Given the price of Champagne, are Crémant sparkling wines from France a good alternative?
Why Champagne is Expensive
Champagne is expensive. Standard, mass produced, non-vintage (NV) Champagne from big houses like Moët & Chandon still costs at least $35. Most NV entry level Champagne hover between $45-60.
Part of what makes Champagne special and expensive is the Traditional Method (or Champagne Method), which is more work. The main difference in the process is the secondary fermentation taking place in the bottle rather than a tank (aka the Charmat Method). Thus, the traditional method produces sparkling wines with finer, longer lasting bubbles. It also means closer and generally longer contact with the lees, which gives Champagne its bready notes and texture.
There are cheaper traditional method alternatives though. For example, Cava from Spain is one type of cheaper sparkling that also uses the traditional method, but there are usually different grape varieties used in the blends. The lees time requirement is lower too.
Besides Cava, you can encounter sparklings from all over the world, like in Chile, and usually the more expensive ones specify on the label that the traditional method was used. However, they’re still generally cheaper than Champagne, especially in Chile where Champagne can cost 3 times the price it would in the US or France.
Crémant
Crémant sparkling wines from France are also cheaper alternative, traditional method sparklings. Crémant, similar to Cava, is a sparkling wine category not specific to one region. There are Crémants from several regions in France. Each is labeled “Crémant de” + the name of its region. For example, of the major wine regions, you can find Crémant d’Alsace, Crémant de Bordeaux, Crémant de Bourgogne, Crémant de Savoie, Crémant du Jura and Crémant de Loire. Here is a quick overview of all of them.
Although each has its own regional rules, styles and grape varieties, they are all required to use the traditional method and have at least 9 months lees aging (the minimum is 12 for non-vintage Champagne). Hence, they make great bargain alternatives to Champagne.
However, I will put this claim to the test. I found two NV Crémant wines to compare and see if they are more or less as satisfying as NV Champagne, which often cost twice the price.
Tasting Notes
NV Cave de Ribeauvillé Crémant d’Alsace Giersberger Brut
This was only $15 in Chile, so probably even cheaper in Europe. 80% Pinot Blanc & 20% Pinot Auxerrois. 12 months aging in bottle.
Less bready and more floral than the Cremant du Jura, but it’s fruitier, riper with more sugar, but still Brut (dry). Medium acid and body. Bubbles are less fine but a bit more persistent. 89
NV Montbourgeau Crémant du Jura Brut Zéro
This was about $25 in Chile, which is a bargain given that it’s relatively small production. Organic. 100% Chardonnay. From their younger estate vines in L’Etoile. Fermentation in stainless steel with malolactic. Spends at least 18 months on lees. Brut Zéro means no dosage (no sugar added).
These are actually single vintage wines, but the year is not mentioned on the label.
Lots of bready notes, clean, dry, medium acid, some minerally salinity, fine bubbles but not the most persistent. I like the yeasty notes overall which I find comparable to Champagne, but it lacks the length of better Champagne. However, there’s more minerality. 90
Conclusion
Both these Crémants have similar overall quality to good NV Champagne. Each has some differences due to their terroir and/or varieties, but they provide most of what you look for in Champagne: some yeasty notes from 12+ months on lees, fine bubbles and restrained sweetness. The Crémant du Jura with no dosage is more for savory foods while the Crémant d’Alsace fruitier side could also pair with some dessert like apple pie but also savory or spicy dishes.