Is It Just Me?

Maybe it’s just me.

There was an article in the SFGate last week about federal law regarding varietal percentages in wine. That’s here: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... QU4PD1.DTL

The opening paragraph reads as follows:

Whatever the strengths of the federal government, winemaking is surely not among them. Yet many red wine-loving consumers delegate that power to it.

The final sentence is

Don't let the feds rule your wine choices.

I thought those passages were quite clear in their meaning. I wrote to Blake Gray, the author, as follows:

Dear Mr. Gray,

Seems to me you have nearly everything backwards. It's true that federal law requires 75% of a wine to be of on variety in order for the winery to call it by that name, but that has nothing to do with winemaking as such. The federal government in no way requires the winemaker to call it Cabernet Sauvignon. That's driven by marketing. Likewise, as you say, no one cares if Chateau Margaux is more than 75% Cabernet Sauvignon, but they don't call it Cabernet Sauvignon, do they? They also don't market a Chateau Margaux Merlot, a Chateau Margaux Cabernet Franc and a Chateau Margaux Petit Verdot, either. Instead, they make the best wine they can from their own grapes, and sell it under their own name. No law is stopping any California producer from doing the same.

The law requiring at least 75% varietal content (it's 90% up here in Oregon, by the way, except for Bordeaux-style blends, which allow 75%) is no more than truth in advertising, so that the customer has some idea of what's in the bottle. Would you prefer the days when a producer could put Chardonnay on the label with a 51% content, and make the rest up with French Columbard or Thompson Seedless? Personally, I'd like to see a tiered system, with 90% or even 95% for a single variety designation, and a "Blend" designation, such as "Cabernet Sauvignon Blend" with at least 75%. In either case, all components of the blend should be stated on the label. I'd also like to allow "Bordeaux-style blend" and "Rhone-style blend" on the label for blends using onlly the traditional grapes from those regions, at any concentration, but the EU isn't going to allow that.

He responded to me that I obviously had not read the paragraph which starts, “It’s a fair law.” I responded to him that I had, and that his opening and closing paragraphs still make it clear that he was blaming federal law for marketing decisions.

He wrote back to me, basically telling me I’m stupid. A couple of excerpts:
“Isaac, I'm sorry if the writing of this story was too complicated for you.”
“The writing is probably too subtle for you because wine consumers are also newspaper consumers. We don't like to directly tell our readers that they're being stupid…”

So, is it me? Am I being obtuse? Or is Mr Gray being an ass? Maybe both?

He's an ass.
a)You were polite enough to call him Mr Gray and he in turn called you by your 1st name
b) He asserted his writing was too complicated for you and then alluded to indirectly calling his readership stupid.
I'd forward his response to his editor and then the next time you communicate with him just politely tell him you do not want fries with that.

I did forward his reply to his editor, with my comment, "Tell me, sir, is it your editorial policy to insult your readers? Because I think this is insulting, but it might be too subtle for the likes of me."

I also cc'd Mr Gray, as I think proper. I'm wondering what effect this will have.

[David M. Bueker]

Classic, arrogant, stupid response to your letter.

I read the article & thought it was rather pointless (or at least ill-conceived). Somehow I doubt his writing is too complicated for me.

I'm sure his intent was to tell wine consumers that they are not necessarily making the best choices when they pay more for a varietally labeled wine than for a blend of comparable quality. I don't think he made that clear, and to invoke the federal government as he did pushed some libertarian buttons he may not have intended.

Ah, well. I may have reacted too quickly, but I still don't care for the tone of his response.

I agree with David - the article was rather pointless.

To the extent there is any problem at all, it's a marketing problem. And one created by the decision to market wines under varietal names. Call a wine "Cabernet Sauvignon" and it has to be (mainly) Cabernet Sauvignon. Call a wine "Margaux" and it has to be (100%) from Margaux - plus all the other restrictions of French AC law. If anything, it is the French that have the bigger problem!

Isaac,

I write a few weekly columns. The next letter I get I will try that fellow's style of response; then, I'll go look for other work...

Isaac, I do sympathize with your views, and the writer's ad hominem attacks are clearly out of bounds, but... I do think that the Feds share some of the blame for the current state of affairs. Unless the law's been changed, it's still against Federal law to label a wine with two varietal designations (e.g., Cab-Shiraz) which to me seems the obvious corollary to requiring 90% or whatever to get a single varietal designation.

There's my $0.02,
Mark Lipton

Mark, I don't think it is. See this wine, labeled Merlot-Cabernet, as an example:
http://columbia-crest.com/2002_Two_Vine ... bernet.cfm

[David M. Bueker]

Always remember that the feds (or someone) has to set some kind of rules around this stuff or we have chaos. Nobody is going to be happy with the way it is done no matter how it ends up.

