Red, White, and Blue Bubbles

This weekend was my first ever 4 July celebration, bringing to life Bruce Springsteen songs and Tom Cruise movies. During the day I received many comments, sometimes amusing, on how it must be for a Brit to be in the US. As most of my family are Irish I don't really care, but I still enjoyed making fun of the Americans having to rely on the French to be free of the British.

I spent the evening of 4 July at my wife's family home in Chico watching a spectacular firework display, followed the next day by a tasting competition between a Champagne and a California sparkling. A couple of days later I tasted an English sparkling wine, all of which made for a red, white, and blue stand-off.

California

The wine was Schramsberg's 2011 Brut Rosé, a blend of Pinot Noir (61%) and Chardonnay (39%). Schramsberg have successfully carved out a niche for themselves as California's premier indigenous sparkling wine producer, challenged only by Iron Horse and J Vineyards (sadly recently bought out by Gallo). They make their wine in one of the hottest parts of Napa Valley - site of Jacob Schram's winery, one of Napa's earliest - but source their grapes from northern California's coolest regions, Carneros, Sonoma Coast, and Mendocino. Despite those cooler climates, the wines are most definitely Californian: fruit forward with a much lower acidity than a region such as Champagne.

Schramsberg have been making sparkling wine since the mid-1960s - their 1969 Blanc de Blancs was served at the Nixon-Mao summit in 1972 - but there's still a long way to go before their wines match those of Champagne. That balance of acidity, sugar, fruits, and autolytic aromas is a unique combination that is very difficult to find in California. So it was with the Brut Rosé: an onion skin colour, a full, yeasty nose with aromas of strawberries, and a sweetness on the palate that the acidity could not counter. ✪✪✪

France

What distinguishes Champagne from every other sparkling wine is acidity: this is such a cool region that acidity is just as about as high as it could be. Most, though not all, Champagne houses put their wine through malolactic fermentation to soften that acidity, though even then it's still often noticeably bracing. Gosset, however, are a producer who do not do any favours for the drinkers' palate: their wines are made without any malolactic fermentation whatsoever.

The Gosset wine we tasted was the Grand Rosé Brut ($85; 58% Chardonnay, 42% Pinot Noir, 8% red wine) and I was expecting to be overwhelmed by the acidity. That acidity was a key characteristic of the wine, but it was wonderfully integrated with the sweetness (9 g/L of residual sugar), the red fruit aromas, and the light autolytic aromas. This really was Champagne at its integrated, elegant best. As expensive as it is, California really didn't stand a chance. ✪✪✪✪✪

England

And then came along the English, as they often do. The English inadvertently invented Champagne by making it bubbly, but the very recent movement of English sparkling wine was led by two Americans, Stuart and Sandy Moss, who in 1996 founded Nyetimber, whose 2003 Classic Cuvée won best sparkling wine in the world in 2009. Nyetimber's success revolutionised the tiny English wine industry; whereas plantings had previously been dominated by hybrids and German clones, Chardonnay and Pinot Noir are now the two most planted grapes. There are many things set in place for England to produce quality bubbles, with the soils the same as Champagne's and a climate getting gradually warmer. The main disadvantage is that making wine is very expensive, and there's a great deal of vintage variation.

The main attribute of English sparkling wine is that acidity is even higher than in Champagne: these are wines that benefit from some sweetness, which is currently unfashionable. Balance that acidity and English sparkling wine could be as great as any in the world.

The wine we tasted was Gusbourne's Brut Reserve 2008 ($30; 36% Chardonnay, 37% Pinot Noir, 27% Meunier). Unlike the Gosset, the wine has undergone full malolactic fermentation, giving a pleasant creaminess to the wine and ensuring a balanced acidity - residual sugar is 10g/L. This was a yeasty, brioche wine, not as subtle as Gosset, but with very attractive mature aromas of bruised apples. ✪✪✪✪

By dad has a saying: the French are arrogant, but they have a lot to be arrogant about. Gosset were founded in the 1500s, and although Champagne has changed greatly over the last four hundred years, the region still produces the world's best sparkling wine.

Franciacorta

Established in the early 1960s, Franciacorta is the premium area in Italy for sparkling wine; deliberately modelled on the wines of Champagne, the wines are made in a similar fashion, from the same grapes, and sold at similarly high prices. The challenge for Franciacorta is both to take advantage of, and rise above, the popularity of cheap, friendly Prosecco and convince consumers that it is worth buying instead of, or as well as, Champagne.

