Mark Lipton wrote:

Did you not read about the lawsuit brought by the Napa wine producers
association against Fred Franzia's Bronco Wine Co. for the
misappropriation of the name "Napa"? Try making a wine in Idaho and
labeling it as your "Sonoma Cuvée" and see what happens when you try to
sell it...

Never heard of Dungeness, WA? ;-)

Yes but Dungeness crabs in stores nationwide do not have to come from
Washington. They come from all along the west coast. It is a species.

I agree. So why should someone from California be able to label their
wine as Burgundy? That sounds like a double standard to me.

They shouldn't as it would confuse the consumer because it's too late to
change. I do not wish the USA to adopt such practices. Labeling a wine
NAPA is meaningless to me. Just put the appellation etc. on the label.

On Mar 29, 10:32�am, Miles wrote:
Steve Slatcher wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:54:55 -0700, Miles wrote:

Burgundy wines are a blend of 3 or 4 grapes. �

The vast majoritiy of Burgundies are made from a single variety. �Not
that it affects your arguments otherwise I suppose.

I've never cared for Bufundies but was under the impression most were
blends. �At least whats on the common stock shelves here which could be
just the lower end mass produced stuff.

Actually, as stated here before. Basically, red burgundy is pinot
noir and white is chardonnay and they do not blend varietals. I'm not
sure I understand what you mean by "common stock shelves" since there
really aren't a lot of mass producers in burgundy. Perhaps Jadot and
Drouhin? http://www.thewinenews.com/aprmay02/cover.html

Bi!! wrote:

I'm not
sure I understand what you mean by "common stock shelves" since there
really aren't a lot of mass producers in burgundy.

I'll have to check next time at the store. There are cheap jugs of
Burgundy I see often. While I love a good California or Oregon PN their
styles are vastly different than any Burgundy I've tried. Perhaps I've
tried the wrong ones or the availability where I am is limited.

On Mar 29, 11:36�am, Miles wrote:
Bi!! wrote:
I'm not
sure I understand what you mean by "common stock shelves" since there
really aren't a lot of mass producers in burgundy. �

I'll have to check next time at the store. �There are cheap jugs of
Burgundy I see often. �While I love a good California or Oregon PN their
styles are vastly different than any Burgundy I've tried. �Perhaps I've
tried the wrong ones or the availability where I am is limited.

Where are you? I haven't seen "jugs" of actual burgundy wines since
it's generally quite expensive. If you click on the link that I
posted in my previous post you'll get a better idea of why burgundy is
so pricey. It's almost impossible these days to find it at under $30
a bottle since the land parcels are so tiny and production is so
limited. Warning-do not search for great burgundy. Once you've
tasted a great burgundy, from a good producer, in a good vintage,
properly stored and aged, from a Grand Cru vineyard you will be moved
to tears and will then spend the rest of your life searching for the
holy grail of burgundy only to be crushed by the countless lesser
wines that you will encounter.

Miles, I do not disagree with you but it is more than that. See, in my
opinion once we became part of a global economy you have to take other
trading partners into consideration.

While packaging laws vary from country to country some countries are very
protective of their names. But for whatever the legal reasons we do not
have to conform on geographical preferances. And that I beleived was the
result of the WTO on some of the cases I have mentioned.

In my opinion this is a clashing of cultures and I beleive cheese in France
is also geographical in naming. In my opinion we should NOT name items in
the geographical names no matter what.

Would Schramsberg taste less good if it was called Sparkling wine vs
Champaigne (they do not call it Champaigne by the way...that is an example.

How about KOBE beef, the imitation Wagyu beef does NOT taste the same but
its good at 25% the cost. Doesn't georgraphy mean something?

"Miles" wrote in message
...
Richard Neidich wrote:

While I understand this ruling from WTO I do not personally apply it the
same way to wine. But the majority do in the world. And unless there
are treaties and respect given this debate cannot really change minds.

I think most here are missing my point. The way wines are labeled in the
USA works very well to inform the consumer. I feel the way it's done in
France etc. is a limitation to the market. There may very well be
excellent 'Burgundy' style wines made outside the Burgundy region but
marketing conventions make it difficult to gain in the publics eye. That
type of limitation doesn't exist in the USA and I prefer it that way.

Hi Miles,

On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 07:44:39 -0700, Miles wrote:

I think most here are missing my point. The way wines are labeled in
the USA works very well to inform the consumer.

Not really. You are assuming that almost the only important factor in
the flavour of a wine is the grape variety from which it is made. The
place and type of soil upon which these grapes are grown isa certaily
AS important and arguably more important for some varietals.

