So I came across Ceritas website, under their page of vineyards, they are marketing few of their wines as “monopole”.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t monopole means the vineyard is solely owned by the winery and no other winery cannot source the berries from that particular parcel.
in this logic, why is Ceritas marketing their “annabelle cuvee” Monopole? and if the berries did come from single vineyard, what is the name of the vineyard? Furthermore, why aren’t they marketing “monopole” on the wine label? Isn’t that’s typically what everyone does?
Again, I am just super curious…so please feel free to point out which part I am understanding incorrectly…
Thank you all!
It’s not a regulated term in the US, so producers can sort of use it however they want for whatever marketing purposes.
I agree with you that this is a confusing use of the term. Ceritas makes some great wines, and I really don’t think they need to market them this way, particularly to an audience that likely knows a thing or two about Burgundy.
… and very much rarer in France (and also Italy), as inheritances split family holdings, splintering ownership. I know Monprivato in Barolo is a monopole, and think Gaja has one, but can’t think of many others. Indeed that splintered ownership is a blessing to us wine tourists, allowing unfettered access to stroll through this wonderful vineyard landscape and get a much greater ‘sense of place’ for the wines we love.
In Australia, such 100% ownership is very much more common. Not sure about the US, but it wouldn’t surprise me if it’s similar to Australia.
Maybe they should put a brick wall or wire fence around it and also call it a ‘clos’
Exactly…
I am so confusing as “cuvee” should mean a house blend/recipe, but the way they write it it is the name of the vineyard…however reading the detail text it doesn’t seems to be the name of vineyard either…yet they market it as monopole…
Also, regulated or not, the word has its own meaning and the regulations should only apply to the extent where you can or cannot use the term without violating/twisting the original meaning of the word itself. For example, old CA sparkling call themselves Champagne as they are using same method of what champagne is using…until regulations stated it has to be made within champagne region. (You guys know the details)
But monopole doesn’t seems to have different meaning in wine world…
You can call a wine a “Monopole” if you’re the sole producer to exploit that vineyard, but you don’t have to be the proprietor. For example, Jadot’s Clos de la Barre from Volnay doesn’t belong to them but is labelled as a monopole.
Actually, I think the biggest knock to calling it monopole is the part you left out of the Cuvee Annabellle copy. Mainly, emphasis mine:
We source a small section of this vineyard planted using the revered Calera selection massale bud wood from the Ceritas Occidental Vineyard.
If I’m not mistaken, Ceritas sources the fruit from Red Car’s estate/King Ridge vineyard. Red Car also makes an estate wine from the same vineyard. Is Ceritas just loosely using the term monopole to refer to a specific block?
I’m with @Bweiss on this one, as the USA is pretty generous when it comes to terminology. I personally feel that many wineries use “estate” very liberally as well. Anyone up for some “clean” food from Panera?
“Estate grown, produced and bottled” has the tightest restrictions by the TTB on labeling requirements and cannot be used “liberally”. The producer does not need to own the vineyard, but they must have complete control of the farming, generally through a long-term lease. They don’t have to control the whole vineyard, just their section of the vineyard. The wine in the bottle must be 100% from said vineyard and the grapes/wine be processed, fermented, aged, and bottled on a premise residing within the AVA of the vineyard. It is the tightest regulation within the US labeling rules. But I suppose the consumer sometimes assumes the winery is always located on the vineyard and owned by a single entity. Which is not always the case.
I think you are becoming too French. I would render exploiter in English as run or manage. In the case of vineyards, maybe cultivate. But surely not to exploit. There’s a big book on Gigondas written in French, translated rather charmingly into English, which also translates the word as a cognate. It also renders sevrer as sever–just think of the poor infant!
