Thought some might be amused by this story, which I witnessed with
much fanfare on the French news yesterday.

Belgian customs authorities destroyed over 3000 bottles of "counterfeit champagne"
from CA, labeled "California Champagne." "Of course there is no such thing,"
explained the customs official I saw interviewed.

The wine from Gallo brand André was destroyed at the cost and with agreement
of the (un-named in the reportage) owner.

-E

--
Emery Davis
You can reply to ecom
by removing the well known companies
Questions about wine? Visit http://winefaq.hostexcellence.com

Emery wrote on Sat, 12 Jan 2008 11:22:56 +0100:

ED> Belgian customs authorities destroyed over 3000 bottles of
ED> "counterfeit champagne" from CA, labeled "California
ED> Champagne." "Of course there is no such thing," explained
ED> the customs official I saw interviewed.

ED> The wine from Gallo brand André was destroyed at the cost
ED> and with agreement of the (un-named in the reportage)
ED> owner.

Andre is not a "Champagne Process" wine (fermented in the
bottle) but a cheaper Charmat process (tank fermented) wine.
However, finding the pompous indignation of the French a bit
irritating, I think I am going to continue to use and drink
bottle-fermented "California Champagne", especially given the
extension of the Champagne district boundaries (did they or did
they not reach Algeria?)


James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

Hi James, this is a very political subject but here goes:

Oranges are Oranges. But year back there was and is today a Florida Citrus
Commision. They decided to brand Oranges from Florida as Florida Oranges
and Grapefruit Indian River Grapefruit...

You can buy Oranges anywhere from many locations but only Florida Oranges
can be called Florida oranges even if they were sold in North Carolina or
Maryland etc.

There were people that came out with Punch's and drinks that were Florida
Orange Punch but all the orange juice was from Brazil so there was a law
suit.

Meanwhile, the method to produce Champaigne can be done by anyone. The
process does not hold a Patent. And anyone can state that this is a
Champaigne Method.

Champaigne is a district in France however and similar to oranges the
Florida Citrus comission is trying hard to enforce the Florida name only
when fruit is from Florida.

Another such example from the states are the Maine Lobster. They are
getting on the same bandwagon. Nova Scotia Lobster is often available at
the Palm, Charlotte and it states so. But some serve Nova Scotia lobster
passing it off as Maine Lobster and the Lobster industry in Maine is
certifying that they are from Maine when it says so and has also filed court
cases to adjudicate.

I don't think its as bad as we think if we do consider that Champaigne is a
district and entitled to their naming rights.

I do get ****ed when I want San Marsano Tomatoes and they are not from Italy
in our stores but often from Canada. Why can't it state San Masanso Seed but
Canadian grown?

Parma Ham from Canada...guess its cause Canadian Ham is not the same. Would
they like the italians in Parma to make Canadian ham at 1/2 price and sell
in Canada?

I think not.

This area is really strange that there cannot be some element of respect for
geographical naming. Afterall, we know Maryland Crab Cakes are the best,
don't we.

"James Silverton" > wrote in message
news:TA3ij.2641$cz3.132@trnddc06...
> Emery wrote on Sat, 12 Jan 2008 11:22:56 +0100:
>
> ED> Belgian customs authorities destroyed over 3000 bottles of
> ED> "counterfeit champagne" from CA, labeled "California
> ED> Champagne." "Of course there is no such thing," explained
> ED> the customs official I saw interviewed.
>
> ED> The wine from Gallo brand André was destroyed at the cost
> ED> and with agreement of the (un-named in the reportage)
> ED> owner.
>
> Andre is not a "Champagne Process" wine (fermented in the bottle) but a
> cheaper Charmat process (tank fermented) wine. However, finding the
> pompous indignation of the French a bit irritating, I think I am going to
> continue to use and drink bottle-fermented "California Champagne",
> especially given the extension of the Champagne district boundaries (did
> they or did they not reach Algeria?)
>
>
> James Silverton
> Potomac, Maryland
>
> E-mail, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

Richard wrote on Sat, 12 Jan 2008 09:10:37 -0500:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Clipping<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

RN> I don't think its as bad as we think if we do consider that
RN> Champaigne is a district and entitled to their naming
RN> rights.

RN> I do get ****ed when I want San Marsano Tomatoes and they
RN> are not from Italy in our stores but often from Canada. Why
RN> can't it state San Masanso Seed but Canadian grown?

RN> Parma Ham from Canada...guess its cause Canadian Ham is not
RN> the same. Would they like the italians in Parma to make
RN> Canadian ham at 1/2 price and sell in Canada?

RN> I think not.

RN> This area is really strange that there cannot be some
RN> element of respect for geographical naming. Afterall, we
RN> know Maryland Crab Cakes are the best, don't we.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<Clipping again>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I honestly do have some sympathy for folks who try to restrict,
shall we say "appellations", mostly for real financial
advantage, but I tend to resent attempts to force me use them.
In addition to political reasons, that resentment was in play
when I was told I must use Myanmar (or whatever) instead of
Burma.


