Clyde Gill wrote:

> Few things erk me more than CA wines being called Chablis, especially
> when they are made from Thompson Seedless!

It doesn't really irk me. It just doesn't interest me as wine.

> Though it does tend to
> identify my customer for me when they ask for "Something like a
> Chablis". Nobody has ever asked for that without it being a reference
> to a CA product. Most of those people who drink that stuff have no
> clue that true Chablis is from France.

When someone asks for Chablis like that, that's a clear opportunity
to educate that person in a helpful way. I'd ask "Are you looking
for French Chablis or American white wine?". Odds are, in 9 out of 10
instances, if you're friendly about it, the customer will ask "French
Chablis?" and you'll have an opportunity to explain the difference.
It's a good idea to fastidiously avoid passing judgement in this case.

Odds are they'll still want American white wine but they'll better
understand the difference.

It's also a good segue to mention the naming issues with champagne
and hearty burgundy :-).

> The subject interests me as we are making our first commerical
> sparkling wine this year and have been looking for label terms. It
> seems like Methode Traditionalle is the most descriptive term
> available beyond "fermented in this bottle" which has always been
> awkward at best. What would one think otherwise: it was fermented in
> the bottle next to it?

One would think otherwise it was fermented in larger bottle and
transferred to smaller bottles, or it was fermented in huge tank
and artificially carbonated...

> Sparkling wine is another awkward term. There are alternatives, but
> we want something that the customers will be comfortable with and
> still understand what's in the bottle.

Heh. Sparkling wine. Most people get the meaning. If you're mentioning
it to a customer, you can even say "even though the state says we can call
it champagne, we prefer to call it sparkling wine out of respect for our
French comrades in Champagne" or somesuch.

Most customers don't need a lecture, most customers are happy to learn
new things when not made to feel stupid in the process.

Dana

Dana Myers > wrote:

>> The subject interests me as we are making our first commerical
>> sparkling wine this year and have been looking for label terms.
>> It seems like Methode Traditionalle is the most descriptive
>> term available beyond "fermented in this bottle" which has
>> always been awkward at best. What would one think otherwise:
>> it was fermented in the bottle next to it?

> One would think otherwise it was fermented in larger bottle and
> transferred to smaller bottles, or it was fermented in huge tank
> and artificially carbonated..

Sorry, no. "Fermented in this bottle" describes methode
champenoise/traditionelle, while "fermented in the bottle"
describes what is usually called "transvasement method". Austria's
second largest (and quote reputable) producer of sparkling wine,
Johann Kattus, works along this line. It starts like methode
traditionelle with second fermentation and ageing on the lees, but
there is no riddling and disgorgement. Instead the content of the
bottles is transferred into pressure tanks, filtered, and bottled
into (new, btw) bottles.

M.

Clyde Gill > wrote:

> I tend to like the term "petillant", but how many of my
> customers would know what that means? It's not even in my
> dictionary.

"Pétillant" - as "frizzante" - designs a sparkling wine with
discernably less CO2 pressure. Full sparklers would be "mousseux"
or "spumante".

M.

Salut/Hi Clyde,

le/on Tue, 28 Oct 2003 17:58:52 -0600, tu disais/you said:-

>> I don't agree with the EU on this btw, but I feel that winemaking techniques shouldn't be
>>trademarked. But only if they did in fact use ALL the significant champagne
>>techniques and their wine was made at the same high pressure.

>I agree with all you've stated Ian, especially this statement above,

Thanks.

>which has me questioning why it's been ruled against here in the
>states.

Probably to avoid making a rod for their own back later.

> Shouldn't they be changing the rule on use of appellation
>terms on the front label, instead of messing with winemaking terms?

I think so, yes. There's another "Cuvée sur Lie" which has become the
private preserve of the Muscadet growers. Whenever I meet one, I tell him
clrealy what I think of it. If you can protect "cuvée sur lie" you would be
able to protect "Bottle fermented", it seems to me. A bad decision, typical
of protectionism.

>
>Few things erk me more than CA wines being called Chablis, especially
>when they are made from Thompson Seedless!

Grin!

>The subject interests me as we are making our first commercial
>sparkling wine this year and have been looking for label terms. It
>seems like Methode Traditionalle is the most descriptive term
>available beyond "fermented in this bottle" which has always been
>awkward at best. What would one think otherwise: it was fermented in
>the bottle next to it?

As Dana said, someone could use very large bottles and then decant and
legally call it "bottle fermented". If you want to use french expressions
(which I'm not very much in favour on a CA bottle of wine for the same sort
of reasons I'm against the use of french wine names) on the label, then the
expression "Methode Traditionnelle" is the one that is used throughout
France.

>Sparkling wine is another awkward term.

