TomHill wrote:A rather interesting article:
WineBricks
on the popularity of wine bricks during Prohibition.
Anybody have a TN on the Burgundy wine brick wine??
Tom
Peter May
Pinotage Advocate
3798
Mon Mar 20, 2006 11:24 am
Snorbens, England
Thomas wrote:TomHill wrote:. The Taylor company went further and labeled each of its Wine Type with the name of which wine an individual juice represented: Burgundy, Rhine, etc.
Peter May
Pinotage Advocate
3798
Mon Mar 20, 2006 11:24 am
Snorbens, England
Peter May wrote:The article says
U.S. law stipulated that grapes could be grown if and only if those grapes were used for non-alcoholic consumption. If it was determined that someone instead used those grapes to make booze, and the vineyard owner who sold the individual the grapes was aware of this, both the grape grower and the winemaker could find themselves in jail.
But my understanding is that it was legal to make wine at home for self consumption, - the article mentions 200 gallons - and grapes were shipped to the east Cost from California specifically for that purpose.
And wine could be bought abd made for religious purposes , thus a huge increase in pastors and rabbis during Prohibition.
Maybe the article was limted by word count or wanted to avoid all the ifs & buts, but surely this extract is incorrect in both growing grapes for wine and making wine was illegal.
Dan Smothergill wrote:When I got into winemaking in the early 70's the scuttlebutt was that home winemakers needed a Federal permit (which no one bothered to get), that they were limited to 160 gallons a year, and that the winemaker had to be a head of household. I wondered then, and now, how much of this was correct. Anyone know?
Victorwine wrote: just assumed the Federal law regarding home winemaking “over-ridded” state law.
Thomas wrote:Beer was not included.
Robin, what 1978 case do you refer to?
In 1978, Congress enacted Public Law 95-458 (H.R. 1337), amending the Internal Revenue Code to allow any adult to produce beer, without the payment of tax, for personal or family use. The beer produced per household may not exceed: (1) 200 gallons per calendar year if there are two or more adults residing in the household, or (2) 100 gallons per calendar year if there is only one adult residing in the household. Under the 27 C.F.R. §25.206, homemade beer for personal or family use may be removed from the premises where made for organized affairs, exhibitions or competitions such as homemaker's contests, tastings or judging. Under 27 C.F.R. 24.75, adults may produce wine for personal or family use in the same amount as allowed for beer.
Robin Garr wrote:Thomas wrote:Beer was not included.
Robin, what 1978 case do you refer to?In 1978, Congress enacted Public Law 95-458 (H.R. 1337), amending the Internal Revenue Code to allow any adult to produce beer, without the payment of tax, for personal or family use. The beer produced per household may not exceed: (1) 200 gallons per calendar year if there are two or more adults residing in the household, or (2) 100 gallons per calendar year if there is only one adult residing in the household. Under the 27 C.F.R. §25.206, homemade beer for personal or family use may be removed from the premises where made for organized affairs, exhibitions or competitions such as homemaker's contests, tastings or judging. Under 27 C.F.R. 24.75, adults may produce wine for personal or family use in the same amount as allowed for beer.
(From the National Council of State Legislatures, NCSL:
http://www.ncsl.org/research/financial- ... tutes.aspx)
It's my understanding that non-commercial brewing and wine making at home were simply done, with no effort at, or interest in, enforcement by federal or state officials as long as consumption remained in the family and nobody was selling the stuff.
The impetus for legislation, as I understand it, came from wine-making and beer-making equipment suppliers and similar businesses, who wanted more specific protection on the books than a general acceptance that this hobby was okay with the law.
Hoke
Achieving Wine Immortality
11420
Sat Apr 15, 2006 1:07 am
Portland, OR
Thomas wrote:Peter May wrote:The article says
U.S. law stipulated that grapes could be grown if and only if those grapes were used for non-alcoholic consumption. If it was determined that someone instead used those grapes to make booze, and the vineyard owner who sold the individual the grapes was aware of this, both the grape grower and the winemaker could find themselves in jail.
But my understanding is that it was legal to make wine at home for self consumption, - the article mentions 200 gallons - and grapes were shipped to the east Cost from California specifically for that purpose.
And wine could be bought abd made for religious purposes , thus a huge increase in pastors and rabbis during Prohibition.
Maybe the article was limted by word count or wanted to avoid all the ifs & buts, but surely this extract is incorrect in both growing grapes for wine and making wine was illegal.
Peter:
You are correct. The government never prohibited grape growing--at all, for any reason. In fact, during Prohibition, taxes on grapes and juice generally went up, presumably to make up for the loss of alcohol excise taxes--and as you point out, there were a number of exceptions to Prohibition: sacramental, medicinal, home production, and food production were among them (cooking wine and soup additions). For the first few years of Prohibition, grape gowers did rather well on both coasts, but a downturn arrived in about 1925, as the market for wine gave way to cheap bath tub booze.
As I stated above, it was difficult to prosecute juice producers because of the 200-gallon exception. If wine was made at home and stayed at home, who could be prosecuted and for what? The case against Vine Glo perfectly illustrated that fact.
Thomas wrote:For beer but not for wine. ... There was no such rule for other alcohol products, which is why beer was not covered.
Robin Garr wrote:Thomas wrote:For beer but not for wine. ... There was no such rule for other alcohol products, which is why beer was not covered.
Repeating the section that I highlighted in bold:
Under 27 C.F.R. 24.75, adults may produce wine for personal or family use in the same amount as allowed for beer
Thomas wrote:What you cite is Congress acknowledging that fact and putting it in writing after fifty-plus years.
Robin Garr wrote:Thomas wrote:What you cite is Congress acknowledging that fact and putting it in writing after fifty-plus years.
That's actually what I said, Thomas. In our nation of laws, "Congress ... putting it in writing" matters. It didn't matter to home winemakers, who were below the radar. But it sure mattered when home winemaking suppliers wanted to sell legal products.
Here. This explains it in simple terms ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Otbml6WIQPo
Users browsing this forum: ClaudeBot, Google [Bot], SemrushBot and 1 guest