James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 11:22:56 +0100, Emery Davis
> wrote:

>Thought some might be amused by this story, which I witnessed with
>much fanfare on the French news yesterday.
>
>Belgian customs authorities destroyed over 3000 bottles of "counterfeit champagne"
>from CA, labeled "California Champagne." "Of course there is no such thing,"
>explained the customs official I saw interviewed.
>
>The wine from Gallo brand André was destroyed at the cost and with agreement
>of the (un-named in the reportage) owner.
>
>-E

Total value of 3000 bottles of Andre probably around 45 Euros at
wholesale prices.

What's funny about this, is that it is Belgium not France.

One might also note that they could have made their dubious point by
choosing a higher grade of American "champagne" like Domaine Chandon
for example....whoops, that would be a French Champagne company
marketing and selling California champagne.

I'm sooooo confused.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

Emory, was this wine considered counterfeit because it was California or
because it was simply a counterfeit product in general.

In other words was it being done to support the Champaigne designation in
France?
"Emery Davis" > wrote in message
...
Thought some might be amused by this story, which I witnessed with
much fanfare on the French news yesterday.

Belgian customs authorities destroyed over 3000 bottles of "counterfeit
champagne"
from CA, labeled "California Champagne." "Of course there is no such
thing,"
explained the customs official I saw interviewed.

The wine from Gallo brand André was destroyed at the cost and with agreement
of the (un-named in the reportage) owner.

-E

--
Emery Davis
You can reply to ecom
by removing the well known companies
Questions about wine? Visit http://winefaq.hostexcellence.com

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 09:10:37 -0500, "Richard Neidich"
> wrote:

>Meanwhile, the method to produce Champaigne can be done by anyone. The
>process does not hold a Patent. And anyone can state that this is a
>Champaigne Method.

Not so.

I don't know to what extent the restictions have spread, but certainly
in the EU the term "Champagne Method" is no longer allowed. People
now use "Traditional Method", or a foreign language variant, instead.

--
Steve Slatcher
http://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher

pavane wrote on Sat, 12 Jan 2008 11:05:04 -0500:


p> "Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
p> ...
??>>
??>> One might also note that they could have made their
??>> dubious point by choosing a higher grade of American
??>> "champagne" like Domaine Chandon for example....whoops,
??>> that would be a French Champagne company marketing and
??>> selling California champagne.
??>>
p> I believe their point was the unauthorized use of the
p> protected term "Champagne" on the label, not the question of
p> whether a sparkling wine was produced, nor by whom. Very
p> few houses in California use the term "Champagne" on the
p> label, Andre and Korbel come immediately to mind. I don't
p> think that any *good* producer in California uses the term
p> on its label, although Schramsberg still uses the term
p> "Method Champenoise."

I would disagree with you about "good". I will admit that the
best California Champagnes are made by French owned companies
but Korbel is not bad at all!

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

Food and Beverage labeling laws are very restrictive by country.

I produce and distribute some package Dry Bean Soups. My company has been
around for about 80 years now. I am not the founder.

About 5 years ago, only selling in USA Supermarkets and Military bases
worldwide we said, lets sell Canada.

So, upon embarking you have to have your package meet the laws of each
province which is not the same and the packaging must by law be bi-lingual.

In the USA we have the NLEA LABEL LAWS. We had to buy new plates and get rid
of all the old film we had when that was placed in effect about 10 years
back. Needless to say, it was a $500000 USA cost to a small business.

Next, we then had the trans fat change in labeling. We had to change film
for that. Another $180,000 cost...oh yeah, we have no transfats in our
product anyway. But we had to state that in the manner they required.

Labeling laws are very specific by country. And if importing you better
know the laws....When France Bottlers export to USA...trust me, they have
very specific guidelines here to.

But, maybe they dumped it just cause it was Andre :-)
"Paul Arthur" > wrote in message
om...
> On 2008-01-12, Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 11:22:56 +0100, Emery Davis
> wrote:
>>
>>>Belgian customs authorities destroyed over 3000 bottles of "counterfeit
>>>champagne"
>>>from CA, labeled "California Champagne." "Of course there is no such
>>>thing,"
>>>explained the customs official I saw interviewed.
>>
>> One might also note that they could have made their dubious point by
>> choosing a higher grade of American "champagne" like Domaine Chandon
>> for example....whoops, that would be a French Champagne company
>> marketing and selling California champagne.
>
> No, they market and sell California sparkling wine. The objection is to
> the application of the name Champagne to wines made outside the
> protected region, not to the manufacture of sparkling wine.
>
> --
> Clarity: not just for thingie anymore.
> --James Nicoll on LJ

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 13:50:43 GMT
"James Silverton" > wrote:

> Emery wrote on Sat, 12 Jan 2008 11:22:56 +0100:
>
> ED> Belgian customs authorities destroyed over 3000 bottles of
> ED> "counterfeit champagne" from CA, labeled "California
> ED> Champagne." "Of course there is no such thing," explained
> ED> the customs official I saw interviewed.
>
> ED> The wine from Gallo brand André was destroyed at the cost
> ED> and with agreement of the (un-named in the reportage)
> ED> owner.
>
> Andre is not a "Champagne Process" wine (fermented in the
> bottle) but a cheaper Charmat process (tank fermented) wine.
> However, finding the pompous indignation of the French a bit
> irritating, I think I am going to continue to use and drink
> bottle-fermented "California Champagne", especially given the
> extension of the Champagne district boundaries (did they or did
> they not reach Algeria?)
>

I don't get your point. The French weren't indignant at all, nor pompous
beyond the usual point. They simply reported a story that happened
in Belgium. Why don't you lash out at the pompous Belgians?

