Wine Labels - Is the meaning getting lost?

I am not sure how much of the subject of Wine labels has been touched upon before, so I will tread slowly.

Whenever I taught wine appreciation either at the corporate level, the private level or the retail level, I've always spent time talking about how to read wine labels. I've stressed, the label is not a guarantee about the taste of the wine, but it will identify its origins and country standards. Back in the mid 1970's and early 1980's (and perhaps later) it was so easy to explain to some one how to read a label from a French or German wine. There was always enough information that the potential buyer could almost figure out what the taste should be.

Even though the French bordeaux's never displayed what the blend of the different grapes being used where, just identifying what of the various Bordeaus appellation it came from could be a clue in which grapes where being used.

I was always disappointed in the American wines. Its seems that there are a small amount of winemakers that will put a lot of information on the label. Sort of words like If the wine was made from grapes from that vineyard and bottled at that vineyard. I do love when the American winemakers go beyond just putting the alcohol level on the bottle, but including not only where it came from, but the various grapes used in the blend. At one time during the 70's if I remember correctly, for an American wine to be called Cabernet Sauvignon it had to have at least 51% of that grape. Some of the salesman I talk to today say that number is up to 75%.

This is a snipet from a wine for dummies article:
U.S. federal regulations fix the legal minimum percentage of the named grape at 75 percent (which means that your favorite California Chardonnay could have as much as 25 percent of some other grape in it). In Oregon, the minimum is 90 percent (except for Cabernet, which can be 75 percent). In Australia, it’s 85 percent. And in the countries that form the European Union (EU), the minimum is 85 percent.

So that seems to backup what I've been told. But I would love to see more information on the American wines. Saying that the wine came from Napa Valley is nice, but dont we want to know more?

This might just be a pet peeve of mine, but I love reading wine labels

75% sounds correct. I'm a huge Ridge fan (more Ridge in my cellar than any other producer) and many years ago they went to proprietary names like Geyserville and Lytton Springs to avoid the 75% rule.

You get plus or minus 1.5%, I believe, on alcohol content but I also beleive there's a max. before the wine is categorized differently for tax purposes. Someone will know the exact rule but 12% on the label really means 10.5% to 13.5% but if it says 15.5% I don't think it can be 17%.

What's the rule on vintage dating a wine? Must the grapes be 100% from that year or is it something less (90%)?

Ron, If you're teaching wine appreciation in the USA then surely knowing the percentage of the named variety is a basic must.

I am not in the USA and drink very few USA wines* but I know its 75% mininum for vinifera.

I got this in three clicks http://ttb.gov/pdf/brochures/p51901.pdf


How much of the named vintage and more is there.




* only because we don't get good ones at reasonable prices

From wiki: http://www.wineloverspage.com/forum/village/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=38221

Appellation labeling laws
In order to have an AVA appear on a wine label, at least 85% of the grapes used to produce the wine must be grown in the AVA.
With the larger state and county appellations the laws vary depending on the area. For a County Appellation, 75% of the grapes used must be from that county. If grapes are from two or three contiguous counties, a label can have a multi-county designation so long as the percentages used from each county are clearly on the label. For the majority of U.S. States the State Appellation requires 75% of the grapes in the wine to be grown in the state. Texas requires 85% and California requires 100%. If grapes are from two to three contiguous states a wine can be made under a multi-state designations following the same requirements as the multi-county appellation.
American wine or United States is a rarely used appellation that classifies a wine made from anywhere in the United States, including Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C.. Wines with this designation are similar to the French wine vin de table and can not include a vintage year. By law this is the only appellation allowed for bulk wines exported to other counties.

Other U.S. labeling laws
In the United States, at least 95% of grapes must be from a particular vintage for that year to appear on the label. Prior to the early 1970s, all grapes had to be from the vintage year. All labels must list the alcohol content based on percentage by volume. For bottles labeled by varietal at least 75% of the grape must be of the varietal. In Oregon, the requirement is 90%. American wine labels are also required to list if they contain sulfites and carry the Surgeon General's warning about alcohol consumption.

