Do you feel this is hypocrisy or not?

[Roy Hersh]

Here is an article about the wine producers of Napa, CA getting agitated and feeling the need to protect their region's place name from being abused in other areas of the world.

Why is this in our Port Forum area instead of the Other Discussions Forum?

I find it ironic that the group in Napa, (now ready to wage war to protect their region's name) has done little, or less, to obey that exact same premise when it comes to protecting the name of other wine places.

I love some of the dessert style wines that try to emulate real Port, in Napa and many other parts of CA, and other states too. In fact, I respect what some are doing to utilize the:
A. grape types of the Douro
B. use the fortification process as is done in the Douro
C. seek to produce high quality product
D. attention paid to using proper clonal seletction

Like real Port wine, I am open to evaluating samples for creating tasting notes for a wine producer that is from the USA or any other location around the world. Nevertheless, their use of the word port, sometimes even Port needs to be changed. It is just out of respect and there oughta be a stronger law in place, but moreso, enforced.

Isn't that exactly what Napa is looking for?

Now I will step down and let you read this article:

http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe ... _labeling/

Comments welcome.

[Derek T.]

The title of this thread says it all.

the San Francisco-based Wine Institute, a trade association, denies that using terms such as "American Champagne" is misleading since producers are required to put on the label the geographic location of where the wine was produced

Perhaps those guys should start selling American Moondust or American Elephants or Authentic American Irish Stew? What nonsense!


Isn't it a pity that they obviously don't have enough pride in their own local specialism, otherwise they wouldn't feel the need to freeload on the back of others?

[Andy Velebil]

Do as I say and not as I do. Gotta love it

[Glenn E.]

Heh, I figured this was coming. What a bunch of hypocrites. I love how even this article continues the argument that Port, Sherry, and Campagne are "styles of wine" and so that's why it's okay to use them. The EU should declare that "Napa" is a "style of wine" and see how California feels then!

California (or even better, the US) needs to ban improper use of AOC/DOC/PDO names. No more grandfathering!

[Eric Ifune]

Wouldn't exactly call it hypocrisy. Many individuals have different agendas to pursue. More like a herding cats sort of thing.

[Rob C.]

I must say i do have some sympathy for grandfathering provisions that allow existing brands to continue to use the name they have built their business around.

And it is swings and round-abouts when it comes to hypocrisy - for instance, is it right for IDVP to campaign for "truth-in-labelling" when it comes to region names but allow a system of "10", "20", "30" and "40" year tawny classifications on labels that are very deceptive to the average consumer?

[Andy Velebil]

And it is swings and round-abouts when it comes to hypocrisy - for instance, is it right for IDVP to campaign for "truth-in-labelling" when it comes to region names but allow a system of "10", "20", "30" and "40" year tawny classifications on labels that are very deceptive to the average consumer?

I will admit, I've often wondered the same thing once I found out the year has nothing to do with what is actually in the bottle.

[Glenn E.]

I'm lenient with regard to the Tawnies because I believe that the intent is correct. More than one Master Blender has told me that while technically they could offer a Port that was too young, a) they would never do so and b) they doubted it would pass the IVDP's testing panel.

California "champagne" is using the name to cause confusion. (So are all of the French named wineries in CA but that's a different issue).

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

[Jeff G.]

I'm lenient with regard to the Tawnies because I believe that the intent is correct. More than one Master Blender has told me that while technically they could offer a Port that was too young, a) they would never do so and b) they doubted it would pass the IVDP's testing panel.

California "champagne" is using the name to cause confusion. (So are all of the French named wineries in CA but that's a different issue).

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

curious bt are there any serious makers of sparklers in CA that really call their sparklers champagne?

i know some of the big ones like chandon, mumm, schramsberg, have all changed to sparkling wine even those with ties to french houses.

Only the really really cheap wines like Andre, or Korbel really use cali champagne.

Sounds more like a pissing match for those high volume, cheap plonk brands. They can't sell on quality so they try and fool the consumer.