The Champagne appellation is being enlarged to include several similar
terroirs that can historically show they grew grapes prior to the current
classification. There's a penury of fruit in Champagne, that pushes the
prices up for everyone. What's with the Algerian crack?

What you drink is your own get out. Belgian customs seized these goods
because they are in violation of labelling laws. I happen to agree with
these laws, but that's immaterial. By European law (not French, BTW)
the stuff is counterfeit.

I posted the story simply because I thought it funny to call low-end juice
like André "counterfeit champagne." I don't intend to start a flame fest,
but your response seems unnecessarily provocative. If you were being
tongue in cheek please accept my apology, I didn't get it.

-E


--
Emery Davis
You can reply to ecom
by removing the well known companies
Questions about wine? Visit http://winefaq.hostexcellence.com

On Jan 12, 4:22 am, Emery Davis > wrote:
> Thought some might be amused by this story, which I witnessed with
> much fanfare on the French news yesterday.
>
> Belgian customs authorities destroyed over 3000 bottles of "counterfeit champagne"
> from CA, labeled "California Champagne." "Of course there is no such thing,"
> explained the customs official I saw interviewed.
>
> The wine from Gallo brand André was destroyed at the cost and with agreement
> of the (un-named in the reportage) owner.
>
> -E
>
> --
> Emery Davis
> You can reply to
> by removing the well known companies
> Questions about wine? Visithttp://winefaq.hostexcellence.com

Champagne on labels in the US was used much more in the past and
included just about any sparkling wine, even brands in the NE that
used native American grapes. This sort of thing has been done for many
other wines. At one time there was a lot of cheap wine from California
labeled Port, Tokay, Sauterne, Sherry, etc. Other countries also
sometimes used these names not native to their country. Agreements
between countries have put an end to much of this, but not all. If you
go back to the 1880s, there was even much more liberty taken in naming
wines. There was briefly a Yquem from California in the late 1800s,
but that went a bit too far, even for that time, and the name was soon
not allowed. Yquem, if anything, was even more famous in the 1800s
than now. I have not heard of a California Romanee-Conti from that
era, but it would not surprise me if someone found a California label
from the 1800s with that name.

cwdjrxyz wrote on Sat, 12 Jan 2008 09:52:45 -0800 (PST):

c> On Jan 12, 4:22 am, Emery Davis >
wrote:
??>> Thought some might be amused by this story, which I
??>> witnessed with much fanfare on the French news yesterday.
??>>
??>> Belgian customs authorities destroyed over 3000 bottles of
??>> "counterfeit champagne" from CA, labeled "California
??>> Champagne." "Of course there is no such thing," explained
??>> the customs official I saw interviewed.
??>>
??>> The wine from Gallo brand André was destroyed at the cost
??>> and with agreement of the (un-named in the reportage)
??>> owner.

IMHO, Andre is not champagne in that it is a Charmat (bulk
process) sparkling wine, tho' Charmat was French I believe!
However, I admire the ingenuity of companies who get "champagne"
or the like on the label by saying "champagne type" or "Méthode
Champenoise" and I regret any US or other legal attempts to
interfere with this since neither those terms nor the so-called
"traditional method" define the provenance of the grapes, an
area that has increased greatly recently for the convenience of
French makers! What this world needs is another "Judgment of
Paris" for sparkling wines! I'd be tempted to throw in a ringer
bulk-processed wine but I've never had one that I want to drink
twice.

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

Salut/Hi James Silverton,

le/on Sat, 12 Jan 2008 13:50:43 GMT, tu disais/you said:-

> Emery wrote on Sat, 12 Jan 2008 11:22:56 +0100:
>
> ED> Belgian customs authorities destroyed over 3000 bottles of
> ED> "counterfeit champagne" from CA, labeled "California
[snip]
> ED> The wine from Gallo brand André was destroyed at the cost
> ED> and with agreement of the (un-named in the reportage)
> ED> owner.
>
>Andre is not a "Champagne Process" wine (fermented in the
>bottle)

That's not the point. The point is that the name "Champagne" on a bottle
label in Europe is reserved for wines produced according to specified
methods in a designated region. So a wine calling itself Champagne NOT
produced there, is considered to be a fake. Same rules apply for a wine with
the name of Port - Australian fortified reds cannot be sold in Europe under
the "Port" name. Same rules (at last) apply to Tokay, so fortified
Muscadelle wines from Australia - delicious though they be - cannot be sold
under the name of Tokay in Europe, neither can Alsace Pinot Gris wines be
called Tokay either for that matter. These rules apply to the whole of
Europe, not just France and French producers are sometimes constrained to
change names to conform.

>However, finding the pompous indignation of the French a bit
>irritating, I think I am going to continue to use and drink
>bottle-fermented "California Champagne", especially given the
>extension of the Champagne district boundaries (did they or did
>they not reach Algeria?)

