I have a bottle of Corbel Champagne I received for my wedding three years ago.
The bottle has never been opened.
Does champagne go bad? Does the taste change after three years if the bottle is
unopened?
I know some will say "just taste it" but, since I'm not a champagne drinker, I
want to give it to someone else. I don't want to end up giving them cider <G>.
Any advise will be greatly appreciated.

It is just as well the bottle has never been opened, because once opened it
will lose the fizz quickly (flat Champagne isn't nice!) and go bad through
oxidisation within a couple of days.

Otherwise, it should keep for a few years, but unless it is a great
Champagne - and I have never heard of Corbel - don't expect it to keep
improving. My advice? Drink it up.

Angela
"PRV8EYE" > wrote in message
...
> I have a bottle of Corbel Champagne I received for my wedding three years
ago.
> The bottle has never been opened.
> Does champagne go bad? Does the taste change after three years if the
bottle is
> unopened?
> I know some will say "just taste it" but, since I'm not a champagne
drinker, I
> want to give it to someone else. I don't want to end up giving them cider
<G>.
> Any advise will be greatly appreciated.

ospam (PRV8EYE) wrote:

> I have a bottle of Corbel Champagne I received for my wedding
> three years ago. The bottle has never been opened. Does
> champagne go bad? Does the taste change after three years if the
> bottle is unopened? I know some will say "just taste it" but,
> since I'm not a champagne drinker, I want to give it to someone
> else. I don't want to end up giving them cider <G>. Any advise
> will be greatly appreciated.

All depends on conditions of storage. Three years at room
temperature will ruin everything bubbly, even the very best.

Kept cool, there are chances it might be drinkable. Never tasted
Corbel (isn't that "Korbel", btw?) here in Europe, so I can't give
further help.

M.

"Michael Pronay" > wrote in message
...
> ospam (PRV8EYE) wrote:
>
> > I have a bottle of Corbel Champagne I received for my wedding
> > three years ago. The bottle has never been opened. Does
> > champagne go bad? Does the taste change after three years if the
> > bottle is unopened? I know some will say "just taste it" but,
> > since I'm not a champagne drinker, I want to give it to someone
> > else. I don't want to end up giving them cider <G>. Any advise
> > will be greatly appreciated.
>
> All depends on conditions of storage. Three years at room
> temperature will ruin everything bubbly, even the very best.
>
> Kept cool, there are chances it might be drinkable. Never tasted
> Corbel (isn't that "Korbel", btw?) here in Europe, so I can't give
> further help.
>

Korbel, a California sparkler deliberately mislabeled as "Champagne."

There is no reason for you to want to taste Korbel, it is on the low
side of the quality spectrum, a California wannabe distinguished by
high acidity and large-bubbled bright fruit. It is decidedly not
Champagne, by the way. Closer to bad Cava.

As far as it keeping: any sparkling wine will go bad as any still wine
will, just a matter of time (the goal of any wine is to become vinegar)
and the quality of the cork, the integrity of the winemaking process
and so on. I would expect a three year old Korbel to be ready for
Halloween as a trick, not a treat.

pavane

"pavane" ha scritto

> Korbel, a California sparkler deliberately
> mislabeled as "Champagne."

If it is labeled Champagne, France should
impose an importation tax of 200% on every
wine coming in France from the USA until
this Korbel stops labeling Champagne what
is not Champagne.
Call this "an eye for an eye, a tooth
for a tooth".

Same should do we italians with canada,
where some canadian has registered the
trade mark "parma ham".

Governments who don't care of theyr
national products are a big source of
frauds against consumers everywhere.
And a big source of (stolen) income
for dishonest companies.

Vilco

I once read an article on this. For example Schramsburg is also labeled as
Champagne.

The rationale was that the actual vines were from that region in France.
Somehow I think that was felt to justify the naming of it.

Not sure but I don't think they operate outside the scope of the law. They
just choose not to show the respect for France by doing so.

This is interesting as France has Dijon Mustard which is the best in the
world. However the mustard seed comes from Canada for most. Should the
name be changes to Canadian Mustard Seed Dijon Style?

"Vilco" > wrote in message
...
> "pavane" ha scritto
>
> > Korbel, a California sparkler deliberately
> > mislabeled as "Champagne."
>
> If it is labeled Champagne, France should
> impose an importation tax of 200% on every
> wine coming in France from the USA until
> this Korbel stops labeling Champagne what
> is not Champagne.
> Call this "an eye for an eye, a tooth
> for a tooth".
>
> Same should do we italians with canada,
> where some canadian has registered the
> trade mark "parma ham".
>
> Governments who don't care of theyr
> national products are a big source of
> frauds against consumers everywhere.
> And a big source of (stolen) income
> for dishonest companies.
>
> Vilco
>
>

"dick" ha scritto

> This is interesting as France has Dijon Mustard which is the best in the
> world. However the mustard seed comes from Canada for most. Should the
> name be changes to Canadian Mustard Seed Dijon Style?

Dijon Mustard is a french recipe so they can call it as they want.
Champagne is a standardized product of a specific french region, so nobody
out of that french region can call a wine "Champagne".
That makes a great difference.
If you like to eat canadian "parma ham", that's your business, but then
you'd be eating a fake.
Same for the fake Champagne we were 'talking' about.

Vilco

"dick" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> I once read an article on this. For example Schramsburg is also labeled
as
> Champagne.

