I’ve been out in Oregon for the past several days, visited some wineries and read some articles in the local wine press about this issue. I can’t add anything on the legal aspect as not my expertise, but to me it’s really bad from on Copper Cane’s front on trying to rescind Willamette Valley Vineyard’s 40 year old trademark, and also cancelling the contracts on tons and tons of grapes with a bunch of Oregon growers many of whom sound like they will be financially destroyed by it. Just smells really bad and business is business but it’s not how people treat each other out here.
Here are some articles I found in the Oregon Wine Press that are worth reading.
The reality is that lots of Oregon wine grapes are going to be made into wine by those out of the immediate area. This has been done for quite some time and it will most likely increase in activity in the coming years, with more Oregon vineyards being planted with more investment from outside the area.
I understand where Marcus is coming from but I do believe there is a difference between what he saying and what he is most likely meaning but, as usual, I could be wrong . . .
Are you saying that small producers like Adam Lee should not be able to get grapes from Oregon Vineyards? Or Manfred Krqnkl? Or do you just have something against larger wineries?
The bottom line is one must respect where the grapes are grown and not try to fool customers into thinking the wine is something that it is not. That really should be the key issue here.
I’ll ask the same questions I asked on FB. Is it more “deceptive” to:
(1) buy grapes from Willamette Valley, make the wine in Napa from 1005 WV Pinot Noir, and sell it labelled as Willamette Valley Pinot Noir
(2) Be located in, say, Napa Valley, make a wine labelled Cabernet Sauvignon, with a Napa Valley AVA designation, but blend in 24.9% Syrah, Merlot, and Suavignon Blanc
To me, #2 is actually deceptive, but completely within the rules while #1 is not deceptive and is somehow against the rules. I guess I just don’t understand the rationale for the rules.
I have mixed feelings here. On the one hand, I am a practicing capitalist. On the same hand, I believe in Truth in Labeling. OTOH, cutting corners and extremely wealthy people dishonoring contracts with people for whom the loss of income can be ruinous is not remotely OK.
So let’s have Truth in Labeling. Let them bottle the wine, with the following info in large print:
We bought these grapes in Oregon, then trucked them 1000 miles to our huge winery in California, where we promise you they were not mixed with grapes from anyplace else, unlike our California wines which are blended across multiple regions and finished with a lot of residual sugar and packaged in upscale packaging, so that supermarket buyers who know nothing about wine will be impressed, and happy when they get the bottle home because it will taste sweet.
"The Elouan wine label presents a different, though similar, set of complications. The 2017 Elouan Pinot Noir carries the Oregon AVA, but the label makes mention of three of the state’s sub-AVAs: Rogue, Umpqua and Willamette — again, as fanciful names.
In order to use any of Oregon’s official vinticulture designations, at least 95 percent of a wine’s grapes have to come from the named region. It would be impossible for at least 95 percent of any wine to come from the Rogue, Umpqua and Willamette Valley AVAs, which do not overlap, simultaneously.
Finally, Oregon state law requires that any Oregon grapes processed outside of the state — trucked down to, say, California — carry only the Oregon AVA, and not a sub-AVA like Willamette Valley. The Elouan and Willametter Journal wines were finished in Rutherford, Calif., according to their back labels, which would further compound the violations surrounding their use of the words Willamette, Rogue and Umpqua."
Good point - and yep, it was a good point when you made it on FB as well
I actually have no problem with either of these as neither is really ‘deceptive’ to me.
No. 1 - as long as you are accurately stated where the grapes came from and there is no ‘confusion’ about that, there should not be a problem with doing so. There are plenty of folks who purchase grapes ‘across borders’ and produce them elsewhere.
Heck, if you really want to get into this and if folks figure (1) is deceptive - what about folks who purchase Sta Rita Hills grapes and produce them in Sonoma? Or purchase Napa grapes and produce them in SB County? Is that more or less ‘deceptive’ than (1) stated above?
As far as (2) goes, this is what is allowed under the law. I agree that it allows a lot of potential ‘fudging’ when it comes to what is actually inside a wine, but the majority of folks do not seem to care - to them, the end seems to justify the mean.
