A Capital Idea

[Noah_C]

Well, neither Champagne nor Burgundy are varieties.

-Al

True. But Red Burgundy is varietal (100% Pinot Noir). So is White Burgundy (100% Chardonnay). Some Champagne is varietal, but some is not.

[Mikael_OB]

[J_Singleton]

I feel like an easier definition is “variety” refers to the grape, while “varietal” describes what’s in the bottle. That said, I’d probably throat punch someone at a party who went out of their way to correct me if I used the terms incorrectly. It’s probably the same type of person who corrects others for ending a sentence with a preposition. Fun sponges get no love from me.

[Chris_Seiber]

I decided to look at the bottles in my cellar. Every single bottle that has the grape variety on the front label was capitalized. I looked at bottles from ; Alsace, Australia, Germany, New Zealand & USA.

It seems like the folks who make the wines and label them agree on this question…

Brodie

Most product labels capitalize the product name. If you buy toilet paper or mustard, the label probably capitalizes the first letters, but that doesn’t mean that you have to write “remember to get some Toilet Paper and Mustard when you go to the supermarket.”

Having said that, I do think that the winemakers who post on WB tend to capitalize the variety name when they write about it generally, which is not something I personally do myself. I think it looks weird to capitalize Zinfandel and Chardonnay in the middle of a sentence where you’re just referring to those things generically. To each his own.

[John_Morris]

I decided to look at the bottles in my cellar. Every single bottle that has the grape variety on the front label was capitalized. I looked at bottles from ; Alsace, Australia, Germany, New Zealand & USA.

It seems like the folks who make the wines and label them agree on this question…

Brodie

Most product labels capitalize the product name. If you buy toilet paper or mustard, the label probably capitalizes the first letters, but that doesn’t mean that you have to write “remember to get some Toilet Paper and Mustard when you go to the supermarket.”

Having said that, I do think that the winemakers who post on WB tend to capitalize the variety name when they write about it generally, which is not something I personally do myself. I think it looks weird to capitalize Zinfandel and Chardonnay in the middle of a sentence where you’re just referring to those things generically. To each his own.

Exactly!

[Dav3_Dyr0ff]

Well, neither Champagne nor Burgundy are varieties.

-Al

True. But Red Burgundy is varietal (100% Pinot Noir). So is White Burgundy (100% Chardonnay). Some Champagne is varietal, but some is not.

As I understand the tradition, though, folks generally would not refer to Chambertin as a varietal wine, even though it is 100% pinot noir, generally reserving that adjective for wines that are not only made from a single grape variety but also labeled as such.

[John_Morris]

Well, neither Champagne nor Burgundy are varieties.

-Al

True. But Red Burgundy is varietal (100% Pinot Noir). So is White Burgundy (100% Chardonnay). Some Champagne is varietal, but some is not.

I think you’re confusing the issue. The discussion is whether grape varieties should be capped. Red and white Burgundy are not grape types, even though they are associated with single grapes. They are wine types labeled based on a geographic region, which there’s no dispute must be capitalized. (As an aside, some white Burgundy appellations can include some pinot blanc.)

[RichardFlack]

Well, neither Champagne nor Burgundy are varieties.

-Al

True. But Red Burgundy is varietal (100% Pinot Noir). So is White Burgundy (100% Chardonnay). Some Champagne is varietal, but some is not.

I think you’re confusing the issue. The discussion is whether grape varieties should be capped. Red and white Burgundy are not grape types, even though they are associated with single grapes. They are wine types labeled based on a geographic region, which there’s no dispute must be capitalized. (As an aside, some white Burgundy appellations can include some pinot blanc.)

Not to mention Sauvignon Blanc (St Bris) or Pinot Gris or Aligote , although the former might be regarded as “Burgundy “ although I believe it can’t be called Bourgogne Blanc. Aligote is designated as Bourgogne Aligote I think.

Waiting for the Lawyers to chip in, they quite like Capitals on Defined Terms.

For me I think it depends on context. A wine review is helped by capitalising grape varieties or varietals . “This Chardonnay is very fresh …”. But a novel should not. “He raised his glass of merlot and took a sip…”

[Carole_Meredith]

In scientific communications, varieties of cultivated plants are always capitalized. So for corn, it’s Golden Bantam or Silver Queen. For apples – Red Delicious, Honeycrisp. For tomatoes – Better Boy, Early Girl. And for grapes – Chardonnay, Zinfandel, Syrah. In this regard, grape varieties are no different than varieties of any other cultivated plant. (There are some exceptions, such as when the name includes a color, such as Pinot noir.) But mainstream publications have their own style manuals that must be followed. Drives me crazy to see variety names in lower case in the New York Times.