Even though its still wrong in principle, Schramsburg is a product worthy of
the name. Its quite another thing to produce something that tastes like
carbonated apple juice and slap "Champagne" on it.

Massa Blackadder

--
"I wants to be in heaven with all my white folks, just to wait on them
and love them, and serve them, sorta like I did in slavery time."

- Betty Cofer, former slave.

> The rationale was that the actual vines were from that region in France.
> Somehow I think that was felt to justify the naming of it.
>
> Not sure but I don't think they operate outside the scope of the law.
They
> just choose not to show the respect for France by doing so.
>
> This is interesting as France has Dijon Mustard which is the best in the
> world. However the mustard seed comes from Canada for most. Should the
> name be changes to Canadian Mustard Seed Dijon Style?
>
> "Vilco" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "pavane" ha scritto
> >
> > > Korbel, a California sparkler deliberately
> > > mislabeled as "Champagne."
> >
> > If it is labeled Champagne, France should
> > impose an importation tax of 200% on every
> > wine coming in France from the USA until
> > this Korbel stops labeling Champagne what
> > is not Champagne.
> > Call this "an eye for an eye, a tooth
> > for a tooth".
> >
> > Same should do we italians with canada,
> > where some canadian has registered the
> > trade mark "parma ham".
> >
> > Governments who don't care of theyr
> > national products are a big source of
> > frauds against consumers everywhere.
> > And a big source of (stolen) income
> > for dishonest companies.
> >
> > Vilco
> >
> >
>
>

> This is interesting as France has Dijon Mustard which is the best in the
> world. However the mustard seed comes from Canada for most. Should the
> name be changes to Canadian Mustard Seed Dijon Style?
>
Nay laddie. How about "Hamilton ground (or not) Canadian Mustard Seed Mixed
With Miscellaneous and Incidental Ingredients Dijon (France) Style".

We do many things well here in Hamilton at the Western end of the Niagara
Wine Route ;>))
--
Regards
Chuck
So much wine; So little time!

To reply, delete NOSPAM from return address

If you make Sparking wine from French Vines and make it in the Traditional
Champagne method, then it too is a French Recipe.

I am not sure about Korbel but I am with Schramsburg.

I am not taking any shots about Canada to the north but they make French
Mustard under the Maille Label which is also made in France.

Also the Parma Ham from Canada is pretty good for 1/2 the price of the
Italian Parma. I buy both depending upon where I am.


"Vilco" > wrote in message
...
> "dick" ha scritto
>
> > This is interesting as France has Dijon Mustard which is the best in the
> > world. However the mustard seed comes from Canada for most. Should the
> > name be changes to Canadian Mustard Seed Dijon Style?
>
> Dijon Mustard is a french recipe so they can call it as they want.
> Champagne is a standardized product of a specific french region, so nobody
> out of that french region can call a wine "Champagne".
> That makes a great difference.
> If you like to eat canadian "parma ham", that's your business, but then
> you'd be eating a fake.
> Same for the fake Champagne we were 'talking' about.
>
> Vilco
>
>

Labeling is first a legal issue. Secondly a principal issue. There should
be respect given to Champagne of France but if there was a legal issue here
it surely would have surfaced.

I agree that Schramsburg is quite worthy of bearing the name. In my opinion
they are the best of California...I also like Roederer Brut and Brut Rose.

Amazingly I am not aware of any USA-Pinot Noir calling themselves Burgundy.



"Massa Blackadder" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "dick" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > I once read an article on this. For example Schramsburg is also labeled
> as
> > Champagne.
>
> Even though its still wrong in principle, Schramsburg is a product worthy
of
> the name. Its quite another thing to produce something that tastes like
> carbonated apple juice and slap "Champagne" on it.
>
> Massa Blackadder
>
> --
> "I wants to be in heaven with all my white folks, just to wait on them
> and love them, and serve them, sorta like I did in slavery time."
>
> - Betty Cofer, former slave.
>
> > The rationale was that the actual vines were from that region in France.
> > Somehow I think that was felt to justify the naming of it.
> >
> > Not sure but I don't think they operate outside the scope of the law.
> They
> > just choose not to show the respect for France by doing so.
> >
> > This is interesting as France has Dijon Mustard which is the best in the
> > world. However the mustard seed comes from Canada for most. Should the
> > name be changes to Canadian Mustard Seed Dijon Style?
> >
> > "Vilco" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > "pavane" ha scritto
> > >
> > > > Korbel, a California sparkler deliberately
> > > > mislabeled as "Champagne."
> > >
> > > If it is labeled Champagne, France should
> > > impose an importation tax of 200% on every
> > > wine coming in France from the USA until
> > > this Korbel stops labeling Champagne what
> > > is not Champagne.
> > > Call this "an eye for an eye, a tooth
> > > for a tooth".
> > >
> > > Same should do we italians with canada,
> > > where some canadian has registered the
> > > trade mark "parma ham".
> > >
> > > Governments who don't care of theyr
> > > national products are a big source of
> > > frauds against consumers everywhere.
> > > And a big source of (stolen) income
> > > for dishonest companies.
> > >
> > > Vilco
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Vilco wrote:
> "pavane" ha scritto
>
>
>>Korbel, a California sparkler deliberately
>>mislabeled as "Champagne."
>
>
> If it is labeled Champagne, France should
> impose an importation tax of 200% on every
> wine coming in France from the USA until
> this Korbel stops labeling Champagne what
> is not Champagne.
> Call this "an eye for an eye, a tooth
> for a tooth".

