US varietal-naming history

First I want to endorse Randy's Saturday live-discussion program, which I visited recently. The format resembled a phone-in radio talk show on wine. I hope to lobby more people I know, who I think would enjoy participating, and are seldom short of words. Mark L? Dale? Rahsaan?

In the recent session, Robin and I both touched briefly on varietal labeling history in US wines. To reiterate my point there, Schoonmaker and Lichine are known in US wine literature for promoting varietal naming in the 1930s as a practical standard, absent other, established naming conventions (like the place-named wines of the old world). This was part of their larger post-Prohibition and pre-war crusade to rally US interest in domestic wines and their potential. Among other things, the crusade spawned a landmark 1941 book, American Wines (Schoonmaker and Marvel; New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce) which many people refer to who are seriously interested in the history -- I recommend it (of course it is out of print, like most books at any given time, and, also of course, it is available used). If I recall, Haeger's North American Pinot Noir (first edition, 2004, ISBN 0520241142 and an essential book for fans of that grape) describes the varietal-naming efforts, though in a quick look I couldn't find the mention there. Other authoritative sources on US wine history do too. Seff and Cooney's chapter on "Legal and political history" of California wines in the monumental University of California Press Book of California Wine (Muscatine, Amerine, and Thompson, editors, 1984, ISBN 0520050851) cite Schoonmaker's varietal-naming promotion of the late 1930s. They say it lent growing importance to the 1935 US government standard for wine labeling and advertising (still effective, with modifications) which required any varietally-labeled wine to contain a majority of content from the named grape variety. (75%, from 1983.)

Below (by way of further recommendation) is a sample of the remarks on wine legalisms in the 1941 book. (Some of that books's comments, on likely wine-growing regions and varietals for example, are strikingly prescient; its affable parodies of "wine hokum" among snobs and armchair experts have scarcely aged, and resonate still today.)

Finally (in case the practice is unfamiliar to anyone) I post ISBNs whenever possible because you can copy and paste them immediately into an online book search, or just Google "ISBN xxxxxxxxxx" which sometimes catches online mentions of the book too.

A label is submitted and approved for a California wine made from Riesling grapes: the Federal Government does not know and is apparently in no position to find out, whether this wine was made from Riesling grapes or from Thompson’s Seedless. If not made from Rieslings, the wine may have been made and the labels ordered by a grower who is convinced that his grapes are Rieslings (“Father always said that the grapes in the north forty acres were Rieslings”) or by a grower who is committing a deliberate and conscious fraud. The Treasury Department apparently believes, and far too many lay citizens also believe, that it is possible to make people honest and intelligent and well-informed by publishing a book of regulations or passing a law. -- Schoonmaker and Marvel, 1941

Another good book is Paul Lukas’ “American Vintage, The Rise of American Wine”. He does make references to the work and viticultural visions of Frank Schoonmaker and the role he played in the rise of American wine.

Salute

I think that I've read that Martin Ray also had a heavy hand in vine variety labels in the USA. But let us not forget that Germany (including)Alsace were the first to print vine names on the label.

it has been 20 years or so since varietal labels really caught on and began to surpass generic CA wines in sales. many experts refer to the demise of generic wines as the greatest change in recent wine marketing history. this would seem to be the culmination of Schoonmakers efforts. but is it?

if an uninformed consumer buys a french chablis, they seem not to be buying a generic wine; and if they buy a CA chard, they seem to be buying a varietal one. but what if neither consumer knows the difference? i remember the first time i realized that for many if not most consumers, Chardonnay is just another way of saying 'chablis with oak'.
put another way, ordering wine is a language game. "what will you people have"? "i'll have a chardonnay"(or whatever). 20 years ago the game rules would have required "i'll have a chablis" in order to get a vaguely dry white wine. the token in the game has changed - thats all.

so, i'm sorry to inform all the 'see how far we've come' brigade that no more than half the consumers know that these names refer to a grape variety from which the wine is largely made. my guess is that at least 20% who know the word 'varietal' don't know what it really means.

Points well taken David. But you got to admit in Frank Schoonmaker’s articles he is very “out-spoken and animated” in discussing the “flaws” (or what he considered flaws) of the American wine industry of his day. He very likely was not very much liked by those in the wine business at the time, they probably thought of him as an east coast “wine snob”. But then in the 50’s some of the larger wine producers began varietals naming their wines.

Salute

one does remember the curious story of one of the most successful vaietals of those early days - a wine nearly created by schoonmaker. i'm talking about Almaden Grenache Rose - maybe the last REALLY dry rose made in the US. it was immensly popular - and now gone.

it has been 20 years or so since varietal labels really caught on and began to surpass generic CA wines in sales. ... 20 years ago the game rules would have required "i'll have a chablis" in order to get a vaguely dry white wine. the token in the game has changed - thats all.