Sour grapes.

Mark, I don't think it is. See this wine, labeled Merlot-Cabernet, as an example:
http://columbia-crest.com/2002_Two_Vine ... bernet.cfm

Most interesting! I was skeptical until I saw it on the label. When I have the chance, I'll have to look at the relevant legal mumbo-jumbo.

Mark Lipton

One thing that is disconcerting about Californians is that all 30 million of them are on a first-name basis. I grew up in Washington, DC, and it is a shock to always be called "Walt," and have people look at me funny when I address them as "Ms. Wellington." You'd expect a writer to have a little more manners, but it's understandable.

However, to respond in that insulting way is going too far. Oftentimes hotheads are tolerated because of the quality of their writing, but having read parts of his book and a number of columns, I don't get the attraction.

Walt

Mark, I don't think it is. See this wine, labeled Merlot-Cabernet, as an example:
http://columbia-crest.com/2002_Two_Vine ... bernet.cfm

Most interesting! I was skeptical until I saw it on the label. When I have the chance, I'll have to look at the relevant legal mumbo-jumbo.

Mark Lipton

Mark,

I don't know of any restriction that would prevent two or more varieties on the label, so long as it is true. I think Hedges in Washington State has had a Cabernet-Merlot and a two variety white wine on the market for more than a decade.

[David M. Bueker]

How about the Pine Ridge Chenin Blanc-Viognier.

I don't know of any restriction that would prevent two or more varieties on the label, so long as it is true.

In Europe certainly there is (was?) a restriction on naming more than two varieties on the label, so Syrah-Grenache was OK but not Syrah-Grenache-Mouvedre which was why we were seeing wines labelled as GSM (and similar).

I hav erecently seen 3 varieties on a label but I don't know if that is because of ignorance on the part of the winery (since labels don't have to be pre-approved as in USA) or a change in the rules.

We just had a label turned down because it mentioned varieties without percentages. I'm wondering how the 'Merlot-Cabernet' works, given that rule.

The least that can be said of the federal labelling laws is that they are very detailed and very difficult to follow.

How about the Pine Ridge Chenin Blanc-Viognier.

Good point. My remembered proscription must be history.

Mark Lipton

We just had a label turned down because it mentioned varieties without percentages. I'm wondering how the 'Merlot-Cabernet' works, given that rule.

The least that can be said of the federal labelling laws is that they are very detailed and very difficult to follow.

I believe the label read 60-40.

As everyone knows, newspapers from coast to coast are having severe circulation problems in addition to cuts in ad revenue (thank you Internet). Just look at a three year stock history of the parent company of USA Today: GCI.
One way to deal with the problem is by cutting the well regarded (read: well paid) writing staff and bringing on newbies. Papers all over are doing it as you all know. I no longer recognize ½ the writers of Washington Post stories. I'd be curious to know if this writer is new.
If not, then it still stands that no paper can afford writers that respond to feedback as this writer did.

We just had a label turned down because it mentioned varieties without percentages. I'm wondering how the 'Merlot-Cabernet' works, given that rule.

The least that can be said of the federal labelling laws is that they are very detailed and very difficult to follow.

I believe the label read 60-40.

With that wine, the percentages are listed on the back label. Interesting that the Cabernet on the front label consists of both Sauvignon and Franc.

We just had a label turned down because it mentioned varieties without percentages. I'm wondering how the 'Merlot-Cabernet' works, given that rule.

The least that can be said of the federal labelling laws is that they are very detailed and very difficult to follow.

I believe the label read 60-40.

With that wine, the percentages are listed on the back label. Interesting that the Cabernet on the front label consists of both Sauvignon and Franc.

Isaac,

One of the ironies of federal regs and wine labeling is that, shaped as the bottle is, a producer can claim the back label as the front label and the other way around. The producer is not responsible for which label the retailer shows on the shelf...

One labe lor the other has to contain required language, e.g., alcohol by volume, government warnings, etc. That label can only list more than one variety if percentages are included. If no percentages are given the lis can only appear on the "other" label. Clear as mud, that...

Thomas, Hedges has a wine that they call CMS and those letters stand for cabernet/merlot/syrah, and it is almost always a worthwhile wine.

The story's lead ("Whatever the strength of the federal government, winemaking is not among them....") and its hook ("Don't let the feds rule your wine choice.") are too far removed from what the story is about. The government isn't a proxy for varietal labels. The problem could have been resolved very easily by changing the lead and hook to say you shouldn't let your wine choices be ruled by varietal labels, but of course that wouldn't have been as catchy. I'm sympathetic because this all makes me wonder how many stories I've confused by tacking on catchy but irrelevant leads or hooks. But by golly I never called my readers stupid.