Port, fortified not with brandy?

[jackal10]

Might as well label Californian Pinot Noir as Burgundy and Cabernet as Bordeaux...why not go the whole hog and call it Latour or Napa Margaux.

Edited October 29, 2005 by jackal10 (log)

[cdh]

Maybe they should be made to invent a new word for their grapes altogether, then? After all, pinot noir grown in California doesn't produce commercial results like PN grown in Burgundy, why should those upstart Californians be allowed to piggyback on the legitimate commercial expectations of Burgundy lovers who all know what real pinot noir should taste like?

Edited October 29, 2005 by cdh (log)

[magnolia]

    If (and I use to live in Minnetonka) I went to a restaurant or fish market in Minnesota I would expect Walleye Pike to be Walleye Pike.  Here the deception factor is certainly present due to ones expectations.  In the generic wine labeling nobody is trying to dupe anyone.

←

It's true that the original rationale behind calling Port from California or Australia or wherever, 'Port' was not to deceive; rather, it was to 'flatter' and give a point of reference to a drink that was an imitation of the real thing. But to call Californian or Australian port (small p) 'Port' without qualifying that it comes from California and not Portugal, and may be made from grapes that are not included in Portuguese Port, and may not adhere to whatever other conditions there are that govern Port - is just as deceitful as calling a perch-like fish from, I don't know, France - 'Walleye Pike'.

The origin of all of this is that people around the world tasted Portuguese Port (named for Oporto, the place - and called Porto in Portuguese) as well as lots of other things (in Argentina they still call red wine 'burgundy' no matter what it's made of) and decided to make their own versions.

Possibly the first to do this on a major scale was Tsar Nicholas II, whose uncle (and various other in his court) were winemakers and connoisseurs, and travelled the world collecting still and fortified wines and spirits, as well as vines, and brought them back to Crimea where they planted the vines and copied the styles - in bulk - and called them Port, Sherry, Madeira - and all those now-trademarked names.

(Incidentally - you can still get these wines, they always come up for auction. But although the labels might read 'Livadia Tokay' or whatever, in the catalogues, they now read 'Tokay-style wine from Livadia' or some such. For good reason. In fact Tokay may be the latest to win the legal right to this name; this pisses off the Friulians to no end, but there it is: the Italians fight their corner too - nobody would begrudge the Tuscans the right to bar others from calling wine Chianti)...

Australia, California et al also made their own versions of fortified wine which may be made in the same way as Port - with the same grape varieties (sometimes not even), same machinery, same vinification technique - but it's not Port. The grapes don't come from Portugal; the terroir is not the same; and it doesn't meet a whole host of other conditions discussed herewith.

The situation is similar - but not identical - to the one you brought up. Walleye Pike is native to North America (in fact it's perch, an even more generic term, n'est ce pas?). If you were served something called Minnetonka Walleye, if such a thing existed, wouldn't you expect it to come from Lake Minnetonka - and wouldn't you feel you were being deceived if you went to New York and had 'Minnetonka Walleye' that was fished out of Lake George?

Fast forward to the late 20th century. This is now an issue, and one that is taken very seriously - not just by so-called wine snobs, but by food types too and makers of other many products. Many people believe that the name of their products and techniques should be codified - just like a trademark or a patent - and with good reason. Sometimes they win their case, as with Greek feta - and sometimes they lose, as with Parma ham.

  That aside, I do have a question as to the term "Port."  While it is known as Port, is Port the English name (and I do believe the English owned many of the port houses in Oporto) while in Portugal it would be called "Porto"?

←

Many of the Port houses are still owned by the English. And yes, the Portuguese word for Port is Porto.

[cdh]

This thread got me doing a bit of research, and it would appear that the restrictionists are about to win quite a victory in the battle.

A treaty is about to be signed between the US and the EU that will grandfather current usages of "semi-generic" terms like Port amongst others (Annex II is where the list is) and disallow future usage of the terms.

So, winemakers, if you have plans for a port-esque wine, get it bottled and labelled before this treaty comes into effect!

Actually, given a bit of thought, this treaty seems reasonable and well balanced to me. It recognizes the strong feelings of those across the pond that have been demonstrated in this (and other) threads on the topic, but it doesn't place an unreasonable immediate burden on winemakers who have been using the semi-generic terms we've been discussing. Seems a fine solution to the problem.

Anybody else have thoughts?

Edited October 29, 2005 by cdh (log)

[Rebel Rose]

And the treaty has been signed.

Cheap wines can keep classy names, from the Yakima (WA) Herald:

But one unfortunate result is that the entrenched practice of California wineries appropriating valuable European appellations, such as Champagne and Burgundy and Chablis, and using them on cheap domestic wines that bear little or no resemblance to the originals, will continue to be allowed.

Names such as these are euphemistically called semi-generics, because they have been used on wines in this country since the 1800s. It is still quite common to hear Chablis being used as a synonym for cheap white jug wine, which must certainly dismay the makers of grand cru Burgundies from the Chablis appellation in France. And "California Champagne" — or anything else calling itself Champagne that is not actually from Champagne — may still be legal, but is deceptive and misleading to consumers.