I attended a tasting a couple of weeks ago, led by Peter McCombie MW, who argued valiantly in favour of the quality of Franciacorta, while recognising the difficulty of persuading customers to pay the prices the wines demand. The eight wines we tasted demonstrated the consistently high standard of Franciacorta wines, but I am still not sure that the area can compete with Champagne in terms of quality at such prices - a problem English sparkling wine also faces.

where is it?

Franciacorta is in the north of Italy, in the middle of the Italian lakes. The nearest lake is Iseo, which has a cooling influence. The area also has the Alps to the north and other surrounding hills to provide protection from the warm air blowing from the south. Franciacorta, an undulating valley, was formed by glaciers, and as a result the region has glacial moraine soil, an important factor on the styles of wine produced. The more superficial soils produce floral wines, while the deeper soils on the slopes provide dried fruits and vegetal, nutty, complex aromas.

what is it?

Franciacorta is a small, tight-knit community all dedicated to producing high-quality wines. The wines of Franciacorta are always sparkling, made from Chardonnay, Pinot Nero, and, less commonly, Pinot Bianco. (There is a separate DOC for still wines, Corta Francia, using the same grapes.) The method used is the same as Champagne - a first fermentation to produce a still wine, followed by a second fermentation in the bottle which generates yeasty, bready aromas as well as the bubbles. Ageing requirements vary, but are generally stricter and higher than any sparkling wine appellation other than Champagne. A major difference between Franciacorta and Champagne is that the wines don't have Champagne's searingly high acidity, making the wines softer and more approachable.

wines

Montenisa Dosaggio Zero NV

"Dosaggio Zero" means that the wine has received no dosage - the traditional top-up of sugar and wine at the last phase of a sparkling wine's life, which gives the wine some sweetness. A wine without the dosage is bone dry, which I think takes away the point of the best sparkling wine; it's a very fashionable style at the moment, however, reflecting the historically increasing dryness of Champagne. In partnership with the super-Tuscan producers Antinori, this wine is 100% Chardonnay, with thirty months ageing on its lees. There are subtle, biscuity notes of autolysis (the yeasty aromas that come from the second fermentation in the bottle), with apples and lemons. The wine is dry, fresh, with an acidity less sharp than a Champagne equivalent, and a gripping cinnamon finish.

Contadi Castaldi Dosaggio Zero 2009

A different example of the non dosage style from the first wine: vintage, with some malolactic fermentation, longer on its lees (36-40 months), and 50% Chardonnay and Pinot Nero. From a hot vintage, these variants produce a much toastier wine, richer and more powerful, with inviting autoylsis aromas and buttery flavours from the MLF.

Ronco Calino Brut NV

Part of the fun of tasting sparkling wine is guessing which grapes are in the mix. Quite a few of the guests at the tasting were convinced Pinot Bianco was in the blend, because it's a grape that provides fuller flavours than Chardonnay - but also because Pinot Bianco is allowed in Franciacorta, unlike Champagne. Not a single one of the wines we tasted had any Pinot Bianco, and the stone and tropical fruits (peach, banana, pineapple) and vanilla came from the warmer climate and use of barriques in fermentation, rather than Pinot Bianco - this wine is 80% Chardonnay, 20% Pinot Nero.

La Montina Brut 2007

A very unusual wine - more like a still white wine that had some bubbles than a sparkling wine. Fermented in oak, with 38 months on its lees, there were vanilla and spices from the oak, with a long, spicy finish, and funky nose. A very good wine, but not what people are looking for from bubbles.

Villa Crespia - Muratori Satèn

Satèn could well be the style of wine that gets people hooked on Franciacorta. 100% Chardonnay and slightly less sparkling, it's a delicate, inviting style of wine and the best examples of Franciacorta I'd previously tasted have been Satèn - the word means satin, which is a good description of the style. This wine was a bit disappointing, however, perhaps trying too hard to be a little different. There is spontaneous, partially completed malolactic fermentation; the use of selected yeasts for, apparently, both first and second fermentations; and some oak. The result is a wine that's very biscuity and buttery with citrus fruits, but finishes short after that.