Whether you - personally - like the way in which Europe seeks to protect the
consumer against passing off by unscrupulous counterfeiters, is of supreme
indifference to the European Union. Although - in the case of the Gallo
product - very few people would be likely to consider the wines to be
comparable, there's an enormous amount of counterfeiting carried out, and it
is the consumer who very often who gets duped. To give one example. If you
asked 100 Australian wine drinkers what Tokay was, I'd be surprised if one
single person knew that it was Hungarian. I don't think ANY real Tokaji Aszu
is sold there, and the Australian consumer is the poorer for it. A good
product should sell under its own identity, and shouldn't need to borrow a
name from somewhere else. And that should apply, in my view to cheeses
(cheddar and feta for example), to coffee (Blue Mountain is more than simply
a colour and a geographical description) and to a great many other products.

However, I would have a great deal MORE sympathy with the position of
Champagne manufacturers, were most of their wine to be half way decent. It
isn't, any more than is most sparkling wine in California or Spain or
anywhere else. Sturgeon's law applies to as much to wine as it does to most
other things, in my view. The fact that a wine IS legally Champagne or IS
legally Port, doesn't guarantee that it be good, merely that it comes from
where it purports to come from.

What WILL be interesting will be what happens with the increases in mean
summertime temperatures in the UK. The chalk supsoil in some parts of the
Downs, in Southern England are part of the same geological system as the
chalk subsoil in Champagne. And champagne makers are looking very hard at
the possibility of investing there.... For that matter, I've had some
sparking English wine that was really very good. Far better than some of the
"own brand" champagne sold in cheap supermarkets.

Ian wrote on Sat, 12 Jan 2008 19:31:54 +0100:

>>>Clipping<<<<

??>> However, finding the pompous indignation of the French a
??>> bit irritating, I think I am going to continue to use and
??>> drink bottle-fermented "California Champagne", especially
??>> given the extension of the Champagne district boundaries
??>> (did they or did they not reach Algeria?)

IH> Whether you - personally - like the way in which Europe
IH> seeks to protect the consumer against passing off by
IH> unscrupulous counterfeiters,

>>> CLipping<<<<<

IH> sympathy with the position of Champagne manufacturers,
IH> were most of their wine to be half way decent. It isn't,
IH> any more than is most sparkling wine in California or Spain
IH> or anywhere else. Sturgeon's law applies to as much to wine
IH> as it does to most other things, in my view. The fact that
IH> a wine IS legally Champagne or IS legally Port, doesn't
IH> guarantee that it be good, merely that it comes from where
IH> it purports to come from.

I wonder if "unscrupulous counterfeiters" includes the makers
of poor "real champagne"? :-)

I don't suppose there is any hope of a "Judgement of Paris" for
sparkling wine.



James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

"Ian Hoare" wrote ........
>
> .....there's an enormous amount of counterfeiting carried out, and it
> is the consumer who very often who gets duped...........a good
> product should sell under its own identity, and shouldn't need to borrow
> a name from somewhere else. And that should apply, in my view to cheeses
> (cheddar and feta for example), to coffee (Blue Mountain is more than
> simply
> a colour and a geographical description) and to a great many other
> products.
>


I know it is not quite the same, but European (French) wineries themselves
indulge in some "marketing subterfuge".

I refer to the marketing (in the UK) of some pretty ordinary French wine as
"Kiwi Cuvee".

st.helier

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 08:11:10 +1300, "st.helier"
> wrote:

>"Ian Hoare" wrote ........
>>
>> .....there's an enormous amount of counterfeiting carried out, and it
>> is the consumer who very often who gets duped...........a good
>> product should sell under its own identity, and shouldn't need to borrow
>> a name from somewhere else. And that should apply, in my view to cheeses
>> (cheddar and feta for example), to coffee (Blue Mountain is more than
>> simply
>> a colour and a geographical description) and to a great many other
>> products.
>>
>
>
>I know it is not quite the same, but European (French) wineries themselves
>indulge in some "marketing subterfuge".
>
>I refer to the marketing (in the UK) of some pretty ordinary French wine as
>"Kiwi Cuvee".
>
>st.helier
>
>
As an inveterate and unapologetic free-market capitalist, I've got to
wonder about the reluctance of the EU, the USA, and others to allow
the play of the free market. If "Champagne", tokaji, cognac, cheddar,
or whatever product is good, why can't it compete?

If a label says quite clearly "California Champagne" would it be
unreasonable to assume that a drinking age consumer would be literate
enough to realize it doesn't come from Ay or Epernay?

I doubt that someone seeking Champagne would find Andre to be a
suitable substitute.

The magic of the marketplace is that if someone labels a product
misleadingly, it won't take long for the consumers to migrate away
from that product. In other words the practice will not be rewarded by
success. Whenever governments get involved, the result is always
something less than beneficial to the citizens.

If, on the other hand, the marketplace finds "California Champagne" at
3 Euros a bottle to be a preferable drink to something "authentic"
but of marginal quality then Andre will make inroads into the business
of the lesser regional producers. They, will then be forced to improve
their product (good outcome!) or leave the marketplace (not bad
either!)

