By Lenn Thompson, Executive Editor
Why isn't there more traditionally made sparkling wine in the Finger Lakes?
Yes, I know it's more expensive to make than many wines. Yes, I know that it requires a serious investment time-wise. And yes, I know that the prices wineries need to charge for methode champenoise wines may be higher than some are willing to spend.
But when done well, Finger Lakes sparkling wine shows so much potential.
Take Lamoreaux Landing Wine Cellars 2006 Blanc de Blanc ($25) for example. They don't make it often -- the last one was from the 2001 vintage -- but when they do, it's a standout in an admittedly and sadly narrow field.
Made with 100% chardonnay, this 2010 NYCR Wines of the Year finalist shows crisp aromas of pear, Golden Delicious apple with hints of toasted brioche and marzipan.
Dry and very apple-y on a medium-bodied palate, there is a faint nuttiness to the apple and apple skin flavors with brioche lurking in the background. Super-fresh acidity really dries out the finish, which lingers nicely.
Producer: Lamoreaux Landing Wine Cellars
AVA: Finger Lakes
ABV: 12%
pH: 2.97
TA: 9.2 g/L
Case Production: 52 (Lot 1)
Price: $25*
Rating: 88
By rights, the Finger Lakes should be an important sparkling wine region. The fact is, not very many wine drinkers, let alone Americans in general, drink sparkling wine with any regularity.
The best sellers around here are not MC wines -- they're either transfer method or Charmat. I can tell you categorically that Methode Champenoise production costs are far too high to make the venture worth it, unless you're happy selling small amounts through the tasting room (that's what we do, and I assume that's LL's model too) or are prepared to let other products effectively subsidize that wine.
Posted by: Peter Bell / Fox Run | April 13, 2011 at 09:04 AM
Alas, I missed this wine when I visited Lamoreaux in December. If I recall, their Merlot and 76 West red blend were the highlights of my visit there.
I hadn't previously thought much about the method of finger lakes sparkling. Are there any producers that make sparkling via multiple methods? (I can't imagine it would make much practical sense to do it, other than a fun experiment for the winemaker) It would be very interesting to compare the results.
Posted by: Kevin Welch | April 13, 2011 at 09:54 AM
Peter: Do you see that situation evolving at all over time? Is the "average" Finger Lakes tasting room visitor changing? (I hate using "average" but you know what I mean)
Kevin: Off the top of my head, I'm not familiar with any wineries doing multiple methods of bubbly, but I'm sure someone reading this post might be.
Posted by: Lenn Thompson | April 13, 2011 at 11:32 AM
Lenn:
Not really! The fact is, there are some very compelling fizzy wines made in the "other" styles, that seduce not only wine judges but the wine drinking public. That's not likely to change. So why not make wines in those styles, given that they are so much easier and less expensive?
This comes from someone who almost has an o****m when he tastes really great MC wine; so I am not exactly editorializing here, just being realistic. All of us have to look at financial bottom lines, last time I checked.
This is a good dialogue to have, though. It wasn't so long ago that we were here trying to decide if Riesling was really worth pushing...
Posted by: Peter Bell / Fox Run | April 13, 2011 at 12:15 PM
We produce three types of sparkling wine, using two different methods here at PBW. Our "Nautique" brand of sparkling Blanc de Blancs and Blanc de Noirs are produced using a modern variant of Charmat (Prosecco-style) and we produce a traditional method sparkler that is en tirage presently and will remain there for a couple more years. It will carry the PBW name.
As Peter pointed out quite correctly, it is a very, very expensive proposition to produce sparkling wine in a traditional method. But the Charmat offers a much less expensive way of creating the bubbles. We're very happy with the results so far.
And since Prosecco now outsells Champagne in a lot of the world it's clear that more and more people want sparkling wine, but for less. Production of Prosecco is nearly equal with Champagne, incredibly: 300MM bottles and just 10 years ago it was only 5MM bottles.
Posted by: jim silver | April 13, 2011 at 12:29 PM
Jim: And here I thought the Nautique bubbly was a one-off never to e done again. I'm guessing it's an example of your customers having serious say.
The romantic in me has a soft spot for traditionally made bubbly, but I'm not going to pretend I haven't enjoyed charmat wines plenty of times.
Posted by: Lenn Thompson | April 13, 2011 at 03:38 PM
It took me a second to figure out what o****m was.
Posted by: Michael Gorton, Jr. | April 13, 2011 at 05:21 PM
IIRC, Glenora makes both bulk method and fermented in the bottle styles of sparkling wine.
Drank some very nice method champenoise sparklers in the Bairrada region of Portugal, including red ones made from a fiercely tannic red grape called Baga. The ones with 2 years en tirage can sell for $10 and the premium ones (5 years en tirage) might be double that. Hand riddled, etc. Wonder how they do it?
Posted by: Cyclist | April 13, 2011 at 07:05 PM
I tasted it at the winery and liked it enough to buy a few bottles. Then I ended up ordering a half case, along with other wines. I wonder what it will taste like next year, and the year after.
I've had Finger Lakes sparklers from Atwater and Wiemer, and the Clinton Vineyard Seyval mc from the Hudson Valley. I've got a bottle of Brut from Millwood in my fridge. NY is already making some terrific sparkling wines.
I look forward to trying more.
Posted by: Arthur Kaye | June 24, 2011 at 12:28 PM