It's a thoughtful point, though I'll argue the timing. It'd have surprised me (and most people I know who were buying CA wine then) to hear an assertion even in the 1970s that varietal labels hadn't yet caught on: wine writers had been waving goodbye to generics for many years, I could show them to you; my parents and their friends, wine drinkers but hardly wine geeks, were fond of varietals in the 1960s. Though be it said, I don't have sales numbers, which might support "really caught on." But if you were following US wine at the time, you'll certainly also remember the explosion in Chardonnay interest around 1980, yielding bottle prices of $15-$25, considerable even now. The several prominent newspaper wine writers, and the wine newsletters covering California then (Olken and Singer, Vintage, etc.), ran articles. As in turn did Harvey Steiman in 1981 in his long newspaper piece "Merlot -- the coming red revolution" (opening: "Move over, Zinfandel, Cabernet Sauvignon and Pinot Noir" -- I just checked a copy, still have them on file*).

Of interest to me is that for wine drinkers who know what varietal labeling means, it can dominate their thinking. I see calls from the "new world" for the "old world" to add varietal label info, where it makes sense (some Europeans have wanted to add it, but been frustrated by labeling laws) and also where it doesn't make sense, and might confuse (e.g. blends with many and varying grapes -- Châteauneuf-du-Pape). Sometimes varietal content is clear, but completely beside the point. (Chambolle-Musigny is said to smell of raspberries, as Echézeaux is said to do of truffles and Clos Vougeot of violets --Yoxall). Such differences are vital to these wines: I've seen the wines, and specific producers too, identified blind by smell -- yet all are "Pinot Noir." Which connotes different styles anyway to most people introduced to that grape through wines labeled specifically "Pinot Noir."

Why should it surprise anyone that such old-world wines identify first with place ("terroir")? Also they have done it for centuries or millennia, whereas new-world varietal labeling happened within living memory. This is context in discussions (or "debates") about terroir.

*Steiman's article caused a retail run on premium Merlots in northern California. I had to move fast to secure a supply before the hoarders got to them.

David said: i'm talking about Almaden Grenache Rose - maybe the last REALLY dry rose made in the US.

David, if you haven't tried the ESJ Bone-Jolly rose of Gamay, then you can't be faulted for the above. Steve's rose of Gamay is 100% dry there is no sense of sugar, yet it has plenty of fruit, and the acidity is right up there with any from France. If by next august you still have not had a chance to try it, please advise me and I will bring two bottles to Mo'Cool. One to open with you, and one for you to take home. I never had the Almaden Grenache but wish I had.

I actually did have the Almaden Grenache rose, and my experience was that it really wasn't dry. Not as sweet, perhaps, as some of the other ones around, but definitely not a dry wine. Perhaps, as someone once said, "everything is relative."
cheers
Steve Edmunds

Max wrote;
Wine writers had been waving goodbye to generics for many years, I could show them to you.

Yes Max they did, but they did not change the drinking habits of the general population. (That took time).

Salute

Max wrote;
Wine writers had been waving goodbye to generics for many years ...

Yes Max they did, but they did not change the drinking habits of the general population. (That took time).

Point taken.

They were waving goodbye to generics conspicuously by 1941 (upthread). Long enough I guess by the late 70s that in various US states then, among wine drinkers I met from casual to geek, generics were rare. (Again I can't speak for sales statistics then, or now. There's still jug and box wine, which also, since we're on the subject, corresponds to the everyday drinking wine of Latin Europe. In the 1970s there, people brought bulk containers from home and refilled them at the market. To make a decent everyday wine, salable at bulk prices, is a noble goal and one sometimes lost today in the US amid the advertising and the fashionable varietals of the month.)

In the US, some of the market once served by generics has gone to high-volume inoffensive varietals, so that as David pointed out, it's mainly the names that changed.

i'll have to stick with the timing, i'm afraid. i was sales manager for a wholesale company in the relatively sophisitcated town of Ann Arbor beginning in 1985. certainly we sold much much more generic paul masson and TCC than we did varietals from those or other producers - including bel arber, DSG, fetzer and others. of course it is true that some people knew about varietals and wine writers wrote about them. but the average consumer - no. 10 years later, the change such as it was, was nearly complete. we need to remember that until 1968 most of the wine sold in the US was sweet and fortified. that was the year that table wine sales surpassed desserts for the first time. remember the varietal 'grey riesling'? does anyone know what that actually was? i assume a pink grigio type grape but which one?

remember the varietal 'grey riesling'? does anyone know what that actually was? i assume a pink grigio type grape but which one?

I remeber seeing in in the USA in the 70s but I can't remember having it. According to Hawkins

CHAUCHÉ GRIS:
Mutation of the Trousseau vinifera grape grown in France. Currently known in California as Grey Riesling and mainly used in a white wine blend that also contains some Chenin Blanc and Sylvaner varietals.

CHAUCHÉ GRIS:
Mutation of the Trousseau vinifera grape grown in France. Currently known in California as Grey Riesling and mainly used in a white wine blend that also contains some Chenin Blanc and Sylvaner varietals.

Also known as Trousseau Gris and still grown in the Jura I think.

Mark Lipton

thanks to both of you. you never know what will drop out when you rattle your brain. hadn't thought of that grape in maybe 30+years. of course i can no longer remember what i went into the next room for; but........

... of course it is true that some people knew about varietals ... but the average consumer - no.

Then I guess this really is about the aggregate consumer market -- about the casual consumers switching from generics to varietals.

On the other hand, in wine shops in the 1970s when I lived in California, Oregon, and Massachusetts, generics were scarce or absent. Even in some supermarket wine sections they were in the minority.