Blah blah blah.

Consumers that give a sh*t understand the difference
between "champagne" from California and Champagne. Other
consumers don't matter (they don't care... they just don't
know the difference and don't care anyway).

Now, I'm a guy that's uptight enough to call
sparkling wine from California "sparkling wine"
in casual conversation. I *get it*. I also don't
buy much French wine. If worrying about your name
is a big deal, I'm not interesting in your wine. The
reasons should be obvious.

Dana

dick wrote:

> I agree that Schramsburg is quite worthy of bearing the name. In my opinion
> they are the best of California...I also like Roederer Brut and Brut Rose.

That clinches it. A day-trip to Anderson Valley to visit Roederer is in
order tomorrow. I'll report back in the evening. My 3G wireless data doesn't
work up there so you'll have to wait. Let's see what Josh has in the barrels
at Lazy Creek...

Dana

On 25-Oct-2003, "dick" > wrote:

> I once read an article on this. For example Schramsburg is also labeled
> as
> Champagne.

Do you mean to say "Schramsberg"? If so, where exactly do you find the word
"Champagne" on the label? Schramsberg is a sparkling wine from California
made in the "Methode Champenoise." "Method Champenoise" is the method by
which Champagne is made, but it does not imply that it is Champagne, the
region in France. There is a HUGE difference in calling a sparkling wine
"Champagne", which some very cheap wines do, and indicating that you make it
in the "Methode Champenoise".

"CabFan" > wrote:

> Do you mean to say "Schramsberg"? If so, where exactly do you
> find the word "Champagne" on the label?

He

<http://www.cnn.com/interactive/food/...de/schramsberg.
label.rose.jpg>

or

<http://makeashorterlink.com/?M27921656>

It clearly reads "NAPA VALLEY CHAMPAGNE".

> Schramsberg is a sparkling wine from California made in the
> "Methode Champenoise." "Method Champenoise" is the method by
> which Champagne is made, but it does not imply that it is
> Champagne, the region in France. There is a HUGE difference in
> calling a sparkling wine "Champagne", which some very cheap
> wines do, and indicating that you make it in the "Methode
> Champenoise".

Sorry, you're plain wrong. From their Homepage:

<http://www.schramsberg.com/jschram.html>

| From the inception of our efforts in 1965, we have sought to
| achieve the greatest elegance and individuality possible in our
| champagnes.

M.

Salut/Hi Dana Myers,

le/on Sat, 25 Oct 2003 20:54:25 -0700, tu disais/you said:-

>Consumers that give a sh*t understand the difference
>between "champagne" from California and Champagne.

That's probab ly true, yes.

> Other consumers don't matter (they don't care... they just don't
>know the difference and don't care anyway).

I'm sorry, Dana, I find that a little arrogant towards the millions of
people who buy "champagne" in those countries which allow their local
sparklers to be called that, and all similar attempts to pass off local
products using prestigious names from elsewhere. It's not JUST dishonest
vis-a-vis the people in the areas whose product names are being usurped, but
worse, it's fraud against the consumer. As you say, they may well not know
the difference, or that "Tokay d'Alsace" or "Tokay" from Rutherglen are
attempts to pass off their products (decent enough to stand on their own
names) as "the real thing".

>buy much French wine. If worrying about your name
>is a big deal, I'm not interesting in your wine. The
>reasons should be obvious.

They aren't. Not to me anyway. Passing off is passing off whether it's "Feta
cheese" or "Tokay" or "Parma ham" from France or "Champagne" from the USA or
Australia or "Blue Mountain Coffee" from Sumatra. It cheats both the
producer and the consumer. And saying that because the consumer is not yet
knowledgeable enough to know, s/he doesn't matter, is as arrogant and
dishonest as anything I've read recently. Sorry, but that's how I see it.

Ignorance can be cured by knowledge. An ignorant consumer (I have lots of
visitors who are ignorant about wine here) can usually tell the difference
when they get a chance to taste one wine against the other. As to which they
will prefer, that's another matter. But I CANNOT accept that it right that
laws don't forbid producers/ entrepreneurs/importers from passsing off, no
matter how long the fraud has been going on. This isn't in any sense to be
taken as anti-American, because I feel JUST as strongly about French and
British passing off. More so in fact, as these countries take a strong
stance against it when it is their products whose names are being misused.

--
All the Best
Ian Hoare

Sometimes oi just sits and thinks
Sometimes oi just sits.

I tend to think that fraud is a bit strong here. What you are really
discussing here are labeling laws and the trademarks.

Trademark laws vary from country to country and I believe needs to
registered in each country.

The biggest issue with the word Champagne is that if France really wants to
protect that name---it needs to be registered and defended everywhere so
that the name does not become classified as generic. Since the name is not
descriptive it likely would be easily defended. Examples are Kleenex Brand
Tissues...some refer to a tissue as Kleenex and that company defends their
name so that it does not become generic. Another is Band-Aid brand adhesive
bandages....and on and on.

This might explain why companies that have holdings in France and
California...such as Mumm, Chandon, and or Roederer that they call French
Product Champagne and the USA-Cal Sparking Wine. There are probably legal
standing and their assets could likely be attached in France. But if an
American producer has no holdings in France...no issue.