You only have to drink the muck called "Merlot" in most parts of the
the USA (Walla walla is an honourable exception) and contrast that wth
a Pomerol, or a Merlot from Tessin in Switzerland or one from Vilyán
in Hungary.

While I've no objection to mantioning the grapes that have gone to
make up a wine, the US naming procedure leads to as great a likelyhood
of error and customer disappointment as the French, Italian, Spanish
and German model does. The truth is that ignorant buyers will very
possibly be disappointed no matter what system of naming you have.

I feel the way it's done in France etc. is a limitation to the market.

No it isn't. It does on the other hand demand a liny bit of
application in that in the French naming system, you can treat the
name "Pomerol" as a kind of mnemonic for "Merlot", the phrase "red
Burgundy" (despite the odd exceptions) is a mnemonic for Pinot Noir,
and so on. It's really not beyond the wit even of the most limited
varietally fixated drinker to get that. In any case increasingly the
variety IS being mentioned, even if it's not supposed to be.

There may very well be excellent 'Burgundy' style wines made outside the Burgundy region

I've never tasted one. I've taste Pinot Noir wines from most leading
PN growing areas in the world and none of them taste anything like a
half way decent Burgundy. You may not accept that, but anyone here
who's drunk the stuff will agree with me. Not even Domaine Drouhin,
whose family are eminent Burgundy negociants and producers in Beaune,
and who have an excellent estate in theWillamette valley, make a wine
that much resembles a good Burgundy, delicious though it is _in its
own right_. It doesn't NEED the burgundy name and cachet to sell under
its own right. Anymore that does a decent sparkler from Germany or
Spain or California need to pass itself off as Champagne. Actually
it's a silly thing for most of them to do, as most (I'd say about 70%)
true champagnes are awful muck anyway.

That type of limitation doesn't exist in the USA and I prefer it that way.

Fine. Then buy US wines, and let those of us prepared to make the
minimal effort to remember that "Hermitage" means Syrah buy that. But
please don't seek to impose the naming conventions of what is, after
all a very minor wine producing country on other countries which have
been making wine for 2000 years and in quantities that exceed that of
the USA by at least an order of ten.

All the best
Ian

Bi!! wrote:

do not search for great burgundy. Once you've
tasted a great burgundy, from a good producer, in a good vintage,
properly stored and aged, from a Grand Cru vineyard you will be moved
to tears and will then spend the rest of your life searching for the
holy grail of burgundy

Probably true! Years ago I was quite fine with my case of beer and some
$5 box wine. Then my folks moved to Napa area so I was introduced to
some 'real' wines when visiting. Theres no going back! But my wine and
beer budget sure increased substantially!

Richard Neidich wrote:

How about KOBE beef, the imitation Wagyu beef does NOT taste the same but
its good at 25% the cost. Doesn't georgraphy mean something?

Geography does mean something and is why USA wines state their
appellation. However, there can be rot gut wine from the same region as
a very top notch wine. I just prefer the way it's done in the USA.
Works for me as a consumer just fine.

Mike Tommasi wrote:

If the provenance does not imply anything, then why indicate it at
all?

You can buy a lousy Burgundy and a top notch one. You can also buy a
top notch PN from outside the Burgundy region. It comes down to ones
particular tastes rather than a name. Two PN's from the exact same
vineyard but different wineries, winemakers etc. can be totally different.

The other extreme is to place so many limitations on an appellation that
all the wines end up tasting the same, often modeled around some fuzzy
notion of what is "typical", a very dangerous concept indeed because it
tends to level everything and homogenize taste. Concepts of the
"typical" are so subjective that they are not even worth discussing.

I prefer to let a winemaker do what he knows best and let the consumer
decide what they like. Gives the consumer more variety.

Munged wrote:
Not really. You are assuming that almost the only important factor in
the flavour of a wine is the grape variety from which it is made.

Not true. Particular vineyard, winery, winemaker, etc. are all
important. The vineyard and varietal alone do not make a wine.
Besides, in the USA both are labeled as they should be.

You only have to drink the muck called "Merlot" in most parts of the
the USA (Walla walla is an honourable exception) and contrast that wth
a Pomerol, or a Merlot from Tessin in Switzerland or one from Vilyán
in Hungary.

Could be true. I have no desire for US Merlots. They for the most part
lack any complexity, just nothing there of interest. Yet, they are one
of the most widely purchased reds in the USA. I have no idea why.


While I've no objection to mantioning the grapes that have gone to
make up a wine, the US naming procedure leads to as great a likelyhood
of error and customer disappointment as the French, Italian, Spanish
and German model does. The truth is that ignorant buyers will very
possibly be disappointed no matter what system of naming you have.

