.
Feedback

Break Out the Local Bubbly on New Year's Eve

Add sparkle to your celebration with a glass of "stars" from Sonoma, Napa or Mendocino wineries.

We have several seasons in North Bay wine country—bud-break and the first wave of wine tourists, spring and fall passport events, the crush: Celebrations of cabernets and pinot, chardonnays and zin. But at the end of the year, 'tis the bubbly that takes center stage.

Champagne, as most local oenophiles (Latin for "wino") here knows all too well, refers specifically to the sparkling wines made in the Champagne region of France, centered around the town of Aix. Large “Negociant” champagne houses that purchase much of their fruit, such as Veuve Cliquot, Bollinger, Roederer, Tattinger, Perrier Jouet and Nicolas Feuillatte, dominate the international markets.

Other quality sparkling wine are produced in other parts of France and the world. Cremant from Burgundy, Limoux, the Loire Valley, Prosecco from Italy, Cava from Spain and sparkling wine from Argentina deliver quality and value-driven sparklers.

But the favorites hereabouts are doubtless the "California sparklers" - not  fireworks, but the bubbly wines made here in Napa, Sonoma and Mendocino counties. Most of these are made "methode champenoise," with the yeast and sugar added to the wine just before bottling, so CO2 bubbles and a slight sweetness are created in each individual bottle.  

The bubbles, along with the intoxicating effect of alcohol (usually around 12%), led to the charming legend of Dom Pérignon himself saying, " Come quickly, I am drinking the stars!" upon discovering the method.  

Some of the local "stars" of sparkling wine include Napa Valley's J Schram by Schramsberg, the Calistoga winery founded in 1862 by Jacob Schram, although it only turned to sparklers in the 1960s under Jack Davies. Their 2005 vintage, just named wine of the week by the Anchorage Daily News (honestly!), retails for $110. Slightly more affordable is their 2008 Blanc de Noirs at $39 a bottle.

Another "wine of the week" with a similar name comes from Sonoma County, where Healdsburg's J Vineyard's NV (non-vintage) Cuvée 20 Brut heads the Santa Rosa Press Democrat's list this week. It's more of a bargain, at $28 retail, and among the least expensive of J's offerings.

Speaking of bargains, the reliable "best buy" in the category comes from Korbel, on Guerneville Rd. in the Russian River Valley AVA. Their NV Brut is widely available for about $12, sometimes under $10. The bone-dry Korbel Natural is harder to find, but more appealing to this palate, for about the same price.

The Iron Horse winery outside of Sebastopol, West Sonoma County, is a reliable producer of quality brut from the Green Valley sub-appellation of the Russian River Valley, such as their Wedding Cuvée, currently a 2008 vintage. It retails for $38 for the usual 750 ml size, or $375 for an etched Jeroboam (3 liters).

The most celebrated regional appellation for sparkling wine is probably Carneros, split between Napa and Sonoma counties. It's ably represented by Domaine Carneros in Napa, whose 2008 Carneros Brut  is very fairly priced at $27, though once again pricier bottles are on the wine list. Visit their sprawling estate on Hwys. 121 / 12 for tastings of their available line, up to their dreamy Le Rêve Rosé at $110.

On the Sonoma side of Carneros, Gloria Ferrer delivers a line of bubblies currently spearheaded by their 2007 Blanc de Blanc at $32, though once again a broad range of styles, vintages and blends are available for tasting at their Caves and Vineyards on Carneros Highway 121, the lower end of Arnold Drive southwest of Sonoma.

Other Napa-based wineries that specialize in sparkling wine include Yountville's a somewhat more affordable label on the whole. The Blanc de Noir will run you only $22, as will the Brut Classic, while the 2007 Carneros Brut tops off the price list at $45.

Then there's Mumm, on Silverado Trail in Rutherford, one of the signature sparklers of Napa Valley and associated with France's G.H. Mumm. Be prepared to spend a bit more for their offerings, but there are more to choose from: the entry-level Cuvée M is $22, the Brut Reserve is $38, up to their DVX Rose at $110.

And Mendocino? The third county in our sparkling triptych is best represented by Roederer Estate, who exclusively produce sparkling wines. Understandable, as their parent company is Champagne Louis Roederer, who have been making the real champagne since 1776 in France. Don't let the lineage scare you: their Estate Brut is an affordable $23, the select vintage L'Ermitage, currently 2003, is $47.

Another Mendocino wine to keep an eye out for is Scharffenberger, also located in the heart of Anderson Valley on the last leg of Hwy. 128.  Founded in 1981, and for a time known as Pacific Echo, the winery now produces their Brut Excellence by the traditional methode champenoise, a blend of chardonnay and pinot noir grapes for a value $20, but you can easily find it for under $15.

With all that choice of quality, regional sparkling wines, André need never pass through your lips again. Especially not for New Year's.

TELL US: We want to hear about your favorite local bubbly. Let us know in the comments section below.