I don't think it is a fraud but it is a lack of respect for the name
Champagne to use this name outside the production of that said region. But
French customs do not have to be respected in the USA nor the USA in France
and that is how it is all around the world. All laws are local.

Again...does anyone know of the name Burgundy being used for Pinot Noir here
in the USA the way the Champagne is. I really do not other than a box wine.



"Ian Hoare" > wrote in message
news
> Salut/Hi Dana Myers,
>
> le/on Sat, 25 Oct 2003 20:54:25 -0700, tu disais/you said:-
>
> >Consumers that give a sh*t understand the difference
> >between "champagne" from California and Champagne.
>
> That's probab ly true, yes.
>
> > Other consumers don't matter (they don't care... they just don't
> >know the difference and don't care anyway).
>
> I'm sorry, Dana, I find that a little arrogant towards the millions of
> people who buy "champagne" in those countries which allow their local
> sparklers to be called that, and all similar attempts to pass off local
> products using prestigious names from elsewhere. It's not JUST dishonest
> vis-a-vis the people in the areas whose product names are being usurped,
but
> worse, it's fraud against the consumer. As you say, they may well not know
> the difference, or that "Tokay d'Alsace" or "Tokay" from Rutherglen are
> attempts to pass off their products (decent enough to stand on their own
> names) as "the real thing".
>
> >buy much French wine. If worrying about your name
> >is a big deal, I'm not interesting in your wine. The
> >reasons should be obvious.
>
> They aren't. Not to me anyway. Passing off is passing off whether it's
"Feta
> cheese" or "Tokay" or "Parma ham" from France or "Champagne" from the USA
or
> Australia or "Blue Mountain Coffee" from Sumatra. It cheats both the
> producer and the consumer. And saying that because the consumer is not yet
> knowledgeable enough to know, s/he doesn't matter, is as arrogant and
> dishonest as anything I've read recently. Sorry, but that's how I see it.
>
> Ignorance can be cured by knowledge. An ignorant consumer (I have lots of
> visitors who are ignorant about wine here) can usually tell the difference
> when they get a chance to taste one wine against the other. As to which
they
> will prefer, that's another matter. But I CANNOT accept that it right that
> laws don't forbid producers/ entrepreneurs/importers from passsing off, no
> matter how long the fraud has been going on. This isn't in any sense to be
> taken as anti-American, because I feel JUST as strongly about French and
> British passing off. More so in fact, as these countries take a strong
> stance against it when it is their products whose names are being misused.
>
> --
> All the Best
> Ian Hoare
>
> Sometimes oi just sits and thinks
> Sometimes oi just sits.

Check this out. Found on internet...on topic...French imperialism on the
name Champagne.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/091503B.html



"dick" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> I tend to think that fraud is a bit strong here. What you are really
> discussing here are labeling laws and the trademarks.
>
> Trademark laws vary from country to country and I believe needs to
> registered in each country.
>
> The biggest issue with the word Champagne is that if France really wants
to
> protect that name---it needs to be registered and defended everywhere so
> that the name does not become classified as generic. Since the name is
not
> descriptive it likely would be easily defended. Examples are Kleenex
Brand
> Tissues...some refer to a tissue as Kleenex and that company defends their
> name so that it does not become generic. Another is Band-Aid brand
adhesive
> bandages....and on and on.
>
> This might explain why companies that have holdings in France and
> California...such as Mumm, Chandon, and or Roederer that they call French
> Product Champagne and the USA-Cal Sparking Wine. There are probably legal
> standing and their assets could likely be attached in France. But if an
> American producer has no holdings in France...no issue.
>
> I don't think it is a fraud but it is a lack of respect for the name
> Champagne to use this name outside the production of that said region.
But
> French customs do not have to be respected in the USA nor the USA in
France
> and that is how it is all around the world. All laws are local.
>
> Again...does anyone know of the name Burgundy being used for Pinot Noir
here
> in the USA the way the Champagne is. I really do not other than a box
wine.
>
>
>
> "Ian Hoare" > wrote in message
> news
> > Salut/Hi Dana Myers,
> >
> > le/on Sat, 25 Oct 2003 20:54:25 -0700, tu disais/you said:-
> >
> > >Consumers that give a sh*t understand the difference
> > >between "champagne" from California and Champagne.
> >
> > That's probab ly true, yes.
> >
> > > Other consumers don't matter (they don't care... they just don't
> > >know the difference and don't care anyway).
> >
> > I'm sorry, Dana, I find that a little arrogant towards the millions of
> > people who buy "champagne" in those countries which allow their local
> > sparklers to be called that, and all similar attempts to pass off local
> > products using prestigious names from elsewhere. It's not JUST dishonest
> > vis-a-vis the people in the areas whose product names are being usurped,
> but
> > worse, it's fraud against the consumer. As you say, they may well not
know
> > the difference, or that "Tokay d'Alsace" or "Tokay" from Rutherglen are
> > attempts to pass off their products (decent enough to stand on their own
> > names) as "the real thing".
> >
> > >buy much French wine. If worrying about your name
> > >is a big deal, I'm not interesting in your wine. The
> > >reasons should be obvious.
> >
> > They aren't. Not to me anyway. Passing off is passing off whether it's
> "Feta
> > cheese" or "Tokay" or "Parma ham" from France or "Champagne" from the
USA
> or
> > Australia or "Blue Mountain Coffee" from Sumatra. It cheats both the
> > producer and the consumer. And saying that because the consumer is not
yet
> > knowledgeable enough to know, s/he doesn't matter, is as arrogant and
> > dishonest as anything I've read recently. Sorry, but that's how I see
it.
> >
> > Ignorance can be cured by knowledge. An ignorant consumer (I have lots
of
> > visitors who are ignorant about wine here) can usually tell the
difference
> > when they get a chance to taste one wine against the other. As to which
> they
> > will prefer, that's another matter. But I CANNOT accept that it right
that
> > laws don't forbid producers/ entrepreneurs/importers from passsing off,
no
> > matter how long the fraud has been going on. This isn't in any sense to
be
> > taken as anti-American, because I feel JUST as strongly about French and
> > British passing off. More so in fact, as these countries take a strong
> > stance against it when it is their products whose names are being
misused.
> >
> > --
> > All the Best
> > Ian Hoare
> >
> > Sometimes oi just sits and thinks
> > Sometimes oi just sits.
>
>

