NoBullGrape

NYT and vintages

The NYT's Frank Prial wrote a good article outlining the impact of the new vintage rules (that we opposed earlier!) that just kicked in.  He made great points about the fact that the AVAs of the US will remain at 95% while the more general descriptors (e.g. California, Sonoma County) would be allowed to drop to 85%. 

Here's the relevant excerpt:

Two weeks ago, the government increased the legal amount to 15 percent, about four ounces in a standard 750-milliliter wine bottle. A wine's vintage is determined by the year the grapes in it were harvested.

The rule applies only to wines with state and county appellations. It does not affect the more prestigious American Viticultural Areas (A.V.A.'s) like Dry Creek Valley or the Santa Rita Hills in California, Willamette Valley in Oregon or the North Fork of Long Island in New York.

Thus, a Gallo wine with a Sonoma County or California appellation would be covered by the new rules but a Rodney Strong wine from the Alexander Valley A.V.A. would not, even though the Alexander Valley is within Sonoma County. Wineries using an A.V.A. appellation are still governed by the 5 percent rule although most of them, committed exclusively to making fine wines, use 100 percent of the current vintage except in emergencies.

However, he totally dropped the ball on his descriptions of European appellation rules. 

The [Wine Institute] noted that American wines adhering to the 95 percent rule could be at a disadvantage when competing with foreign wines. Australia, New Zealand and countries in the European Union already have an 85 percent standard, while Chile and South Africa can blend in 25 percent of another vintage if they choose.

While he is correct that there is a general 85% requirement in Europe, every AOC that I've ever heard of requires 100% of the grapes in a bottle marked with a vintage to come from that year.  In fact, his particular mention of Champagne -- with its 100% rule on vintages -- and its grand history of clearly marked non-vintages undermined a pretty informative article. 

Probably the most famous wine region in the world, Champagne, has always blended several vintages to achieve a house style, be it Krug, Bollinger or Moët & Chandon. But a Champagne producer can declare a vintage if he believes he has had a particularly excellent harvest, and in recent years there has been a marked increase in the number of vintage Champagnes. There is a question as to whether the trend reflects an exceptional number of fine harvests or a not so subtle attempt by the producers to get in on the public's fascination with vintages.

Missed opportunity!

Highways through Bordeaux

You've got to love the web page created by winemakers opposed to a plan to run a highway through one of Bordeaux's most famous appellations.  In French and English.

TTB doesn't listen to consumers....

You will remember the small brouhaha about the Wine Institute's request to weaken US vintage dating rules a few months ago.  Well, Tuesday brought word that TTB fulfilled the Wine Institute's wishes and US wines with a vintage date can now have 15% of their contents come from another vintage.  Cyril Penn writes about it in today's San Francisco Chronicle.  Of course finding the new ruling on the TTB website has, so far, proven impossible.  Maybe one of our erstwhile readers can help direct us:-)

In short, I believe consumers lost on this one as we should be pushing for clearer labeling, not more misleading labels. 

In addition, this is an example of the way in which the US government comment system is laughable.  The vast majority of the 98 comments received by the government about this potential rule change were opposed to the change... yet they did it anyway.

Too bad.  A missed opportunity to show US wine laws are more consumer friendly than other countries and to send a clear signal that truth-in-labeling is the way forward for the industry and the country.