Does Champagne go bad?

"dick" ha scritto

If you can0't see the difference between a typical local product and a recipe, then allrigth so.

Vilco

I think I understand what you are saying and I am going to argue the point with you. This is not a matter of opinions its a matter of international law on trademarks. Is Champagne as a region protected by law as only Sparkling wines from Champagne can be called Champagne in other countries outside of Europe. Presently the answer is Yes. You can have American Champagnes. Aussie Champagnes as well.

This might change one day.

But I think it might be a change for the worse. Will a Parma Ham that is not from Parma be called Parma Style Ham. Will that make a difference. Will French Dijon Mustard sold in the USA that is from Canada have to be renamed to Canadian Dijon Style Mustards. Will all water producers in Evian get to be called Evian thus reducing the Evian Trademark that exists in the USA. Geographic Regions are far more important to wines but they do not seem to have the same international protections. Perhaps they should and these perceived inequities will no longer exist.

US Labeling laws as put out from the FDA are about to change for Bioterrorism and require country of origin and much internal paperwork as to where ingredients come from for tracking purposes. If this goes not the label next it might look like this:

Maille Mustard, Product Of France, Seed from Canada, Glass from Germany, Seal from North Africa, Water from Italy, Salt and Pepper from Madagascar, Labor from Poland.....

Salut/Hi Steve Grant,

le/on 26 Oct 2003 15:36:06 GMT, tu disais/you said:-

Thanks Steve.

excuse their

What is really sad in this for me is that these products are mainly quite good enough to stand on their own merits.

I've seen it said that names like champagne & chablis (which for me are _clearly_ names of wine regions) sherry & port (which are slightly different in that they are anglicisms for wines imported from particular ports, can not now be protected by right of long usage in many places other than those of origin. It may be legally true, but in that case the law is an ass and shold be changed. As someone who lived in a country which regularly passed off all sorts of muck with prestigious names (Burgundy, Claret, Sherry and Port to name but a few) I know just how the misuse of these names debased the general view of the genuine article. I was delighted to see European style legislation introduced to ban such passing off and would very much like to see much more stringent legislation of this type world wide. No, in fact I'd far prefer it if producers, importers and retailers would be meticulous on a voluntary basis. But if they aren't prepared to do so then I believe it may be necessary to introduce legislation to do so.

ALL countries (and again, please don't take this as in any way intended as a sideways swipe at America) need to be far more meticulous in their handling of international trade. Size or wealth make no difference. It's a matter of equity above everything else. If laws allow injustice then that's not a justification of the action, it's a demonstration of bad laws - which after all are nothing sacrosanct, but the creation of the administration in power when the law was enacted. At the moment in France M Chirac is President, and we see laws enacted which reflect his political stance and beliefs. One could argue that legislators should be above such things, but that would be unduly naive. When it comes to international trade, and the protection of wine (and cheese and ham and all sorts) names the game is even more complex, with, no doubt all sorts of horse trading going on. I'd prefer it - by FAR - if such agreements didn't descend to different sides fighting nationalist interests, but that a real attempt were made to find just and equitable solutions, but that's obviously hopelessly idealistic. But just as I find the argument "You can't copyright "Blue Mountain" because it is a colour followed by a geographical description" morally bankrupt, in its effect on Jamaican coffee growers, so I find the reduction of such matters as wine and cheese names to sterile legalism to be the same.

I heard through the rumor mill that the term "Methode Champenoise" is no longer allowed on the label of non-Champagne wines and is being replaced with "Methode Traditionelle" (sp?). Has anyone else heard this?

I believe if the term "Champagne" is to be used on a label, it has to be conjucture with another appellation (i.e. "California Champagne" or "Missouri Champagne").

clyde

Gallo makes a wine that they call Burgundy. I don't think it is pinot noir, though.

Dimitri

Well, what's happened here is that a specific name has become generic. It is, actually, a success problem. The examples that we most often cite are of brand-names that have become generic (like Kleenex and Coke).