"dick" > wrote:

> The biggest issue with the word Champagne is that if France
> really wants to protect that name---it needs to be registered
> and defended everywhere so that the name does not become
> classified as generic. Since the name is not descriptive it
> likely would be easily defended. Examples are Kleenex Brand
> Tissues...some refer to a tissue as Kleenex and that company
> defends their name so that it does not become generic.

There seems to be a minor difference between "some referring to a
tissue as a kleenex" and others labelling their tissues "kleenex",
don't you think so?

M.

No. Since Kleenex is trademarked you can do neither in countries that
Kleenex is trademarked in.

Champagne issue is questionable. Its a question of law and from the
articles I have read its somewhat in the WTO's hands now. I can go either
way on it. I personally refer to California Sparkling wines and Sparkling
wines. However that is out of respect.

But it is not misleading in anyway unless a California producer claims his
product is from France but it is not. However it might one day change if
laws change.



"Michael Pronay" > wrote in message
...
> "dick" > wrote:
>
> > The biggest issue with the word Champagne is that if France
> > really wants to protect that name---it needs to be registered
> > and defended everywhere so that the name does not become
> > classified as generic. Since the name is not descriptive it
> > likely would be easily defended. Examples are Kleenex Brand
> > Tissues...some refer to a tissue as Kleenex and that company
> > defends their name so that it does not become generic.
>
> There seems to be a minor difference between "some referring to a
> tissue as a kleenex" and others labelling their tissues "kleenex",
> don't you think so?
>
> M.

"Ian Hoare" > wrote in message
news
>
> This isn't in any sense to be taken as anti-American

Not taken that way, at least not by this American. US producers who label
their product "champagne" (the lower-case "c" does not excuse their
dishonesty) are a blight on the industry.

"dick" ha scritto

> If you make Sparking wine from French Vines and make it in the Traditional
> Champagne method, then it too is a French Recipe.

If you can0't see the difference between a typical local product and a
recipe, then allrigth so.

Vilco

I think I understand what you are saying and I am going to argue the point
with you. This is not a matter of opinions its a matter of international
law on trademarks. Is Champagne as a region protected by law as only
Sparkling wines from Champagne can be called Champagne in other countries
outside of Europe. Presently the answer is Yes. You can have American
Champagnes. Aussie Champagnes as well.

This might change one day.

But I think it might be a change for the worse. Will a Parma Ham that is
not from Parma be called Parma Style Ham. Will that make a difference.
Will French Dijon Mustard sold in the USA that is from Canada have to be
renamed to Canadian Dijon Style Mustards. Will all water producers in Evian
get to be called Evian thus reducing the Evian Trademark that exists in the
USA. Geographic Regions are far more important to wines but they do not
seem to have the same international protections. Perhaps they should and
these perceived inequities will no longer exist.

US Labeling laws as put out from the FDA are about to change for
Bioterrorism and require country of origin and much internal paperwork as to
where ingredients come from for tracking purposes. If this goes not the
label next it might look like this:

Maille Mustard, Product Of France, Seed from Canada, Glass from Germany,
Seal from North Africa, Water from Italy, Salt and Pepper from Madagascar,
Labor from Poland.....


Just understand presently that the law allows for these types of
"Vilco" > wrote in message
...
> "dick" ha scritto
>
> > If you make Sparking wine from French Vines and make it in the
Traditional
> > Champagne method, then it too is a French Recipe.
>
> If you can0't see the difference between a typical local product and a
> recipe, then allrigth so.
>
> Vilco
>
>

Salut/Hi Steve Grant,

le/on 26 Oct 2003 15:36:06 GMT, tu disais/you said:-

>"Ian Hoare" > wrote in message
>news
>>
>> This isn't in any sense to be taken as anti-American
>
>Not taken that way, at least not by this American.

Thanks Steve.

>US producers who label their product "champagne" (the lower-case "c" does not excuse their
>dishonesty) are a blight on the industry.

What is really sad in this for me is that these products are mainly quite
good enough to stand on their own merits.

