The two communes that will be struck off the revised champagne growing area have been named in the French press as Germaine and Orbay l'Abbaye, both in the Marne area of France.
Two major brands, Moet et Chandon and Vranken Monopole, as well as a number of other producers, look set to lose their rights to grow Champagne grapes in these areas.
Neither company would comment this morning on the changes.
At the same time 40 new communes in Marne, Haute Marne, Aube and Aisne will be included into the exclusive agricultural area dubbed El Dorado.
The naming of the struck off communes follows the official announcement last night by French wine regulator, L'Institut national de l'origine et de la qualité (INAO), of increses to the number of growing areas from 319 communes, to 357, but it did not give further details.
INAO refused to comment on this morning's reports, saying only that the names would be published in about 15 days from now in the official French government journal.
An agricultural historian from Aisne, one of the villages in the excluded area, told journalists he had been given no explanation as to why, though he suspected it had more to do with local rivalries than soil quality.
For growers who lose their plantation rights, however, compensations will be available, including a delay in the removal of their rights.
Sylvie le Brun, who heard last night that her area, in the town of Montmirail, will be included, said, 'It's a good thing and not only for the producers. This will be good for local businesses and traders too, it'll encourage them to keep going.'
Daniel Lorson at the Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne (CIVC) said, 'It's about making sure that Champagne production succeeds in rising to the major challenge of managing its growth while preserving its uniqueness,' he told reporters.
Have your say... To post your comment on this story, email us at news@decanter.com, making sure the relevant headline is in the subject field
My question is "If the quality and authenticity of the terroir in these newly authorized communes is good enough to be included in the AC Champagne now, why was this not done decades ago ? This situation reminds me of an importer complaining about his low allocation of a Grand Cru Burgundy. The Export Manager explained very patiently that size of the vineyard, and the permitted yield were such so as to allow only a very small production of this wine. So his response was "Build another factory". And it seems to me that maybe this is what is happening in "Champagne" now, maybe. Hmmm!
Tony Hirons, Toronto, Canada
Selling Champagne the wine, or selling Champagne, the name?
May I ask whether these changes (the vineyard expansions and contractions) are motivated by a desire to improve quality or simply to vastly, and quickly raise sales and exports of champagne, regardless of the long-term effects?
History and the economics of the market dictate that the name Champagne alone is valuable. Is it to be put up on the market to assist the garnering of increased income, in a region where income is very high already? How, after all, did the name Champagne come to be associated with quality? Because people began making quality sparkling wine and marketing it as such. There's nothing magic about the name. Another name could be used, and if patience and discipline are employed (something already necessary to the making of fine wine), another name might come to have a greater cachet. But no, it's easier, and quicker, to dilute the name, and the quality, of the wine. What motivation do the makers have to keep up quality, in this scheme? Very little that I can see.
The Germans went through this method of supposedly making more money with their wines in the late sixties and beyond, using some of the same arguments, and they nearly lost the industry as a result of a perceptible fall in quality during a time of increasing production. There are already considerable 'fudge factors' permitted in the yield restrictions for the wines of this region. The only thing that I can see happening if this trend continues is the risk of the same disaster for the Champagne vignoble that the Germans suffered.
John Trombley
So much for the wonderful "Terroir" concept. When a few euros are involved, it is amazing how principles get lost.
Keith Sanderson, Preston, UK
As Dr. Michael Lim The Travelling Gourmet, a Travel, Food, Wine Writer/Editor and Wine Judge, Sacre bleu! I feel respectfully that this INAO change seems to make a mockery of the all important almost 'sacred' 'concept' of 'terroir'. What will happen to the specificity of champagne? Will these ares now produce Non Vintage lower grade champagnes? Are these areas capable of producing great vintages like Bollinger Grand Cuvee 1988 or 1995? Who owns these villages? Is the influence of politics and money behind this? Time will tell...Materialismus beherrscht, nicht wahr? Dr.Michael Lim
I was travelling when this piece was published, but to answer Tony's question (hi Tony, it's been 30 years!), most of these villages were not included simply because their mayors did not bother to put them up for delimitation prior to the 1927 law. Often this was due to the landowners being aristocrats with no interest in commerce. Expansions and contractions of AOCs go on throughout France all the time. A good example in Champagne is Fontaine-sur-Aÿ, which was added in 1990 without any hullabaloo, or the significant contraction of the region in 1951, when Champagne was faced with decreasing sales..
Tom Stevenson
Register on decanter.com absolutely free for news alerts delivered direct to your email inbox, and our fortnightly newsletter with advance notice of what’s coming up in Decanter magazine, offers, competitions and more.
PLUS registration is a one-stop shop for the Decanter magazine Archive and Decanter Fine Wine Tracker.