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

"Richard Neidich" > wrote in message
...
> Hi James, this is a very political subject but here goes:
> > I do get ****ed when I want San Marsano Tomatoes and they are not from
> > Italy
> in our stores but often from Canada. Why can't it state San Masanso Seed
> but Canadian grown?
>
> Parma Ham from Canada...guess its cause Canadian Ham is not the same.
> Would they like the italians in Parma to make Canadian ham at 1/2 price
> and sell in Canada?
>
However, did you know that lentils grown in Alberta are exported to France
where, hey presto, they get re-packaged as Puy Lentils?
Graham

Yes, and most of our Lentils that we sell are from Canada or Washington
State
"graham" > wrote in message
news:jf9ij.57576$EA5.22866@pd7urf2no...
>
> "Richard Neidich" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Hi James, this is a very political subject but here goes:
>> > I do get ****ed when I want San Marsano Tomatoes and they are not from
>> > Italy
>> in our stores but often from Canada. Why can't it state San Masanso Seed
>> but Canadian grown?
>>
>> Parma Ham from Canada...guess its cause Canadian Ham is not the same.
>> Would they like the italians in Parma to make Canadian ham at 1/2 price
>> and sell in Canada?
>>
> However, did you know that lentils grown in Alberta are exported to France
> where, hey presto, they get re-packaged as Puy Lentils?
> Graham
>

I believe that a few months back there was a change in the US law regarding
the term Champagne. In general, the law sates that any new brand of
sparkling wine produced after the law was passed cannot be called Champagne.
Those that used the term before the new law may still call their sparkling
wine Champagne. I believe the most if not all of the better quality
California sparkling wines do not use the term Champagne. Most also say
Traditional Method or Method Traditional.


"Richard Neidich" > wrote in message
...
> Yes, and most of our Lentils that we sell are from Canada or Washington
> State
> "graham" > wrote in message
> news:jf9ij.57576$EA5.22866@pd7urf2no...
>>
>> "Richard Neidich" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Hi James, this is a very political subject but here goes:
>>> > I do get ****ed when I want San Marsano Tomatoes and they are not from
>>> > Italy
>>> in our stores but often from Canada. Why can't it state San Masanso Seed
>>> but Canadian grown?
>>>
>>> Parma Ham from Canada...guess its cause Canadian Ham is not the same.
>>> Would they like the italians in Parma to make Canadian ham at 1/2 price
>>> and sell in Canada?
>>>
>> However, did you know that lentils grown in Alberta are exported to
>> France where, hey presto, they get re-packaged as Puy Lentils?
>> Graham
>>
>
>

> If a label says quite clearly "California Champagne" would it be
> unreasonable to assume that a drinking age consumer would be literate
> enough to realize it doesn't come from Ay or Epernay?

They would realize that, of course, and they would soon stop associating the word "Champagne" with the region. That is one of the things being protected - the meaning of the word.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

> Most also say
> Traditional Method or Method Traditional.

I've seen "fermented in the bottle" and "fermented in =this= bottle". Is the former somewhere between the charmant method and the champagne method?

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Ed wrote on Sat, 12 Jan 2008 20:06:14 GMT:

??>> "Ian Hoare" wrote ........
??>>>
??>>> .....there's an enormous amount of counterfeiting carried
??>>> out, and it is the consumer who very often who gets
??>>> duped...........a good product should sell under its own
??>>> identity, and shouldn't need to borrow a name from
??>>> somewhere else. And that should apply, in my view to
??>>> cheeses (cheddar and feta for example), to coffee (Blue
??>>> Mountain is more than simply a colour and a geographical
??>>> description) and to a great many other products.
??>>>
??>> I know it is not quite the same, but European (French)
??>> wineries themselves indulge in some "marketing
??>> subterfuge".
??>>
??>> I refer to the marketing (in the UK) of some pretty
??>> ordinary French wine as "Kiwi Cuvee".
??>>
??>> st.helier
??>>
ER> As an inveterate and unapologetic free-market capitalist,
ER> I've got to wonder about the reluctance of the EU, the USA,
ER> and others to allow the play of the free market. If
ER> "Champagne", tokaji, cognac, cheddar, or whatever product
ER> is good, why can't it compete?

ER> If a label says quite clearly "California Champagne" would
ER> it be unreasonable to assume that a drinking age consumer
ER> would be literate enough to realize it doesn't come from Ay
ER> or Epernay?

ER> I doubt that someone seeking Champagne would find Andre to
ER> be a suitable substitute.

ER> The magic of the marketplace is that if someone labels a
ER> product misleadingly, it won't take long for the consumers
ER> to migrate away from that product. In other words the
ER> practice will not be rewarded by success. Whenever
ER> governments get involved, the result is always something
ER> less than beneficial to the citizens.

ER> If, on the other hand, the marketplace finds "California
ER> Champagne" at 3 Euros a bottle to be a preferable drink to
ER> something "authentic" but of marginal quality then Andre
ER> will make inroads into the business of the lesser regional
ER> producers. They, will then be forced to improve their
ER> product (good outcome!) or leave the marketplace (not bad
ER> either!)

