Mark Lipton wrote:

> I can't make tissue paper and
> legally call it Kleenex; why should I be able to make a red wine and
> call it Burgundy?

Not a good analogy. If I buy 5 boxes of Kleenex I know that all will be
the same. If I buy 5 bottles of Burgundy they will not all be the same
unless I look at who made them and what vineyard, winemaker etc.
Burgundy is not a brand name like Kleenex. It is an appellation
although in the case of Burgundy is also describes the choice of grapes
used but not the exact blending done.

> That's why there are sub-appelation and vineyard names. Do you not
> subscribe to the notion of "Rutherford Dust" or "Santa Lucia Highlands
> Pinot Noir"? Likewise, Musigny has a certain flavor profile, as does
> Richebourg. Those names were arrived at from many centuries of experience.

I agree with noting that on the bottle. I like Reds from the Stags Leap
region. But I do not feel Reds that come from that region should be
labeled Stags Leap Wine.

> No, and where in my statement do you get that mistaken impression?

You feel France etc. should but the USA shouldn't? Thats my point. Why
is it ok in Europe but you don't feel it appropriate elsewhere?

> point is that certain place names are protected as equivalent to
> trademarks.

With regards to Wine where is this done in the USA without it being
trademarked by a particular wine producer? If it isn't, why not?

> Do you think that crabs from Florida should be able to be
> sold as Dungeness crabs?

Dungeness refers to a species and not a region. They are found along
the western coast from Alaska down into Mexico. The grapes used in
Burgundy are not unique to the region nor a particular producer. Label
the appellation correctly just as is done in the USA.

> Should farmed salmon from Canada be sold as
> Copper River? Should California be able to sell its produce as Florida
> oranges?

Nope and a wine made from grapes grown in New York can't label them as
being from elsewhere.

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.

--
Steve Slatcher
http://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:47:30 -0700, Miles > wrote:

>Mark Lipton wrote:
>
>> apples and oranges: Chamapagne is a _place_ name, like Napa or Sonoma;
>
>Thats true but I do not feel a place defines a wine in the way the
>French perceive.

French AOCs are not just defined by the place. It is also the grape
varieties used, vineyard practice, yields and vinification.

>Can a great Burgundy blend be produced from grapes not
>grown in the Burgundy region? Can Burgundy grown grapes not blended
>into a true Burgundy be a great wine?

Putting aside the issue of greatness, I'd say that in general Burgundy
has a taste profile that is distinct from PN wines made elsewhere. I
am thinking of the better generic Burgundies, and village level and
upwards here.

>I have no trouble with labeling an
>appellation as its important but naming the wine by region doesn't make
>sense to me. California, Oregon, Washington all produce great wines and
>do it without such policies.

They may not use such large print on the label, but use of California
etc, and/or sub areas, is controlled. And respected by the EU.

>A Napa wine doesn't tell me much at all nor does Burgundy. Too broad
>for anything meaningful due to the numerous micro climates of the region.

Certainly to talk about the terroir of Burgundy or Bordeaux in a
generic way is meaningless twaddle - the stuff of French marketing and
little else. But the climate and winemaking practices are also
controlled, and these contribute to the taste.

>Do you really feel that particular blends common in a particular
>California region should be named after that region and regulated as such?

Not really sure what you are asking here. AOCs do not name blends
after regions. They say that IF you want to call a wine Burgundy you
have to follow a set of rules - including region, grapes, and many
other.

What California growers want to do is up to them as far as I am
concerned, providing they do not confuse the consumer by using names
that have already been earmarked by others. They seem to be doing OK
using variety names and AVAs and I see no problem with that.

--
Steve Slatcher
http://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher

"miles" wrote ................
>
> If I buy 5 bottles of Burgundy they will not all be the same unless I look
> at who made them and what vineyard, winemaker etc.
> Burgundy is not a brand name like Kleenex.
>

With the greatest of respect Miles, your view if far too simplistic.

If you truly want to understand this region and its wines I suggest you read
"Côte d'Or: A celebration of the great wines of Burgundy" by Clive Coates.

"Bourgogne" appellation covers all the Burgundy region, totalling approx.
7,500 acres.