I've seen it said that names like champagne & chablis (which for me are
_clearly_ names of wine regions) sherry & port (which are slightly different
in that they are anglicisms for wines imported from particular ports, can
not now be protected by right of long usage in many places other than those
of origin. It may be legally true, but in that case the law is an ass and
shold be changed. As someone who lived in a country which regularly passed
off all sorts of muck with prestigious names (Burgundy, Claret, Sherry and
Port to name but a few) I know just how the misuse of these names debased
the general view of the genuine article. I was delighted to see European
style legislation introduced to ban such passing off and would very much
like to see much more stringent legislation of this type world wide. No, in
fact I'd far prefer it if producers, importers and retailers would be
meticulous on a voluntary basis. But if they aren't prepared to do so then I
believe it may be necessary to introduce legislation to do so.

ALL countries (and again, please don't take this as in any way intended as a
sideways swipe at America) need to be far more meticulous in their handling
of international trade. Size or wealth make no difference. It's a matter of
equity above everything else. If laws allow injustice then that's not a
justification of the action, it's a demonstration of bad laws - which after
all are nothing sacrosanct, but the creation of the administration in power
when the law was enacted. At the moment in France M Chirac is President, and
we see laws enacted which reflect his political stance and beliefs. One
could argue that legislators should be above such things, but that would be
unduly naive. When it comes to international trade, and the protection of
wine (and cheese and ham and all sorts) names the game is even more complex,
with, no doubt all sorts of horse trading going on. I'd prefer it - by FAR -
if such agreements didn't descend to different sides fighting nationalist
interests, but that a real attempt were made to find just and equitable
solutions, but that's obviously hopelessly idealistic. But just as I find
the argument "You can't copyright "Blue Mountain" because it is a colour
followed by a geographical description" morally bankrupt, in its effect on
Jamaican coffee growers, so I find the reduction of such matters as wine and
cheese names to sterile legalism to be the same.


--
All the Best
Ian Hoare

Sometimes oi just sits and thinks
Sometimes oi just sits.

> Schramsberg is a sparkling wine from California
>made in the "Methode Champenoise." "Method Champenoise" is the method by
>which Champagne is made, but it does not imply that it is Champagne, the
>region in France.

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?



>There is a HUGE difference in calling a sparkling wine
>"Champagne", which some very cheap wines do, and indicating that you make it
>in the "Methode Champenoise".

I believe if the term "Champagne" is to be used on a label, it has to
be conjucture with another appellation (i.e. "California Champagne" or
"Missouri Champagne").

clyde

In article et>,
dick > wrote:
>
>Labeling is first a legal issue. Secondly a principal issue. There should
>be respect given to Champagne of France but if there was a legal issue here
>it surely would have surfaced.
>
>I agree that Schramsburg is quite worthy of bearing the name. In my opinion
>they are the best of California...I also like Roederer Brut and Brut Rose.
>
>Amazingly I am not aware of any USA-Pinot Noir calling themselves Burgundy.


Gallo makes a wine that they call Burgundy. I don't think it is pinot
noir, though.


Dimitri

Ian Hoare wrote:
> Salut/Hi Dana Myers,
>
> le/on Sat, 25 Oct 2003 20:54:25 -0700, tu disais/you said:-
>
>
>>Consumers that give a sh*t understand the difference
>>between "champagne" from California and Champagne.
>
>
> That's probab ly true, yes.
>
>
>>Other consumers don't matter (they don't care... they just don't
>>know the difference and don't care anyway).
>
>
> I'm sorry, Dana, I find that a little arrogant towards the millions of
> people who buy "champagne" in those countries which allow their local
> sparklers to be called that, and all similar attempts to pass off local
> products using prestigious names from elsewhere.

Well, what's happened here is that a specific name has become generic.
It is, actually, a success problem. The examples that we most often
cite are of brand-names that have become generic (like Kleenex and Coke).

You say "pass off local products using prestigious names from elsewhere".
From this, I infer that you find the practice to be rooted in an attempt
to deceive. I believe the practice is easily as much about attempting
to communicate with consumers in terms they know. If the vast majority
of your consumers have learned to say "champagne" when they're talking
sparkling wine, regardless of how that sparkling wine is labelled, then
there's a legitimate desire to want to label the product in a way that
speaks directly to your consumers.

Further, not all parts of the label carry equal weight with consumers.
Even people that don't know the difference between Champagne from Champagne
and sparkling wine from Modesto *do* seem to quickly figure out the
difference between Kristal and Korbel.

(Very few consumers I've met actually think that Canadian bacon comes
from Canada, too)

I don't intend to dismiss the issue or insult consumers who don't
know the difference, but what's the point of educating them? Most
American consumers already think wine is too complicated and wine
enthusiasts are too snooty; attempting to correct those very consumers
on their improper use of the term will simply alienate them further.
This won't sell more sparkling wine from anywhere.

Here's something that still makes me wince:

http://www.roundtablepizza.com/RTP/Press/napa_pizza.asp

Dana

Michael Pronay wrote:

> "dick" > wrote:
>
>
>>The biggest issue with the word Champagne is that if France
>>really wants to protect that name---it needs to be registered
>>and defended everywhere so that the name does not become
>>classified as generic. Since the name is not descriptive it
>>likely would be easily defended. Examples are Kleenex Brand
>>Tissues...some refer to a tissue as Kleenex and that company
>>defends their name so that it does not become generic.
>
>
> There seems to be a minor difference between "some referring to a
> tissue as a kleenex" and others labelling their tissues "kleenex",
> don't you think so?

