Does anyone claim to use mega Purple? Seems a lot is produced and sold. I love Syrah, but disdain black peppery notes in my Pinot noir. If the winemaker wants to blend it in, tell me up front. Meomi sells a lot of P. N. blends, let those that favors them buy them.
I likewise love traditionally made Zinfandel, but hate the blends with the jammy over ripe petite Syrah.Quite honestly, when the producers declare they use p.s. in their Zins, I don’t buy them. Let those that prefer the blends buy them, just let me know what I’m buying before hand. Up to 25% of petite Syrah in a Zin is a lot! But that’s just me.
I’m not anti blends. I love CdP and othe Rhine blends, both red and white, along with Bdx, Priorat, and many of the Tuscan blends. Just let me know what you’ve done.
Jammy, overripe Petite Sirah? So do you actively dislike Ridge Zins? They often have a significant % of Petite Sirah - and get additional structure from it.
Certainly historical precedent plays a role. Burgundy was only blended secretly when the tanker trucks from the Rhone rolled up with blending wine. Whereas Bordeaux and Rhone wines have been and are openly presented as blends.
Even in current application, the tendency seems to be for producers to blend Pinot Noir to taste like something else to suit the mass market. Whereas a Cab S blended with Merlot and Cab Franc will pretty much taste like a Cab S, but generally with improvements to some attributes it may have been lacking by itself.
I certainly could see a Pinot Noir - cool climate Syrah or Pinot Noir - Grenache blend working well. There are surely other blenfds that would also be interesting. But I’d prefer to know that it’s a blend of PN with another cultivar. If the producer wants to hide the blend, chances are they are doing it for not the most noble, quality driven reasons.
My guess is that chardonnay and pinot originated from Burgundy, and it was not their practice to blend varieties. So the idea of 5% or 10% of something else in those varieties is considered sinister and verboten, whereas it’s fine in Rhône and Bordeaux varieties because those places routinely blended.
Whether that custom and that subjective view should be given the weight of law or not, that’s an open question.
Chateau Montelena and Davis Family Vineyard for two. Both 100% Zin made in a more traditional style. Wonderful to just drink and still pairs wonderfully with food, not overpowering it as many p.s/Zin blends do.
I suppose you are right Jay, but this will not stop the OLCC from coming after you!
“OLCC Resolves Wine Labeling case with Out of State Winery
Winery to pay large fine
PORTLAND, Ore. – The Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission (OLCC) imposed one of the largest alcohol fines in the agency’s history against Copper Cane Winery, headquartered in California, for issues relating to labeling of Pinot Noir wine made with Oregon grapes. The Commission approved the $50,000 settlement at its regularly scheduled meeting on September 23, 2021. Commissioners also approved two other stipulated alcohol settlement agreements.
The OLCC alleged that the winemaker imported wine into Oregon under Copper Cane’s Certificate of Approval (CERA) privileges, but misrepresented the source of the grapes. OLCC also alleged that wine labels and marketing display materials improperly referenced specific American Viticultural Areas (AVAs) within the State of Oregon and stated that the grapes were from the Oregon Coast or the coastal area. Consumers, growers and Oregon winemakers noticed the geographic inaccuracy, since Oregon’s grape growing regions do not touch the Pacific coast and are separated by the Oregon Pacific Coast mountain range.
In response, the OLCC opened an investigation to review the allegations against Copper Cane which revealed the winery likely produced inaccurate wine labels; the investigation also revealed issues with Copper Cane’s marketing and retail display materials.
Although Copper Cane opted to settle the charges, the winery didn’t admit to the allegations or accept responsibility for mislabeling their products. However, the winery agreed to pay the fine and abide by all wine labeling standards going forward.
“Alcohol regulators and the wine industry in the U.S. and across the world must continue to ensure that unique locations, where grapes are grown and wine is produced, are protected in the market so consumers can be confident they are purchasing a bottle of wine from where it actually came from,” said OLCC Executive Director Steve Marks. “In this case we used the agency’s limited regulatory tools to protect Oregon’s brand, in the same way we would respect the brands from other wine growing regions.”
Labeling is a very important issue and impacts Oregon’s wine industry because the state is internationally recognized as a producer of premium wines. The result is that Oregon wines are highly sought after, and customers rely on the wine labels to provide them with accurate information about the product they are purchasing.
Simultaneous to the Copper Cane investigation, the OLCC began working with the growers, winemakers and the Oregon legislature to improve policies to more accurately label where Oregon wines originate. Meetings involving different wine industry stakeholders revealed the need to understand and acknowledge the distinctions in wine production, as grape growers and winemakers have different business models and operations.
Winemakers partnered with state and federal regulators 40 years ago to establish AVAs, which are specifically defined wine growing regions across the country distinguished by their soil type, climate and elevation. Prior to the establishment of AVAs, wine appellations were designated by arbitrary county or state borders with no regard to distinct growing conditions. AVA designations enable winemakers to produce vintages with a distinct flavor profile associated with the particular AVA and label the wine as such.