[Drew_Goin]

In scientific communications, varieties of cultivated plants are always capitalized.

…In this regard, grape varieties are no different than varieties of any other cultivated plant. (There are some exceptions, such as when the name includes a color, such as Pinot noir.)

But mainstream publications have their own style manuals that must be followed. Drives me crazy to see variety names in lower case in the New York Times.

+1

I feel this in my soul.

[Dav3_Dyr0ff]

In scientific communications, varieties of cultivated plants are always capitalized. So for corn, it’s Golden Bantam or Silver Queen. For apples – Red Delicious, Honeycrisp. For tomatoes – Better Boy, Early Girl. And for grapes – Chardonnay, Zinfandel, Syrah. In this regard, grape varieties are no different than varieties of any other cultivated plant. (There are some exceptions, such as when the name includes a color, such as Pinot noir.) But mainstream publications have their own style manuals that must be followed. Drives me crazy to see variety names in lower case in the New York Times.

Thanks, Carole. Being a complete outsider to the world of botanical scientific communications, I find this interesting but it’s all new to me. I note that you say varieties are capitalized, so I assume that words like corn or grapes are not capitalized because they are not varieties. This would seem to answer my question above about other disciplines - so if the analogy holds, dog would not be capitalized by a zoologist, but Cocker Spaniel would. Does anyone know if that’s what those folks actually do?

In addition to variety, you also mention “cultivated plants” - is that meant to imply that you would not capitalize the name of a variety of a non-cultivated plant? Do non-cultivated plants even have varieties?

I can see the logic here being an analogy to proper names - person or human or woman aren’t capitalized, but Carole Meredith is. Varieties, so the analogy goes, are more like the latter, while generic names like grape are more like the former. Maybe I’ll have to stick to the apostrophe issue when it comes to getting frustrated with capitalized Apple.

[David_Wright]

Yes, names like Little Blue Heron, Yellow Warbler, etc. are proper names of bird species. Little Blue Heron is the proper (English) name of the species Egretta caerulea. There are many warblers that are yellow (Wilson’s, Hooded, Blue-winged, etc., but only one is the Yellow Warbler, Setophaga petechia. Capitalizing the name of a bird indicates that you are using the proper name of a particular bird species—the Yellow Warbler—and not just talking about a yellow warbler.

Editors and others who regard style guides as bibles remove the capitals because they think Yellow Warbler is a common name. They do not recognize that these are proper names of species (yet they will correct you if you write “buick riviera”).

The American Ornithological Society has formal names (proper nouns) for bird species in the US. The British Ornithologists’ Union does the same for birds in the UK. And so on.

[Dav3_Dyr0ff]

Thanks, DW.

Yet, it’s Yellow Warbler (as opposed to yellow Warbler) but Pinot noir (as opposed to Pinot Noir), apparently?

I have to say Pinot noir seems stranger to me than either pinot noir or Pinot Noir, given that (to me anyway) it’s the two-word name of a grape variety and not the one-word name of a grape variety with an adjective for what just happens to be its color (like green Chevrolet would be).

[Al_Osterheld]

Well, neither Champagne nor Burgundy are varieties.

-Al

True. But Red Burgundy is varietal (100% Pinot Noir). So is White Burgundy (100% Chardonnay). Some Champagne is varietal, but some is not.

As I understand the tradition, though, folks generally would not refer to Chambertin as a varietal wine, even though it is 100% pinot noir, generally reserving that adjective for wines that are not only made from a single grape variety but also labeled as such.

While it’s often true, Burgundy AOC rules do not limit wines to only two varieties, and do not require whites to be all Chardonnay/chardonnay, or reds to be all Pinot Noir/pinot noir/Pinot noir.

-Al

[John_Morris]

Yes, names like Little Blue Heron, Yellow Warbler, etc. are proper names of bird species. Little Blue Heron is the proper (English) name of the species Egretta caerulea. There are many warblers that are yellow (Wilson’s, Hooded, Blue-winged, etc., but only one is the Yellow Warbler, Setophaga petechia. Capitalizing the name of a bird indicates that you are using the proper name of a particular bird species—the Yellow Warbler—and not just talking about a yellow warbler.

Editors and others who regard style guides as bibles remove the capitals because they think Yellow Warbler is a common name. They do not recognize that these are proper names of species (yet they will correct you if you write “buick riviera”).

The American Ornithological Society has formal names (proper nouns) for bird species in the US. The British Ornithologists’ Union does the same for birds in the UK. And so on.

As discussed in the other thread, that’s really a matter of taste, and ornithogists, botanists and researchers of various sorts (and lawyers) often lean toward a more formal, academic style. That makes sense in those circles. It doesn’t mean it has to be a universal style rule.