To find a good wine one does need to be somewhat educated on the matter.
Sometimes I feel the EU's method goes the way of thinking the consumer
is too stupid to find the wine they like on their own.

I've never tasted one. I've taste Pinot Noir wines from most leading
PN growing areas in the world and none of them taste anything like a
half way decent Burgundy.

Thats personal preference. I've tasted lousy PN's and great ones from
California and Oregon. I really haven't cared at all for the Burgundies
I've tried. Just a different style overall than what I prefer.


You may not accept that, but anyone here
who's drunk the stuff will agree with me.

I maybe wrong but it seems that most in here prefer French and other
European wines to California, Oregon and Washington wines. I'm the
exception. I greatly prefer the big california reds over their French
counterparts. Generally speaking they are different styles rather than
one being better than the other. Just depends on personal tastes.

Fine. Then buy US wines, and let those of us prepared to make the
minimal effort to remember that "Hermitage" means Syrah buy that. But
please don't seek to impose the naming conventions of what is, after
all a very minor wine producing country on other countries which have
been making wine for 2000 years and in quantities that exceed that of
the USA by at least an order of ten.

The people and skills that started making wines in the USA came from
those 2000 year old wine making countries. They didn't start from
scratch with no knowledge. So that point is moot. If you prefer EU
wines then by all means buy them but please do not tell me they are
better. Thats an opinion and all are entitled to such. As to Syrahs, I
prefer Aussie Shiraz over California or Rhone styles but all are good.

"Miles" wrote in message
...
Munged wrote:

. I greatly prefer the big california reds over their French counterparts.


is not that the nub of the "problem" : they are not counterparts, they are
simply different.

Traditional wines grew into what they are to complement local foods.

Wines from new countries serve a different and wider market.

It's like trying to compare American football and rugby - certain surface
similarities but fundamentally different beasts.

pk

PK wrote:

is not that the nub of the "problem" : they are not counterparts, they
are simply different.

They're different styles generally. People drink both with or without a
meal depending on their own preferences. I do agree there are
differences in culture but they overlap quite a bit.

Hi again Miles

On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 15:05:59 -0700, Miles wrote:

Munged wrote:
Not really. You are assuming that almost the only important factor in
the flavour of a wine is the grape variety from which it is made.

Not true. Particular vineyard, winery, winemaker, etc. are all
important. The vineyard and varietal alone do not make a wine.
Besides, in the USA both are labeled as they should be.

Well, the only real difference between the way wines are labelled in
France is that in the areas which have been making world renowned
wines for hundreds of years, the varieties aren't traditionally
mentioned. In Burgundy which was the case you mentioned, given that
almost anyone knows that Burgundy equates to "Pinot Noir" when red and
"Chardonnay" when white, A wine that calles itself "Chambolle-Musigny"
from Domaine Arnaud is going to be a village wine (since no vineyard
is mentioned) from a particular grower, and the year will be
mentioned. What's the problem?


Could be true. I have no desire for US Merlots.

Apart from some of the better ones from Walla walla, neither do I. But
yet Merlots from Pomerol (and the other places I mentioned) can be
world class wines. Which is my point that the area of production - the
terroir - and what the grower makes of it is AS important - if not
more so - than the variety. Yet the American naming system puts most
of the emphasis on the variety. My view is that this is more limited
than the European model where the variety is implicit in the area, and
the _important_ information - like who made it and where and when are
all on the label,


While I've no objection to mantioning the grapes that have gone to
make up a wine, the US naming procedure leads to as great a likelyhood
of error and customer disappointment as the French, Italian, Spanish
and German model does. The truth is that ignorant buyers will very
possibly be disappointed no matter what system of naming you have.

To find a good wine one does need to be somewhat educated on the matter.
Sometimes I feel the EU's method goes the way of thinking the consumer
is too stupid to find the wine they like on their own.

Not at all. Quite the reverse in fact. It assumes that a drinker knows
that such and such a grape variety comes from a region and are
prepared to make a small effort to choose the region they like and the
grower they can trust.

I've never tasted one. I've taste Pinot Noir wines from most leading
PN growing areas in the world and none of them taste anything like a
half way decent Burgundy.

Thats personal preference.

No it's not. I said "like" not "better than". I'm seeking to contest
your point that using the label "burgundy" as if it were valid for
any Pinot Noir no matter where from, has no basis in reality. If there
was much chance that one could taste an Oregon Pinot Noir and think it
was a Burgundy, then you might have a case. But I don't believe one
can. I've had lovely wines in the Willamette, and in California from
PN, but I can't think of one that could be confused with a Burgundy.

