Do you feel this is hypocrisy or not?

[Eric Menchen]

In this case, everyone made wine knowing full well that they were misusing a protected name. (As in all cases with law, ignorance of the law is not a legal excuse.)

I think this is simplifying things a bit much. The name wasn't so protected for a long time.

[Derek T.]

In this case, everyone made wine knowing full well that they were misusing a protected name. (As in all cases with law, ignorance of the law is not a legal excuse.)

I think this is simplifying things a bit much. The name wasn't so protected for a long time.

Hmm? History (both ancient and modern) is littered with examples of the law taking too long to catch up with what is right.

[Glenn E.]

In this case, everyone made wine knowing full well that they were misusing a protected name. (As in all cases with law, ignorance of the law is not a legal excuse.)

I think this is simplifying things a bit much. The name wasn't so protected for a long time.

An appellation is a legally defined and protected geographical indication used to identify where the grapes for a wine were grown. Port's was established in 1756, which while only the 3rd oldest demarcation in the world (behind Chianti and Tokaji) is the oldest appellation on record.

Enforcement of the protected status has sadly only been recent.

But as the saying goes, speeding is speeding whether or not the cop stops you. Just because you got away with it once doesn't mean you've established a precedent that it is allowed.

[Paul Fountain]

Hmm? History (both ancient and modern) is littered with examples of the law taking too long to catch up with what is right.

I think it is a bit more than the law catching up. The understanding and appreciation of regionality is only a relatively recent thing in my part of the world and I'd assume in the US as well. This might have been different had we been colonised by a winemaking country instead of the UK.

As for the argument that style shouldn't be copied - if was the case there would be no new world wine at all.

[Derek T.]

Hmm? History (both ancient and modern) is littered with examples of the law taking too long to catch up with what is right.

I think it is a bit more than the law catching up. The understanding and appreciation of regionality is only a relatively recent thing in my part of the world and I'd assume in the US as well. This might have been different had we been colonised by a winemaking country instead of the UK.

As for the argument that style shouldn't be copied - if was the case there would be no new world wine at all.

I for one will never defend the atrocities of my home nation's past. My firm belief is that the wrongness and repugnancey of the creation of the British Empire was not materially different to Hitler's Germany. So we have no argument there.

Nor do I disagree that it is acceptable to copy a style.

My objection comes when those who copy a style attempt to make their consumers believe that what they have produced is that which they have copied.

[Glenn E.]

My objection comes when those who copy a style attempt to make their consumers believe that what they have produced is that which they have copied.

Bingo.

[Eric Menchen]

An appellation is a legally defined and protected geographical indication used to identify where the grapes for a wine were grown. Port's was established in 1756, which while only the 3rd oldest demarcation in the world (behind Chianti and Tokaji) is the oldest appellation on record.
Enforcement of the protected status has sadly only been recent.

True on both counts. Now to find a translation of the various decrees of 1756.

[Andrew E]

An appellation is a legally defined and protected geographical indication used to identify where the grapes for a wine were grown. Port's was established in 1756, which while only the 3rd oldest demarcation in the world (behind Chianti and Tokaji) is the oldest appellation on record.
Enforcement of the protected status has sadly only been recent.

True on both counts. Now to find a translation of the various decrees of 1756.

Just want to preface this with the fact that I get the laws are what they are, and my internet forum post isn't going to change anything, lol.

But what lets one person make an appellation for port by saying they can only be specific grapes from an even more specific region? Why wouldn't people be lining up to make Merlot into a region specific name? Merlot may only be one type of grape, but if they trademark it, well it's there's. It's arbitrary to give a region the name to a type of wine, it's simply made up. Cross the Champagne border by 10 feet and I guarantee you the grapes don't suddenly take on new traits that make them any different than grapes grown in the actual Champagne region. It's an arbitrary line that makes your grapes drop immediately in value simply because you crossed a human derived line. Grapes used to make champagne don't change just because they grew up on the wrong side of the border, so it's only law that changes what a style of wine can be called.

Now I'm not overly familiar with what grapes form Portugal make up any of their wines, but now take the Douro region, arbitrarily cut it in half and change what wines can be made on either side of it and tell me if I've actually changed anything. Obviously we haven't, we've just passed a law that says we can't produce certain wines on either half of the Douro. I get that their are obvious differences in regions, but that doesn't stop port wine from being port wine. Yes, a region will most certainly change the characteristics, but that's why regional appellation makes more sense than getting so specific with port, and why port is only a style (to me). Saying to someone they can't straight out steal a name like port (working in a double sense - to indicate regional location and style) is more than okay, but to say they can't call it "port style" (for a wine that borrows grapes from many regions) or "Napa Port" (for one that uses grapes grown in a specific region) is a little ridiculous, if they didn't already have laws in place.

Straight out lying about the wine you're selling is wrong, but copying a method is just part of the game. If that were possible how could we have Coca Cola and Pepsi Cola. Both are colas using similar methods, but they're not trying to pretend one is the other either.

I'm sorry if this is very ranty and long-winded as I was partially distracted while writing this.

[Derek T.]