For Oregon, see 845-010-0915 of
http://www.oregon.gov/OLCC/docs/adminis ... s.pdf?ga=t

Grape Variety Names
(1) A person may use a single grape
variety name as a type designation on a wine brand
label only if the wine derives at least 90 percent of
its volume from that grape variety.
(2) As an exception to section (1) of this
rule, a person may use any of the following type
designations for a wine that derives at least 75
percent of its volume from grapes of the named
variety:
(a) Cabernet franc;
(b) Cabernet Sauvignon;
(c) Carmenère;
(d) Durif (Petite Sirah);
(e) Grenache (Garnacha);
(f) Malbec;
(g) Marsanne;
(h) Merlot;
(i) Mourvèdre;
(j) Petit Verdot;
(k) Roussanne;
(l) Sangiovese;
(m) Sauvignon blanc (Fumé blanc);
(n) Sémillon;
(o) Syrah;
(p) Tannat;
(q) Tempranillo;
(r) Zinfandel.
(3) The Commission may revise the list in
section (2) of this rule.

That's a mighty long list of exceptions to the 90% rule! The elephants not in the room are Pinot Noir and Chardonnay.

Sort of words like If the wine was made from grapes from that vineyard and bottled at that vineyard.

The French have been doing this for many years (centuries?).

Mise en bouteille - (Meez ahn Boo-tay)
Literally, "put in bottle" in French. "Mise en bouteille au Château" has legal significance, meaning "estate bottled," wine made by, and from grapes grown on the property of, the winery.

(Robin, this quote came from http://en.mimi.hu/wine/mise_en_bouteille.html and the Full article >>> link goes to your Wine Lovers Page Wine Lexicon entry).

hmmmm on the list of exceptions to oregon's 90% rule, pinot gris is also missing. arguably, oregons three most important grapes are really the only ones the rule applies to. not sure i understand the reasoning.

hmmmm on the list of exceptions to oregon's 90% rule, pinot gris is also missing. arguably, oregons three most important grapes are really the only ones the rule applies to. not sure i understand the reasoning.

I guess the logic is that the strictest criterion applies to the most important grapes - others get more slack. That is sensible, but giving exeptions to an enumerated list of other grapes seems like a strange way of defining the rules.

The responses thusfar confirm my notion that there has been some variables in wine labels over the years that have made their content a bit cloudier.
I pulled out a handout I used in the early 1980's on how to read a French Wine Label. It is nice to know not much has changed their,.
My point is really in wishing that there was more consistency in all wine labels. But then again I can dream

hmmmm on the list of exceptions to oregon's 90% rule, pinot gris is also missing. arguably, oregons three most important grapes are really the only ones the rule applies to. not sure i understand the reasoning.

David, I may be accused of being cynical but I think this is another example of a "rule" that has no practical impact but intended more as a marketing tool. Few would be inclined to blend Pinot Noir, Pinot Gris or Chardonnay anyway, so the Oregon 90% standard is no problem. All the varieties that people might want to blend are "excluded" and default to the federal 75% standard. The rule doesn't hinder winemaking in any significant way and Oregon winemakers get to tout their superior purity. It's a win-win. Other similar examples are California regarding chaptalization and acidulation. The first is rarely needed and banned, the second widely employed and allowed but it sounds good to have outlawed chaptalization, which is OK under federal regulations. Or the inverse in France, where in many places everything I just said is the other way around.

In general, I think you are right, Mark- rules tend to follow practice.

I do wonder a bit about no one wanting to blend Pinot Noir and Chardonnay though. Not for quality wines producers maybe, but there are usually producers interested in producing cheap wine that they can sell for more money, and there is always the temptation to thin out the quality grape in a varietal with something that is easy to grow.

In the spiritual home of Pinot Noir, Gamay is the thinning variety - thus you have Bourgogne, Bourgogne Passetoutgrain and Bourgogne Grand Ordinaire with increasing permitted levels of Gamay and generally decreasing prices.

I do wonder a bit what the 10% wiggle room in Oregon is there for. Is it to allow some thinning, intentional blending to improve the wine, or perhaps to allow for the odd vine that might be lying around that is of the "wrong" variety and which growers don't want to grub up? (It is a little repeated fact that the Burgundy rules allow for all sorts of wierd grapes in small proportions and in specific areas to cover the last case.)