I really haven't cared at all for the Burgundies
I've tried. Just a different style overall than what I prefer.

That's entirely legitimate, but there's a long way between saying "I
don't like Burgundy" and " There may very well be excellent 'Burgundy'
style wines made outside the Burgundy region but marketing conventions
make it difficult to gain in the publics eye. "

There aren't any that I've tasted. There are plenty of PNs, but they
aren't either Burgundy or "Burgundy Style" You were plain wrong about
France and Zinfandel, and I'm afraid you're plain wrong about the
limitations of French wine naming.

I've often castigated French wine makers in Burgundy betraying their
precious inheritance by making muck there. But at least french naming
laws mean that with their name on the label, you can soon enough know
the guilty parties and never buy their wine again.

I maybe wrong but it seems that most in here prefer French and other
European wines to California, Oregon and Washington wines.

Maybe, I wouldn't know. My exposure to wines from the USA is extremely
limited, which is why I took a long (2 month) trip down the Western
sde of the USA to try to get to know them better. I found some good
wines, some bad wines and some awful wines. Just as one would do if
visitiing Bordeaux, Burgundy or the Languedoc. Or Marlborough, Hawkes
Bay, and Martinborough.

I'm the

If you prefer EU wines then by all means buy them but please do not tell me they are better.

I've not. I'm not talking about quality, I'm talking about the passing
off of one wine as another, when they aren't alike and about naming
conventions.

ATB
Fatty

wrote:

was much chance that one could taste an Oregon Pinot Noir and think it
was a Burgundy, then you might have a case. But I don't believe one
can. I've had lovely wines in the Willamette, and in California from
PN, but I can't think of one that could be confused with a Burgundy.

Thats true but you do not see PN's called Willamettes and yet they
generally have a style of their own. Thats my point.

In message
Miles wrote:

wrote:

was much chance that one could taste an Oregon Pinot Noir and think it
was a Burgundy, then you might have a case. But I don't believe one
can. I've had lovely wines in the Willamette, and in California from
PN, but I can't think of one that could be confused with a Burgundy.

Thats true but you do not see PN's called Willamettes and yet they
generally have a style of their own. Thats my point.

So what? Would it not in fact be helpful to those consumers who had
tasted such wines and liked the distinctive style to be able easily to
recognise it again? That is very easy with French labelling surely —
and implicitly on your own admission. What is more because the French
AOC system forbids the use of any but an approved list of grape
varieties there is little danger of a consumer picking up a grower‘s
experiment with another wholly different variety.

But it goes far further than that in any case. As a generalisation
French vineyards are very small by comparison with new world ones.
That means that, to the reasonably experienced palate, the
individual‘s interpretation of the needs of his vineyard, and of his
aspirations for it, as well as how well he has achieved them, can and
do vary enormously from those of his neighbours BUT they vary WITHIN a
particular style or Appellation and not only should remain true to it
but normally do so. If bottles were simply labelled with, for
example, the grape variety without reference to the Appellation the
consumer would not know the style. Chardonnay grown in the Languedoc
is entirely different from Chablis; Corton Charlemagne is not the same
as a Chardonnay from Uchizy. I have yet to have a Merlot/Cabernet
Franc blend from elsewhere which could possibly be mistaken for good,
or indeed any, Saint-Emilion or Pomerol. Eqaully within those each
of those areas there are differnces of style and approach which all
make for thefascination and enjoyment of wine.

The consumer new to wine will, without any real effort, soon learn
which grape varieties he likes and move from there to the Appellation
or Appellations the style of which he prefers. He will then become
more selective with experience and if he is really interested he will
move easily to a higher level of knowledge and begin to recognise
within the Appellations the individual growers whose particular
interpretation of the style he like best. If he is faced with a
number of wines from other areas which have a wholly different style
but still describe themselves as ”Burgundy” the less knowledgeable
consumer will be confused and disappointed.
Who gains by that except the dishonest grower not able to make a
reputation for his own product who wishes to trade both on other
people‘s reputations and consumer ignorance or gullibility? Why
should a new world producer, even making only modest wine, not have
the pride in his ”terroir• and his region to boast of it on the label?
Why steal somebody else‘s thunder if your own is loud enough?

I simply do not understand what the problem is — each country has
developed a system which, broadly speaking, suits it. No
international system is likely to be better or more helpful and
revision do not necessarily improve anythign — look at the new EU
rules or the German revision of its wine laws. I defy anybpdy to say
that either is pr wil bebetter than what went before.



Tim Hartley