The vineyards of Bourgogne AOC are located on 385 villages - many with
their own separate appellations - names like Chablis - Côte de Nuits -
Gevrey Chambertin - Clos Vougeot - Vosne Romanée - Nuits Saint Georges -Côte
de Beaune - Corton - Pommard - Volnay - Meursault - Chassagne Montrachet -
Rully - Givry - Pouilly Fuissé - Macon - Mercurey - these are all separate
appellations within Burgundy.

The grapes used in Burgundy are Pinot Noir for red wine and Chardonnay for
white wine.

Until 50 or so years ago, winemakers also used Pinot Beurot, César and
Tressot red grapes but they have now almost non-existent to the extent that
one should consider all white Burgundy (and Chablis) as Chardonnay and all
red Burgundy as Pinot Noir.



> It is an appellation

Exactly - as Steve said, this means very strict controls over everything
from approved varieties, vineyards practices, yields, vinification etc.


> although in the case of Burgundy is also describes the choice
> of grapes used but not the exact blending done.
>

Nope - sorry - again, no choice - Chardonnay for white; Pinot noir for
ed - thus (unlike Bordeaux) no blending of varieties.


>
> Nope and a wine made from grapes grown in New York can't label them as
> being from elsewhere.

Exactly - so why do you think it is alright that a wine made from grapes
grown *anywhere outside of Burgundy* (this distinct geographic area in
France) could be named "Burgundy"?

Next you will be arguing that it is fine for a Sauvignon Blanc, grown and
made in New York, to be labelled "Marlborough."

--

st.helier

Hi Miles,
This argument of geographical naming protection was taken by the WTO (world
trade org) and was mostly won on your arguments.

Personaly I disagree with the findings that Canada can go on producing Parma
Ham even thought Parma Ham is NOT from Parma. Or San Marasno tomatoes grown
in Canada.

Realize all of these and many more are the geographical component. If a
town in Canada decided to change their name however to "Parma" shouldn't
they be allowed to state Parma ham from Parma?

There is a Naples Italy, Naples Florida...and many more...

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.



"Miles" > wrote in message
...
> Mark Lipton wrote:
>
>> Zinfandel from wherever isn't deceptively labeled if what's
>> in the bottle is indeed Zinfandel. Get it?
>
> Thats only because of historical naming. Burgundy wines are a blend of 3
> or 4 grapes which are also grown worldwide quite successfully. So the
> term Burgundy only refers to the appellation and nothing more. Why not
> just say that as USA wines are labeled?
>
> My point was asking whether California should have 'trademarked' the term
> Zinfandel for it's exclusive use before others started using it? For me
> the answer would be no. If I want a particular blend from a particular
> appellation I'll look for it.

On Mar 26, 12:08�pm, Mark Lipton > wrote:
> st.helier wrote:
> > Nope - sorry - again, no choice - Chardonnay for white; Pinot noir for
> > ed �- �thus (unlike Bordeaux) no blending of varieties.
>
> err... Bourgogne Passetoutgrains? �;-)
>
> Mark Lipton
>
> --
> alt.food.wine FAQ: �http://winefaq.hostexcellence.com

and Bourgogne Grande Ordinaire!
But PTG and BGO together make up something like 2% of production, and
way less than 1% of exports.
Personally, even when I was brand new to wine, I didn't find European
labeling confusing. And no one has ever suggested that US wines had to
switch to European styled geographic labeling, to my knowledge.

miles wrote:

>> No, and where in my statement do you get that mistaken impression?
>
> You feel France etc. should but the USA shouldn't? Thats my point. Why
> is it ok in Europe but you don't feel it appropriate elsewhere?

No, I feel that any given region is free to label its wine as it
chooses. Many regions of Europe label their wine by region; most areas
of the New World label by varietal designation. I have no interest in
changing anyone's labeling practices.

>
>> point is that certain place names are protected as equivalent to
>> trademarks.
>
> With regards to Wine where is this done in the USA without it being
> trademarked by a particular wine producer? If it isn't, why not?

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...


>
>> Do you think that crabs from Florida should be able to be
>> sold as Dungeness crabs?
>
> Dungeness refers to a species and not a region.