I've stressed, the label is not a guarantee about the taste of the wine, but it will identify its origins and country standards. Back in the mid 1970's and early 1980's (and perhaps later) it was so easy to explain to some one how to read a label from a French or German wine. There was always enough information that the potential buyer could almost figure out what the taste should be.

I am really surprised at the statement in the last sentence above, particularly with regard to French wines. In order to know broadly what one is getting, quite a degree of knowledge of French appellations and tasting experience is necessary. The average drinker buying in supermarkets is likely, however, to be bemused by names like Coteaux du Languedoc Pic-Saint-Loup, Saumur-Champigny, etc. Even for the experienced, lack of dryness/sweetness indicators on most labels can easily lead to bad pairings; Alsace and Loire whites are the worst offenders here. Except for the dryness/sweetness point, I am not, however, advocating dumbing down of French AOC labelling. The place related system does reflect realities affecting the wines' tastes and the knowledge and experience needed for adequate comprehension is richly rewarded.

German wine labelling is indeed more explicit but in recent years confusion has been introduced by the appearance of the private VdP and other similar labelling systems for drier wines which relegate the useful legal information to a back label in a truncated form since most of such producers opt out of QmP (even the word "trocken" is eliminated ). A quite recent problem in Germany within the QmP system is a recent trend towards producers' volunteering to downgrade wines qualifying for a higher prädikat (e.g. Auslese) to a lower prädikat (e.g. Spätlese or even Kabinett). The result is a risk of the consumer's being surprised by greater richness and sweetness than what he/she is expecting.

I'm going to take a dissenting position on this, Ron. I think loading technical details on wine labels, while tradition in some wine-producing areas, can create an over-reliance on specifications as opposed to appreciation for what's in the bottle. Wine geeks have always been able to get more information on specific wines--WLDG and other sites are proof of that. But for the typical wine consumer, a good relationship with a wine seller is, in most cases, the best predictor of good selections. Two wines could be labelled "75% cabernet, 25% merlot"--one a $9 industrial wine, the other a second growth Bordeaux from a good vintage. What value does quoting the cepage impart in these cases? Most wine consumers (my wife would be a good example of this breed) are completely uninterested in grape variety, vintage, cooperage, etc., but they know when they enjoy a wine, and they trust the person who recommended it to them will do the same in the future. Meanwhile, we geeks will continue to debate arcane points of trellising and SO2 levels!

Steve, I agree with so much of what you said.
Nothing can really replace an honest and educated Wine person at a Retail Shop. People come in, many not knowing anything about wines, even what kind are out there and depend on
us pointing them in the right direction.

But I also have a good number of customers, that will pick up bottle by bottle and read the labels to get more information. Some, its where it came from and the vintage year, but so many others
look for details.

The key word in your post was Trust. Being in the retail business on/off for 30 years, I have seen way too many retailers that either A) Sell what they have lots of and want to get rid of or B) Have people who really have no clue about wines, they just recite what the boss told them to say.

One of my past times is visiting Wine shops to see whats out there. I play dumb when I walk in and want to hear what they have to say. Its amazing to hear some of the things some folks in a whie shop will say. Ah yes, this Chardonnay has no oak, but lots of citrus and the tannins are low, so it is easy to drink. Those situations is why some retail shops are only there to push what they can.

Firstly, Neil is incorrect in saying that "Mis en Bouteille au Chateau" means the wine is estate grown and produced, unfortunately. All it means is that the wine was bottled at the premises of the owner of the brandname, rather that at a bottling plant. For example, A negociant can buy wine from many sources, made from grapes from even more sources, and blend a wine at their factory. They can then, if the wine is AOC, put it in a bottle, call it Chateau La Tour Noire (for example) and write "Mis en bouteille au Chateau" or "a la propriété" so long as the brand name is registed at the bottling address.

There are many Cooperatives who own several Chateau, Domaine and Clos brandnames too. At least with a Coop, the wine is only made from the members grapes.

Secondly, I would love there to be an international standard on percentages of grape varieties, vintages, regions and of other terms like "Estate Grown and Produced" and "Barrel Aged". Do you think the big players like Diagio, Gallo and Constellation would like that?