Villa Franciacorta Satèn 2009

This was the first wine of the tasting that made me sit up and take note. The winemaking is "natural" - that is, with as little interference from the winemaker as possible. An elegant, delicate wine, with balanced bready, yeasty, doughy aromas, with a fresh, apple finish. This is what I want from a 100% Chardonnay sparkling wine: restrained, fine, yet long and complex.

Il Mosnel Rosé 2008

Sparkling rosé is, at its best, some of the greatest wine to be had, and this is a fine example. Rosé in Franciacorta is made differently from Champagne: there is a brief maceration on the skins to give the wine its colour, whereas in Champagne the colour comes from added red wine. This wine has a pale salmon, Provençal colour, with a combination of finesse and complexity: toast, savoury, cranberry, dry, refeshing, with a high yet not dominant acidity. I felt this was the best example of what Franciacorta, with its lower, softer acidity, has to offer.

Berlucchi Guido Rosé NV

The tasting ended where Franciacorta started. One of the three big producers, Berlucchi was the first to produce and market sparkling wine. This wine is 70% Pinot Nero - called "rosé of one night," to describe the length of skin contact - with 15g/L of residual sugar. It's a rich, fruity, slightly sweet wine that's very satisfying and would be great with spicy food, but one I would find difficult to have more than one glass of.

Franciacorta is a region to follow: of the eight wines we tasted, two were excellent and the other six were all of a high standard. I still think the region has a lot to learn, but that's not surprising given it's so young. What's important to remember is that the area has more in common with Champagne than fellow Italian sparkling wine regions Asti and Prosecco. This makes it a difficult area to market, but it's one well worth experimenting with if you like sparkling wine.

Diploma Exams

I'm just two months into the Diploma and I've done three exams already. There's been some intense studying going on and it's a relief I can finally sit down with a glass of wine (Pieropan Ruberpan Valpolicella, since you're asking) and relax. Our next exam isn't till June, so I'm not sure why the WSET have found it necessary to cram these three very different exams into such a short period of time. Anyway, here's how they went...

Wine Production

The Diploma starts, obviously, with Unit 2 (out of 6), which focuses on all the technical stuff - what happens in the vineyard and the winery - the building blocks to everything we go on to study about wine. We took this exam in February and I wrote about it then. I passed with distinction, which I won't be doing for these next two exams.

Sparkling Wine

The next exam was Unit 5, on sparkling wine, which we had to study in conjunction with Unit 4, spirits. It was hard studying these two completely different and equally vast topics together. The amount of information we had to process, let alone the amount of drinks we needed to try, in just the space of a month, was at times overwhelming - not forgetting that we have other things to do in our lives as well. I was helped by going to a series of trade tastings where I sampled all the sparkling wine I could and by a blind tasting of nine spirits very kindly arranged by Sam of Manchester House. All that work doesn't quite prepare you for the pressure of the exam itself, though.

Both the sparkling and spirits exams are in the same format: three drinks to taste blind and three subjects you to have write a paragraph on. The exam's 65 minutes, so you have roughly just ten minutes for each drink and question. I decided beforehand to tackle the written answers first to get the factual information out of the way and, for the sparkling wines, to allow the wines to warm up and the aromas to become more apparent.

That cunning plan fell to pieces with the first question, which caused a wave of panic to rush through me as I read it. "CM (Coopérative-Manipulant)" was all it said. First question I asked myself as I fought off the panic: what's a Coopérative-Manipulant? Second question: even if I remember what one is, how do I dredge up enough information to write an answer? (Each question is worth twenty-five points, so you pretty much need to say twenty-five things.) Third, and final question, How and why would the examiners ask this question? A bad day at the office that they decided to take out on the whole world of Diploma students?

After the exam, we all clustered together to work out how we should, or could, have answered that question. First off, we reached for our study guides to see what it said about Coopérative-Manipulant. Here's what we found:

That's it, and half of that definition was the question. However, the WSET advise that we read other material to deepen our knowledge so when I got home I looked at the recommended further reading, Christie's World Encyclopedia of Sparkling Wine. This book is exhaustive and here's what it says:

Slightly more helpful, but that's not the only book I've got for further reading. We got sent a copy of the Oxford Companion to Wine with our study materials, and this is our go-to book. It did expand on the above entries a little.

