Fact or fiction: is champagne failed wine?

In our fridge, there is always a bottle cold. It varies, from a piccolo to a magnum size. It just depends on what we have to celebrate. It could be Friday afternoon (piccolo) or the latest magazine that is under the printing presses (magnum!). But the festive stuff has its myths. Steffi from FavorFlav went on a quest.

Nothing is as festive and chic as a glass of bubbles, sjampoepel or – as Koen Kardashian calls it – champagneyney. But is the origin story of this sparkling wine also so festive and chic?

As many bubbles as there are in a glass of champagne (around a million per glass), there are just as many theories about the discovery of the drink. I was once told that champagne actually comes from a failed wine harvest. To mask the taste, carbon dioxide was added. Sounds plausible, I thought. I find the differences in champagne much harder to taste than those of ‘still’ wines.

Dom Pérignon

‘One of the many myths and tales,’ says wine expert Harold Hamersma. ‘Just like the story that the ‘blind’ monk Dom Pérignon was the ‘inventor’ of champagne. He was not ‘blind’ and certainly not blind to success. He knew that in the southern Limoux region, sparkling wine had been made since 1531. After a pilgrimage to Santiago de Compostela, he took care of the recipe and perfected it.’

British invention

‘But,’ continues Hamersma, ‘there is also talk of chauvinistic historical distortion. The technique of giving wine a second fermentation in the bottle is said to be British. English winemakers would add sugars to their wines because they were too acidic. The sugar made them lively and frothy.’

Luck in misfortune

This somewhat aligns with the theory that the fizz has to do with a cold climate. After all, England is not known for its tropical temperatures. The Champagne region neither. The grapes were (and are) harvested late. In the cold cellars, the grapes ferment slowly, and in winter, the temperature could drop so low that the yeast cells completely stopped working. A portion of the sugar was then not converted into alcohol and remained in the wine. The wine was bottled, and as long as it stayed cold enough, nothing happened. Once spring came and the temperature rose, the wine began to bubble: the leftover unfermented sugar was converted into carbon dioxide. In other words: bubbles and foam. Although it was seen as a mistake, it was still drunk and eventually found to be tasty.

So is it a matter of ‘oops, thanks’?

Hamersma: ‘We will not know, champagne is pretty much the wine that has the most theories surrounding it. A case of ‘reportedly’.’

Ah, well, we will most likely not drink any less because of it. Cheers!