Another question about spoof

originally posted by Bruce G.:
originally posted by Putnam Weekley:
unchaptalized champagne is spoof?
Click to expand...

I'm not even sure it's Champagne.
Do AOC regs allow for non-chaptalized Champagnes?

new or old, it depends on the efficiency/liquidity of the market rated against time\\\right?
Click to expand...

Didn't Sarah Palin say something like this the other day during the Charlie Gibson interview?
Click to expand...

No. I was paraphrasing. She said "It depends in how the market is dependent on cutting taxes lower so people can keep more of their money that they earn. That's how you grow the market, the liquidity of the financial markets so they can be efficient, the most prosperous country on earth, this country."

Are we equating dosage with chaptalization? I would be interested to know if any rules anywhere require adding sugar before or during primary alcoholic fermentation.

I always enjoy your posts by the way.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
It seems to me you would want a definition whose features you object to intellectually than a lack of definition you can't object to.
Click to expand...

True.
If people are gonna use the word then a definition, any definition, would be helpful.
 
originally posted by Putnam Weekley:
Are we equating dosage with chaptalization? I would be interested to know if any rules anywhere require adding sugar before or during primary alcoholic fermentation.

I always enjoy your posts by the way.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Putnam.

Dosage would be a form of chaptalization, but there are zero dosage Champagnes out on the market which would be unchaptalized (in so far as dosage is concerned).

I was talking about dosage needed to bring about the secondary fermentation in bottle, the addition of sugar in the form of liqueur de tirage.
It would be possible to approximate the same kind of wine by harvesting grapes at higher sugars, stopping the primary fermentation before completion (at a residual sugar of @ 2.4%) and then letting primary finish after bottling the wine.
But I believe that this is illegal. If I understand things correctly (always an iffy proposition), the Champenoise need to ferment the base wines to dryness before blending and putting the wine down en tirage. This would effectively make chaptalization obligatory by law.

Maybe someone out there with a more detailed understanding of things could verify or correct this.
 
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:

I'll reiterate my view that the essence of spoof isn't manipulation per se but manipulation towards a particular aesthetic. People who want a derogatory term to describe crisp, pure, non-ML Chablis will have to come up with a new one.
Click to expand...

I think I've come around to this point of view.
 
Dosage would be a form of chaptalization, but there are zero dosage Champagnes out on the market which would be unchaptalized (in so far as dosage is concerned).

I was talking about dosage needed to bring about the secondary fermentation in bottle, the addition of sugar in the form of liqueur de tirage.
It would be possible to approximate the same kind of wine by harvesting grapes at higher sugars, stopping the primary fermentation before completion (at a residual sugar of @ 2.4%) and then letting primary finish after bottling the wine.
But I believe that this is illegal. If I understand things correctly (always an iffy proposition), the Champenoise need to ferment the base wines to dryness before blending and putting the wine down en tirage. This would effectively make chaptalization obligatory by law.

Maybe someone out there with a more detailed understanding of things could verify or correct this.
Click to expand...
One could probably make and sell a petillant naturel, the process that you describe, in the Champagne, but it wouldn't be AC Champagne. One might get away with this under Vin de Table. And it wouldn't be Champagne, neither, in the sense that you would never achieve anywhere near the bars of la mthode champenoise. ("Never" being used in an approximative sense.) Perhaps this is a limitation imposed on the Champenois by the Tourangeaux for competitive advantage.
 
For you to ask that question, we really have reached the end of gay culture, haven't we?

I presumed Jeff was referring to pressure, no?
 
originally posted by Jeff Connell:
Maybe someone out there with a more detailed understanding of things could verify or correct this.
Click to expand...
One could probably make and sell a petillant naturel, the process that you describe, in the Champagne, but it wouldn't be AC Champagne. One might get away with this under Vin de Table. And it wouldn't be Champagne, neither, in the sense that you would never achieve anywhere near the bars of la mthode champenoise. ("Never" being used in an approximative sense.) Perhaps this is a limitation imposed on the Champenois by the Tourangeaux for competitive advantage.[/quote]

Thanks for the response.

I think the bars would be achievable if you inoculated before bottling. Other than that it's really just a function of the RS at tirage bottling, and ensuring that the secondary fermentation goes to completion.
 
Am I on the memo list? I mean, I'm honored, and I did walk down Folsom St. on a Sunday night, which was...interesting...but I feel hopelessly behind on nomenclature.

And anyway, Jeff, here in Boston "spa" is something you do with your fellow boxers.
 
I spoke this morning to a friend who was on the cleanup crew. He said they get 12 guys with push brooms at the corner at 6 PM, and they push in a line and scatter all the revelers while collecting the trash into piles. He said by 6:05 the party's over.

I may hire them for dinner parties sometimes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top