Even with these books to hand, I'd be hard pressed to write a detailed answer and in exam conditions it was an arduous task requiring some imagination. What was particularly frustrating was its close emphasis on a term from a traditional wine-making area, rather than stretching out to newer areas. I was all prepared to write about Argentina (Moët & Chandon are just about to release their first Argentinian wine in the UK - one of a million facts I never got to use) or the issues around quality New Zealand sparkling wine reaching the market it deserves, but here I was blagging about two letters that sometimes appear on a bottle of Champagne.

My mood wasn't improved by the next question - "Saumur." That fashionable, high-quality, commercially important Loire Valley sparkling appellation. Oh, is that a question about France again? I was ready to answer a question about the Loire, but didn't think they'd ask about a specific appellation because they're not important enough. Wrong.

After the very specific and then the specific, came the massively broad - "Black Grapes," a subject I could have spent the whole exam writing about. I seem to have taken a different approach to answering the question than my fellow students, writing in detail about Pinot Noir and Meunier, the two black Champagne grapes, with a passing reference to Sparkling Shiraz at the end, rather than writing about every black grape used in the production of sparkling wine (and there are a lot). The difficult thing here was knowing what information you were expected to produce in just ten minutes.

I then went on to tasting the three sparkling wines, which presented fewer problems. The first was Prosecco, but from the higher quality Prosecco Superiore DOCG; the second was a fairly standard Cava, from major producer Codorníu, with a hint of toastiness at the end the only indication that it had been aged on its lees; and the third a Californian Blanc de Blancs. We didn't have to specify where the wines were from - instead asked to come to a conclusion about the quality of the wine - but I was quite pleased I had been able to work out that the third wine, by far the best, was New World and not Champagne.

Spirits

I'm not that much of a spirits drinker, though I've become more interested in them over the course of the last month, which is why I've been blogging about them incessantly. I think that's why I found the tasting (the practice) much more difficult than the written questions (the theory).

I again approached the written answers first, covering the spirits with a piece of paper in a vain attempt to mask the aromas emanating from the peaty whisky which I could smell from the other side of the room even before the bottle reached me. Before the exam, which took place a long three hours after the sparkling, a few of us joked about which obscure category would come up. So there were a few wry glances around the room when we all looked at the first question, "Cachaça," a subject we had guessed may appear as it's still not that well known but it is World Cup year. (Another relevant topic we also thought would come up was Jim Beam as it's been taken over by Suntory, a huge event in the world of spirits. It would also have given me a chance to write about Mila Kunis in an exam. Wrong again.) The second question was "conversion," probably the vaguest exam question I've ever faced. Most of my answer was about the conversion of insoluble starch into fermentable sugars in malted barley, which I hope is what the examiners were looking for. The third question was "Districts of Cognac." I read Nicholas Faith's book on Cognac last summer and answering this question was a process of distant recollection. Frustratingly, I could only remember five of the six regions (Bons Bois being the missing part). I then bluffed about soils as best I could.

For the tasting, we had to state where each spirit was from, what it was made of, what spirit it was, and how long it had been aged, all worth five marks out of the possible twenty-five. In short, get it wrong and you're screwed. The first spirit was water white and quite aromatic. At first, I smelt only tropical fruit flavours so concluded it was a white rum. But for the rest of the exam, something kept nagging me and I kept returning to it, desperately smelling it for enlightenment. I concluded it probably wasn't a white rum, but couldn't figure out what else it could be. It wasn't a vodka - too aromatic; it wasn't a tequila - no agave; it wasn't a grappa - not grapey or rancid enough; probably not a pisco - again, not grapey enough; not a Calvados - there was no age to it. There was nothing else it could be, so I reluctantly settled for white rum, knowing if that was wrong, all my tasting notes were wrong. It was pisco. Looking back, I'm not surprised that it was pisco, as it was so aromatic, but that's one tough spirit to spot. It was also one of the spirits we'd speculated, but feared, they'd ask us about.

The second spirit confused me too. It was amber coloured, with oaky aromas and dried fruits. It could either be a brandy or a rum, I thought, and I leant towards brandy because I could smell raisins and sultanas (from the grapes, I thought), because it wasn't dark enough to be a dark rum, and because I'd named the first spirit as a white rum. Answer: it wasn't dark enough to be a dark rum because it was a golden rum. From Jamaica's most famous producer, Appleton Estate, it was pretty good too.

