Dan, I live in the USA and 25 years ago had my first Bordeaux. I did not
know what kind of grapes it was...all I new is "I liked it".

What would the difference really be if I had never had Cabernet Sauv before
either? Bordeaux which is geographical or cab sauv which is varietal.
Assume I never had either.

Perhaps Americans in USA are more varietal oriented...big deal.

I am not an Opus One fan but you know they did not have any problems selling
out each year. Nor does Phelps Insignia. You know what big Danno....it
does not mention variety on the label either!!!!

Dick
"Dan The Man" > wrote in message
ups.com...
Max,
If French vintners (or the government) want to keep the existing
labels, fine with me. But these producers will be at a disadvantage if
they want to land new customers here in America (emphasis on NEW - we
all had to start somewhere). That's why they would be smart, from a
marketing standpoint, to try labels with the varietal listed for their
exported produce. What they do for their produce sold domestically, I
don't really care. And experts would be free to ignore such labels.

Dan-O (THIS has been a lively discussion!)


Max Hauser wrote:
> "Emery Davis" in :
> | On 10 Aug 2005 "Dan The Man" said:
> |
> | ] All of these arguments for and against varietal labeling are
> | ] fascinating. But I do want to make one more point - a
> | ] beginning wine drinker's tastes (and income) will tend to
> | ] change over time. In other words, today's $4 per bottle
> | ] plonk drinker might (someday) see a substantial increase
> | ] in his/her paycheck. But the habit of shopping by varietal
> | ] will likely be set in concrete by then. In that case, the name
> | ] Chateau Margaux (one of France's most famous) will mean
> | ] diddly - the drinker in question will want to know what is
> | ] inside. And this person, who might now have $104 to spend,
> | ] will be inclined to look for something else.
> |
> | Not to put too fine a point on it, but I find the "newbie"
> | concept difficult here. My parents drank wine. I tasted it, and
> | served it, and looked at the labels. Wine is a traditional and
> | familial drink.
>
> Agreed Emery. You appreciate that many in the US didn't grow up seeing
> wine
> in context like that, wherefrom emerges a particular US argument on this
> diverse issue, visible on this forum and elsewhere. (Some years ago I
> heard a report that US people on the Wine Spectator web site were calling
> for wines in other countries to be re-labeled in terms familiar to them.
> The US wine enthusiasts that forwarded this information thought it was a
> novelty, and bizarre.) It's indeed a different side of the issue than
> what
> M. Prónay is discussing.
>
> Arguments like the "| ]" above seem to me tantamount to arguing to reduce
> the effort for wine-ignorant nouveaux-riches to identify and buy up
> excellent wines. (As if the de-facto effect of 100-point scales did do
> this
> sufficiently). This in the interest of the rest of us wine consumers???
>
> The opposite approach I'll summarize as a variation of a 1960s US maxim.
> Knowledge will get you wines with no money, better than money will get you
> wines with no knowledge. Any newbie (for less than the cost of a bottle
> of
> overmarketed corporate-concept mediocre wine) can begin reading about the
> subject from various insightful writers, and getting much more information
> and context than from TV ads or shelf talkers. I've advocated examples, to
> anyone who would listen, for some time. (Including here, from the early
> 1980s.)