In Praise of Prosecco
My first job in the wine business was with a company whose primary focus was the selling of Prosecco wines. Nigh on ten years, the name “Prosecco” trips off the tongue with ease. Prosecco has taken it’s place in the U.S. if not the world’s standard “canon” of wines. But let me tell you, selling prosecco in the mid to late nineties was anything but easy, and this was in New York City!
The usual first (negative) reaction was “What’s that?” and the conversation usually ended with “I don’t need that”. Let’s face it, most wine retailers are lazy and know a LOT less about wine than they should, and quite a few know well less than their average customer does. At the time, Prosecco represented the unknown, and despite that the wine was and still is an inexpensive drink, it scared lots of folks away. One of the main specific objections to purchasing in some of this delightful wine was that everyone would think that it was Asti Spumante since that was after all, the only Italian sparkler that the world had any use for (wink). I always wanted to reply that that was like saying that a customer couldn’t distinguish between a Burgundy and Bordeaux because they are both red and French. The other common specific objection to Prosecco was rooted in pure snobbery. “We only serve Champagne” was the reply, nose clearly upturned. For many, Champagne’s appeal is as much about its “Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous” image as it is about flavors and aromas and textures. Drinking any kind of “sparkling wine” might cause someone at the next table to whisper “philistine” under his or her breath.
So let’s also clarify one point - the only commonalities between Prosecco and Champagne are that they are both bubbly and that they are both white - and even this is only a half-truth - see rose` Champagne. There is no rose` Prosecco. The differences are legion: Prosecco is made from the eponymous grape, it is produced in Veneto region of Italy, and it is made using the Charmat method. Champagne is made from Chardonnay or a blend of Chardonnay, Pinot Noir and Pinot Meunier, and is made in the “Methode Champanoise”. And the method of production of the respective wines is a major point of divergence. The Charmat method basically produces a still wine from Prosecco as one would do with any other white grape. Once this process is complete, the base wine is transferred to a sealable stainless steel tank called an “autoclave”. Once in the autoclave, sugar and more yeast are added to the base wine to cause a second fermentation, but instead of letting the resulting CO2 escape into the air as it does with the production of any still wine, the sealed autoclave forces the gas into solution creating bubbles in the wine. The “methode Champanoise” is far more complicated and expensive to realize. Champagne is fermented in the bottle, with a host of stages of semi-arcane operations with names like “remuage”, “dosage”, and “disgorgement” which involves moving the wine in and out of the bottle, rotating the bottles as they ferment, and adding a sugar water solution just before bottling. The Charmat process takes months at most. The methode Champanoise takes years.
Now let me be clear that Prosecco and Champagne are not being equated. Champagne is nearly always the more deep and complex drink, but it is also always much more expensive, and quite a bit harder on the palate, and the next day, the head (those who have had a few too many flutes of Champagne know what I mean). The added depth and complexity is in large degree provided by the Champagne method itself in which the dead yeast cells called “lees” are allowed to sit for years in the bottle as the wine develops. These dead yeasts over time decay, adding much of the complexity for which Chamapagne is justifiably famous. The Charmat method is much “cleaner” thereby making the wine fresher and more overtly fruity in taste and aroma, and less punishing the morning after.
But honey, look at how our little Prosecco has grown up! Now in the year 2006 there isn’t a decent wine shop in any major metropolitan area that doesn’t have at least one. And further, as the demand has grown, the number of producers entering the market has dramatically increased. This proliferation of Prosecco players has increased the competition between the houses, and consequently the quality, as each producer seeks to distinguish himself from his neighbors.
So if you’re unfamiliar with Prosecco, get familiar! Just like Champagne, they are equally at home with or without food and provide all of the festivity and drama that Champagne does without putting a gaping hole in your wallet today, and an equally gaping hole in your head tomorrow.
TOM CIOCCO
14 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Great posting on Prosecco.
I have had to rely on reviews to get a notion of how sweet Proseccos can be. Is it my imagination or is there some sanity in labeling going on that I have missed?