Never heard of Dungeness, WA? ;-)

> The grapes used in
> Burgundy are not unique to the region nor a particular producer. Label
> the appellation correctly just as is done in the USA.

They _do_ label the appellation correctly, Miles. A typical bottle of
Burgundy will say "Chambolle-Musigny" (village appellation) "Les
Amoureuses" (vineyard appellation) and "Grand Vin de Bourgogne"
(regional appellation). Many Napa Cabs, BTW, fail to mention Napa on
their labels.

>
>> Should farmed salmon from Canada be sold as
>> Copper River? Should California be able to sell its produce as Florida
>> oranges?
>
> Nope and a wine made from grapes grown in New York can't label them as
> being from elsewhere.

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

Mark Lipton

--
alt.food.wine FAQ: http://winefaq.hostexcellence.com

st.helier wrote:

> Nope - sorry - again, no choice - Chardonnay for white; Pinot noir for
> ed - thus (unlike Bordeaux) no blending of varieties.

err... Bourgogne Passetoutgrains? ;-)

Mark Lipton

--
alt.food.wine FAQ: http://winefaq.hostexcellence.com

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 08:57:39 -0700 (PDT), DaleW >
wrote:

>and Bourgogne Grande Ordinaire!
>But PTG and BGO together make up something like 2% of production, and
>way less than 1% of exports.

I was surprised that it was that low, but you are right - if you
include all Burgundy's production, including Beaujolais (which is a
huge chunk of the total) and white wines. I was also surprised to see
how little BGO is produced compared to PTG.

--
Steve Slatcher
http://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher

>> Mark Lipton wrote:
>>
>> err... Bourgogne Passetoutgrains? ;-)

And "Mike Tommasi" wrote .........
>
> err... Sauvignon de St Bris?
> err... Bourgogne Aligoté?
> err... Beaujolais?
>

His Lordship readily concedes - outside of Beaujolais, small of amounts of
Gamay (red) and in certain defined areas, Aligot (white) are still grown,
vinified, bottled and sold - BUT ..........

All the above will be labelled according to the individual labelling
requirements: i.e. "Bourgogne Passetoutgrains" or "Appellation Bourgogne
Aligoté Controlée".

My contention is that none of the abovementioned would be *normally* termed
Burgundy - either red or white!

Either or both of you may feel free to argue otherwise ;-)

However, I am surprised that neither of you picked up on my error -
Burgundy covers closer to 25,000 ha (60,000 acres) !

--

st.helier

On Mar 27, 9:44�am, Mike Tommasi > wrote:
> st.helier wrote:
> >>> Mark Lipton wrote:
>
> >>> err... Bourgogne Passetoutgrains? �;-)
>
> > And "Mike Tommasi" wrote .........
> >> err... Sauvignon de St Bris?
> >> err... Bourgogne Aligot�?
> >> err... Beaujolais?
>
> > His Lordship readily concedes - outside of Beaujolais, small of amounts of
> > Gamay (red) and in certain defined areas, Aligot (white) are still grown,
> > vinified, bottled and sold �- �BUT ..........
>
> > All the above will be labelled according to the individual labelling
> > requirements: i.e. "Bourgogne Passetoutgrains" or "Appellation Bourgogne
> > Aligot� Control�e".
>
> > My contention is that none of the abovementioned would be *normally* termed
> > Burgundy - either red or white!
>
> > Either or both of you may feel free to argue otherwise ;-)
>
> > However, I am surprised that neither of you picked up on my error �-
> > Burgundy covers closer to 25,000 ha (60,000 acres) !
>
> Yes Beaujolais tends to be seen as a separate wine growing area, but
> surely M'Lawd the Burgundy Alley Goat is... Burgundy? And the Sauvignon
> de St Bris is, no doubt about it, Bourgogne, adminstratively and in wine
> terms...
>
> --
> Mike Tommasi - Six Fours, France
> email linkhttp://www.tommasi.org/mymail- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Actually we're getting close to defining just how many angels can
dance on the head of a pin.
Oop......almost forgot ;-)

Bi!! wrote on Thu, 27 Mar 2008 07:54:30 -0700 (PDT):

