>
> I don't agree
>with the EU on this btw, but I feel that winemaking techniques shouldn't be
>trademarked. But only if they did in fact use ALL the significant champagne
>techniques and their wine was made at the same high pressure.
>

I agree with all you've stated Ian, especially this statement above,
which has me questioning why it's been ruled against here in the
states. Shouldn't they be changing the rule on use of appellation
terms on the front label, instead of messing with winemaking terms?

Few things erk me more than CA wines being called Chablis, especially
when they are made from Thompson Seedless! Though it does tend to
identify my customer for me when they ask for "Something like a
Chablis". Nobody has ever asked for that without it being a reference
to a CA product. Most of those people who drink that stuff have no
clue that true Chablis is from France.

The subject interests me as we are making our first commerical
sparkling wine this year and have been looking for label terms. It
seems like Methode Traditionalle is the most descriptive term
available beyond "fermented in this bottle" which has always been
awkward at best. What would one think otherwise: it was fermented in
the bottle next to it?

Sparkling wine is another awkward term. There are alternatives, but
we want something that the customers will be comfortable with and
still understand what's in the bottle.

Here's the way the reg's state it:

________

In the case of champagne, or crackling wines, the type designation
"champagne" or "crackling wine" ("petillant wine", "frizzante wine")
may appear in lieu of the class designation "sparkling wine".

________

Even our government casually calls it Champagne!

I tend to like the term "petillant", but how many of my customers
would know what that means? It's not even in my dictionary.

And crackling wine sounds dangerous. Where'd that come from?


clyde