It's arbitrary to give a region the name to a type of wine, it's simply made up. Cross the Champagne border by 10 feet and I guarantee you the grapes don't suddenly take on new traits that make them any different than grapes grown in the actual Champagne region. It's an arbitrary line that makes your grapes drop immediately in value simply because you crossed a human derived line. Grapes used to make champagne don't change just because they grew up on the wrong side of the border, so it's only law that changes what a style of wine can be called.

How far away from the demarcated line is acceptable? 10ft, 10 miles, 100 miles, 1,000 miles, 10,000 miles? The line is the line because there has to be one. If America didn't have a line Mexico could claim to be part of America.

You are correct that 10ft one way or another might not make a difference to the grapes. But that is missing the point. A demarcated region contains a specific terroir that allows the production of a specific style of wine. A demarcated region has a boundary to allow it to be classed as "demarcated". Not having a boundary would be ridiculous. If you have a boundary, then it is a boundary. It really isn't any more complicated than that.

There are styles of wine that have their roots steeped in history - Champagne, Bordeaux, Tokaji, Madeira, Port... – the fact that others have chosen to copy them is not the fault of the original region/style. The fact remains that these styles were developed in what are now the demarcated regions that bear their name and have more recently been copied by other producers in other regions for nothing more than trying to leverage a reputation that was built by someone else in another part of the world. If the winemakers in Europe of 3-400 years ago had chosen to call their wines Poo, Border, Tuky, Madjuice and Sweetstuff instead of Champagne, Bordeaux, Tokaji, Madeira and Port, they would now be perceived as being untouchable "brands" rather than "styles" .

Port isn't a generic style of wine. It is wine of a particular style (i.e. fortified) that is produced in the Douro.

Champagne isn't a style of wine. It is a wine of a particular style made in the Champagne region.

The fact that these wines are given the region's name (or a derivative thereof) is completely irrelevant. The name = the type of wine. It cannot be recreated anywhere else.

All that said, I agree with you Mike, our internet posts will not change anything

[Glenn E.]

Straight out lying about the wine you're selling is wrong, but copying a method is just part of the game. If that were possible how could we have Coca Cola and Pepsi Cola. Both are colas using similar methods, but they're not trying to pretend one is the other either.

But you just defeated your own point.

Coke and Pepsi are the brands. Just plain old "cola" is the style of soda. Anyone can call their drink a cola, but try to call it "Coke-style soda" or "Pepsi-style soda" and you'll get (rightfully) sued in a heartbeat.

Port is the "brand" if you want to call it that. It is not a style of wine. The generic name of the style of wine is fortified.

[Tom D.]

Good luck on this one Andrew, I admire your stamina. Upon reflection, I have stepped away from this as I have more pleasant things to be doing. This thread seemed at first a simple attempt by Roy to solicit community opinions on an interesting topic. But the need to "win" the discussion seemed to quickly outpace the desire to listen to differing viewpoints...

[Eric Menchen]

Just plain old "cola" is the style of soda.

"Cola" comes from Coca-Cola. Before that there were just kola nuts.

I would be fine with port-style, just as there are "cheese food" products that don't meet the definition of cheese, but are sold in the United States. I try to avoid such products.

[Andrew E]

I just want to put it out there I'm not being combative with anyone on here, and that I'm actually having fun with this as I learn at the same time.

I've always personally felt port is a style because when I pick up either a true port, or a port style, I always taste the characteristics that makes me come back to them. I don't know, maybe I just haven't had enough fortified wines, lol. I've had petit sryah "ports" and obviously taste the differences, but their is always that common characteristic that brings them together for me.

And when I was speaking about regions, yes I know I was simplifying it and that there is a specific need to draw a border, but it's not really a line wine drinkers should be overly concerned with - as long as there is full disclosure on the bottle. I'll be back to add more as some great points were made, and facts clarified, that I have more questions on.

Thanks everyone for joining in!

[Glenn E.]

I just want to put it out there I'm not being combative with anyone on here, and that I'm actually having fun with this as I learn at the same time.

Me too!

I've always personally felt port is a style because when I pick up either a true port, or a port style, I always taste the characteristics that makes me come back to them.

Your palate must be better tuned than mine, or maybe I just haven't had the same wines that you've had. Any time I've tasted a "port-style wine" it has been very clear to me that it's not Port. They just don't even seem like the same style to me. Even the best California fortified wines are obviously not Port, though admittedly they're also obviously not Australian stickies either. Maybe "Angelica" is a good idea after all?

Just plain old "cola" is the style of soda.

"Cola" comes from Coca-Cola. Before that there were just kola nuts.

Really? Didn't know that! Did Coke have that trademarked and they lost it to common use (like aspirin, etc), or did they never bother to trademark it?

I would probably be okay with "port-style wine" if "Port" hadn't been abused for so long. After all, I don't really have a problem with "methode champenoise" which is basically the same thing. And I also acknowledge that the US government is a big part of the problem because it won't allow the word "fortified" on the labels of alcoholic drinks, thus making the correct term - fortified wine - illegal to use in the US.

[Eric Menchen]

Really? Didn't know that! Did Coke have that trademarked and they lost it to common use (like aspirin, etc), or did they never bother to trademark it?

Coca-Cola was trademarked early on, but I guess competitors saw fit to use just the cola part. Apparently "Coke" was a response to some of this.