Thu 13 Dec 2007
Winemakers and producers in American, though they usually don’t want to admit this, have a much easier time as far as governmental regulations are concerned than their counterparts in Europe. Or maybe they do admit it, but sort of gruffly, in an
American sort of way. In America, the rules set down by the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), formerly the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms — and thank god they finally got the guns out of there! now the vice president can handle those directly! — primarily effect what terms can be printed on wine labels and what the terms mean.
In Europe, the story is far different. The regulations laid down by the official wine bureaus of various countries stipulate what kinds of grapes can be grown in what regions and what grapes go into different sorts of wines, often including the minimum percentages of grapes in blended wines. Some rules are so stringent that they dictate what the yields must be in the vineyards, what sort of trellising system must be used and when harvest must begin.
Whew, I’m glad we don’t have to worry about all that stuff in America! Our guiding power is the can-do spirit of frontier individualism which says, essentially, plant any grapes anywhere you want to and make the wine any way you can. The main
point, as far as the TTB is concerned, is that fraud not be perpetuated by misleading label terms. So, if a label says that the wine is from Sonoma County, it “must be derived from not less than 75% of grapes, citrus or other fruit or other agricultural commodity grown in the named county AND must be fully finished (except for cellar treatment and blending which does not result in an alteration of class and type) in the state in which the named county is located.” I’m quoting here from the official Department of Treasury The Beverage Alcohol Manual: Basic Mandatory Labeling Information for Wine, a fascinating document written 75% in real English and available here.
If the label states that the wine is a product of an approved American Viticultural Area (AVA), such as Russian River Valley or Stags Leap District, then the amount of grapes in the wine from that AVA must be 85 percent. If the label states that the wine was “Estate Bottled,” then 100 percent of the grapes must derive from land owned or controlled by the winery, which much be located within the same AVA as the vineyard and “must crush, ferment the grapes, finish, age, process and bottle the wine on their premises.”
There are other various picayune label matters that producers must attend to, like the size of the type that the government warming is printed in, but it’s good that generally the federal government wants to prevent, as much as possible, the hoodwinking of innocent wine consumers.
Which brings me to the word “reserve,” a term that we see on wine labels all the time over which the TTB has no control at all and has never attempted to control and the whole reason for today’s post.
The word “reserve” on a label implies that the wine is special in some way, that it was, perhaps, produced from a better part of a vineyard, that the wine was selected from barrels whose contents demonstrated higher quality, that more care was taken with its making and that it is limited in production, therefore commanding a high price. There is also the implication that a winery produces a reserve bottling to augment its “regular” wine in the same genre.
Variations on the term “reserve” include Private Reserve, Proprietor’s Reserve, Vineyard Reserve and Vintner’s Reserve, Special
Reserve and such terms as Special Selection, Special Release and Our Finest Selection. None of these terms is regulated, so that Glen Ellen, during “the fighting varietals” promotions in the 1980s, was free to label its wines as “Proprietors Reserve,” even though they were produced in the millions of cases and sold for $5 or $6. Then there’s Kendall-Jackson, whose well-known “Vintner’s Reserve” series, costing from about $12 to $16 a bottle, is ubiquitous in the country’s restaurants. Surely the situation is confusing for consumers when they can buy a bottle of Glen Ellen Reserve Cabernet Sauvignon for $5 while the Beringer Private Reserve Cabernet Sauvignon costs $116 and the Caymus Special Selection costs $136.
I think there need to be some rules, not necessarily the way it is in Tuscany, for example, where the differences between Chianti Classico and Chianti Classico Riserva and between Rosso di Montalcino and Brunello di Montalcino are enforced by government regulations. No, I think it is enough that a producer be required to prove that a wine labeled in some manner to indicate its superiority to a cousin wine from the same winery was indeed derived from a special vineyard or portion of a vineyard, that the grapes received particular treatment in the winery and that the wine was bottled in a limited quantity. These factors should be enumerated on the back label in straightforward language that consumers can understand. Wineries that did not follow these procedures or that could not justify using the terms would not be allowed to produce so-called “reserve” wines.
Next week: A similar rant on an equally nebulous and often misused term, “Old Vines.”
December 14th, 2007 at 9:13 am
The trouble with a conversation about rules is the same as the trouble with a conversation about ratings numbers. One person’s cutoff of the rules (numbers) is another person’s irritation.
For example: some want “reserve” to be controlled but don’t want TTB to necessarily make stringent rules that many European wine regions “used to” live under (a lot don’t any longer).
I like stringency, mainly because when there’s a lapse in one area, it tends to foment lapses in another area, which brings me to the lapsed “reserve…”
December 14th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Fredric,
As someone who deals with this issue on a daily basis, thank you for this post. The wines using “Reserve”, or some form of it on the labels, has numbed the buying public to the “real” reserves wines we sell. I hate intervention, in anything, by government but this one screams to stop the madness. I read a post, on another site, talking about wanting to The Wine Guru. Man I wish you or he were it. Great post as always and I can’t wait for the Old Vine post! Keep up the great work.
December 14th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Big Mike,
“I hate intervention, in anything, by government but this one screams to stop the madness.”
That’s exactly what I mean: one person’s cutoff is another person’s irritation. You can’t have intervention and then not have intervention and you can’t please all the interventionists or non-interventionists even if you could have it both ways.
Regulate the word “reserve,” and soon someone will want to regulate the word “aged,” and then another word, and another…not that I don’t think it’s a good idea to regulate “reserve,” just that I would not want to stop there.
December 14th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
Thomas
Point well made! I guess I could not see the forest for the trees. It still bugs me.
December 15th, 2007 at 8:55 am
Mike
Every time I see the word “reserve” on a label I think of two things: oak, and the word “natural” found on food labels.
December 15th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
I think that define a word like Riserva is to simplify the consumer life:
The term Riserva or Superiore means that the wine has to follow certain growing and aging rules so that the consumer knows exactly how the wine is made with just one word.
I do not see a dictatorial concept in designation but just a way to agree on terminology and giving a real meaning to a word otherwise meaningless.
Buona Bevuta a Tutti
www.de-vino.blogspot.com
www.de-vino.com
December 17th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
An appropriate standard would likely be similar to those that exist for advertising and marketing, in general. The appropriate ethical (if not always legally implemented) test is two-pronged. First, what is the impression the marketer wishes to achieve in the mind of consumers with this word? Second, is this impression, in fact, true? Putting a “sale” sign on an item implies a temporary discount, which is why its use is regulated, and one cannot simply attach the sign to regular prices. If “reserve” is added to suggest limited quantities, greater qualities, and special treatment, then it is obviously inappropriate when those conditions are not present.
Now asking the government to step in is another thing entirely…
December 17th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
As evidence of the government’s ability to parse words:
Current law prohibits use of the word “mature” (even if the wine is), but allows “old” to be used all willy-nilly.
December 18th, 2007 at 8:54 am
Mike,
“Current law prohibits use of the word “mature” (even if the wine is), but allows “old” to be used all willy-nilly.”
That’s because, unlike in Europe, the TTB’s regulations are established mainly to collect taxes. They sometimes appear to be concerned about quality–but they are concerned about the money! It is, after all, a branch of Treasury not of Ag and Markets.
In Europe, regulations were established with quality and authenticity in mind. In the beginning, the industry worked with government to come up with the rules.