Would varietal labelling of French wine serve any purpose?

Yes!

Because Dourthe, Barton & Guestier, Caves Baron Philippe de Rothschild might want to market a wine called "Le Sauvignon du Baron Rothschild, AOC Bordeaux". Because French supermarket buyers see - and buy! - Sauvignon Blanc from Italy, Australia or New Zealand.

This is a totally diffenrent question - and the one that burns under the fingernails! - from the discussion of listing the percentage of cabernet, merlot etc. on the back label of Chateau Lynch-Bages or Flim Flam.

M.

I don't quite get this sentence, but anyhow: The front label (together with the price tag) is *THE* *SINGLE* *MARKETING* *TOOL* when you compete in a supermarket shelf.

M.

Indeed listing the varietals is helful only in setting expectations on the simplest wines.

Once you get into better wine, this information is not helpful because the varietal is not the (only) major influence on the taste of the wine. I have been at blind tastings where one was presented a burgundy wine from a hot vintage, and a bordeaux from a cooler year, almost everyone got them wrong. Our friends pinot and cab, so easy to identify in simple wines, had become impossible to distinguish.

OTOH, I insist on the need to reduce the number of appellations and get rid of the dozens of obscure low quality DOCs and AOCs that could easily be demoted to IGP or VdP with a varietal mentioned.

Cheers

] All of these arguments for and against varietal labeling are ] fascinating. But I do want to make one more point - a beginning wine ] drinker's tastes (and income) will tend to change over time. In other ] words, today's $4 per bottle plonk drinker might (someday) see a ] substantial increase in his/her paycheck. But the habit of shopping by ] varietal will likely be set in concrete by then. In that case, the name ] Chateau Margaux (one of France's most famous) will mean diddly - the ] drinker in question will want to know what is inside. And this person, ] who might now have $104 to spend, will be inclined to look for ] something else. ]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I find the "newbie" concept difficult here. My parents drank wine. I tasted it, and served it, and looked at the labels. Wine is a traditional and familial drink. As an american I was introduced to it in that context, and certainly one could argue that that is true for more of the western world than the US.

So, my 8 year old "knows" the difference between Chateauneuf du Pape and Bordeaux, without knowing anything about the cepage really. (Not quite true, as she amuses herself by pompously reading the back labels -- which even in France often list cepage -- at the dinner table.)

Why would someone spending $5 on a bottle buy a varietal label over a territorial one, if they know nothing to begin with? Are varietals fundamentally easier to understand, or is that just successful marketing?

-E

I strongly disagree. In fact, a good example of this is chardonnay (see below).

This does not mean the information is not helpful, it just means it is less helpful when trying to determine the taste. As someone else said, even given varietal there can be a wide variety of expressions (e.g. chardonnay). However, this does not mean that listing the cepage is entirely without value. For instance, I find situations such as the one described above to be interesting (when one varietal is mistaken for, or strongly resembles another). If I don't know the cepage then such interesting discussions are less likely to result.

Further, as I've stated before, it's not a big deal to list the cepage on the label regardless of how valuable (or not) some find it to be. Someone made the point of mentioning Stag's Leap District earlier and that it is known for cabs. While this is true, it would be a big mistake to assume every red wine grown there is a cab. Without the labeling one might not know this, even if one is quite familiar with most of the wineries in that region.

Dimitri

Go ask growers in Bordeaux, the Côtes-du-Rhône, the Côtes-de-Provence why they want it. *They* want it, and I understand them perfectly well. Just step into a French supermarket and take a look at the shelves and into the shopping carts and you will immediately understand.

M.

From my own point of view, I think it is much easier to understand, especially when talking about AOCs in which more than a dozen varietals can be grown. Grenache is, for instance, quite different from mourvedre or counoise. Without familiarity with a particular winery the consumer has no way of knowing what varietal is present in the wine. I think it is valuable to know this when browsing, for instance. As it is now, such wines (rightly) are grouped into a 'Rhone' section, but beyond that the consumer just has to hope that the winery decided to list the cepage on the label.

Dimitri

snipped-for-privacy@soda.csua.berkeley.edu (D. Gerasimatos) wrote in news:ddfdt7$1kpl$ snipped-for-privacy@agate.berkeley.edu:

Just one momre time, how does knowing the varietal in Chateauneuf du Pape tell the average consumer anything? They know that there are a bunch of grapes, but unless they really know CDP they probably wouldn't know several of the vareitals listed as to being red or white. Varietal info just isn't helpful in preview a blended traditional French wine

Well, I am an average consumer and it would tell me whether the wine was based on syrah, mourvedre, grenache, or something else. I consider this 'something' and also 'helpful'.