Perhaps. It's possible that "sandwich" might be more
applicable:

http://www.open-sandwich.co.uk/history/sandwiches.htm

Dana

Salut/Hi Dana Myers,

le/on Mon, 27 Oct 2003 12:40:56 -0800, tu disais/you said:-


>>>Other consumers don't matter (they don't care... they just don't
>>>know the difference and don't care anyway).
>>
>>
>> I'm sorry, Dana, I find that a little arrogant towards the millions of
>> people who buy "champagne" in those countries which allow their local
>> sparklers to be called that, and all similar attempts to pass off local
>> products using prestigious names from elsewhere.
>
>Well, what's happened here is that a specific name has become generic.
>It is, actually, a success problem. The examples that we most often
>cite are of brand-names that have become generic (like Kleenex and Coke).

I have to say that I use neither as generic terms. However I _do_ use "Biro"
for ball point pen, I guess. I quite accept that is what happened in the
past, but (just as for Alsace producers who claim that it is "too difficult"
to re-educate consumers not to ask for "Tokay d'Alsace") quite independantly
of what's legally incumbent, I feel that a punctilious winemaker wouldn't
WANT to tread on the toes of colleagues elsewhere, if only out of
enlightened self interest some time down the line.

>You say "pass off local products using prestigious names from elsewhere".
> From this, I infer that you find the practice to be rooted in an attempt
>to deceive.

Without any doubt. At least it was when it started. American "chablis" is so
wildly different from the real thing that it's difficult to claim that
there's a serious attempt to pass off. In this case, the name itself is
being debased - in the eyes of the great mass of consumers. If Joe Public
has no idea that Chablis (a wine made with Chardonnay grapes near the town
of Chablis in France) is a fine wine, their image of the name will be
coloured by the Gallo (or whoever it is) plonk of that name.

> I believe the practice is easily as much about attempting to communicate with consumers in terms they know.

Nope. In terms they have been taught to recognise (incorrectly). If
Californians had never ever called their sparklers "champagne" then the
problem wouldn't exist now. The reason _originally_ was that everyone had
heard of "champagne" as a prestigious sparkling wine, so winemakers
(abusively) _used_ it as a generic term in the hope their wine would benefit
from the glow of the real thing. Well, in a sense that's _their_ problem.
They have to live with the expense of refocussing the public.

>there's a legitimate desire to want to label the product in a way that
>speaks directly to your consumers.

With respect, not legitimate. There's a desire and an understandable one.
But just as I might have an understandable desire to label my homemade word
processor "Word" so their desire to do so doesn't make it legitimate.

>I don't intend to dismiss the issue or insult consumers who don't
>know the difference, but what's the point of educating them?

At the most basic level, so that the people who have laboured over centuries
to give their wines an identity and excellence should not see their work
debased.

>American consumers already think wine is too complicated and wine
>enthusiasts are too snooty; attempting to correct those very consumers
>on their improper use of the term will simply alienate them further.

I can't speak to the sophistication or lack of it of American consumers, but
I do know that in the UK they were able to move from a wholesale abuse to a
respect of wine names. Wine consumption has increased steadily. I can't
believe that this wouldn't happen in the States.


--
All the Best
Ian Hoare

Sometimes oi just sits and thinks
Sometimes oi just sits.

"Dana Myers" > wrote in message news:3f9d802f$1@wobble...
>
> Well, what's happened here is that a specific name has become generic.
> It is, actually, a success problem. The examples that we most often
> cite are of brand-names that have become generic (like Kleenex and Coke).

I humbly suggest that you not try marketing products of your own design as
"Kleenex" or "Coke" under the premise that the names have become "generic."
You will get sued out of your underwear in no time flat. And you will lose.
Quickly, massively, and decisively.

Steve Grant wrote:
> "Dana Myers" > wrote in message news:3f9d802f$1@wobble...
>
>>Well, what's happened here is that a specific name has become generic.
>>It is, actually, a success problem. The examples that we most often
>>cite are of brand-names that have become generic (like Kleenex and Coke).
>
>
> I humbly suggest that you not try marketing products of your own design as
> "Kleenex" or "Coke" under the premise that the names have become "generic."
> You will get sued out of your underwear in no time flat. And you will lose.
> Quickly, massively, and decisively.

Of course. I know that but it doesn't stop the average consumer
from *using these terms generically*. That was my point. Sure,
there are litigations to attempt to preserve the brand-identity
of these brands, but they're taking place because the terms have
become generic. People walk up to a snack bar and ask for a coke,
and make a disparaging comment when I ask if Pepsi is OK, like I'm
stupid. I *have* to ask. You needn't lecture me on this point :-).

If "Champagne" wasn't a place but was a Gallo brand, we wouldn't
be having this exchange.

Dana

Salut/Hi Dana Myers,

le/on Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:34:03 -0800, tu disais/you said:-

>If "Champagne" wasn't a place but was a Gallo brand, we wouldn't
>be having this exchange.

But it was _used_ by Gallo just because it WAS a place where they make an
eponymous wine. That's the point for me.

Gallo (and anyone else who uses famous place names generically) knew
perfectly well what they were doing when they started, Dana. They shouldn't
bellyache now, it seems to me. And of course exactly the same argument could
_and should_ IMO be true for Parma or Bayonne Hams, Parmigiani Reggiano,
Cheddar (now THAT would truly put the cat among the pigeons), Roquefort
cheeses, Basmati and Carnaroli rices (which are more than simply varieties
of rice IMO). This isn't about protectionism (not a thing I like at all) but
about giving credit where it's due and especially not deceiving the
consumer. And please don't believe that I've got it in for the States over
this. I believe that actually France would suffer more, if prestigious named
products were properly protected.
--
All the Best
Ian Hoare

Sometimes oi just sits and thinks
Sometimes oi just sits.

