What is bad champagne? The symptoms are diverse: aggressive acidity, sometimes poorly concealed by too much sugar dosage; a lack of acidity which makes the drink heavy; a coarse aromatic palette; an obvious defect … There are also many reasons: mediocre grapes, too short aging in the cellar giving an aggressive bubble (an old champagne “less bubble” than a recent vintage), indelicate winemaker who puts too much juice at the end of pressing, giving champagnes without finesse, lacking in acidity, with reduced aging potential.
But few consumers can tell the difference between a good and a bad champagne. The word is so magical that it makes the eyes sparkle and influences judgment. We are conditioned to find a good champagne. And then the occasions to drink it, the joy of getting together, the lively discussions of the aperitif or the atmosphere of the evening often lead to drinking it more than tasting it.
Last but not least, champagne is misleading. Very different from wine in its tasting. In question: the bubbles. “They cause enormous and immediate sensory intensity”, summarizes Gabriel Lepousez, doctor in neurosciences and researcher in the perception and memory unit of the Institut Pasteur. Beautiful to the eye, the bubble stimulates the sight. It activates the touch on the tongue and the perception of acidity. Champagne wakes you up, whets your appetite. Finally, each bubble increases the aromatic tenfold and acts as a perfume mist. “Whether good or bad, there is always a strong sensory intensity, resumes the researcher. In short, champagne causes effervescence in your head, regardless of its quality. “
“Judge with a meal”
The difference between a large and a small champagne is therefore not played out on the first impression. “The facade is always flattering. It is at the end of the palate that the structure is revealed. The first maintains sensory intensity over time, while it immediately collapses with the second ”, Gabriel Lepousez analysis. Therefore, to tell the difference between the two, you have to take the time to listen to the sensations until the end.
It is not that obvious. A behavioral economics study conducted in 2002 by four researchers from the National Research Institute for Agriculture, Food and the Environment provides a radical demonstration of this. Out of five champagnes tasted blind (three from major brands, one mid-range and the last at 10 euros), the guinea pigs were unable to decide between them, both on the pleasure felt and on the price they were. ready to put. As soon as the bottle was visible (and the brand), they clearly prioritized their preferences. Initial taste is not, in itself, an adjustment variable. The psychological impact, the label, the price matter more. In order not to give up, Gabriel Lepousez has this advice: “You have to judge a champagne with a meal. We pay much more attention to it and its taste is revealed. “