Ian Hoare > wrote:

>> I believe the practice is easily as much about attempting to
>> communicate with consumers in terms they know.

> Nope. In terms they have been taught to recognise (incorrectly).
> If Californians had never ever called their sparklers
> "champagne" then the problem wouldn't exist now. The reason
> _originally_ was that everyone had heard of "champagne" as a
> prestigious sparkling wine, so winemakers (abusively) _used_ it
> as a generic term in the hope their wine would benefit from the
> glow of the real thing. Well, in a sense that's _their_ problem.
> They have to live with the expense of refocussing the public.

Absolutely. And, may I cite another example: After WW I the term
of "Champagne" and "Cognac" were forbidden to the loser parties of
the war (and their successor states) - and what happened? Without
any problem they found alternatives ("Sekt" & "Weinbrand" in the
German speaking part of Europe).

It's a pity the war winners did'nt feel like doing the same, so
that's why we have "Champagne" in the US and "Kognak" in Russia.

M.