Comment by Big Billy from Big D — November 30, 2006 @ 5:34 pm
Hey Big Billy from Big D-
Yes, to some degree, there is a method to the madness regarding Prosecco sweetness levels…most (but not all) Proseccos use the standard developed for Champagnes years ago, from dryer to sweeter: Brut, Extra Dry, Dry, Demi-Sec. Bear in mind that these are RANGES of sweetness, i.e. from A to B for Brut, C to D for Extra Dry, etc…it is USUALLY printed somewhere on the label, but if it isn’t, the safe assumption is that it will fall in the “Extra Dry” range.
Tom Ciocco
Comment by admin — November 30, 2006 @ 5:53 pm
Spread the word–this is fun stuff!
Comment by GeneV — December 1, 2006 @ 10:19 am
Tom, I guess your “technical” writings are superior to your rantings. This is a much better piece than your “Lighten up” piece. Solution - don’t rant; ponder, postulate, propose.
Comment by Julius — December 1, 2006 @ 10:41 am
I’ve been BEGGING Gary to do a Prosecco episode. Maybe you could trick him and have the bottles lined up ready to go one afternoon.
Comment by SeanM — December 1, 2006 @ 12:51 pm
Were you the one that recommended the Monleale? If so, it was a great discovery for me. Please convince Gary to permit you to send more e-mails on Italian wines that you identify as special.
Comment by Karl Satirev — December 1, 2006 @ 12:57 pm
Prosecco is awesome. As good as expensive champagnes at half the price.
Comment by Tom T. — December 1, 2006 @ 1:51 pm
SeanM-
Gary is not an easy guy to trick. Every time I’ve tried putting a whoopee cushion on his chair, or the fake doggie doo on his desk, he not only knows just what to do, he also always knows that it was me, but I’ll try…
Tom Ciocco
Comment by admin — December 1, 2006 @ 4:13 pm
Karl-
I was indeed the source of the e-mail that went out for the Monleale Barbera a few months back - so glad that you enjoyed it. This wine is such a fine and sensitive interpretation of the the unique and underestimated terroir of the Tortonian Hills of southern Piedmont. Keep visiting us for many more such wines from Italy (and elswhere) - I’m always on the lookout for the kinds of wines that can “transport” you to a place or maybe make the crappy day you may have had a little better once you’ve finally settled in and kicked your shoes off…Thanks again.
Tom Ciocco
Comment by admin — December 1, 2006 @ 4:27 pm
Hi Tom,
Great writeup on Prosecco. I enjoyed reading it very much.
Question - I was recently introduced by a friend to a Pink Prosecco (??)
The name - Carpene Malvolti Rose Cuvee Brut. Is this a Pink Prosecco or a Rose Sparkling wine ?
Thanks and keep up the good work.
Comment by Kai — December 3, 2006 @ 11:00 pm
Hi Kai-
Unless there has been a VERY recent change to the norms for Prosecco production, “pink Prosecco” is an oxymoron: Prosecco is a white grape, so it is impossible to make rose` wine from it, so unless they’ve begun to allow red varieties into the “Prosecco di Valdobbiadene/Conegliano” (which is the oldest and “strictest” Prosecco appellation) “pink Prosecco” is a misnomer. Currently, Prosecco di Valdobbiadene/Conegliano must be 90%-100% Prosecco, and may include up to 10% of another local grape called Verdiso.
TOM CIOCCO
Comment by admin — December 4, 2006 @ 11:51 am
Great article. I went up in the hills of Veneto to a vineyard that made Prosecco and was told that it was best fresh, which is easy to say up there. First is it true and second how true?
Comment by Greg — December 4, 2006 @ 2:42 pm
Greg-
Those that you spoke to in the Veneto hills were not pulling your oenological leg…Prosecco is indeed best drunk within a year of its production - the variety just doesn’t age very well. This is the reason why you almost never see vintage-dated Proseccos. Some do exist, and most of these vintage Proseccos are higher quality drinks, but mostly it’s a bit of a gimmick to get a few more bucks for the bottle. The current non-vinatge approch espoused by most producers in Veneto allow them, like their counterparts in Champagne, to blend in a limited percentage of “back” vintage wine to retain a “house style” from year to year.
TOM CIOCCO
Comment by admin — December 4, 2006 @ 4:37 pm
Prosecco was out Thanksgiving wine this year along with a Ramey Chardonnay. The Prosecco went over so big that I wish I had bought a whole case instead of 1/2
Comment by Lawrence Leichtman — December 7, 2006 @ 3:45 pm