Follow Sonoma Valley Patch on Facebook and Twitter.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Sonoma Valley Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Loading comments ...
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Ralph Hutchinson May 18, 2013 at 08:51 pm
I still say the People will be wise to these bush league tactics and the residents of Sonoma willRead More vote against the destruction of the Plaza and our small town feel. We won''t sell out like Napa or Healdsburg and certainly we're not like the 101 corridor.
Ralph Hutchinson May 17, 2013 at 09:38 am
Another Cuban party perhaps in the works at the Kenwood Ranch, chompin on contraband cigars, etc?Read More Grand prize trips to Cuba with Californians Building Bridges and rub elbows with fatcat Politicians? Or maybe Kings tickets?
Ralph Hutchinson May 17, 2013 at 11:37 am
What kind of conflicts of interest are present with Nancy Simpson? She is on the County Landmarks,Read More formerly affiliated with Sonoma Valley Visitors Bureau and Wendy Peterson? Are all these agencies and bureaus interlocked some receiving TOT tax revenues, and all standing to benefit from anything Darius Anderson can build?
Ralph Hutchinson May 17, 2013 at 11:32 am
Is Darius really after a casino in Sonoma either at General Vallejo State Park next to his RamekinsRead More location or up valley at Sonoma Development Center?
Ralph Hutchinson May 17, 2013 at 11:31 am
Ms. G doesn't even live in Sonoma does she? Isn't it Cloverdale? Wasn't she a big proponent of theRead More bypass in her town?
sal nero May 15, 2013 at 08:11 pm
The Sonoma Sun's website (but not SunFMTV) has been down for hours. What's happening ?
Ralph Hutchinson May 15, 2013 at 03:25 pm
Did Darius Anderso agree to buyout The Patch and have the archives and comments removed as part ofRead More this new software update? Afterall "Cows Not Casinos", Measure A Rosewood Hillside hotel, and Measure C Hospital Eminent Domain would be better if the People of Sonoma forgot all about it and let his hotel venture fly easier.
sal nero May 15, 2013 at 03:20 pm
When Bolling "lost" his comments on Sonoma Valley Bank and then the whole archive heRead More blamed a glitch yet they have never been restored. That has benefitted the Hotel Index-Tribune and allowed a cover up of key historical dates and facts. Please hurry and restore the Patch's missing blogs and comments ASAP so that the confidence the Sonoma Patch has attained is not damaged. Thanks
Ralph Hutchinson May 15, 2013 at 03:09 pm
The comments to various articles and blogs are also completely missing. Please restore asap.
Dee Baucher May 18, 2013 at 09:37 am
I write about the issue of the BRACA test, because I am someone who developed breast cancer, and whoRead More needed the test. Even though I already had breast cancer, the decision of whether to have a bilateral mastectomy (rather than just a removal of the cancer with a "lumpectomy" or the removal of only one, effected, breast) was dependent upon the results of that test. If I had a genetic marker that indicated I was likely to develop more breast cancers, there would be no reason to avoid having both breasts removed at once. Even though my doctors recognized the importance of getting this test done before surgical decisions were made, the insurance company was resistant to providing coverage for the test. There were many heated phone conversations with the insurance company, and many letters of documentation before I was finally allowed to have the test. The basic test for BRAC I and BRAC II (the 2 main genes identified) cost $3,000. However, there are even more specialized tests for the smaller BRAC genes (rare genes that are less common) that cost thousands of dollars extra, and would have been helpful because of my family history. I was not able to fight with the insurance company for permission to obtain those extra tests, since I was already weak and ill from the chemotherapy, at that time. It is not reasonable or acceptable for women to have to fight to get necessary tests performed, because of excessive charging for those tests, and resistance of the medical insurance companies to provide coverage to obtain them. This situation needs to be changed. I hope that Angelina Jolie's story will bring attention to this issue, and will help our Supreme Court to recognize the unfairness in allowing a company to lay claim on a "patent" of our genes. The main research to provide the exact mapping of our genes was provided by the "Human Genome Project", which was primarily paid for by the US taxpayers, via that extensive NIH study. The Myriad company did some further research to refine knowledge on the BRACA genes; but they should not be allowed a total patent which blocks all other US labs from performing tests on that same part of our DNA. That is unreasonable in terms of the amount of profit they are claiming, and unfair to US humans who should be able to claim ownership of their own DNA.
Dee Baucher May 18, 2013 at 08:50 am
I am not used to Hollywood-types having the type of integrity and honesty, that Ms. Jolie displayedRead More with her NY Times revelation. I commend her for having the courage to act proactively with surgical removal of her breasts, in addition to the planned removal of her ovaries. She lost her beloved mother to the disease, and she clearly understands the devastation that would befall her own children (if she were to develop the types of cancers that her genetic makeup render her vulnerable to). I agree with her decision, and hope that I would have the same strength, if confronted with the genetic evidence that she was able to have documented with the BRACA testing. Unfortunately, many women who would benefit in the same way, from advance knowledge about their genetic vulnerability to those cancers, are denied the ability to get the tests. The company that "owns" the test, by virtue of their assertion that they "own the patent" on that identified portion of our DNA, charge $3,000.00 for the test. That cost is too high for most women in the US to easily afford, and our health insurance typically refuses to cover the test for most women. There is currently a case before the US Supreme Court challenging the idea of a medical company owning our genes. Many of us are hopeful that the court will halt this company from claiming this patent, so that laboratories all over the country can provide the test to us inexpensively, and therefore it will be available to all who should have it. The costs for the type of very sophisticated plastic surgery/ breast reconstruction that Ms. Jolie underwent, are also extremely high. It is doubtful that insurance or Obamacare will provide coverage for that type of costly prophylactic surgery. Those are battles that women will need to fight in the future, when more women become informed about their personal risks and choices.