Well, all wines with bubbles can be called that. Remember that there are
three ways of introducing CO2 into wine. Pumping it in. Fermenting in vats
(I'm tempted to say that I see little difference between that and using
large bottles), followed by filling the bottles under pressure, and
fermenting in the bottles in which the wine is sold with the concommitant
operations of disgorging and dosing. I think it's reasonable to want to
specify that you're bottle fermenting.

>we want something that the customers will be comfortable with and
>still understand what's in the bottle.

Well, I'd strongly suggest a powerful brand name, "Dom Pérignon" doesn't
really NEED to say anything other than that. I would lean towards the
english language expression "Tradionally bottle fermented" (if it's legal).

>In the case of champagne, or crackling wines, the type designation
>"champagne" or "crackling wine" ("petillant wine", "frizzante wine")
>may appear in lieu of the class designation "sparkling wine".
>
>________
>
>Even our government casually calls it Champagne!

One could argue that this is an unhappy conflation. I _could_ interpret that
to mean that the term champagne may appear in lieu of the class designation
"sparkling wine" in the case of champagne, while the other expressions could
appear in the place of "sparkling wine" in the case of crackling wines.

>I tend to like the term "petillant", but how many of my customers
>would know what that means? It's not even in my dictionary.

Pétillant is a nice word, but in France it is often used to describe wines
slightly LESS fizzy than champagne and others of the same type. France uses
the word "Crémant" as in "Crémant de Bourgogne" "Crémant d'Alsace" and so
on, for wines made by the Methode champenoise.

>And crackling wine sounds dangerous. Where'd that come from?

God knows.... fireworks?


--
All the Best
Ian Hoare

Sometimes oi just sits and thinks
Sometimes oi just sits.

>
>> I tend to like the term "petillant", but how many of my
>> customers would know what that means? It's not even in my
>> dictionary.
>
>"Pétillant" - as "frizzante" - designs a sparkling wine with
>discernably less CO2 pressure. Full sparklers would be "mousseux"
>or "spumante".
>
>M.

Thanks Michael,

That's very useful information and new to my vocabulary. I assume
that the terms are French and Italian respectively!?




clyde

>
>When someone asks for Chablis like that, that's a clear opportunity
>to educate that person in a helpful way.

We pride ourselves in how we help educate our customers. What I've
found that is most important is to not treat everyone the same. Some
people will want to know the difference, others don't care to hear it.

Visiting our winery affords the opportunity to speak with either the
viticulturist or the enologist, which is relatively rare for this
area. What I say on the usenet is usually a world away from what I'd
say to the customer. Here is where I air my concerns and vent my
frustrations so it doesn't end up happening in the salesroom!


>
>Most customers don't need a lecture, most customers are happy to learn
>new things when not made to feel stupid in the process.
>

Think of me as your customer.

Sounds like this is or was your field. May I ask what your experience
is with customers?

clyde

Clyde, what is your winery? Where is it?


"Clyde Gill" > wrote in message
...
>
> >
> >When someone asks for Chablis like that, that's a clear opportunity
> >to educate that person in a helpful way.
>
> We pride ourselves in how we help educate our customers. What I've
> found that is most important is to not treat everyone the same. Some
> people will want to know the difference, others don't care to hear it.
>
> Visiting our winery affords the opportunity to speak with either the
> viticulturist or the enologist, which is relatively rare for this
> area. What I say on the usenet is usually a world away from what I'd
> say to the customer. Here is where I air my concerns and vent my
> frustrations so it doesn't end up happening in the salesroom!
>
>
> >
> >Most customers don't need a lecture, most customers are happy to learn
> >new things when not made to feel stupid in the process.
> >
>
> Think of me as your customer.
>
> Sounds like this is or was your field. May I ask what your experience
> is with customers?
>
> clyde
>

Clyde Gill > wrote:

>> "Pétillant" - as "frizzante" - designs a sparkling wine with
>> discernably less CO2 pressure. Full sparklers would be
>> "mousseux" or "spumante".

> That's very useful information and new to my vocabulary.

You're welcome.

> I assume that the terms are French and Italian respectively!?

Exactly.

M.

>Clyde, what is your winery?
>

http://www.peacefulbendvineyard.com


>Where is it?
>

South Central Missouri, USofA

clyde

Michael Pronay wrote:

> Dana Myers > wrote:

>>>It seems like Methode Traditionalle is the most descriptive
>>>term available beyond "fermented in this bottle" which has
>>>always been awkward at best. What would one think otherwise:
>>>it was fermented in the bottle next to it?
>
>
>>One would think otherwise it was fermented in larger bottle and
>>transferred to smaller bottles, or it was fermented in huge tank
>>and artificially carbonated..
>
>
> Sorry, no.