On Mar 27, 9:44�am, Mike Tommasi > wrote:
??>> st.helier wrote:
??>>>>> Mark Lipton wrote:
??>>
??>>>>> err... Bourgogne Passetoutgrains? �;-)
??>>
??>>> And "Mike Tommasi" wrote .........
??>>>> err... Sauvignon de St Bris?
??>>>> err... Bourgogne Aligot�?
??>>>> err... Beaujolais?
??>>
??>>> His Lordship readily concedes - outside of Beaujolais,
??>>> small of amounts of Gamay (red) and in certain defined
??>>> areas, Aligot (white) are still grown, vinified, bottled
??>>> and sold �- �BUT ..........
??>>
??>>> All the above will be labelled according to the
??>>> individual labelling requirements: i.e. "Bourgogne
??>>> Passetoutgrains" or "Appellation Bourgogne Aligot�
??>>> Control�e".
??>>
??>>> My contention is that none of the abovementioned would be
??>>> *normally* termed Burgundy - either red or white!
??>>
??>>> Either or both of you may feel free to argue otherwise
??>>> ;-)
??>>
??>>> However, I am surprised that neither of you picked up on
??>>> my error �- Burgundy covers closer to 25,000 ha (60,000
??>>> acres) !
??>>
??>> Yes Beaujolais tends to be seen as a separate wine growing
??>> area, but surely M'Lawd the Burgundy Alley Goat is...
??>> Burgundy? And the Sauvignon de St Bris is, no doubt about
??>> it, Bourgogne, adminstratively and in wine terms...
??>>
??>> --
??>> Mike Tommasi - Six Fours, France
??>> email linkhttp://www.tommasi.org/mymail- Hide quoted
text -

B> Actually we're getting close to defining just how many
angels
B> can dance on the head of a pin.
B> Oop......almost forgot ;-)

I thought the final answer there was that angels were
dimensionless, so as many as you want! They aren't dimensionless
but Champagne districts behave like angels :-)

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

On Mar 27, 11:12Â*am, "James Silverton" >
wrote:
> Â*Bi!! Â*wrote Â*on Thu, 27 Mar 2008 07:54:30 -0700 (PDT):
>
> On Mar 27, 9:44�am, Mike Tommasi > wrote:Â*??>> st.helier wrote:
>
> Â*??>>>>> Mark Lipton wrote:
> Â*??>>
> Â*??>>>>> err... Bourgogne Passetoutgrains? �;-)
> Â*??>>
> Â*??>>> And "Mike Tommasi" wrote .........
> Â*??>>>> err... Sauvignon de St Bris?
> Â*??>>>> err... Bourgogne Aligot�?
> Â*??>>>> err... Beaujolais?
> Â*??>>
> Â*??>>> His Lordship readily concedes - outside of Beaujolais,
> Â*??>>> small of amounts of Gamay (red) and in certain defined
> Â*??>>> areas, Aligot (white) are still grown, vinified, bottled
> Â*??>>> and sold �- �BUT ..........
> Â*??>>
> Â*??>>> All the above will be labelled according to the
> Â*??>>> individual labelling requirements: i.e. "Bourgogne
> Â*??>>> Passetoutgrains" or "Appellation Bourgogne Aligot�
> Â*??>>> Control�e".
> Â*??>>
> Â*??>>> My contention is that none of the abovementioned would be
> Â*??>>> *normally* termed Burgundy - either red or white!
> Â*??>>
> Â*??>>> Either or both of you may feel free to argue otherwise
> Â*??>>> ;-)
> Â*??>>
> Â*??>>> However, I am surprised that neither of you picked up on
> Â*??>>> my error �- Burgundy covers closer to 25,000 ha (60,000
> Â*??>>> acres) !
> Â*??>>
> Â*??>> Yes Beaujolais tends to be seen as a separate wine growing
> Â*??>> area, but surely M'Lawd the Burgundy Alley Goat is...
> Â*??>> Burgundy? And the Sauvignon de St Bris is, no doubt about
> Â*??>> it, Bourgogne, adminstratively and in wine terms...
> Â*??>>
> Â*??>> --
> Â*??>> Mike Tommasi - Six Fours, France
> Â*??>> email linkhttp://www.tommasi.org/mymail-Hide quoted
> text -
>
> Â*B> Actually we're getting close to defining just how many
> angels
> Â*B> can dance on the head of a pin.
> Â*B> Oop......almost forgot ;-)
>
> I thought the final answer there was that angels were
> dimensionless, so as many as you want! They aren't dimensionless
> but Champagne districts behave like angels :-)
>
> James Silverton
> Potomac, Maryland
>
> E-mail, with obvious alterations:
> not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

I'm headed to Champagne and Burgundy on May 1 for a few weeks so it
will be interesting to get their take on the expansion. My guess is
that I'll get the French shrug!

