Not to take this off-topic, but +1. I'm curious.

Veuve-Clicquot was a bit out of my price range. The store had it for about $80. For that much I might as well throw in $30 more and get a bottle of Dom. Too bad NJ Costcos don't carry alcohol. I ended up with a bottle of Moet. Will report back Thursday!

Well I think most people think of champagne as things to shake up and pop for celebrations, and that's what I use them for. Water works at big celebrations.

Sad to say, depending on who you're bringing it to, this results in an immediate poopoo reaction. Plenty of good California bubbles. Also plenty of good bubbles from elsewhere, including France, without the name Champagne. But you have to know your crowd, and better to bring a lesser Champagne than a better something else.

First bottle of champagne... recommendations?
 

$80 for Veuve-Clicquot? Unless is is La Grande Dame (the prestige cuvée) I think that's highway robbery. I usually look to pay around $40-$50/bottle for the basic, non-vintage cuvée.

excellent choice. i like most of the french champagne house champagne.

Moet isn't bad at all. I am sure they will be pleased with your selection. Good to know that some of the more affordable options were favored in taste tests. Perhaps price doesn't equal preference.

I like the Veuve-Clicquot - it's a little less dry that the Moet IMO.

The bottom line is that Champagne is the biggest marketing rip-off in the history of alcoholic drink.
A good Spanish cava or Italian prosecco is just as good as any champagne and regularly perform just as well in blind tastings.
Equally some cheap champagnes are just as good as those costing many times more.
All these drinks are merely common blended grapes with fizz added - it's only hugely exensive marketing,product placement and aggressive legal action to protect the brand which gives champagne its cache.
That said, I am partial to a bottle of Pol Roger in the Savoy's American Bar with an old chum of mine, every time I'm in London.

Well, I'll admit that this recommendation was based upon the best quality for the dollar, not the label snob-appeal. Although, Roederer is a well respected Champagne house, so the name should still carry some prestige for their California wines - which IMHO, are superior to all but their highest end vintage French Champagnes.

This. The best widely available quality to price ratio on the market, IMHO.

California produces delightful sparkling wines.
See if your wine-person has anything by Laetitia
out of San Luis Obispo County. Average price = $20, I think.

My favorite is Moët Nectar Imperial, but it may be to sweet for most.
Other ones I like are:
Gloria Ferrer (California)
Roederer Estate (California)
Perrier Jouet (France)

Veuve-Clicquot ! All the way. It's not too expansive, about $30, looks and taste wonderfully, and classy. If you have a big group, get yourself the magnum or double magnum size, going to make all your guests super excited and picture perfect.

But...a truly great Champagne is stars in a bottle.

$80 for the basic Veuve is crazy...should be $35-40.

Nicolas Feuillante is also very good for about $25-30.