Dimitri

Not true Michael. There is Marketing that combines Public Relations, Image analysis etc.

I cannot really speak for Europe on this but in the USA the marjority of purchases are planned before the consumer walks into the supermarket. Less than 30% of total purhcases are impulse.

Therefore when you think of items you buy most of them are items you have bought many times over. Grew up with, Mom and Dad bought Jiffy peanut butter etc.

We are creatures of habit and buy based upon package identification.

Therefore appearing in Wine Spectator, Robert Parker Ratings etc are all part of a Advertising, Marketing, and PR campaign for a wine.

Here >

Michael;

Could it be that for $5 on a supermarket shelf the only marketing tool that really matters is who has the snazziest looking label? I think the whole listing of cepage issue revolves around that huge pool of middle class drinkers who have some greater or lesser interest in the product and who wish to learn more. The aficionados who have the means, don't need bottle information as their education has/will likely come from reading, reading, reading and talking, talking, talking to others with similar interests and last but certainly not least TASTING, TASTING, TASTING.

The cepage information is useful to those of us inhabiting the lands of the somewhat washed.

Now that is the most intelligent statement in this whole thread (because it happens to agree with my position).

I don't really feel strongly one way or the other if the grape varieties should be on the label, although I probably lean more toward yes since knowledge is good. If you don't care what grapes are in the bottle, don't read it.

What I can't understand it what is to be gained from forbidding the information on the label? I say leave it up to the grower/winemaker.

Andy

Maybe this is true for the totality of purchases, but certainly not for wine purchases. In Europe there are some specialized win shops (enoteca, caviste etc.), but the lion's share of wine (well over 60%) is sold in supermarkets.

Once again: It's the producers' and botlers' wish to market "Le Sauvignon du Baron Philippe AOC Bordeaux", because of the roaring success of sauvignon, merlot, syrah & co. from Chile, Australia.

It's totally childish, imnsho, not to let them label their wine the way they want.

But I guess I am repeating myself.

M.

There are some oversimplifications in both the above snippets.

First, the EU gives directive and it is up to the sovereign governments of each country to apply them by issuing a law. I cannot understand why Ian says that what isn't obligatory is forbidden, it sounds like another Polish plumber story...

The AOC front labels are defined by the french organization INAO, who states what needs to be mentioned compulsorily, and what can be added if the winemaker feels like it.

If you left it up to the winemaker, he could freely add things like "made from magnetically correct grapes" or "drinking my wine will cure cancer". So all those things are confined to the less visible back label, leaving the front one free of clutter and allowing the consumer to chose and to compare fairly the wines he wants to buy. Why? Because the information on the label are the ONLY elements that are guaranteed by the appellation system and the system of checks and controls around it. Everything else is not verifiable, and therefore relegated to a lesser label in tha back. Now you guys in the US should be sensitive to this consumer protection stuff, really!

Otherwise you end up with all those silly Aussie labels. ;-)

Seriously, the problems of the appellation system are certainly real, but the issues are far deeper than the label.

Michael Pronay wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@pronay.com:

Oh I hate it when people who have a different opinion than mine are right. You have put it very convincingly, it should be allowed even if it ultimately says nothing about hte qualityies of the wine. Theoretically the little notes about "deep garnet with hints of red fruit and smoky leather with a finish of garrigue and cedar" do that, but then how many people go around tasting garrigue? or cat's pee for that matter.

Mike Tommasi wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@individual.net:

Imagine if there were a law forbidding the use of animals or animal names on wines! No more porpoiseful purple or 4 emus and funeral. Well the 4 emus part is right.

Michael, I am 48 years old and some 26 years ago when I had my first glass of real wine---(not white zin) I did not know what Cabernet Sauvignon was. Or Pinot Noir. It was like a foreign language. Therefore Bordeaux, or Burg was same way.

I guess when I realized I liked Bordeaux I read up on what it was and learned academically because I had an interest in finding out what I liked about one wine over another.

The name did not matter specifically and I think you are getting to caught up in what make a consumer make a purchase. Consumers buy what they like. Some only buy because of image. Whatever reason they buy if you don't know what Bordeaux is, or what is in a red burg isn't that a marketing issue?

Marketing contains promotion and someone has outdone them by stating Cabernet Sauvignon is on the label from Austrailia or Chili in you opinion.