"Mike Tommasi" wrote ......
>>
>> M'Lawd the Burgundy Alley Goat is... Burgundy? And the
>> Sauvignon de St Bris is, no doubt about it, Bourgogne,
>> administratively and in wine terms...
>>

to which "Bi!!" wrote ...............

> Actually we're getting close to defining just how many
> angels can dance on the head of a pin.


Bill, with an ounce of planning and some stability in the world's currency
markets (lest I should convert all my holdings into Lilangeni!), it is my
intention to again arrive in the general neighbourhood of Mr. Tommasi - some
time around mid-September.

Whereupon, I shall demand that he and Cathy should invite me and my tribe to
dinner at Chez Tommasi, where he can show me a bottle or two of those
well-known and plentiful examples of *Burgundy* he quotes (Aligoté and
Sauvignon de St Bris) matched perfectly with some local cuisine.

Methinks he will need to start his search very soon - lest he be found
wanting !!!!!!!!!

Cheers

st.h

On Mar 27, 7:02�pm, "st.helier" > wrote:
> "Mike Tommasi" wrote ......
>
>
>
> >> M'Lawd the Burgundy Alley Goat is... Burgundy? And the
> >> Sauvignon de St Bris is, no doubt about it, Bourgogne,
> >> administratively and in wine terms...
>
> �to which "Bi!!" wrote ...............
>
> > Actually we're getting close to defining just how many
> > angels can dance on the head of a pin.
>
> Bill, with an ounce of planning and some stability in the world's currency
> markets (lest I should convert all my holdings into Lilangeni!), it is my
> intention to again arrive in the general neighbourhood of Mr. Tommasi - some
> time around mid-September.
>
> Whereupon, I shall demand that he and Cathy should invite me and my tribe to
> dinner at Chez Tommasi, where he can show me a bottle or two of those
> well-known and plentiful examples of *Burgundy* he quotes (Aligot� and
> Sauvignon de St Bris) matched perfectly with some local cuisine.
>
> Methinks he will need to start his search very soon - lest he be found
> wanting !!!!!!!!!
>
> Cheers
>
> st.h

To be fair M'Lawd I've had many a Kir in Burgundy made with Aligote
and Brocard distributes a pretty fair Sauvignon de St Bris here in
America. I do not think of either as being "Burgundy" however.

In message >
"st.helier" > wrote:

> "Mike Tommasi" wrote ......
>>>
>>> M'Lawd the Burgundy Alley Goat is... Burgundy? And the
>>> Sauvignon de St Bris is, no doubt about it, Bourgogne,
>>> administratively and in wine terms...
>>>

> to which "Bi!!" wrote ...............

>> Actually we're getting close to defining just how many
>> angels can dance on the head of a pin.


> Bill, with an ounce of planning and some stability in the world's currency
> markets (lest I should convert all my holdings into Lilangeni!), it is my
> intention to again arrive in the general neighbourhood of Mr. Tommasi - some
> time around mid-September.

> Whereupon, I shall demand that he and Cathy should invite me and my tribe to
> dinner at Chez Tommasi, where he can show me a bottle or two of those
> well-known and plentiful examples of *Burgundy* he quotes (Aligoté and
> Sauvignon de St Bris) matched perfectly with some local cuisine.

> Methinks he will need to start his search very soon - lest he be found
> wanting !!!!!!!!!

> Cheers

> st.h


Speaking as a fan of St. Bris and the son-in-law of an inhabitant of
Six-Fours, almost next door to Bandol, I think it is your request that
M. Tomassi should match the wine to local cuisine which may cause the
problem rather than finding the wine — maybe soupe de poisson minus
the rouille? As for the Aligoté I have yet to be persuade that Canon
Kir did not find the best use for it.


