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!

Comments

[Ben Bicais]

I agree that the U.S. should keep it at 95% for all AVAs. The new rule just confuses things in my opinion. Maybe they're betting that not enough wine consumers will either know or care about the change to make a significant difference to the industry.

[GollyG]

It's a shame that the US is diluting its wine laws like this. It gives European producers plenty of ammunition to claim that US wine is not serious product, and further adds to the average Joe's confusion about what's in the bottle.