The third spirit I barely needed to taste. Smell peat and write the tasting notes: peat, smoke, earth, smoked fish, seaweed, bonfire. After the problems of the first two spirits, I even felt confident enough to suggest it may come from Islay. The only confusing thing was its pale colour - it smelt rather than looked like a whisky. It was Ardbeg 10YO, which has a noticeably paler appearance than its neighbours Laphroaig and Lagavulin.

That tasting was one tough thirty minutes. I've done all the WSET courses and this is the first one that's focused in any detail on spirits. Not having being taught it thoroughly or consistently, the only way you could spot these three spirits with any confidence is by being a professional alcoholic. If I have to resit, that profession awaits.

Diploma - Week 2, Day One

the exam

A mere three-day week this time, after the opening five-day slog in January. It opened, however, at 9am with the first exam of the course, on Wine Production. I've slaved over the Study Guide, pored over David Bird's excellent Understanding Wine Technology book, and made copious notes; stared at pages trying to remember the difference between flash and tunnel pasteurisation, finally figured out the differences between various rootstocks, and hit a complete blank at understanding all the trellis systems; and at least a week before the exam got to the point where it was impossible to digest any more.

The exam itself wasn't much different from what I expected: badly-phrased questions trying to catch students out on topics I knew I hadn't quite fully grasped. I'm sure I did OK, but looking through the trickier questions afterwards it was annoying to see that I'd picked the wrong option for quite a few of the ones I'd narrowed down to 50/50 - though some of them are still impossible to figure out even having looked at the Study Guide.

the fizz

The exam was followed by twenty-one sparkling wines, which was a great way of forgetting about the early-morning stress. Our tutor for this day was Michael Buriak, who had quite a dry wit and spent his time focusing on the wines rather than the theory. I found this very useful, as I don't drink sparkling wine very often and really needed guidance through all the various styles and how to describe them - the theory I can learn at home.

For instance, whenever I taste champagne, "apple" is the fruit I invariably end up using to describe it, but that feels so limited. Now I know that there are lots of ways to describe that consistent apple taste in champagne: bruised apple, baked apple, cooking apple, fresh apple, ripe apple, red apple, ripe red apples, crème brûlée. It'd still be nice if there were some other fruits in champagne, though.

I've also always thought using words like brioche incredibly pretentious, but they are necessary. You have to mention the autolytic character if it's there (and if it's not, then point out its absence), which comes from extended contact with dead yeast cells: yeast, lees, biscuit, bread, brioche, toast, pastry, fruitcake. I don't think any of this makes it any easier to describe uninteresting wines, but it gave me a lead into how to define wines of some quality. The day also confirmed that terms such as "Brut" are meaningless when compared to still wines, as most sparkling wines are off dry.

wines of note

Billecart-Salmon Champagne Brut Rosé NV
We sell this wine at hangingditch, though I've never had a chance to taste it before. It was outstanding, with beautiful red fruits and complex autolytic characteristics. This was one of several wines of the day which pointed towards the potential depth of non-vintage champagnes. (£60)

Jack Rabbit Sparkling White Zinfandel
I only include this because I didn't even know sparkling white Zinfandel existed. If you want a wine that tastes of a watermelon lollipop, then this is the one. It sells for £2.29. Seriously.

which one's the sparkling Zinfandel?

Tesco's Cava Brut NV
This was one of three examples of entry-level sparkling wines and was truly awful. The two worst wines on the course so far have been from Tesco. (£4.49)

Waitrose Champagne Brut NV
This non-vintage champagne from Waitrose was a much more interesting and impressive example of a supermarket label than the Tesco Cava, albeit at a higher price. Complex autolytic notes (yep), bruised apples (yep), and truffles (a fancy term for mushrooms and one I shall now use whenever possible). (£19.99)

Cloudy Bay Pelorus 2008
Cloudy Bay are so famous it's possible to forget they produce high-quality wine. This has spent four years on its lees and is still a young wine. Unlike an equivalent champagne, it has flavours of stony fruits (peach and apricot), but with autolytic characteristics and, yep, baked apples. (£18.99)

Bollinger Grande Année 2004
By this point, I'd given up spitting. Bollinger are one of Champagne's most famous names and this wine was pretty special, disgorged only in January last year, meaning that it had spent eight years on its lees. The whole shebang of champagne flavours were in this wine, and more: mushroom AND truffle, smoke and toast, bruised apples and toffee, and old brioche. That's right, old brioche. This is some wine, but best drunk now. Good job I was on hand. (£60)