But regarding American wines I for one will always happily support Schramsberg

[Rob C.]

I'm lenient with regard to the Tawnies because I believe that the intent is correct. More than one Master Blender has told me that while technically they could offer a Port that was too young, a) they would never do so and b) they doubted it would pass the IVDP's testing panel.

Maybe - but i was recently gifted a 30 yr tawny for my 30th birthday by a person who really should not be spending so much money on such things - the description of it being "Aged 30 Years", together with the bottling date, giving her the impression that this would have some special connection with my age/birth year. You may scoff and say she should have known better and that the intent is correct, but i think it does undermine the "truth in labelling" message somewhat!

I cannot deny that it was jolly nice though!

[Phyllis D]

I have very mixed , very strong opinions on this subject. Those opinions range from there should be absolute 100% truth in advertising (list everything that is scientifically measurable about the wines) to if it gets someone to try it, all the more power to them.

Not to boar all of you old time Port heads but, for me the absolute beginning of looking for better port was because of a “New-World Port” that I tasted at a wine pairing dinner. The new world port was from a tiny little vineyard (Madrona) less than an hour from where I live. This was the first time I tasted such depth of flavors in a port. My taste buds were dancing with appreciation. Of course the thought of “if the winery is labeling this as a New-World Port, what does the original Ports taste like” did make me go on a hunt for the original Ports at every place I ate that had Port. It wasn’t until years later that I found a Port from Portugal that my taste buds liked more.
Bottom line, I got down from my long ago when it comes to wanting there to be “truth” in advertising. So to the wineries in the NAPA valley I would say, as much as I REALLY like some of your wines, watch out what you wish for, it may just get turned back around on you from another region taking the same type of hard stance.

Oh and That New-World Port that truely started the slippery slope for me, I STILL have a bottle of it.

[oscarquevedo]

Hopefully Napa producers will start to cooperate and respect denominations more now that they see their house taking fire...

Andy, what would you suggest to put on the label referring to those Ports aging for 10, 20, 30 or 40 years in oak?

[Peter W. Meek]

Hopefully Napa producers will start to cooperate and respect denominations more now that they see their house taking fire...

Andy, what would you suggest to put on the label referring to those Ports aging for 10, 20, 30 or 40 years in oak?

How about X, XX, XXX, and XXXX+ ? (Pronounced eks, two-eks, three-eks, and four-eks-plus. I already see problems with this: not all languages say the name of the letter X as eks, and the string of Xs is used elsewhere for other things like the number of distillations, and as movie ratings.)

[Phil W]

Andy, what would you suggest to put on the label referring to those Ports aging for 10, 20, 30 or 40 years in oak?

My preference would be to stay with the words "aged for 30 years" or "aged for at least 30 years" but enforce that bottles with such designations contained only port of such age. If necessary (I don't know enough of the process to know this), there could be an allowance for topping up with more youthful etc, e.g. at least 95% of the wine used my be >= specified age on label.

The alternative of "30-yr-character" (or something similar) could be used to label the bottles with contents as produced today, although this seems to me to be very similar to the previous "vintage character" labelling issue, deliberately obsfucating the age to imply it is older (or higher quality) than it is for sales purposes, which I do not like. Being clear and honest would be the goal for me, whatever wording or contents are decided upon.

[Rob C.]

Hopefully Napa producers will start to cooperate and respect denominations more now that they see their house taking fire...

Andy, what would you suggest to put on the label referring to those Ports aging for 10, 20, 30 or 40 years in oak?

I actually don't have a problem with them being called 10, 20, 30 or 40yr tawnies - i think that's fine and is a well recognised/established category that it would be very messy and counter-productive to try to change.