I'm afraid that I tend to agree with you Ed. Governments have a
role in protecting the populace from actual harm but the
attitude "We bureaucrats and politicians, being superior beings,
need to protect you dim plebs from scams we'd never be taken in
by" is one that riles me. And I'm generally regarded as a
flaming liberal! There's a lot to be said for real capitalist
competition!

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

> Another such example from the states are the Maine Lobster. They are
> getting on the same bandwagon. Nova Scotia Lobster is often available at
> the Palm, Charlotte and it states so. But some serve Nova Scotia lobster
> passing it off as Maine Lobster and the Lobster industry in Maine is
> certifying that they are from Maine when it says so and has also filed court
> cases to adjudicate.

Don't lobsters move around? (What is their range?) That is, might the same lobster that was almost caught in Maine end up in a trap off the coast of Maryland? Grapes, as far as I know, do not move around by themselves (although drinking enough old grape juice may make it seem that way

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Actually, Lobsters typically live and die within a 2 mile radius of there
they were born. At least thats what a friend of mine told me.


"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>> Another such example from the states are the Maine Lobster. They are
>> getting on the same bandwagon. Nova Scotia Lobster is often available at
>> the Palm, Charlotte and it states so. But some serve Nova Scotia lobster
>> passing it off as Maine Lobster and the Lobster industry in Maine is
>> certifying that they are from Maine when it says so and has also filed
>> court cases to adjudicate.
>
> Don't lobsters move around? (What is their range?) That is, might the
> same lobster that was almost caught in Maine end up in a trap off the
> coast of Maryland? Grapes, as far as I know, do not move around by
> themselves (although drinking enough old grape juice may make it seem that
> way
>
> Jose
> --
> You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose > wrote:

> I've seen "fermented in the bottle" and "fermented in =this=
> bottle". Is the former somewhere between the charmant method
> and the champagne method?

No. It describes the process of "transvasage". In Champagne,
by law only bottles between 375ml (halves) and 3,000ml
(jéroboams) have to be fermented in the same bottle; smaller
formats (200/250ml minibar & airline bottlings) and larger
formats (réhoboam & up) can legally be "transvasé" (filled)
from standard bottles.

M.

> No. It describes the process of "transvasage". In Champagne,
> by law only bottles between 375ml (halves) and 3,000ml
> (jéroboams) have to be fermented in the same bottle;

Does it make a difference in the final product whether it is fermented in the same bottle or not? Or is the point that it has to be fermented in a small container rather than (as in charmant) a huge one?

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose > wrote:

["fermented in the bottle" vs "fermented in *this* bottle"]

>> ... It describes the process of "transvasage". In Champagne,
>> by law only bottles between 375ml (halves) and 3,000ml
>> (jéroboams) have to be fermented in the same bottle ...

> Does it make a difference in the final product whether it is
> fermented in the same bottle or not? Or is the point that it
> has to be fermented in a small container rather than (as in
> charmant) a huge one?

German wine scientists will tell you that the size of the
container won't make any difference, while French will proclaim
exactly the opposite ... ;-)

Champagne producers, however will tell you (not officially, of
course, but /sotto voce/) that transvasage lessens the quality
of the final product, albeit rather slightly. It's quite clear
that refilling from another bottle results in some CO2 escaping.

As an aside: the rule that Champagne has to be fermented in
halves and 3 litre jéroboam bottle is rather new (just a few
years back*), before they could be transvasés, too. Before this
time only standard and magnum bottles had to be fermente in the
same bottle.

*) The law modification dates from March 18, 1998, and came into
effect with January 1st, 2002. See article 9 he

<http://www.inao.gouv.fr/public/produ...p?comiteNat=1&
id_txt=409>

or

<http://snipurl.com/1w0q4>

M.

Jose wrote on Sun, 13 Jan 2008 15:25:30 GMT:

??>> No. It describes the process of "transvasage". In
??>> Champagne, by law only bottles between 375ml (halves) and
??>> 3,000ml (jéroboams) have to be fermented in the same
??>> bottle;

J> Does it make a difference in the final product whether it is
J> fermented in the same bottle or not? Or is the point that
J> it has to be fermented in a small container rather than (as
J> in charmant) a huge one?

I know that all the bulk (Charmat) process stuff I have tried
was neither good nor worth retrying but I wonder if it has to be
that way? Has anyone done any experiments? The champagne made in
New York state by Great Western was bottle fermented but was
filtered under pressure and the contents of several bottles
mixed before rebottling. Is that transvasage?

I have pleasant memories of group tours of the champagne
wineries (with a necessary designated driver) when I was at
Cornell many years ago.

