As I was reading StuartPigott’s introduction to Alsace Riesling, he dropped this zinger:
Put simply, a wine region’s good reputation can lead to the idealization of its wines, as in the case of Burgundy in France, which I sometimes refer to as Holy Burgundy. The current image of this region ignores the many poor-quality wines produced there that sell for high prices, and skates over issues like the practice of the > illegally incorrect declaration of the alcoholic content on the label> , which extends to some of the most famous producers.
Any Burgundy-philes have a clue as to what he’s talking about? My impression was that French wine authorities are pretty casual as to their alcohol level labeling regulations. I wasn’t aware of something like this going on there. Is some kind of coverup going on within the Burgundy industry?? Curious minds & all that.
Tom
In the USofA, the Fed tax triples at the 14% level. But that tax is fairly modest and probably wouldn’t be much of
a consideration. Obviously, that’s irrelevant to French wines.
Not sure what it is in France/EU.
Tom
He should continue to write simply about German Riesling and be happy that he has found his niche. All other articles written by him are just embarrassing.
I believe it is higher in the US (either 1 or 1.5), therefore a producer could put different alcohol levels on the same wine depending on where it is going to be retailed.
I still can’t see what he means but he is definitely correct in saying that there is a fairly large amount of almost undrinkable wines made in Burgundy and sold for relatively high prices. One only needs to make a few random purchases in French supermarkets to be convinced of that.
Have always heard 1.0 allowable variance in the US, but curious if and what producers have been caught out of bounds on this or if it’s ever really tested.
Bingo…it’s not routinely tested and so no one is ever caught. Only if a consumer registers a compliant
with the TTB would it be looked at, I think.
Tom
If you walk into a random wine store in a random region of the USA and pick a random bottle of Burgundy off of the shelf, then most likely it will be completely undrinkable, and, if not completely undrinkable, then it will certainly be over-priced by a factor of 3x or 4x or 5x.
Oenophiles who are still sitting around in 2014, waiting for arrival, at Premier Cru, of their mythical 2005 Villages Sub-$50 [and mythical 2005 1er Cru sub-$100] Burgundies Which Do Not Suck, are maybe the top 1% of the top 1% of the top 1% of all wine drinkers in this country.
And even those oenophiles - if they were honest with themselves - would have to admit that they aren’t entirely certain that the wines won’t suck, because they haven’t actually had a chance to taste them yet.
In Europe the wine law gives you the opportunity to take the actual alcohol grade and add or take 0,5% after rounding the number to the full or half percent.
That means, if you have a wine with 12,7% you can round it to 12,5 or 13%. If it helps you in sales you make that either 12, 12,5, 13 or 13,5% on the label.
Or you write the exact amount on it, like the 12,7%. Then it has to be exact.
It does not matter that much in that spectrum, it matters for sure a lot when you have a wine that shoots through the roof and has analytically 14,7%.
If you don`t like overly alcoholic wines and you read 14% on the label you may be in the situation that the wine has most probably more than that.
I prefer wine to port. At our last tasting we had a Saxum 2007 with 15,7% that, for our good luck, came as last wine.
It was considered as best wine of the tasting so far, and if the line up would have been different the DRC Richebourg 2004 and the Ponsot Clos de la Roche 1996 which we had before, would have completely been smoked in a pipe for some grenache cuvee.
All I’d say, is given these results, wine isn’t where the TTB should be concentrating their efforts, and I certainly wouldn’t be thrilled about paying more money for more compliance testing.
Not sure about the EU stuff. In general our industry has 2 versions of labeling, marketing alcohol and actual alcohol. Wines under 14% have a 1.5% range for stated alcohol or you can just put Table Wine and not have to list the number. Wines over 14% have a 1% range. However you can’t cross the 14% line, so a wine at 13.5% can be labeled from 13.9-12.4%. Or a wine at 14.5% can be labeled from 14-15.5%. Lots of producers print the same alcohol on the label year in and year out and just stay in the legal range.
People do get caught I know a few who have mostly with wine distributed to retail. People do label outside the range as well. I have an ebulliometer and test most wine from other producers to see if its labeled marketing or actual alcohol. If I find one way off I send in a sample to ETS labs to confirm. Alcohol can change over time under cork (or while in barrel) depending on humidity of the storage. Over 70% RH or so is the equilibrium point, lower RH more water evaporates that alcohol raising it, higher RH more alcohol evaporates than water and raises alcohol. Lots of CA PN labeled 14.5% is closer to 15.5% or on the other end labeled 13% and is 13.9%+
Wines below 14% are taxed at $1.07/gal, wines above 14% (are in the category of fortified wines since when they wrote the law there was really no wine over 14% that was not fortified) are taxed at $1.57/gal. For small producers there is a $.90/gal reduction in the taxes called the small producers tax credit. For small producers thats $.17/gal under 14% and $.67/gal for wine over 14%. Sparkling producers get hit the worst as its considered a luxury good so its $3.40/gal and cider is $.226/gal. The fees have not changed since 1991 when they were raised by $.90/gal, which is when the small producers credit was started. There has been talk of increasing them by a big amount again soon. I just wish they would not wait decades to change it and then change it by hundreds of percent. It should be tied inflation or something like that with little changes often that are easier to manage as a business. Oh and don’t forget each state has excise takes, CA is $.20/gal.
![[snort.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/b/bdc3944606213c4dca6c1169cf0a166c8bc4f8c9.gif "snort.gif"){kind=small}
