Hacker News Reader

Comment by rosnd | Hacker News Reader

I was surprised by what the headline was suggesting at first, but a deeper look offered a good explanation.

I think this is the tasting they speak of https://www.jancisrobinson.com/articles/english-fizz-trumps-...

They're comparing the very lowest end of Champagne with similarly priced English sparkling wines. These aren't bottles people would generally consider good champagne. I'd be curious what'd happen if they repeated this tasting with midrange and high-end bottles, although those don't really exist when it comes to English sparkling wines.

I suspect that the Champagne would win if you blind tasted the very highest end of English sparkling wines with midrange Champagne from Selosse, Collin and Krug. This isn't a fair comparison though, because the fanciest English sparkling wines retail at a fraction of what midrange Champagne goes for.

View on HN

And you dont buy Champagne only because it tastes good, or in fact, it tastes good because it's a small luxury you afford yourself rarely. It has to come from Champagne and be a bit expensive or there's no point.

If we needed sparkling wine daily we could probably adapt our taste and production methods to make it anywhere in massive quantities.

To take a bit of a different perspectives, there's actually a few million people living at a few hours drive from Champagne, the region.

If you live in Reims it's a 20~30 min drive to a producer, from Paris it's roughly a 2h drive. In 2h you come to the producer's winery, taste a few of their production, and come home with a box of 6 or 12 pretty good bottles that you got a fairly low price (20 ~ 50 euro a bottle is realistic).

You can drink them in a 2 or 3 month span, and do the trip again to another winery.

For these few millions of people, Champagne is not _that_ much a luxury, nor a rare drink, yet it still tastes pretty good. National Champagne consumption is healthy and varied, and Champagne is still in competition with all the other crazy good wines of all sort (including other sparkling whites from France, Italy, Spain etc.).

There is definitely hyped brands, and Champagne getting out of France is at such a markup that it makes it harder to go for taste only ignoring the rest of the cultural markings, but I'd argue wineries from the Champagne regions are still extremely good at their craft and also live in a competitive environment in regards to taste and quality.

I think the benchmark they have to hit is not be significantly out-done by anyone else. As long as they aren't their status is sort of self-sustaining. Kind of like with diamonds. You could make fakes, that look just as pretty, but that isn't enough, because while looking pretty is important it's only part of what diamonds offer. What could perhaps threaten them is synthetic diamonds made more perfect and beautiful, and then carved so intricately that they end up costing a fortune, marketed as a luxury ethical diamond (because it's verifiable not a blood diamond).

> It has to come from Champagne and be a bit expensive or there's no point.

What is the point of it being expensive? Seems easier to log into your brokerage account if you want to remind yourself you can afford expensive things.

Spending money reinforces that the event is important. It's a secular version of the ancient rite of sacrifice.

Interesting perspective I had not considered.

This sentence has threw me through a loop tonight.

You could say the same about many other products. There is a social aspect to consumption that is not fulfilled by looking at your brokerage account.

Somehow we equate sparkling wine with champagne, but there are so many other sparkling wines in France alone that are at least as good as champagne. If the weather demands it, I am quite happy with a glass of crémant de Bourgogne, Vouvray, a Spanish cava, or otherwise the Italians make delightful prosecco.

If we are speaking in extremes, then yes, the nicest bottle of Champagne blanc-de-blancs might best the lot. However, that would indicate that we have largely fallen for the marketing trick. Champagne as an AOC has paid a lot to keep it exclusive. Meanwhile, neighboring vignerons with terrific bottles are locked out and can't sell their bottles for half what a mediocre champagne goes for.

>Meanwhile, neighboring vignerons with terrific bottles are locked out and can't sell their bottles for half what a mediocre champagne goes for.

Going by this assumption, the neighboring vignerons have zero incentive to try and make a product that could compete with decent Champagne. A winemaker selling their bottles for 500 can invest much more money per bottle than a winemaker selling their bottles for 50.

So even if it was all marketing at some point, it ends up being a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Oh no, I spend many thousands of euros a week on Champagne. It still tastes good.

And I don't spend so much money because I chase the expensive bottles, it's because the prices for good grower champagnes have exploded in recent years. Bottles I could previously easily find for 150 are going for well over 500 now.

>It has to come from Champagne and be a bit expensive or there's no point.

Not at all, for example Franciacorta Annamaria Clementi is an excellent sparkling wine (well, Franciacorta, made using the same methode traditionnelle as Champagne) that holds up well when compared to decent champagnes. (Although direct comparison is a little tricky given the drastically different climates, you're best off picking best vintages of each and comparing them)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com