Been out of touch... Lots of travel... Lots of work.
Noticed that Larmandier-Bernier, a great terroir focused Champagne, has switched US importers/distributors from Terry Theise to Dressner. Don´t have any insight on that part of the business, but a great excuse to check out another example of great location based wines.
We always talk about the failure of the US and other countries to protect the names of distinct locations. At the very least they do so in a manner that -- when it comes to wine -- is weaker than the protections that the EU provides. However, there has long been a problem with EU regulations. They are not available to non-EU countries. Places like Napa, Santa Barbara, Willamette Valley and the Finger Lakes could not be assured that their names were protected in the EU. This is because the EU regulations required non-EU countries to also protect EU products (e.g. Chianti, Chablis, Champagne and a number of non-C places). As the US and others did no such thing, their products did not qualify for EU protection. Now the EU is being forced (due to a WTO ruling forced on them by Australia and the US) to open the protection they already offer to 720 of their own products to outsiders as well.
I am surprised that the EU had to be forced to open their system. One would think that it would be in their best interest to export the system as much as possible. Yet, whatever the reason, I hope that the opening of the GI system (expected to be approved later this year) provides opportunities for US wine growing regions to gain protection in the EU. At the very least, it would assure that no Sonoma's from Austria would pop up. In the best case scenario, there would be increased pressure on the US government to better protect its own regions (and not force the growers of Napa Valley to go to court to protect their name against wine labeled "Napa Ridge" when it is from some other place). In either case, the consumer who wants to know where their wine comes from wins.
We’ve all been talking about the recently launched Center for Wine Origins. So instead of talking, I went to see what they are all about.
While at the Chicago Wine & Food festival last weekend, I attended a seminar sponsored by the Center. Led by a speaker from the Society for Wine Educators (Lisa Airey), the seminar was all about the terroir of the Champagne region and the Duoro Valley (the group uses Champagne and Port as examples when talking about protecting wine origins). She really knew about these places and brought them to life. For example, I knew Champagne was chalky and cold, but the Lisa Airey brought soil composition, microclimates, history (Napoleon, WWI, etc.) together in a way that was really informative and – frankly – cool. She brought the uniqueness of Port and Champagne places to life.
Of course, the discussion was helpful, but everyone came for the wine… I found the tasting greatly improved by my better understanding of the distinct place where the wine came from. Sort of like tasting a Napa Cabernet Sauvignon after you have visited Napa.
We tasted two Champagnes that I had never had– Pommery Brut Royal and Nicolas Feuillatte Rosé. I guess I had just passed over them at the stores as they are both relatively available. In any case, found the Pommery to be somewhat yeasty and quite dry, which called to mind the chalky soil that Airey mentioned. With its higher pinot noir content, the rosé was slightly fruitier and a truly different wine than the first, yet the notes on location, grape type, etc. came in handy when tasting the two. While different, both blends from multiple places, vintages, etc., it was clear that they were both from this special winegrowing region.
The Center followed the Champagne with two Ports. The first was a Quinta de Ventozelo 10 Year Tawny, which I’ve never had – I don’t think it’s sold in the U.S. The wood aging gave it a really nice full, round flavor and a beautiful color. We finished up with a Vista Alegre 1997 Vintage, which the staff had nicely decanted prior to the seminar. It was a little on the young side, but the contrast between it and the tawny was incredibly sharp – a testament to how greatly differences in the aging process are reflected in the bottle.
I went down to the Center’s booth in the festival’s main tent afterwards and tasted the 1997 Vintage one more time – it really outshone some of the other more standard Ports being tasted at the festival.
At the end of the day, I think I learned two things about the Center:
1. They are passionate about location. While Champagne and Port are clearly their primary focus, complaints by others that this is some sort of scheme by the Europeans to attack the US, etc. are unfounded. The Center goes out of its way to talk about location being important for all wines – one of the main themes of this blog.
