They're not really Champagne, but they're decent, cheap bubblies

Recently, the United States and the European Union concluded a complex wine trade agreement, with neither side getting exactly what it wanted. I guess that's what diplomacy is all about.

But one unfortunate result is that the entrenched practice of California wineries appropriating valuable European appellations, such as Champagne and Burgundy and Chablis, and using them on cheap domestic wines that bear little or no resemblance to the originals, will continue to be allowed. Names such as these are euphemistically called semi-generics, because they have been used on wines in this country since the 1800s. It is still quite common to hear chablis used as a synonym for cheap white jug wine, which must certainly dismay the makers of grand cru Burgundies from the Chablis appellation in France. And "California Champagne" — or anything else calling itself Champagne that is not actually from Champagne — may still be legal, but it is deceptive and misleading to consumers.

Under the new agreement, wineries that have been using such terms may legally continue, but new brands may not. One small step for truth in advertising, one big step for continued mislabeling.

What's wrong with the British term for cheap bubbly: fizz? That about sums it up in terms of flavor and appeal. There is nothing wrong with fizz. Let's celebrate it, and not try to pass it off as California Champagne.

Here's what you need to know: The process of making true Champagne is complex and highly regulated. Some very good sparkling wines are made in France and elsewhere (including California) that hew to the process but are not from Champagne. These wines are correctly labeled méthode champenoise, méthode traditionnelle or méthode classique.

The cheap stuff is not made by this method. For these wines, the secondary fermentation, which produces the bubbles, is done in tanks, not in bottles. In some instances, the carbonation is simply pumped in, just like soda pop. The mix of grapes can be anything. This is why these wines, despite their expensive packaging, cost so little.

I confess it's been awhile since I've sat down and confronted a robust selection of cheap fizzies. They don't taste like Champagne, and they don't compete with méthode champenoise wines from California producers such as Chandon, Roederer Estate, Scharffenberger and Schramsberg. But they might have charms all their own.

The cheapest of the cheap is André, which features a clever seal that unscrews rather than a cork in a wire cage. André sells for $4 to $5, which is about right. They make a brut and an extra dry (which should be sweeter than brut). If there is a difference between the two Andrés, I couldn't find it.

A similar style (sweet) but in a classier package is Tott's, whose brut and extra-dry versions sell for $6 to $7. Here again, the two wines, both claiming 10.5 percent alcohol, were virtually identical. Let it be noted that neither André nor Tott's made a brut that seemed in any way dry, as brut should be.

Moving along, I did find considerable differences between the brut and extra-dry bottles of Barefoot Bubbly (made by Barefoot Cellars). At $7 a bottle, I thought both were quite nice. The brut offers dry, yeasty flavors of light citrus and chalk; the sweeter wine shows plentiful tiny bubbles, flavors of peach and lime and even a hint of honey. Bellinis, anyone?

Hacienda's méthode champenoise brut ($10) is an honest attempt to make a Champagne-style sparkling wine at a bargain price, though it falls a bit short. It's quite dry, with an earthiness underlying the tart, plain fruit. But fine for quaffing, and genuinely brut-ish.

Here's a surprise: Cook's "Grand Reserve" ($5 to $6) could slip in comfortably among bubbly costing twice as much. Cook's makes a brut and an extra dry also, but the Grand Reserve (don't ask me what on Earth qualifies this as a reserve, let alone a grand one) impressed me with its smooth attack, its cascades of tiny bubbles and, yes, its hint of vanilla.

An honorable mention must go to Beringer's Sparkling White Zinfandel ($9 to $10) honestly labeled, not too sweet, pretty as a rosé should be and showing fruit flavors that seem genuine, not like fizzy Kool-Aid. It's got some grip and staying power, finishing with a flavorful mix of cherries, wet earth and clay.

What about Korbel, the nation's best-selling (and most stubbornly defensive) maker of "California Champagne"? My cutoff price for this article was $10 a bottle, which just barely disqualified them. But if anyone could take the lead in educating consumers to the differences between party fizz and real Champagne, it is Korbel.

Given their enormous success, they do not need to abuse the word "Champagne" to sell their product, which is clearly not from Champagne. Instead, they rely upon trademarked slogans such as, "For People Who Know Champagne" and "The Wine Lover's Champagne," claiming to be promoting the term here in the U.S. It certainly has promoted sales of their products — 1.2 million cases a year and growing.

Maybe Ford should start putting BMW logos on their Escorts. I'll bet sales would skyrocket.

Paul Gregutt is the author of "Northwest Wines." His column appears weekly in the Wine section. He can be reached by e-mail at wine@seattletimes.com.