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

On Jan 12, 12:50�pm, Emery Davis > wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 13:50:43 GMT
>
>
>
>
>
> "James Silverton" > wrote:
> > �Emery �wrote �on Sat, 12 Jan 2008 11:22:56 +0100:
>
> > �ED> Belgian customs authorities destroyed over 3000 bottles of
> > �ED> "counterfeit champagne" from CA, labeled "California
> > �ED> Champagne." �"Of course there is no such thing," explained
> > �ED> the customs official I saw interviewed.
>
> > �ED> The wine from Gallo brand Andr� was destroyed at the cost
> > �ED> and with agreement of the (un-named in the reportage)
> > �ED> owner.
>
> > Andre is not a "Champagne Process" wine (fermented in the
> > bottle) but a �cheaper Charmat process (tank fermented) wine.
> > However, finding the pompous indignation of the French a bit
> > irritating, I think I am going to continue to use and drink
> > bottle-fermented "California Champagne", especially given the
> > extension of the Champagne district boundaries (did they or did
> > they not reach Algeria?)
>
> I don't get your point. �The French weren't indignant at all, nor pompous
> beyond the usual point. �They simply reported a story that happened
> in Belgium. �Why don't you lash out at the pompous Belgians?
>
> The Champagne appellation is being enlarged to include several similar
> terroirs that can historically show they grew grapes prior to the current
> classification. �There's a penury of fruit in Champagne, that pushes the
> prices up for everyone. �What's with the Algerian crack?
>
> What you drink is your own get out. �Belgian customs seized these goods
> because they are in violation of labelling laws. �I happen to agree with
> these laws, but that's immaterial. �By European law (not French, BTW)
> the stuff is counterfeit. �
>
> I posted the story simply because I thought it funny to call low-end juice
> like Andr� "counterfeit champagne." �I don't intend to start a flame fest,
> but your response seems unnecessarily provocative. �If you were being
> tongue in cheek please accept my apology, I didn't get it.
>
> -E
>
> --
> Emery Davis
> You can reply to
> by removing the well known companies
> Questions about wine? �Visithttp://winefaq.hostexcellence.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On a related note, last week my in-laws were in town from California.
I served a Brocard Chablis with dinner one night. My M-i-L said in a
surprised voice " oh, they make Chablis in France, too?" She was
amazed to hear that Chablis wasn't always a cheap winem, and had no
clue that Chablis was a region with a long history of winemaking.
While serious wine folks will never be "fooled," and people who only
buy $6/magnums are never going to be in market for Chablis AC much
less Le Clos, the devaluation of the name does damage in the middle.
Same goes for Champagne.

Funnily, some of the producers who argued it was fine to use European
place names such as Chianti, Champagne, Burgundy, etc on their
products protested some Italian producers labeling their wines
"Zinfandel" once it was proved that Zinfandel and Primitivo were same
grape.

Michael Pronay wrote:

> German wine scientists will tell you that the size of the
> container won't make any difference, while French will proclaim
> exactly the opposite ... ;-)

While I can add nothing to the scientific debate, I can add my own
subjective impression that, when given the opportunity to taste the same
sparkling wine in 750 mL and magnum, I consistently find the magnums to
afford a more appealing wine: richer, more depth of fruit. I could
probably find a lame rationalization for that observation having to do
with surface-to-volume ratios, but I'll spare you all.

Mark Lipton
--
alt.food.wine FAQ: http://winefaq.hostexcellence.com

"James Silverton" > wrote:

> I know that all the bulk (Charmat) process stuff I have tried
> was neither good nor worth retrying but I wonder if it has to be
> that way?

Not necessarily. Take bette base wines, leave it longer on the
lees, and there you are. But given the fact that the method is
cheaper, in 99.99% of the cases charmat method is used to make
plonk to compete at lowest price.

> Has anyone done any experiments?

As I have said: Geisenheim did experiments decades ago and found
no difference between tank and bottle fermented sparklers.

> The champagne made in New York state by Great Western was bottle
> fermented but was filtered under pressure and the contents of
> several bottles mixed before rebottling. Is that transvasage?

Yes, that's also "transvasage". In German it's "Transvasiermethode".

M.

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 19:31:54 +0100, Ian Hoare >
wrote:

<snip>

> If you
>asked 100 Australian wine drinkers what Tokay was, I'd be surprised if one
>single person knew that it was Hungarian. I don't think ANY real Tokaji Aszu
>is sold there, and the Australian consumer is the poorer for it.

An assumption on your behalf Ian that is totally inaccurate. I have
stocked Tokaji Aszu (both 4 & 5 Puttonyos) for a number of years, and
the fact I have sold it suggests I am not alone in understanding what
Tokaji is, and where it hails from... :>)

A good
>product should sell under its own identity, and shouldn't need to borrow a
>name from somewhere else. And that should apply, in my view to cheeses
>(cheddar and feta for example), to coffee (Blue Mountain is more than simply
>a colour and a geographical description) and to a great many other products.
>
>However, I would have a great deal MORE sympathy with the position of
>Champagne manufacturers, were most of their wine to be half way decent. It
>isn't, any more than is most sparkling wine in California or Spain or
>anywhere else. Sturgeon's law applies to as much to wine as it does to most
>other things, in my view. The fact that a wine IS legally Champagne or IS
>legally Port, doesn't guarantee that it be good, merely that it comes from
>where it purports to come from.
>
>What WILL be interesting will be what happens with the increases in mean
>summertime temperatures in the UK. The chalk supsoil in some parts of the
>Downs, in Southern England are part of the same geological system as the
>chalk subsoil in Champagne. And champagne makers are looking very hard at
>the possibility of investing there.... For that matter, I've had some
>sparking English wine that was really very good. Far better than some of the
>"own brand" champagne sold in cheap supermarkets.