2. They are the real deal. Instead of just another association pitching a theory, they had smart, engaged spokespeople at the seminar and the booth who were willing to spend time talking about wines, etc…. not just handing out glossy materials (or dressing in red spandex with little to say like those trying to get us excited about Wines of Rhone….). In addition, I found them very focused on the consumer -- not trying to just be a voice for the other Ports and Champagnes that were displayed at the event.
Overall, found the Chicago Wine & Food event interesting. A bit of a pourathon, I still found lots of smart, interesting people who care about wine and are excited about telling potential consumers about their wines. All in all, a good sign for the future of the US wine market.
We love Champagne and learned a lot more by listening to Remí Krug and others on this very interesting (would be better without the cheesy background music) podcast from Blog au Vin.
Every single one of these folks is convinced that their location (as the ads say "Champagne Only from Champagne") is key to the grapes that produce this great wine.
Tom over at Fermentations makes some very good points about the previously mentioned Center for Wine Origins. By the way, they seem to have launched a very nice web site since we last spoke about them.
I highly recommend reading Tom's piece.
In addition, Daniel Sogg of the Wine Spectator does a great job outlining how the California Supreme Court (protecting the name Napa against the Fred Franzia's of the world who want to use the words on bottles that do not include grapes from Napa) are in direct opposition to the position of the US Government (read Wine Institute) in the Wine Accords.
In the end, all 3 -- Sogg, Fermentations and the Center for Wine Origins -- come to a similar conclusion. Place names matter and semi-generics should cease being used. As Fermentations makes clear, these names do not inherently guarantee quality, but -- whether it is a truth-in-labeling issue or time for everyone to stand on their own two feet -- they certainly should only be used by these particular regions.
Continuing our look into the harvest.... Champagne is one of the earliest regions in France to harvest and it is in full swing right now. Here is a link to a video about how they harvest -- including hand picking every grape in the entire appellation. Low bandwidth. High bandwidth.
As Champagne regulations require pressing to happen very quickly after picking, this video about their unique presses and requirements seems appropriate as well. Low bandwidth. High bandwidth.
These are all short 1 to 1.5 minute Quicktime movies.
Great entry on the Dr. Vino blog that ties together past events that we have discussed here, future conferences and the excitement that one of the better importers of quality wines finds from the impact that unique places have on wine.
I mentioned the Napa Declaration earlier, but I am reminded by it again as there has been a wide range of coverage about the event and its repurcussions. The San Francisco Chronicle wrote a front page article about it, GrapeRadio has the audio from the press conference as well as supporting interviews up, and Wine Spectator wrote about it. As a reminder, the Napa Declaration is an historic coming together of both US (Napa, Washington and Oregon) and European (Champagne, Port and Sherry) wine regions to pronounce their shared belief in the importance of place, the effect it has on the wines that are produced from the grapes and how important it is to educate consumers about the sanctity of all wine growing areas. I can't say enough positive things about the importance of location. Winemakers can wax poetically about the effects of microclimates, etc. (and I believe them), yet I see this as a truth-in-labeling issue. If we found out our "Florida Orange Juice" really came from Louisiana or Oklahoma, we would cease buying the product immeditely and it would be a scandal. The same should go for wine. Napa comes from Napa. When I buy a Napa wine I expect to get a wine made with Napa grapes in it. I shouldn't have to look on the label to see if it comes from Napa California or Napa China. And anyone who hides behind the claim that there are other words on the label that differentiate the products is just trying to use a loophole to mislead the consumer.
From an article by Cyrill Penn in the San Francisco Chronicle the EU and US governments can't agree on how to handle these names and how to end this practice. This is a shame. But I don't think it should take a government mandate to put consumers first, it should be the winemakers -- like those that signed the Napa Declaration -- who take the lead and end this practice once and for all.
The Napa Declaration seems to be a watershed event where wineregions from different places came together to agree on something very simple. In a world where the wine press likes to pit region vs. region and Old World vs. New World, I think we should herald this kind of cooperation and urge others to use this as the kind of thing that needs to happen more often so that consumers can focus on the wine, not the ugly policy differences.
Recent Comments