Firstly, Neil is incorrect in saying that "Mis en Bouteille au Chateau" means the wine is estate grown and produced, unfortunately. All it means is that the wine was bottled at the premises of the owner of the brandname, rather that at a bottling plant. For example, A negociant can buy wine from many sources, made from grapes from even more sources, and blend a wine at their factory. They can then, if the wine is AOC, put it in a bottle, call it Chateau La Tour Noire (for example) and write "Mis en bouteille au Chateau" or "a la propriété" so long as the brand name is registed at the bottling address.

There are many Cooperatives who own several Chateau, Domaine and Clos brandnames too. At least with a Coop, the wine is only made from the members grapes.

Secondly, I would love there to be an international standard on percentages of grape varieties, vintages, regions and of other terms like "Estate Grown and Produced" and "Barrel Aged". Do you think the big players like Diagio, Gallo and Constellation would like that?

Jon, I didn't say this. Robin did.

http://www.wine-lovers-page.com/cgi-bin ... .cgi?w=106

So who is right?

Sorry Neil, I didn't mean to single you out. It's a common misconception, which seems to be widespread in America and the UK too. Presumably it has been taught in wine schools and told by importers but it's not true. It is also "mis en bouteille", not "mise..." - just to be pedantic.

You generally have to read the smallprint and even then it is often written to make it look estate-produced. We might put "Mis en bouteille au Domaine par Jonathan Hesford, producteur" for example whereas a negociant might put "Mis en bouteille au Chateau par Les Vignerons Catalans". It's going to get more confusing as many ambitious producers are getting themselves negociant licences in order to sell other people's wines as their own.

In France, estate produced wine is diferentiated by the tax capsule, which will either have an "R" for Recoltant or "N" for negociant. A recoltant is someone who is ONLY allowed to bottle and sell wines from grapes grown on vineyards they own (or rent). The "Vigneron Independant" logo generally mean the producer is also the grower but I know of at least one who uses the logo and make wine from grapes grown under contract. Exported wine from larger producers generally use a blank capsule which of course does not display this information.

It's just another little thing to add to the list of why many labels are designed to make the consumer think the wine is something more than it is. Just like the terms "Grand Vin", "Vielles Vignes" or, like on the cheap bottle of plonk someone gave me, an individual bottle number.

It is worth reading

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-27737.pdf

Notice No. 109, Use of Various Winemaking Terms on Wine Labels and in Advertisements; Request for Public Comment (5th November 2010)

SUMMARY: The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau is considering amending the regulations concerning various winemaking terms commonly used on labels and in advertisements to provide consumers with information about the growing or bottling conditions
of wine. We invite comments from industry members, consumers, and
other interested parties as to whether and to what extent we should propose specific regulatory amendments for further public comment.
DATES: We must receive written comments on or before January 3, 2011. [now changed to March 4, 2011, by Notice No. 113.]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa M. Gesser, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, P.O. Box 128, Morganza, MD 20660; (301) 290–1460.

This might be easier to read on my blog

US seeks comments on legislation on Terms on Wine Labels and in Advertisements http://goo.gl/jg84o

On wine labels but moving to Spain see my blog post

Grower Rioja is labelled as "Elaborado y Embotellado por XXX" http://goo.gl/Ckbdw

It is also "mis en bouteille", not "mise..." - just to be pedantic.

My French is not good, but you definitely see both on labels - and with about equal frequency I'd say. I have just double checked to be sure.

I reckon "mis" refers back to "le vin" (masculine), whereas "mise en bouteille" is the act of bottling in general. And sometimes you get the plural "bouteilles".

75% sounds correct. I'm a huge Ridge fan (more Ridge in my cellar than any other producer) and many years ago they went to proprietary names like Geyserville and Lytton Springs to avoid the 75% rule.

What's the rule on vintage dating a wine? Must the grapes be 100% from that year or is it something less (90%)?

Tom,
Sorta right. True, in many yrs the Geyserville was below the minimum 75% for Zinfandel. Less often for the LyttonSprings. But the primary driving force
for that change was marketing reasons & the name recognition those two had.
Tom