(And you shouldn’t need capitals to make clear if you’re talking about a species or a specific bird!)

[David_Wright]

The capitals make it clear that one is using a proper name. It’s that simple. It’s not a matter of being formal or academic, it is a matter of being clear in communciation.

The proper nouns we are talking about here are English synonyms (not necessarily translations) of scientific names. Many folks find it easier to use Yellow Warbler than Setophaga petechia.

[Neal.Mollen]

As an editor, I can tell you there’s no right or wrong on this.

I can tell you there is wrong in this.

[Dav3_Dyr0ff]

(And you shouldn’t need capitals to make clear if you’re talking about a species or a specific bird!)

And this gets to the natural counter-argument. If the analogy that favors capitalization is that “grape” is a common noun and “Chardonnay” is the proper noun, like “man” and “Dave” are, that’s fine as far as it goes but the problem is that “Chardonnay” is not a unique individual and most proper nouns are unique individuals of whatever type of thing they are. There are lots of French, but we capitalize it as the adjective form of a proper noun because among countries there is only one France, for example. So along those lines, Rover should be capitalized but neither cocker spaniel nor dog should be. Now, I guess you can say that we don’t generally name individual grape vines, but there’s no reason we can’t. Old Grumpy could be the oldest, gnarliest zin vine in my vineyard and Old Grumpy would be a proper noun if I gave it that name, but “zinfandel” isn’t a specific individual, it’s a type. We capitalize “Lake Michigan” for example, as a specific lake, but we don’t capitalize the names of types of lakes like “freshwater lake.” Of course, none of these analogies are perfect and Cocker Spaniel has an argument for being more formal or “proper” than “freshwater lake” which would be more analogous to “hunting dog” or the like.

So it goes. Being one who is inclined to respect expertise, I think I’ll defer to the botanists here.

Except for the whole Pinot noir thing.

[Chris_Seiber]

Yes, names like Little Blue Heron, Yellow Warbler, etc. are proper names of bird species. Little Blue Heron is the proper (English) name of the species Egretta caerulea. There are many warblers that are yellow (Wilson’s, Hooded, Blue-winged, etc., but only one is the Yellow Warbler, Setophaga petechia. Capitalizing the name of a bird indicates that you are using the proper name of a particular bird species—the Yellow Warbler—and not just talking about a yellow warbler.

Editors and others who regard style guides as bibles remove the capitals because they think Yellow Warbler is a common name. They do not recognize that these are proper names of species (yet they will correct you if you write “buick riviera”).

The American Ornithological Society has formal names (proper nouns) for bird species in the US. The British Ornithologists’ Union does the same for birds in the UK. And so on.

Indulge me here. If you just write “heron,” you don’t capitalize it, right? But Little Blue Heron you capitalize. So you’d write:

1. bird
2. heron
3. Little Blue Heron

Or, similarly, you’d write:

1. tree
2. pine tree
3. Douglas Fir

So I’m trying to match that up with grape varieties. Is “chardonnay” equivalent to heron and pine tree, or to Little Blue Heron and Douglas Fir, in those examples?

[David_Wright]

(And you shouldn’t need capitals to make clear if you’re talking about a species or a specific bird!)

And this gets to the natural counter-argument. If the analogy that favors capitalization is that “grape” is a common noun and “Chardonnay” is the proper noun, like “man” and “Dave” are, that’s fine as far as it goes but the problem is that “Chardonnay” is not a unique individual and most proper nouns are unique individuals of whatever type of thing they are. There are lots of French, but we capitalize it as the adjective form of a proper noun because among countries there is only one France, for example. So along those lines, Rover should be capitalized but neither cocker spaniel nor dog should be. Now, I guess you can say that we don’t generally name individual grape vines, but there’s no reason we can’t. Old Grumpy could be the oldest, gnarliest zin vine in my vineyard and Old Grumpy would be a proper noun if I gave it that name, but “zinfandel” isn’t a specific individual, it’s a type. We capitalize “Lake Michigan” for example, as a specific lake, but we don’t capitalize the names of types of lakes like “freshwater lake.” Of course, none of these analogies are perfect and Cocker Spaniel has an argument for being more formal or “proper” than “freshwater lake” which would be more analogous to “hunting dog” or the like.

So it goes. Being one who is inclined to respect expertise, I think I’ll defer to the botanists here.

Except for the whole Pinot noir thing.

As to the argument that by convention only unique individuals get proper names, what about Buick Riviera?

As to Pinot noir, I might guess (note waving arms…) that botanists do this to mirror the way scientific names are written. The genus/generic name (the first part of the two-word (binomial) name is capitalized, but the second word, the specific epithet, is not, e.g. Homo sapiens. And both words are italicized to indicate that it is a formal scientific name.