For a couple years now, the Cognac people have been flying American mixologists and liquor pros out to France for "Cognac summits," trying to turn them onto the idea of using more brandy in their cocktail creations. Whenever I encounter one of the veterans of these trips, I ask them if they were converted to the cause, and they all take on the same resigned expression and wearily say "no." The reason? Cognac is just too damn expressive to make economic sense as a cocktail component. To use it will drive up the cost of the drink.
I thought about this recently as I sat down to a long meal of Champagne and hot dogs. That's right, Champagne and hot dogs. The event took place at Bark, the great dog joint in Park Slope. So the food was tasty. As was the wine. Dom Pérignon, Veuve Cliquot, Moet & Chandon, even Krug were being poured. The idea behind the peculiar repast, as with the Cognac meetings, was to get liquor pros and writers to think differently about Champagne. The worldwide recession has not been good to Champagne. People are drinking and demanding cheaper wines, and Champagne ain't that. Even in good times, Americans think of bubbly as a special-occasion bottle, for New Year's Eve and anniversaries and births. And though wine writers continually (and correctly) preach that sparkling wine goes beautifully with most food, folks are slow to learn, and loathe to pay for a bottle that costs so much more than the meal they're eating.
Even before the economic downturn, houses like Krug were trying to get consumers to think of Champagne as something you could drink everyday—a priceless pitch given the price of a bottle of Krug. This hot dog event was part of that push. And I was willing to listen to the argument, if only for its originality.
