In response to some comments I received from my previous article, Breaking Bordeaux: Marketing wine to a new generation, I decided to pen a response to the overwhelming feedback in my DMs from my peers who said, "Natural wine is all good and well, but please don’t feed the animals with that Pet-Nat stuff (they didn’t say stuff), we much prefer Champagne and Cap Classique." Which got me thinking: Why are people so wrong?
Yes... wrong. Not about your preference per se, but about indulging the question in the first place (so, maybe I'm questioning the fact that you have a preference). Let me explain: I believe that saying you won't drink Pet-Nat (Pétillant Naturel) or Méthode Ancestrale over Champagne or Cap Classique is like saying you won't eat hamburgers over steak dinners. Which is obscene.
There is a time and a place for both these delicious meals to be savoured and enjoyed, because they are both equally enjoyable, and your preference should really come down to the occasion.
Bias
If you're the type of person who doesn't enjoy the slightly primal act of handling your food with your hands, mitigating the spilling sauces and toppings that slide around like they're auditioning for "Swan Lake on Ice", just for the feral joy of eating with impunity; then keep stiffening that upper lip. Continue to box yourself into the world of prime cuts, micro-herbs, and napkin origami. But I refuse to believe that we all live a life that Prussian (all of the time).
The simple fact is, that we all need to let loose sometimes. We need to wipe the mustard from our faces with our hands, and then lick it off while staring our dinner partner dead in the eye. And this is what Pet-Nat is. It is not the refined sensation-labyrinth that Champagne is. Pet-Nat, unlike Champagne, won't be the Cartier bracelet you wear to the charity ball. It’s more like the bandana you tie to your head while having a "watch this" moment with friends.
The bias among many wine drinkers against Pet-Nat and Méthode Ancestrale in favour of Méthode Champenois is the sticking point here, and I think it's largely due to this misinformed comparison. This causes Champagne drinkers to scoff loudly at bottles of Pet-Nat on store shelves and wine lists, but the truth is that these two beverages should not be compared. The grapes used can be vastly different and the method of production differs too. Do we compare grappa to brandy? No, we do not. Do we compare pizza to quiche? No? Can we enjoy both these things in different circumstances? Absolutely!
"Methode"
So let's break it down. The basic difference between making Pet-Nat and Méthode Ancestrale vs Champagne is that the former goes through one fermentation and Champagne does two, because it's an overachiever.
To further complicate things, Champagne goes through something called riddling. Where during the second fermentation, bottles are stored (almost) upside down, like a drunk on a park bench, so that the dead yeast, or lees can settle in the neck of the bottle, get frozen, and ejected like a villain from the passenger seat of a Bond-car. Winemakers then add what's called dosage which tops up the bottles and adds the desired amount of sugar to the wine before sealing them with corks and cages.
Pet-Nat and Méthode Ancestrale are far more simple. Once fermentation of the grape juice starts, the wine is bottled and sealed with a crown cap and well... Bob's your uncle (I like to think that one of the 16th century Monks in Limoux, who accidentally discovered this method was named Bob too). In 1668, a gentleman by the name Dom Perignon (you might recognise him by his hysterical price tags) then started playing around with a second fermentation in Champagne (the place) before corking and caging his wines. Thus creating Méthode Traditionelle, now known as Méthode Champenois (very mindful, very demure, very Dom-Perig-natrix). A method we use in South Africa too, which we call Cap Classique.
A comparison that holds no wine
By now I'm sure you see that while Pet-Nat and Champagne are both considered sparkling wines, their respective production methods are very different. To top that off, Champagne is predominantly made with Chardonnay, Pinot Noir, and Meunier.
Pet-Nat, on the other hand, can be made with pretty much anything. B. Vintners makes a Méthode Ancestrale out of Pinotage, Rall makes one out of Cinsault, and Vino PH makes one with a splash of Bukketraube in the blend.
Flavour profiles in Pet-Nat can also differ vastly from big mouthfuls of fruit to bready-autolytic and even cidery flavours that refresh the soul better than your favourite beer would. In fact, from a retail standpoint, I often offer customers certain Pet-Nats and Méthode Ancestrales in place of their beer or cider purchases as a fun, refreshing and delicious alternative.
So, just because the loud-mouth soup in your glass contains bubbles and is made from grapes (much like Grapetizer beeteedubz), that doesn't mean that they should be categorised together. Champagne is a representation of fine tuning and regulating the berries off of an alcoholic beverage, which results in a drink, seen world-over, as a symbol of celebration and opulence. Pet-Nat is not that. While Champagne woke up early and ironed their underwear (amongst other detail mongering obsessions) before making their way to the charity ball, Pet-Nat woke up with a fright at mid-day, wolfed down half a cold pizza, and sauntered into the day with tomfoolery in its heart. Both drinks are made for occasions, just not the same one.