Sure. I was attempting to give examples of what someone
unfamiliar with the term might think, not examples of what
the actual alternatives are. Sorry about that.

Dana

Ian Hoare wrote:
> Salut/Hi Clyde,

>>And crackling wine sounds dangerous. Where'd that come from?
>
>
> God knows.... fireworks?

The crackling sound of the carbonation bubbles as they
break at the surface of the wine. The term seems a bit
arcane, but I vaguely recall something called "Crackling
Rose" on a label once...

Dana

Dana Myers wrote:

> The crackling sound of the carbonation bubbles as they
> break at the surface of the wine. The term seems a bit
> arcane, but I vaguely recall something called "Crackling
> Rose" on a label once...
>
> Dana
Not sure about a wine label, but it was on a record label -
Neil Diamond "Crackling Rose".
Dick

Clyde Gill wrote:

>>When someone asks for Chablis like that, that's a clear opportunity
>>to educate that person in a helpful way.
>
>
> We pride ourselves in how we help educate our customers. What I've
> found that is most important is to not treat everyone the same. Some
> people will want to know the difference, others don't care to hear it.

Yup. There's almost nothing worse than having a canned speech you
give to everyone regardless of interest. They do that at Disneyland.
Offer a little more politely and see who wants it. Another poor practice
I've seen is when someone in hospitality is on a mission, like one guy
I once saw lecture several customers about spitting ("you can taste wine
all day if you discretely spit"). He was right, but it wasn't what the
customers wanted or needed to hear. Sometimes customers *want* to know
the etiquette of spitting - finding out which is which is the fun.

> Visiting our winery affords the opportunity to speak with either the
> viticulturist or the enologist, which is relatively rare for this
> area. What I say on the usenet is usually a world away from what I'd
> say to the customer. Here is where I air my concerns and vent my
> frustrations so it doesn't end up happening in the salesroom!

Heh. I've read some pretty harrowing things here. Like the story
about Merlawtinger at Sequoia Grove...

>>Most customers don't need a lecture, most customers are happy to learn
>>new things when not made to feel stupid in the process.
>>
>
>
> Think of me as your customer.
>
> Sounds like this is or was your field. May I ask what your experience
> is with customers?

Primarily corporate. By day, I'm usually a senior engineer with a
great deal of customer contact. I've poured wine a few times, too.

Dana

"Michael Pronay" > a écrit dans le message de
> > I heard through the rumor mill that the term "Methode
> > Champenoise" is no longer allowed on the label of non-Champagne
> > wines and is being replaced with "Methode Traditionelle" (sp?).
> > Has anyone else heard this?
>
> That's EU legislation for some years now.
>
> M.

Hello Michael,

Yes, as often, you are right,
since 1994.

Sinon, je ne dis rien pour le reste,
tout a déjà été dit concernant l'utilisation erronnée et
des termes Champagne,
Chablis, Bourgogne, Porto, Tokay, Cognac, ... and more..
tout ces breuvages qui mouillent les papilles, contiennent un peu ou plus
d'alcool...
et surtout se vendent comme des.

All the best,
Amitiés vineuses et pétillantes,

Francis

Ian Hoare > wrote:

> Remember that there are three ways of introducing CO2 into wine.
> Pumping it in. Fermenting in vats (I'm tempted to say that I see
> little difference between that and using large bottles),
> followed by filling the bottles under pressure, and fermenting
> in the bottles in which the wine is sold with the concommitant
> operations of disgorging and dosing. I think it's reasonable to
> want to specify that you're bottle fermenting.

Ian, don't forget the transvasement method (described in another
posting of mine). It does not seem to have much following, but, as I
have said, one major (and highly regarded) company here in Austria,
Johann Kattus, does it this way:

<http://www.kattus.at/flash4.html>

M.

Ian Hoare wrote:
> Salut/Hi Dana Myers,
>

>>Don't overlook the impact of the producer name;
>
>
> Quite true, which is yet another reason why a manufacturer with a poor
> reputation does harm to the name of the product they have "borrowed".

Actually, I tend to believe most consumers (not the savvy consumers
that won't be fooled in any case like us) blame producers far more than
regions. If, in the consumer's mind, "champagne == all sparkling wine",
then it will do no harm to the reputation of Champagne.

Dana

Wow, did not realize we have a wine of the Ozarks.

Thanks for informing me. I live in North Carolina and we also as you know
have some wineries here. Some are actually making some drinkable products
now. Takes a while.

dick

"Clyde Gill" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> >Clyde, what is your winery?
> >
>
> http://www.peacefulbendvineyard.com
>
>
> >Where is it?
> >
>
> South Central Missouri, USofA
>
> clyde