Our legendary Houghtons White Burgundy is now known as Classic Dry
White, our "champagne" is now labelled "champagne style", and the jury
is still out on what we will call our fortifieds when that part of the
labelling laws comes into play. We will call them whatever we believe
is relevant, but by their old names or their new ones, I doubt if 1 in
100 folks would believe they were drinking French product. Moreso,
since the French insist on nuclear testing in our backyard, I doubt
more than 1 in 100 folks would WANT to drink French wine.

Hooroo....

Salut/Hi Matt S >,

le/on Tue, 15 Jan 2008 14:52:32 +1100, tu disais/you said:-

>On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 19:31:54 +0100, Ian Hoare >
>wrote:

>> If you
>>asked 100 Australian wine drinkers what Tokay was, I'd be surprised if one
>>single person knew that it was Hungarian. I don't think ANY real Tokaji Aszu
>>is sold there, and the Australian consumer is the poorer for it.
>
>An assumption on your behalf Ian that is totally inaccurate. I have
>stocked Tokaji Aszu (both 4 & 5 Puttonyos) for a number of years, and
>the fact I have sold it suggests I am not alone in understanding what
>Tokaji is, and where it hails from... :>)

I must say I'm surprised, because when I went there, I asked quite a few
people - in wineries and outside them and no one had heard of or tasted it.
But if that's changed I'm delighted. But to how many people hcan you say you
sold it - compared to the number of bottles of Tokay? OI'm curious, which
make do you sell. Tell all.


>since the French insist on nuclear testing in our backyard, I doubt
>more than 1 in 100 folks would WANT to drink French wine.

err... that WAS about 14 years ago, you know. And I might point out that
French Polynesia isn't exactly YOUR back yard, even though Australia's fury
might have led one to think so, When in fact it was all a storm in a tea
cup, designed to whip up anti-French sentiment and sell Oz wine. Not dumb -
which is most certainly what Chirac was, when he fell into Mitterand's trap.

"Ian Hoare" wrote .....
>
> err... that WAS about 14 years ago, you know. And I might point out that
> French Polynesia isn't exactly YOUR back yard, even though Australia's
> fury
> might have led one to think so. When in fact it was all a storm in a tea
> cup, designed to whip up anti-French sentiment and sell Oz wine. Not
> dumb -
> which is most certainly what Chirac was, when he fell into Mitterand's
> trap.


Now hold on a minute Mr. Hoare (says this self proclaimed peer in righteous
indignation!)

The distance from NZ to Mururoa is about 2,600miles (alright you
Euro/decimalicentric Franco/Anglo/Hungarophile! - 4,100km) - and I know -
I sailed every nautical mile of that journey!

So I DO claim that this is virtually in my back yard - and not because of
the distance involved - oh no - but because the French government, in a
barbaric act of state sponsored terrorism, authorised the bombing of the
Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior in Auckland harbour - that is New
ealand - and that, my friend, IS my back yard.

Furthermore (with tongue firmly in cheek) - the last nuclear test at Mururoa
was on February 22, 1996, a mere TWELVE years ago.

So as long as France can celebrate Bastille day and England the failed
bombing of parliament centuries ago, we antipodeans reserve the right to
remind France of her indiscretions at each and every opportunity.

Of course, this will not stop myself and my fair Lady St.Helier venturing
forth this coming September, to continue this discussion, in France.

Stock up that cellar !!!!!!!!!

Cheers from a gorgeous 30C summers evening in paradise.

--

His Lordship

I don't disagree with the destruction of California "champagne"
in Belgium, but there was a time when things might have been
different. Shortly after WW2, I went on an extended 6 month
visit to Sweden, where I met my grandparents and other relatives.
We took a few side trips to other countries including Belgium.
At that time, the Belgians were very appreciative of the Americans.
I still remember the Belgian policeman who gave me a 1907 Russian
ruble (that I still have). If I may, I'd like to digress a little,
and talk about ... cheese!
Limburger cheese was originally a Belgium cheese named after the
province of Linburg. It was adopted by the Germans in the 19th century,
and is currently produced in the USA by only 1 cheese maker located
in Monroe, Wisconsin. I'd like to do a taste test of various Limburger
cheeses, but I can't find my nose plugs. :-)

FWIW
Dick R.

In article >,
says...
>
>Thought some might be amused by this story, which I witnessed with
>much fanfare on the French news yesterday.
>
>Belgian customs authorities destroyed over 3000 bottles of "counterfeit cha=
>mpagne"
>from CA, labeled "California Champagne."

[SNIP]

For Andre's, I'd have helped break 'em. I hope that ALL of the CA sparkler
producers adopt the term, "Sparkling Wine," if for no other reason, than a
show of class. However, I feel the same about wines with the word "Napa" (fill
in the blank), in the producer's name, when the wine comes from the Imperial
Valley (or someplace similar), and has no heritage with Napa.

If it comes from the Languedoc, I do not want to see the word "Bordeaux," even
if Emile Bordeaux is the producer, but that is just me.

Hunt