Tim Hartley

In message >
Mike Tommasi > wrote:

> st.helier wrote:
>> it is my
>> intention to again arrive in the general neighbourhood of Mr. Tommasi - some
>> time around mid-September.

> Good news !

>> Whereupon, I shall demand that he and Cathy should invite me and my tribe to
>> dinner at Chez Tommasi, where he can show me a bottle or two of those
>> well-known and plentiful examples of *Burgundy* he quotes (Aligoté and
>> Sauvignon de St Bris) matched perfectly with some local cuisine.
>>
>> Methinks he will need to start his search very soon - lest he be found
>> wanting !!!!!!!!!

> Er, how about if I serve some REAL Burgundy. Who said B. Aligoté and
> Sauvignon de St Bris is Burgundy? :-)


They are entitled to the Appellation — does that make them real or are
we in Velveteen Rabbit territory where feeling loved was necessary
before the poor toy rabbit became real?


Tim Hartley

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.

Steve Slatcher wrote:

> French AOCs are not just defined by the place. It is also the grape
> varieties used, vineyard practice, yields and vinification.

Yep and I don't agree with that practice. I prefer the way its done in
the USA.

> Putting aside the issue of greatness, I'd say that in general Burgundy
> has a taste profile that is distinct from PN wines made elsewhere.

That could often be said of many appellations. Thats why in the USA the
appellation is labeled to give the consumer the information they need to
make their choices.

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.

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

Which merlot do you consider the better ones from Walla Walla. I love that
appelation...


> wrote in message
...
> 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

I agree with most of what you have said here. Like Politics, wine
law/labeling is local.

However, I do think in support of Miles it takes a lot more education for
people not understanding labels to understand the labels from France.

I remember years back buying the book Windows to the World(World Trade
Center) to learn about some french labels, then Parkers Bordeau Book,
followed by his Rhone book etc.

It is harder to understand and still today I occasionally get confused by
some.

I do think the USA labels are less confusing for this reason.

If all Napa Wines are simply called Red Napa and not a mention of grape
varietal we would all be confused. That is because they grow so many
varieties we have not idea if it was a cab, merlot, sangio, pinot, barbera
etc.

When its red and its Burgundy it is Pinot unless Beaujolais.... If white
Chard unless states as Aligote'.

So, you do have to understand the cultural differences.

That said, when I go to France I spend 2-4 weeks getting spruced up on their
language. Why, I want to enjoy their culture.

When I buy their wine here, I like to remember their culture. But I do
think for many its difficult.

I again say its cultural and local. And since we live in a free society
some can change their labels for export...but I am sure the novice is not
buying Chateau Margaux or DRC so it does not matter if the variety is
included.
"Timothy Hartley" > wrote in message
...
> 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

On Mar 31, 11:18 am, Timothy Hartley
> wrote:
> 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

Well put Tim. One of the problems that we face in the US is that as
marketers we tend to dumb everything down to it's lowest common
denominator since most consumers today do not want to spend the time
to get educated about what they are buying. So a wine from Napa
labeled "Merlot" would more than likely be sold on the basis of price
point rather than quality or QPR. With so much excess juice in the
market today there seem to be more and more wines made with purchased
juice or fruit with non discript names and no actual coorelation to
anything except a catchy package or label and at different price
points. The US model for labeling by varietal is basically
meaningless.

"Bi!!" > wrote in message
...
> On Mar 31, 11:18 am, Timothy Hartley
> > wrote:
>> In message >
>> Miles > wrote:
>>

.. The US model for labeling by varietal is basically
> meaningless.

Bill, I totally disagree. Its not like we say just this is Generic
Cabernet.

We do have it from Valley to vineyard designates. If fact you are now
starting to make Miles case.

Ours is not meaningless in any manner. If anything its more complete.

Richard wrote on Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:29:34 -0400:

RN> > wrote in message
RN> ...

RN> Which merlot do you consider the better ones from Walla
RN> Walla. I love that appelation...

..It must be one of the few places with a Federal Prison (the
first, I seem to remember) and also wineries!


James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not