BUT

i do think the IVDP regulations should insist that the 10, 20, 30 and 40 monikers do actually do correspond with the average age of the port in some reasonably provable way (i.e. a 30yr does have an average age of at least 30yrs (or approximately 30 years, within some reasonable degree of tolerance), and is not simply "approved as having the characteristics of a port aged for 30 years" etc.)

i then think the labels should be much clearer and more honest/up-front about what the tawny actually is - ie a blend of different wines having an average age of eg: 30 years (so no confusing statements that a 30 year has been "Aged 30 Years". Instead a clear statement along the lines of: "This 20yr tawny is a blend of wood-matured wines from different vintages having an average age of [at least] / [approximately] 20 years. The wines were mellowed in seasoned wood casks at our lodge before being blended and bottled on the date shown [above]/[on the reverse]"

My anyway

[Andy Velebil]

Andy, what would you suggest to put on the label referring to those Ports aging for 10, 20, 30 or 40 years in oak?

I would suggest the wording on the back label should have something that explains the Port in the bottle is a blend of many vintages, young and old, blended together to approximate what a 30 year old Colheita tastes like. Personally, I'd love to know what vintages are in each batch. It would be fun to track not only the bottled date, but what vintages each was blended with. Actually, it may increase sales if people know there is some "1912" and "1935" in their 30 Year Old Tawny Port. People love to see old dates on wine labels and generally care less if that old wine only makes up 1% or less. It's all about "number dropping"

There isn't much of a price difference between a 30 year old Colheita and a 30 year old tawny, so why not be upfront about what is actually in the bottle? Actually, I've seen some 30 year old tawny's that are higher priced than a 30 year Colheita.

In this respect, the consumer should be told what they are actually buying. Do I think it would have any impact on people buying them if they knew what was actually in the bottle? No!

[oscarquevedo]

I guess the 10 --- 40 year old Tawny exist as a category to include those Ports aged in cask for decades, topped up with younger Port every year, as it is very difficult, though possible, to age a single Port for 40 years in a barrel, not topping up with any other Port.

I agree that it is nor very accurate to call 10 year old Port to something that is a blend of Port with 8, 10, 15 and 20 year or so. So I'm with you when you suggest further explanation about the origin of the Ports in the final blend. Should the IVDP allow us and I'll adopt this for our back labels.

[Jeff G.]

I guess the 10 --- 40 year old Tawny exist as a category to include those Ports aged in cask for decades, topped up with younger Port every year, as it is very difficult, though possible, to age a single Port for 40 years in a barrel, not topping up with any other Port.

I agree that it is nor very accurate to call 10 year old Port to something that is a blend of Port with 8, 10, 15 and 20 year or so. So I'm with you when you suggest further explanation about the origin of the Ports in the final blend. Should the IVDP allow us and I'll adopt this for our back labels.

why not follow cognac designations?

VS
VSOP
XO
?

[Derek T.]

Is it time to get back on topic yet?

Whilst the debate about the rights and wrongs of the 10, 20, 30 and +40 yr tawnies is interesting, it isn't really what this question was about. I look at these tawnies as having a slightly misleading description, which I agree should be improved.

The question at hand is: is it hypocritical for a wine region that uses a description associated with another demarcated wine region to then attempt to protect their own regional name?

I think the answer is a simple: yes, they are being hypocritical.

It doesn't matter how long they have been using the word "Port" or "Champagne" or any other similar descriptor. It was wrong to do so when they started using it and it is wrong to do so now. If the gap between the two is 150 years, that isn't a reason to allow them to continue, it's just a case of them getting away with doing the wrong thing for 150 years.

I think the position these particular Napa producers are taking is arrogant, small-minded and unfair on their contemporaries in other regions. I am all for them protecting their own name, but it would be helpful to their cause if they allowed others to do the same.

[Jeff G.]

Is it time to get back on topic yet?


I think the position these particular Napa producers are taking is arrogant, small-minded and unfair on their contemporaries in other regions. I am all for them protecting their own name, but it would be helpful to their cause if they allowed others to do the same.

Have you've ever tried any of these wines that the companies are trying to fool the consumer with? =)

people may rave about 2 buck chuck, but my 2 bucks isn't the only thin that gets chucked whenever I try a bottle.,