You say "pass off local products using prestigious names from elsewhere". From this, I infer that you find the practice to be rooted in an attempt to deceive. I believe the practice is easily as much about attempting to communicate with consumers in terms they know. If the vast majority of your consumers have learned to say "champagne" when they're talking sparkling wine, regardless of how that sparkling wine is labelled, then there's a legitimate desire to want to label the product in a way that speaks directly to your consumers.

Further, not all parts of the label carry equal weight with consumers. Even people that don't know the difference between Champagne from Champagne and sparkling wine from Modesto *do* seem to quickly figure out the difference between Kristal and Korbel.

(Very few consumers I've met actually think that Canadian bacon comes from Canada, too)

I don't intend to dismiss the issue or insult consumers who don't know the difference, but what's the point of educating them? Most American consumers already think wine is too complicated and wine enthusiasts are too snooty; attempting to correct those very consumers on their improper use of the term will simply alienate them further. This won't sell more sparkling wine from anywhere.

Here's something that still makes me wince:

Dana

Perhaps. It's possible that "sandwich" might be more applicable:

Dana

Salut/Hi Dana Myers,

le/on Mon, 27 Oct 2003 12:40:56 -0800, tu disais/you said:-

I have to say that I use neither as generic terms. However I _do_ use "Biro" for ball point pen, I guess. I quite accept that is what happened in the past, but (just as for Alsace producers who claim that it is "too difficult" to re-educate consumers not to ask for "Tokay d'Alsace") quite independantly of what's legally incumbent, I feel that a punctilious winemaker wouldn't WANT to tread on the toes of colleagues elsewhere, if only out of enlightened self interest some time down the line.

Without any doubt. At least it was when it started. American "chablis" is so wildly different from the real thing that it's difficult to claim that there's a serious attempt to pass off. In this case, the name itself is being debased - in the eyes of the great mass of consumers. If Joe Public has no idea that Chablis (a wine made with Chardonnay grapes near the town of Chablis in France) is a fine wine, their image of the name will be coloured by the Gallo (or whoever it is) plonk of that name.

consumers in terms they know.

Nope. In terms they have been taught to recognise (incorrectly). If Californians had never ever called their sparklers "champagne" then the problem wouldn't exist now. The reason _originally_ was that everyone had heard of "champagne" as a prestigious sparkling wine, so winemakers (abusively) _used_ it as a generic term in the hope their wine would benefit from the glow of the real thing. Well, in a sense that's _their_ problem. They have to live with the expense of refocussing the public.

With respect, not legitimate. There's a desire and an understandable one. But just as I might have an understandable desire to label my homemade word processor "Word" so their desire to do so doesn't make it legitimate.

At the most basic level, so that the people who have laboured over centuries to give their wines an identity and excellence should not see their work debased.

I can't speak to the sophistication or lack of it of American consumers, but I do know that in the UK they were able to move from a wholesale abuse to a respect of wine names. Wine consumption has increased steadily. I can't believe that this wouldn't happen in the States.

I humbly suggest that you not try marketing products of your own design as "Kleenex" or "Coke" under the premise that the names have become "generic." You will get sued out of your underwear in no time flat. And you will lose. Quickly, massively, and decisively.

Of course. I know that but it doesn't stop the average consumer from *using these terms generically*. That was my point. Sure, there are litigations to attempt to preserve the brand-identity of these brands, but they're taking place because the terms have become generic. People walk up to a snack bar and ask for a coke, and make a disparaging comment when I ask if Pepsi is OK, like I'm stupid. I *have* to ask. You needn't lecture me on this point :-).

If "Champagne" wasn't a place but was a Gallo brand, we wouldn't be having this exchange.

Dana

Salut/Hi Dana Myers,

le/on Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:34:03 -0800, tu disais/you said:-

But it was _used_ by Gallo just because it WAS a place where they make an eponymous wine. That's the point for me.

