Neverending fragmentation of wine regions

Probably not earth shattering news, the subdivision of the Chianti-zone into 11 sub zones. We see this also int he Champagne region, more and more producers are brinign out Crus from sites,w hich are difficult to find on map. Does this really help the consumer. Does the fragmenting of wine regions and appellations make sense and are better wines or champagnes being created.

Perhaps to understand where this is coming from one has to break wine into two historical categories. The Bordeaux model and the Burgundy model. The Bordeaux model is basically making the best wine possible with the grapes available, and when necessary blending different vineyards and grapesorts. The Burgundy model is to express "terroir" in its purest form. This means one grape, one site, one vintage. In Burgundy cistercian monks have spent centuries exploring the ideosyncracies of the region and know the soil variations etc etc. The resulting Cru system in the Côte d'Or is the paragon for terroir fanatics. 

Obvioulsy my main interest is the Champagne region. Historically the Chamapagne region has followed the Bordeaux model, vin clairs from the all over the region were blended to make the best possible champagne. House like Krug, Bollinger and  Charles Heidsieck to name a few are testimony to the quality possible ina dhering to the Bordeaux system.

Salon and Phillipponnat with Clos de Goisses were the first to identify specific terroirs and express them in single vineyard bottlings. The real revolution cam later through the likes of Selosse, Larmandier-Bernier, Vouette et Sorbée, Cedric Bouchard or Prevost where the expression of a single vineyard or terroir became the priority. Basically these producers are following the burgundian model and breaking away from the predominant Bordeaux model.

The Côte de Bars or as the french would say Aube is historically closer to Burgundy and the vicinity to Paris reinforces the gaulic need to express terroir. Cedric Bouchard with his single vineyard, one grape sort, one vintage was the role model that many emulate.

The problem starts when one asks the question, are better champagnes being created. Peter Leim in his reference book Champagne says, not every terroir is worthy of individual expression. 

As a champagne nerd I obviously find it fascinating to taste individual champagnes that express certian sites soils characterisitics and vintage characteristics however I often feel the producer is sacrificing the potential to make a better champagne. One sees this clearly in the vintage 2017. Marguet for instance did not produce all of his crus and all the vin clairs from the Cru sites went into the Shaman 17. With David Leclapart it is the same with the 2017 Aphrodisiaque. 

2011 is much maligned by journalist as a bad vintage, Antonio Galloni of Vinous goes so far to give it 70 points. Yet Jacquesson's 739 which is based on the 2011 vintage is in a really good place now. All the cru juice went into this blend and it needed time.

Without question there are sites that really deliver Chetillons is probably the best example. But in general I see the burgundisation of all regions as something that benefits nerds and sommeliers but not the general drinking public.