Why then was Champaigne name geographically protected for years? Because Champaigne by name of geography described what you got in a bottle. How many people knew which was Blanc d Blanc or Blanc d Noir etc.......did not matter in reality. Dom Perignon to those that liked Dom or Moet and Chandon was all they needed to know..

The power of marketing prevails in Champaigne. What has Bordeaux or Burg producers done other than keep high pricing to promote the advocacy of their terroir. Like...Burg is made of Pinot Noir, but you can't really take the burg out or burgandy because the product does not taste the same. Our soil is calcium rich and ........

The marketing is the answer...not the packaging only.

My opinion.

] Emery Davis wrote: ] ] > Why would someone spending $5 on a bottle buy a varietal label ] > over a territorial one, if they know nothing to begin with? Are ] > varietals fundamentally easier to understand, or is that just ] > successful marketing? ] ] Go ask growers in Bordeaux, the Côtes-du-Rhône, the ] Côtes-de-Provence why they want it. *They* want it, and I ] understand them perfectly well. Just step into a French ] supermarket and take a look at the shelves and into the shopping ] carts and you will immediately understand. ]

Michael, I go into a french supermarket nearly weekly. The wine is grouped by region, and of course 99% of it is French. So I'm not quite sure what you mean. The average french consumer knows that Bordeaux is "good" and Cotes du Rhone is "bad", and has not much of a palate. Every village fete or pot au feu has 2 wines available, Bordeaux and CdR, with no particular distinction for producer, with the former being more expensive regardless of quality.

In the last several years there have started to be some very low end bottles listed by cepage only.

I contend that the desire (which I also understand and sympathize with, although I think the point regarding blended wines is perfectly valid) to list cepage is a concession to the export trade only. And further in that trade that there is no particular reason to favor labelling by cepage over appellation except that cepage has been more successfully marketed. (This being the case it might indeed make sense to throw in the towel and accept the market's judgement).

The AOC system was as you know developed to try and allow the consumer to be able to count on a certain style of wine based on terroir _and_ cepage, so that a consumer will know that a Pomerol is not a St. Em, a Cairanne is not a Rasteau. Yes there is some latitude visavis encepagement, in some cases. But in principal the consumer can pick a wine from an appellation and have a fair idea of what he's getting, without descending into the technical details of producer or cepage. How many restaurants in Paris list wine by appellation _only_? I'll bet thousands.

My point to Dan was that there is no particular reason for a newbie to favor varietal labelling to regional. He needs advice, or at least some cultural background on which to base decision.

-E

"Emery Davis" in news: snipped-for-privacy@address.com: | On 10 Aug 2005 "Dan The Man" said: | | ] All of these arguments for and against varietal labeling are | ] fascinating. But I do want to make one more point - a | ] beginning wine drinker's tastes (and income) will tend to | ] change over time. In other words, today's $4 per bottle | ] plonk drinker might (someday) see a substantial increase | ] in his/her paycheck. But the habit of shopping by varietal | ] will likely be set in concrete by then. In that case, the name | ] Chateau Margaux (one of France's most famous) will mean | ] diddly - the drinker in question will want to know what is | ] inside. And this person, who might now have $104 to spend, | ] will be inclined to look for something else. | | Not to put too fine a point on it, but I find the "newbie" | concept difficult here. My parents drank wine. I tasted it, and | served it, and looked at the labels. Wine is a traditional and | familial drink.

Agreed Emery. You appreciate that many in the US didn't grow up seeing wine in context like that, wherefrom emerges a particular US argument on this diverse issue, visible on this forum and elsewhere. (Some years ago I heard a report that US people on the Wine Spectator web site were calling for wines in other countries to be re-labeled in terms familiar to them. The US wine enthusiasts that forwarded this information thought it was a novelty, and bizarre.) It's indeed a different side of the issue than what M. Prónay is discussing.

Arguments like the "| ]" above seem to me tantamount to arguing to reduce the effort for wine-ignorant nouveaux-riches to identify and buy up excellent wines. (As if the de-facto effect of 100-point scales did do this sufficiently). This in the interest of the rest of us wine consumers???

The opposite approach I'll summarize as a variation of a 1960s US maxim. Knowledge will get you wines with no money, better than money will get you wines with no knowledge. Any newbie (for less than the cost of a bottle of overmarketed corporate-concept mediocre wine) can begin reading about the subject from various insightful writers, and getting much more information and context than from TV ads or shelf talkers. I've advocated examples, to anyone who would listen, for some time. (Including here, from the early