Come to Napa- for Central Valley Blends?

[Adam_Frisch]

Ken, my wines are TTB approved only with the AVA. No requirement to put Lodi on there.

[Merrill_Lindquist]

Conjunctive labeling requirements in Napa County compels wines marked with any sub AVA to also include “Napa Valley” next to the AVA name. I don’t see a conflict with consumers seeing Calistoga on the bottle.

I left out another reason why I don’t use Calistoga on my label. The Calistoga AVA is too large geographically, and there are far too many microclimates to try to establish what the terroir is. It becomes close to meaningless.

[Ken_Zinns]

Ken, my wines are TTB approved only with the AVA. No requirement to put Lodi on there.

Thanks, Adam. I’d thought that Lodi had conjunctive labeling but I guess not.

[BenjaminL]

Ken, my wines are TTB approved only with the AVA. No requirement to put Lodi on there.

Thanks, Adam. I’d thought that Lodi had conjunctive labeling but I guess not.

In my experience TTB doesn’t care about conjunctive labeling*. I understand when Napa wines neglect to list “Napa Valley” on a label it’s the Napa Valley Vintners that writes the winemaker to get the issue corrected.

*My 2015 Stags Leap Cabernet label did not list Napa Valley, and I got it TTB approved. I realized my mistake when I was explaining complicated labeling laws to my mother-in-law!

[Jason_T]

Interesting. Why would there be a requirement on how much wine was produced from Napa fruit? Isn’t that issue already resolved by AVA labeling rules?

I can see an argument for “protecting the Napa brand” but figure it’s probably something the Napa Valley Grapegrowers pushed through!

Don’t the AVA labeling rules primarily deal with % of grapes in the bottle?

I’d say it’s as much protecting the brand as it is the grape growers. It (at least somewhat) limits the ability of companies from setting up a slick Napa tasting room and using that to launder Central Valley fruit to those who don’t know any better (not this crowd or most WB’s in general, but there’s a huge segment of the lifestyle crowd that wouldn’t know the difference).

[BenjaminL]

Interesting. Why would there be a requirement on how much wine was produced from Napa fruit? Isn’t that issue already resolved by AVA labeling rules?

I can see an argument for “protecting the Napa brand” but figure it’s probably something the Napa Valley Grapegrowers pushed through!

Don’t the AVA labeling rules primarily deal with % of grapes in the bottle?

I’d say it’s as much protecting the brand as it is the grape growers. It (at least somewhat) limits the ability of companies from setting up a slick Napa tasting room and using that to launder Central Valley fruit to those who don’t know any better (not this crowd or most WB’s in general, but there’s a huge segment of the lifestyle crowd that wouldn’t know the difference).

Hey Jason, the labeling laws govern a number of things unrelated to % of grapes- including AVA, Vintage %, volume, ABV, etc. Different statements on a bottle regarding the wine may or may not be “legal statements” as well, that may affect the law covering % grapes, AVA%, vintage %, etc. For example, “Reserve” means nothing legally, but ‘Estate Bottled’ means a slue of requirements must be met including where the grapes are grown and where the wine is processed (interestingly, if a winery has an Estate vineyard in a separate AVA from where the winery is located, they can not legally use the term “Estate Bottled” on the wine if the AVA is used!).