Oregon wine growers and winemakers have worked earnestly since the early 1980’s to establish the state’s brand recognition and create the prestige which they are now recognized for within the industry. Oregon wineries take great pride in their success and understand the importance of ensuring that the players in the market accurately label and inform customers of the specifics behind their vintages.”
The federal rules just set minimums, so they don’t conflict with or preempt stricter state rules. I don’t find any preemption clause in the rules (except with respect to warnings about alcohol and health), and there are many references to “unless required by state law” and the like, which shows that the federal rules anticipate parallel state regulatory regimes.
I’m sure that Oregon can regulate the labeling of products made in Oregon (particularly alcohol) that are identified as coming from Oregon, even if they’re sold outside the state. And there’s nothing preventing an Oregon winery from selling its 95/5 pinot/Algerian syrah in California. It just can’t be labeled as Oregon pinot.
[Corrected to clarify that this applies to wine made in Oregon]
More specifically, if there is to be more regulatory requirement around this, it should be of a disclosure nature, not to prevent wines from being labeled by their main variety.
It would be one thing for a 79% cabernet wine from Napa to have to state on the back label that it’s 79% cabernet, but not allowing it to say cabernet on the front label, that’s both unnecessary and will probably lead to worse products overall, because many or most winemakers will revise their blends to the arbitrary legal standard rather than make the best wine they can.
But overall, I think it would be a mistake to tighten the rules:
(1) who is really going to enforce the stricter rules? Who is going to be testing thousands of wines to see what % they are of what varieties? If nobody, then you’re just penalizing the honest wineries vis a vis the ones who will ignore the rules.
(2) it’s so arbitrary and subjective to say that a real Variety X wine can be not more than Y% of other varieties. Why should the law concern itself with that?
(3) as noted above, you’re just going to make wineries blend to the (arbitrary) law, rather than make the best wines they can.
(4) what is really the problem that needs solving? What actual harm is anyone experiencing with things being just as they are right now? Especially among the 99% of non-geek wine consumers.
(5) most of all, just find wines you like and wineries you want to support, and buy and drink that. If it turned out that cabernet you love is a lower % of cabernet variety than you thought, why should that bother you one bit? Drink what’s in the glass, not what’s on the label or the spec sheet.
I do not want to waste time arguing interstate jurisdiction, federal pre-emption, the applicability of the First Amendment to labelling laws and the ability of Oregon to regulate what someone does in New York, but if once again it makes you happy to claim that my analysis is wrong, when all I said is that I have to think about it, you can be happy, so long as no one else relies on what you posted.
The current Oregon regulations at Oregon Secretary of State Administrative Rules still show the 90%/75% minimums in Todd’s post. Looking at this, I found it interesting that Oregon statutes provide that, starting on January 1, 2023, any wine from an AVA that is wholly or partially nested within the Williamette Valley AVA must also include “Williamette Valley” on the label.
In response to one of Jay’s original questions, I do believe that anything that allows a winery to re-use labels, marketing materials, etc., not to mention continuing to use varietal labeling, from vintage to vintage helps the little guy compete. Anything that would require re-doing all of that every vintage if there was any change in varietal composition, is an added cost and regulatory burden. Added costs and regulatory burdens are easier for the larger producers to absorb.
For example, if a winery had to change the label from “92% cabernet sauvignon, 8% merlot” one year to “93% cabernet sauvignon, 7% merlot” the next year (due to vagaries in how much crop each variety produced), throwing out leftover labels from last year and having to print all new ones, and getting the needed label approvals for the new labels would be an added cost/regulatory burden. Likewise if a producer could sell the wine as “Producer Cellars Cabernet Sauvignon” one year but not the next, because the percentage of CS dropped below the magic line.
The lower the percentage of the named variety that is required for varietal labeling, the less regulatory burden and the easier it is to keep using all of the above from year to year. Not to mention that because it is easier to sell varietal wines (we assume - but see “The Prisoner” as a counter-example), anything that makes it easier to label a wine with a single variety benefits the small producer because it is easier for larger producers to engage in the marketing needed to sell wines whose primary labels don’t contain that varietal clue that he consumer looks for.
So, if the idea is to help the small producers compete, the percentage should be as low as possible, without violating the countervailing interest that the public has in knowing what it’s buying. As for whether 25, 20, or only 15 percent merlot can be blended in before one is deceiving a consumer who buys a bottle of “Producer Cellars Cabernet Sauvignon,” I’ll leave that to the angel-pin committee. I’m OK with 75, I’d be OK with 90, but I’d probably not want the rule to be outside that range if it were up to me.
The part that matters more to me is the percentage of grapes coming from the specific AVA. How much Lodi fruit can be present in a Napa Cabernet? How much Central Valley fruit can be in any other AVA wine?
To me, a breakdown of the grape variety holds less value than the distinction of where the grapes come from. Who knows this part of the rule off hand?
Unless this has changed, the federal rule is 75-85-95. 75% of that variety if varietally labeled, 85% of that AVA if AVA labeled, 95% of that vintage if vintage labeled. As discussed above, state or local rules could be more stringent, but can’t be less stringent.