What gets me with no.2 is the deceptiveness of the wineries themselves. Many ‘paint a picture’ of a certain scenario which just isn’t true - and this happens at all levels / price points, not just the big guys . . .
In order to use an AVA name on a label, the wine must be produced in the same state as the AVA. For AVAs that cross state lines, then the wine can be produced in either state and be labeled with the AVA name. For your Columbia Valley AVA example, wine made in either WA or OR can have that on that label. As a (now) OR (formerly WA) winery, I can no longer use Snipes Mountain or Yakima Valley AVAs on my bottles, as those AVAs are entirely in just WA. This is also the same reason that WA wineries cannot use The Rocks District of Milton-Freewater on their labels, as that AVA is entirely in OR.
Somehow I have a feeling many would feel differently about this issue if this wasn’t a crappy macro winery that we all hate. The way I see it, from a consumer perspective this can either be meant to imply that:
a) winemaking facilities have terroir too, or
b) that AVAs are only a regional marketing and protectionism tool rather than a coherent system of site classifications based on terroir
I understand that at their base AVAs ARE marketing tools, but making it so plain does take a bit of the shine off of it for me.
I get Marcus’ point that from an industry and regional development perspective taking grapes from one region and vinifying them and taking the profits in another is harmful to those producers that have worked hard to build the source region’s infrastructure and reputation (to say nothing of what the Wagners are doing to WVV and their Oregon suppliers), however as a wine consumer, vineyard site and how the wine is made is what is important to me, with a secondary consideration possibly to if the producer is someone I feel like I can support (good to their employees, not a creep, etc.). I don’t see how this helps consumers at all. I could see if someone was lying about where the grapes came from, but if they’re not?
Also, I feel like I should say, that as someone who has made a lot of friends and friendly acquaintances in the wine (drinking, retailing, making, distributing, geek) community here in the Northwest, I totally get the feeling of solidarity and camaraderie that comes from feeling like you’re part of a community of people all working together, and I bet the feeling of an outsider that doesn’t participate in that reaping some of the benefits of it is galling.
To me both are pretty deceptive when the labels are not the wineries standard labels.
i.e. if the Wagner bottles said Caymus Napa-Made Southern Oregon Pinot Noir then I would suggest it’s less deceptive than a very-well known (massive understatement) winery creating a completely disconnected brand to do this.
I would offer that the AVAs function as a form of “patent” with TTB as the role of Patent Office. It’s not protectionism to hoard prosperity for Oregon wineries, it’s to stop disingenuous companies from putting out shady plonk with names like Willametter Journal.
Take a moment to google the Willametter Journal wine, and read the label prose. The “Willamette region” is not an AVA, but it certainly implies that the fruit would be of a similar nature to, Dom Drouhin, Patricia Green(Hirsch bottling excepted), and my own wines. My understanding is that a significant percentage of the fruit for that wine was from southern Oregon and not the WV AVA.
The consumer benefits from having laws requiring a winery using Oregon AVAs to produce the wine in Oregon, if only to reduce the likelihood that they will buy a bottle of wine where the place is implied rather than actually used.
Terroir is part of the individual nature of wine production, and things like the ambient temperature of the production facility should mark the nature of the wines(not really likely for a wine like Elouan). Marketing terroir is part of how growers in a region work together to market their wines, and in the Valley we all care very much about our fellow wineries success. My competitors success is my success as well. A long time ago, the founders of wine growing in the valley put forward the idea that Pinot Noir in the Willamette Valley was special. A ton of us have bought in to that and finally after 50 years there is an understanding both with consumers and critics that the Willamette Valley is special. So suddenly having “crappy macro-wineries”, and story telling twits like Tarlov as well, showing up does get under the skin. It’s all part of the deal, but in most industries plagiarism like Joe Wagner’s would be a lawsuit on the spot(and there is a reason why he lost).
Rant over…at some point I need to just post TNs for a couple of months of penance…
Wagner knew the labeling laws, and tried to creatively get around them. If a small time producer like myself can take the time to learn the rules and abide by them, then he can certainly hire a team of people to know what is/isn’t allowed. He probably then had that team try and find ways around it.
![[snort.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/b/bdc3944606213c4dca6c1169cf0a166c8bc4f8c9.gif "snort.gif"){kind=small}