Sulfur dioxide & dosage (added sugar after disgorgement) are necessary evils for champagne & sparkling wine!

If one would agree/admit that champagne/sparkling wine, by second fermentation, is by nature one of the most artificial categories of all wines, then don't be so pretentious with low sulfur/ zero dosage to make champagne/sparkling wine seemingly more natural!

Never before has champagne's post-disgorgement ageing capacity been so doubtful under current vogue of low sulphur/low to zero dosage regime!

Champagne, after being so reductive during second fermentation, is exposed to such an impact of oxygen during disgorgement that it really needs addition of sulfur dioxide to protect it from accelerated oxidization. While minimal dosage deprives champagne of achieving potential complexity through Marlliard reaction.

At its best, low sulphur/low dosage champagne offers maximum transparency of wine at the cost of post-disgorgement ageing capacity & potential complexity. Thus it's meant to be consumed as soon as released. But, more often than not, when it finally reaches its followers, it's already frustratingly oxidative or oxidized...

Finally, what's the real difference between a champagne connoisseur and a normal consumer, if one might ask? It lies in the knowledge of champagne's post-disgorgement ageing capacity & the very judgement of the same through tasting. But current vogue of low sulphur/low to zero dosage regime is doing nothing but making a mockery of those champagne connoisseurs who respect/admire champagne's ageing capacity & potential complexity.

If winemakers of natural wines 'seek purity of their work rather than perfection of the result', that's fine. But it's upto the consumers if they are willing to pay for those 'natural' but 'imperfect' (could really become defective, and not just 'sometimes') wines...

A frustrated champagne lover with less & less options of champagne that can age...