Under the new agreement, wineries that have been using such terms may legally continue, but new brands may not. One small step for truth in advertising, one big step for continued mislabeling.

cdh, I think you're right that the intent is to avoid placing undue burdens on producers who have been marketing their brand with these terms. The article linked to above, however, points out that it is the large plonk producers who benefit from the grandfather clause, meaning that plonk purchasers will never learn about the real origins of these terms. Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

[Adam Balic]

In a curious aside, is 'Port' the only of the name controlled proposals whose designation is not in the language of origin?

Port is most certainly the English version of 'Porto', no?

I'm actually in favor of allowing name control of food items that are traditional and tied to a specific region of a country.  Using '-style' or '-esque' (or whatever) after the name of the product sure seems to be hardly a burden for producers.

←

Burgundy? Sherry? Malmsey?

I would think that if the terms were still commericially important, the terms "Claret" and "Hock" would also be protected at point of origin.

[Jaymes]

The article linked to above, however, points out that it is the large plonk producers who benefit from the grandfather clause, meaning that plonk purchasers will never learn about the real origins of these terms.  Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

I'm sorry, but I completely disagree with this conclusion. In fact, I think that the exact opposite is more true.

I could name quite a few wines and spirits that I now enjoy and know more about because at one point (i.e., when I was young and poor), I walked into a grocery store and bought a $3.99 cheapo California version. Sherry comes immediately to mind. Had a cake recipe that called for 'cream sherry.' Bought a cheap bottle. Really liked the aroma and flavor. Set about learning more.

Had I been instructed to purchase a $35 bottle as my 'starter sherry,' I simply would not have done it.

[cdh]

Well, since this thread features pictures of Dover Canyon Zinfandel Port, you clearly don't mean to say that all users of the semi-generics are big plonk houses. Just because the big plonk houses (amongst others) benefit is no reason to oppose the treaty. The article sounds like a petulant luxury marketer indulging in a bit of sour grapes. His surprise that he enjoys the Cook's Grand Reserve is quite amusing.

Jaymes is totally right as well. Any publicity is good publicity. Sherry producers and Port producers benefit from the increased exposure of their style of wines, even when they are the cheap California plonkified versions. They raise interest and visibility. They get onto supermarket shelves when the real thing does not. If 90% of the US wine market said "Huh?!?!" when asked what Chablis was rather than said "white wine" would that be better for the Burgundians? I kind of doubt it. Everybody knows there is the real thing and the plonkified version... when folks have the cash to put down for some of the good stuff, I'd bet the familiar names get more custom than the obscure ones.

The labelling laws do require honesty in claims about origin... my bottle of cake dousing sherry is clearly labeled "New York". It's not fooling anybody. There's not even an attempt at deceit. The "so-called 'semi-generics'" have been used as descriptors for more than a hundred years... under the law, there is a doctrine called laches... it means that if you don't speak up and enforce your rights for a long enough time, you've waived your rights. This treaty is a nice way of sort-of undoing the application of laches to this situation, while not placing undue burdens on the companies that have relied on the semi-generics as descriptors.

Edited October 31, 2005 by cdh (log)

[Adam Balic]

This is all very true, but part of the issue that is not being addssed by Clear labeling etc, is the type of confusion that occured on this site (this thread even). The word "Port" means specific things to different groups of people and it is quite common in discussions for people not to add "Product of California" to comments like "I had a lovely Port the other day".

Mostly this doesn't matter, but I can see a clear case where the Oporto based wine producers will want to protect the image of their product.

I cannot stand Zinfandel. If the first port I tasted was Zinfandel based it is unlikely that I would try another Port again. If the bottle is clearly labelled this shouldn't be an issue, but people don't always communicate all information when they are having a casual discussion, like the cases on this site.

Furthermore, according to Portugal's Port Wine Institute the USA takes about 4.4% of the total Port (Oporto) market, so small potatoes. Internationally, I would be wanting to protect my brand in the countries that take a larger share of the market, so why wouldn't they insist on re-branding of non-Oporto products, especially given the points discussed above?

Edited October 31, 2005 by Adam Balic (log)

[Rebel Rose]

Well, since this thread features pictures of Dover Canyon Zinfandel Port, you clearly don't mean to say that all users of the semi-generics are big plonk houses.  Just because the big plonk houses (amongst others) benefit is no reason to oppose the treaty.  The article sounds like a petulant luxury marketer indulging in a bit of sour grapes.  His surprise that he enjoys the Cook's Grand Reserve is quite amusing.

Correct. I was just paraphrasing the author's point.

We like the term "port" because it's an easy way of saying this-vintage's-dessert-wine-is-a-fortified-zinfandel. It's easier for our distributors, sales reps, and customers to recognize the wine. Some years we do a late harvest. Some years we do a syrah based dessert wine, or viognier, or even cabernet. It depends on Dan's artistic itch. We could come up with proprietary names, but then we would have to go through the whole rigamarole of explaining what a "Bruin" is, or an "Oso, " all to sell a wine that is produced in quantities of less than a hundred cases.

I have decided I want to be the first winery to release a portesque!