The Latest German Wine-Labelling Dummheit

Well there is some logic to the precision. But the transition will be difficult, creating lots of friction, which is a problem for business!
 
originally posted by Florida Jim:
Seems like fixing what is not broken, to me.
Click to expand...

I don't know. Some winemakers might beg to differ. As noted in the post, the 1971 law reduced the number of vineyard names and diluted some of the brands. Like everything, there were winners and losers. There is a serious argument that 'lesser' terroir benefitted from being associated with more famous names, so you could make a serious argument about returning labels to the original plots. And of course geeky producers had tried to signal this with other names and geeky consumers followed.

Similar issues in France, e.g. the expansion of what can be called 'St Joseph'.

That said, not sure the new proposal in that post really solves these issues. And, in the particular case of German wine, if even the top producers are struggling to get high prices, that would suggest the biggest concern is not lesser terroir being overpriced.
 
originally posted by Rahsaan:
originally posted by Florida Jim:
Seems like fixing what is not broken, to me.
Click to expand...

I don't know. Some winemakers might beg to differ. As noted in the post, the 1971 law reduced the number of vineyard names and diluted some of the brands. Like everything, there were winners and losers. There is a serious argument that 'lesser' terroir benefitted from being associated with more famous names, so you could make a serious argument about returning labels to the original plots. And of course geeky producers had tried to signal this with other names and geeky consumers followed.

Similar issues in France, e.g. the expansion of what can be called 'St Joseph'.

That said, not sure the new proposal in that post really solves these issues. And, in the particular case of German wine, if even the top producers are struggling to get high prices, that would suggest the biggest concern is not lesser terroir being overpriced.
Click to expand...
But this isn't a question of vineyard names, it's a question of village name. It's the opposite of combining diverse vineyards based (more or less) on separate terroirs into one large grouping, which is what the 1971 law did. Instead, it's dividing a (more or less) unified terroir along political boundaries (which can be really messy because an individual producer may have their single vineyard holdings in more than one political jurisdiction). The French equivalent would be dividing, say, Châteauneuf-du-Pape into Courthézon CdP, CdP CdP, Bédiarides CdP, etc.
 
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
originally posted by Rahsaan:
originally posted by Florida Jim:
Seems like fixing what is not broken, to me.
Click to expand...

I don't know. Some winemakers might beg to differ. As noted in the post, the 1971 law reduced the number of vineyard names and diluted some of the brands. Like everything, there were winners and losers. There is a serious argument that 'lesser' terroir benefitted from being associated with more famous names, so you could make a serious argument about returning labels to the original plots. And of course geeky producers had tried to signal this with other names and geeky consumers followed.

Similar issues in France, e.g. the expansion of what can be called 'St Joseph'.

That said, not sure the new proposal in that post really solves these issues. And, in the particular case of German wine, if even the top producers are struggling to get high prices, that would suggest the biggest concern is not lesser terroir being overpriced.
Click to expand...
But this isn't a question of vineyard names, it's a question of village name. It's the opposite of combining diverse vineyards based (more or less) on separate terroirs into one large grouping, which is what the 1971 law did. Instead, it's dividing a (more or less) unified terroir along political boundaries (which can be really messy because an individual producer may have their single vineyard holdings in more than one political jurisdiction). The French equivalent would be dividing, say, Châteauneuf-du-Pape into Courthézon CdP, CdP CdP, Bédiarides CdP, etc.
Click to expand...
There is an argument for doing this. Northern (Orange) vineyards are certainly different from La Crau, though different cepage mixes like Beaucastel’s high Mourvèdre content can change that.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:

There is an argument for doing this. Northern (Orange) vineyards are certainly different from La Crau, though different cepage mixes like Beaucastel“��������s high Mourvèdre content can change that.
Click to expand...
Except that La Crau is not a political jurisdiction. In fact, it sits in three different political jurisdictions: Châteauneuf-du-Pape, Bédiardes, and Courthézon. Beaucastel is all or mostly in Courthézon, not Orange. So Beaucastel and La Crau are in part in the same political jurisdiction, supporting the criticism of use of political boundaries to override historical delineations based (to a greater or lesser extent) on terroir. As for terroir, although it may vary to some extent throughout the Châteauneuf AOC (which is always going to be the case for a large plot of land), there was a uniform basis for the original designation back in 1923: only land capable of bearing lavender and thyme (which prefer poor soils) was allowed.
 
Silly but doesn't seem like a huge deal. Having Dhroner Goldtropfchen out there will probably help out producers who've struggled to build similar cachet for Dhroner Hofberg.
 
If I'm not mistaken, they've been able to call it Drohner Goldtröpfchen if they wanted to in the past. Again, this causes big problems for someone who has holdings in both Drohn and Piesport.
 
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
If I'm not mistaken, they've been able to call it Drohner Goldtröpfchen if they wanted to in the past.
Click to expand...
But why *would* they have?
Click to expand...
Exactly, to make it more salable, they put the Piesporter designation on it; now that option is threatened. In the same way, some producers take wines from unattractive Côte de Beaune red wine appellations such as Meursault and relabel them Côte de Beaune-Villages.
 
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
But this isn't a question of vineyard names, it's a question of village name. It's the opposite of combining diverse vineyards based (more or less) on separate terroirs into one large grouping, which is what the 1971 law did. Instead, it's dividing a (more or less) unified terroir along political boundaries...
Click to expand...

I've been locked out of the forum for several weeks, but this is a fair point.

And I'm fully prepared to believe that the reform will not in fact improve the accuracy of representing underlying terroir on the label.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top