Clyde Gill > wrote:

> 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.

Ian Hoare > wrote:

>> I believe the practice is easily as much about attempting to
>> communicate with consumers in terms they know.

> Nope. In terms they have been taught to recognise (incorrectly).
> If Californians had never ever called their sparklers
> "champagne" then the problem wouldn't exist now. The reason
> _originally_ was that everyone had heard of "champagne" as a
> prestigious sparkling wine, so winemakers (abusively) _used_ it
> as a generic term in the hope their wine would benefit from the
> glow of the real thing. Well, in a sense that's _their_ problem.
> They have to live with the expense of refocussing the public.

Absolutely. And, may I cite another example: After WW I the term
of "Champagne" and "Cognac" were forbidden to the loser parties of
the war (and their successor states) - and what happened? Without
any problem they found alternatives ("Sekt" & "Weinbrand" in the
German speaking part of Europe).

It's a pity the war winners did'nt feel like doing the same, so
that's why we have "Champagne" in the US and "Kognak" in Russia.

M.

>
>> 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.

Yes, but what effect does EU legislation have on wines produced and
purchased across the pond? There are still many sparklers available
here with the term on the label.

clyde

"Ian Hoare" > wrote in message
...
>
> I can't speak to the sophistication or lack of it of American consumers,
but
> I do know that in the UK they were able to move from a wholesale abuse to
a
> respect of wine names. Wine consumption has increased steadily. I can't
> believe that this wouldn't happen in the States.

"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American
public." -- H. L. Mencken.

"Clyde Gill" wrote............
> >
> >> 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.
> >

>
> Yes, but what effect does EU legislation have on wines produced
> and purchased across the pond?


The only effect is that any wine labelled thus cannot be exported/imported
into the EU.

In fact, even if that specific wine was not being exported, but the
producing winery exported other wines into the EU - they *may* experience
*problems*.

It may come as a surprise to some US contributors to this ng - but the UK
market is vastly more important than the US market to most antipodean
wineries.

I know that here in NZ when the EU says "Jump!" - we just say "How high!!!"

Mind you - some NZ wineries export up to 50% of their production - so they
are "sensitive" to say the least.

The word "Méthode" is the locally used word to describe sparkling wines made
from the Méthode Traditionnelle.

"Méthode Champenoise" is now *never* used (even in the local market) for
fear that its use will jeopardise exports.



And use of the geographic words "Burgundy", "Chablis" or "Champagne" to
describe NZ made wine is illegal.



..................

st.helier

Ian Hoare wrote:
> Salut/Hi Dana Myers,
>
> le/on Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:34:03 -0800, tu disais/you said:-
>
>
>>If "Champagne" wasn't a place but was a Gallo brand, we wouldn't
>>be having this exchange.
>
>
> But it was _used_ by Gallo just because it WAS a place where they make an
> eponymous wine. That's the point for me.

Would you feel better about this if Gallo had put
"Champagne-style sparkling wine" on the label? Gallo
made a beverage in the style of something consumers already
knew and labelled it as such.

....

> And please don't believe that I've got it in for the States over
> this. I believe that actually France would suffer more, if prestigious named
> products were properly protected.

Ah. What's this about prestige? Is a place-based name somehow inherently
prestigious? Don't overlook the impact of the producer name; for example,
Gallo is *still* working to overcome the perception of making nothing but
insipid wine, regardless of what they put on the label.
Dana

Salut/Hi Dana Myers,

le/on Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:00:36 -0800, tu disais/you said:-

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

>Would you feel better about this if Gallo had put
>"Champagne-style sparkling wine" on the label?

No. There's no need to use the name champagne at all. Sparkling wine is good
enough. If they want to say more about it and say that the fizz was created
in the bottles, that all the techniques used in Champagne to make their
wines were used too, then - speaking personally, I'd have no problems with
the expression "Champagne method" in small letters somewhere. 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.

>Gallo made a beverage in the style of something consumers already
>knew and labelled it as such.

I don't think so, Dana. I think they simply made a sparkling wine and used a
prestigious name to sell it.

>> And please don't believe that I've got it in for the States over
>> this. I believe that actually France would suffer more, if prestigious named
>> products were properly protected.
>
>Ah. What's this about prestige? Is a place-based name somehow inherently
>prestigious?

Only if the eponymous product had a great reputation (merited or not).
Roquefort, for example. Personally I prefer Bleu des Causses (very like
Roquefort but less salty and made with cow's milk) to all bu the very best
Roquefort, but there's no disputing that Roquefort is the most highly
reputed blue cheese (along with Gorgonzola, and Stilton, perhaps) in the
world. I think it's entirely proper to restrict the name to the "real
thing". If that happened, then it would cause chaos in France, by the way.

> 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".

--
All the Best
Ian Hoare

Sometimes oi just sits and thinks
Sometimes oi just sits.

>
> 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,
which has me questioning why it's been ruled against here in the
states. Shouldn't they be changing the rule on use of appellation
terms on the front label, instead of messing with winemaking terms?

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

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?

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.

Here's the way the reg's state it:

________

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!

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.

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


clyde