California vs. France

[Sharon Bowman]

It is with some blear in my eyes that I type this this AM. As I sat on the subway to come to work, I reflected on something that had caught my eye as I was making coffee: the back label of an empty bottle of Tissot Savagnin, of the latest release. And that the stated alcohol was 14%.

I had been aware of the 13.5% price tag on an Hauvette white (odd bird of a wine, by the bye), and an even heftier one on a Rhône quaff, the evening before.

But suddenly I thought: these are the thin, hipster-elite bottlings and winemakers decried up and down the engine-fuel-swilling internets and beyond; why are they leaving me knocked out?

And then I thought about the "new" California wines I have been enjoying lately. Your 11.5% zinfandels and the like. Syrahs that barely break 13%.

And I mused on how the wine world seems to have the spins.

 

[Florida Jim]

originally posted by Sharon Bowman:
California vs. France

And I mused on how the wine world seems to have the spins.

Hence, the blear.
Best, Jim

 

[Oswaldo Costa]

originally posted by Sharon Bowman:
California vs. Francethe back label of an empty bottle of Tissot Savagnin, of the latest release. And that the stated alcohol was 14%.

Is this the 2013? I got a baker's dozen of 12 Tissot Traminer with 13% on the label. But the broader point is taken.

 

[Yixin]

The wonders of sugar and reverse osmosis!

 

[Sharon Bowman]

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:

originally posted by Sharon Bowman:
Tissot Savagnin, of the latest release. And that the stated alcohol was 14%.

Is this the 2013? I got a baker's dozen of 12 Tissot Traminer with 13% on the label. But the broader point is taken.

I believe it is the 2010 Arbois Savagnin, which goes under the veil for a bit. But I will observe the dead soldier after work to make sure.

 

[Cory Cartwright]

Alcohol percentage on the front or back label?

 

[Sharon Bowman]

On the back label.

 

[Oswaldo Costa]

The Traminer is ouillé, so perhaps the degree of evaporation involved in the non-ouillé pathway concentrates the alcohol a bit.

 

[Cory Cartwright]

originally posted by Sharon Bowman:
On the back label.

Doesn't really mean anything in that case.

 

[Sharon Bowman]

It's the domain's back label, not a separate importer label, actually. Still not valid?

 

[SFJoe]

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
The Traminer is ouillé, so perhaps the degree of evaporation involved in the non-ouillé pathway concentrates the alcohol a bit.

Depends a lot on how they do it. Some of those guys put the voil-ed barrels in the attic for a while (low humidity and higher temps will increase abv, but more active yeast will eat more), or back in the cold cellar (high humidity lets alcohol evaporate preferentially). Much inter-producer variation in practice as I understand it.

 

[SFJoe]

Implied, but not explicitly stated above: the voile eats alcohol.

 

[Oswaldo Costa]

Gotcha. So impact on abv can go either way.

 

[Oliver McCrum]

originally posted by Cory Cartwright:

originally posted by Sharon Bowman:
On the back label.

Doesn't really mean anything in that case.

Why would that be, out of curiosity?

 

[Greg Hirson]

originally posted by Oliver McCrum:

originally posted by Cory Cartwright:

originally posted by Sharon Bowman:
On the back label.

Doesn't really mean anything in that case.

Why would that be, out of curiosity?

If back labels are not reprinted/redesigned for each vintage, then the alcohol value may just be an approximation that falls within the correct tax class.

 

[Sharon Bowman]

This seems to have been done for the specific vintage. In fact, the front label is more generic.

 

[Oliver McCrum]

originally posted by Greg Hirson:

originally posted by Oliver McCrum:

originally posted by Cory Cartwright:

originally posted by Sharon Bowman:
On the back label.

Doesn't really mean anything in that case.

Why would that be, out of curiosity?

If back labels are not reprinted/redesigned for each vintage, then the alcohol value may just be an approximation that falls within the correct tax class.

Of course, good point. Or 'an approximation that one hopes falls within the correct tax class.' I think we pay the tax off the alcohol stated on the invoice, though. No-one would re-do the back label every year.

 

[Sharon Bowman]

originally posted by Oliver McCrum:
No-one would re-do the back label every year.

Except the many who do?

See the above, but also the champagne growers who note conditions or yields or whatnot for a given vintage. And others, of course.

 

[Oliver McCrum]

originally posted by Sharon Bowman:

originally posted by Oliver McCrum:
No-one would re-do the back label every year.

Except the many who do?

See the above, but also the champagne growers who note conditions or yields or whatnot for a given vintage. And others, of course.

I should have said 'Personally, I can't imagine re-submitting the label for approval every year.' I was talking about the bureaucratic part of it in the US. I believe the vintage and alcohol are allowed to change, though, without re-approval. They may be changing the back label substantially every year and not re-approving it, of course.

I now have to go and check that we have some procedure to make sure we're not paying the wrong tax amount by accident.

 

[Kay Bixler]

originally posted by SFJoe:

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
The Traminer is ouillé, so perhaps the degree of evaporation involved in the non-ouillé pathway concentrates the alcohol a bit.

Depends a lot on how they do it. Some of those guys put the voil-ed barrels in the attic for a while (low humidity and higher temps will increase abv, but more active yeast will eat more), or back in the cold cellar (high humidity lets alcohol evaporate preferentially). Much inter-producer variation in practice as I understand it.

But during aging wouldn't alcohol be the first thing to evaporate out of a barrel?