You going to propose the change to the legal rules? Bear in mind this also affects label approvals, so it’s going to impose additional costs on wineries that they will pass onto you. Some may stop shipping to certain states that have very restrictive labeling approvals.
Just food for thought.
Their are few thinks about wine and life that you can quantify. ABV is one. I know it is not always accurate. I enjoy wine but have to chuckle when I hear terms like 'hint of spring" “wet dog in phone booth” These are all subjective phrases. Transparency is always best. “Just the facts mam”. Put ABV on the bottle!
Read my post a little closer, and you’ll see me acknowledge the logistical challenges of having precise ABV requirements. I’m taking no position around the way labels are approved… As a consumer, I just think it would be nice to have more precision on the label. Even if it’s a sticker added over a previously printed label, which would not be particularly onerous or expensive.
Are you saying you don’t think there are producers out there who knowingly or even purposely put the wrong ABV on a label? I can tell you with 100% certainty that those producers do exist.
First off - not trying to be confrontational at all (at least not today 
), just commenting on your request for “a little more precision.”
I will not speak to “wrong ABV” as I am not clear as to whether you think 14.1% is “wrong” if it’s actually 14.4%. That’s within the allowable 0.5% range for wines over 14% ABV. Regarding the 1.5% allowance below 14%, I would be interested in your opinion of what is considered “wrong.” Are you concerned about precision or about alcohol percentages that fall outside of the class of the wine?
As for reporting alcohols that fall outside of the tax/tariff ranges (because that’s what they are…revenue categories), that’s not a misleading wine geeks thing, but rather a potential legal issue that can in some cases result in fines and/or confiscation of goods. If you are referring to the thread about the Beaujolais that supposedly has two labels with wildly different (and different tariff class) alcohols, there are many reasons that could have happened that have nothing to do with the winery, as well as others that have a lot to do with the winery. Unless I see the facts, including an actual alcohol % confirmed by test, I will not speak to precisely what may be going on there. It’s an interesting situation though.
If for example a Pinot noir has 13.9% ABV, but the producer likes to market themselves as a classicly styled producer and they therefore put 12.5%, that’s being misleading to the consumer. All I’m saying is (1) it would be nice as a consumer to have more precision (and anything within 0.5% is precise enough for me), and (2) there are definitely producers who take advantage of the system (not staking a claim against any particular producer)
All that said, as I understand it producers order labels before the wine is bottled. They may or may not have official ABV test results when they order their label. And there can be variations in the test results themselves. So yes there are logistical challenges.
That’s a good point. I shouldn’t have implied that it’s definitely the producer at fault there, or that there necessarily is any fault.
I remember someone who buys wine for a well-known importer talking about bringing in some very small production wines from a producer who really doesn’t test anything. The winery is in a remote area. The importer needed to get approval for labels with ABVs in order to ship the wine and had no feasible way of getting real numbers. So, they put themselves in the higher tax bracket since something like 14.1% was plausible. They did test the wines once they had them, and some were much lower, by way over 1% (not that the allowed leeway would cover anything at 13.9% or below anyway).
I’d like to see everything accurate within 0.5% too, but the realities can be complicated.
This is what I was going to post. It’s just a fiction anyway so I don’t pay any attention to it.