cockpit doors were opened to them. Now the cockpit door wouldn't be opened no matter how many people they knifed. And if every passenger had a steak knife on their plate they'd be more able to fight back.