Gallo (and anyone else who uses famous place names generically) knew perfectly well what they were doing when they started, Dana. They shouldn't bellyache now, it seems to me. And of course exactly the same argument could _and should_ IMO be true for Parma or Bayonne Hams, Parmigiani Reggiano, Cheddar (now THAT would truly put the cat among the pigeons), Roquefort cheeses, Basmati and Carnaroli rices (which are more than simply varieties of rice IMO). This isn't about protectionism (not a thing I like at all) but about giving credit where it's due and especially not deceiving the consumer. And please don't believe that I've got it in for the States over this. I believe that actually France would suffer more, if prestigious named products were properly protected.

That's EU legislation for some years now.

M.

Absolutely. And, may I cite another example: After WW I the term of "Champagne" and "Cognac" were forbidden to the loser parties of the war (and their successor states) - and what happened? Without any problem they found alternatives ("Sekt" & "Weinbrand" in the German speaking part of Europe).

It's a pity the war winners did'nt feel like doing the same, so that's why we have "Champagne" in the US and "Kognak" in Russia.

M.

Yes, but what effect does EU legislation have on wines produced and purchased across the pond? There are still many sparklers available here with the term on the label.

clyde

"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." -- H. L. Mencken.

Would you feel better about this if Gallo had put "Champagne-style sparkling wine" on the label? Gallo made a beverage in the style of something consumers already knew and labelled it as such.

...

Ah. What's this about prestige? Is a place-based name somehow inherently prestigious? Don't overlook the impact of the producer name; for example, Gallo is *still* working to overcome the perception of making nothing but insipid wine, regardless of what they put on the label. Dana

Salut/Hi Dana Myers,

le/on Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:00:36 -0800, tu disais/you said:-

No. There's no need to use the name champagne at all. Sparkling wine is good enough. If they want to say more about it and say that the fizz was created in the bottles, that all the techniques used in Champagne to make their wines were used too, then - speaking personally, I'd have no problems with the expression "Champagne method" in small letters somewhere. I don't agree with the EU on this btw, but I feel that winemaking techniques shouldn't be trademarked. But only if they did in fact use ALL the significant champagne techniques and their wine was made at the same high pressure.

I don't think so, Dana. I think they simply made a sparkling wine and used a prestigious name to sell it.

Only if the eponymous product had a great reputation (merited or not). Roquefort, for example. Personally I prefer Bleu des Causses (very like Roquefort but less salty and made with cow's milk) to all bu the very best Roquefort, but there's no disputing that Roquefort is the most highly reputed blue cheese (along with Gorgonzola, and Stilton, perhaps) in the world. I think it's entirely proper to restrict the name to the "real thing". If that happened, then it would cause chaos in France, by the way.

Quite true, which is yet another reason why a manufacturer with a poor reputation does harm to the name of the product they have "borrowed".

I agree with all you've stated Ian, especially this statement above, which has me questioning why it's been ruled against here in the states. Shouldn't they be changing the rule on use of appellation terms on the front label, instead of messing with winemaking terms?

Few things erk me more than CA wines being called Chablis, especially when they are made from Thompson Seedless! Though it does tend to identify my customer for me when they ask for "Something like a Chablis". Nobody has ever asked for that without it being a reference to a CA product. Most of those people who drink that stuff have no clue that true Chablis is from France.

The subject interests me as we are making our first commerical sparkling wine this year and have been looking for label terms. It seems like Methode Traditionalle is the most descriptive term available beyond "fermented in this bottle" which has always been awkward at best. What would one think otherwise: it was fermented in the bottle next to it?

Sparkling wine is another awkward term. There are alternatives, but we want something that the customers will be comfortable with and still understand what's in the bottle.

Here's the way the reg's state it:

________

In the case of champagne, or crackling wines, the type designation "champagne" or "crackling wine" ("petillant wine", "frizzante wine") may appear in lieu of the class designation "sparkling wine".

________

Even our government casually calls it Champagne!

I tend to like the term "petillant", but how many of my customers would know what that means? It's not even in my dictionary.

And crackling wine sounds dangerous. Where'd that come from?

clyde