The place for all things wine, focused on serious wine discussions.

Prohibition & Wine Bricks

Moderators: Jenise, Robin Garr, David M. Bueker

no avatar
User

TomHill

Rank

Here From the Very Start

Posts

7855

Joined

Wed Mar 29, 2006 12:01 pm

Prohibition & Wine Bricks

by TomHill » Wed Aug 26, 2015 8:20 am

A rather interesting article:
WineBricks

on the popularity of wine bricks during Prohibition.

Anybody have a TN on the Burgundy wine brick wine?? :-)
Tom
no avatar
User

Thomas

Rank

Senior Flamethrower

Posts

3768

Joined

Wed Mar 22, 2006 4:23 pm

Re: Prohibition & Wine Bricks

by Thomas » Wed Aug 26, 2015 9:08 am

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


The VineGlo operation sent people out to homes to set them up for fermentation, etc. That was not legal, and it ultimately led to a court case. VineGlo was later yanked from the market, but it was not prosecuted for the activity, because it was difficult for law enforcers to figure out how to prosecute when the resulting wine never left the buyer's home, which was legal.

Side issue: When my publisher submitted my Taylor, New York book manuscript (Taylor became quite wealthy thanks to Prohibition) for others to read and comment before publishing it, one nasty, strident person who was as much wrong as he was correct in his notes (I valued the times he was correct), many times said I didn't know what I was talking about; one of those times was when I mentioned wine bricks. He claimed they never existed.

The juices were labeled wine types. 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.
Thomas P
no avatar
User

Peter May

Rank

Pinotage Advocate

Posts

3798

Joined

Mon Mar 20, 2006 11:24 am

Location

Snorbens, England

Re: Prohibition & Wine Bricks

by Peter May » Wed Aug 26, 2015 12:23 pm

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.



Just as cans of condensed juice sold to home winemakers today still are :)
no avatar
User

Peter May

Rank

Pinotage Advocate

Posts

3798

Joined

Mon Mar 20, 2006 11:24 am

Location

Snorbens, England

Re: Prohibition & Wine Bricks

by Peter May » Wed Aug 26, 2015 12:30 pm

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.
no avatar
User

Thomas

Rank

Senior Flamethrower

Posts

3768

Joined

Wed Mar 22, 2006 4:23 pm

Re: Prohibition & Wine Bricks

by Thomas » Wed Aug 26, 2015 1:15 pm

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 P
no avatar
User

Dan Smothergill

Rank

Wine guru

Posts

729

Joined

Sat Mar 25, 2006 2:24 pm

Location

Syracuse, NY

Re: Prohibition & Wine Bricks

by Dan Smothergill » Mon Aug 31, 2015 4:28 am

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?
no avatar
User

Thomas

Rank

Senior Flamethrower

Posts

3768

Joined

Wed Mar 22, 2006 4:23 pm

Re: Prohibition & Wine Bricks

by Thomas » Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:33 am

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?


The only thing correct is the part about head of household.

Home winemakers did not need a permit and the limit was/is 200 gallons.
Thomas P
no avatar
User

Robin Garr

Rank

Forum Janitor

Posts

21612

Joined

Fri Feb 17, 2006 1:44 pm

Location

Louisville, KY

Re: Prohibition & Wine Bricks

by Robin Garr » Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:56 am

Actually, home wine (and beer) making was technically illegal until 1978, although the laws were rarely if ever enforced on people making wine or beer for home consumption ... even during Prohibition.

The 200-gallon limit applies to families of two adults or more. Single-adult households are only legally allowed 100 gallons. Just about all this stuff is law-on-paper, not a matter that gets the federales actively involved. Unless you start making it by the truckload, or get caught selling it.
no avatar
User

Victorwine

Rank

Wine guru

Posts

2031

Joined

Thu May 18, 2006 9:51 pm

Re: Prohibition & Wine Bricks

by Victorwine » Mon Aug 31, 2015 9:38 am

Individual States offered permits to state residents to produce homemade wine (Even during prohibition, I think. The state of NJ until very recently charged an annual fee of $20 for such permit). But as mentioned by Dan and Thomas most did not apply and just assumed the Federal law regarding home winemaking “over-ridded” state law.

Salute
no avatar
User

Thomas

Rank

Senior Flamethrower

Posts

3768

Joined

Wed Mar 22, 2006 4:23 pm

Re: Prohibition & Wine Bricks

by Thomas » Mon Aug 31, 2015 10:22 am

Victorwine wrote: just assumed the Federal law regarding home winemaking “over-ridded” state law.


That's the real issue. Home winemaking at 200 gallons for a family was federally legal throughout Prohibition.

The original intent in Section 29 of the 18th Amendment was to allow 200 gallons of "non-intoxicating cider and fruit juice" to be made each year at home--"intoxicating" was defined as anything more than 0.5%. Citing an earlier ruling that allowed home winemakers to exceed the limit without a permit, the Internal Revenue struck that down, effectively legalizing home winemaking under the 18th Amendment.

Beer was not included.

Robin, what 1978 case do you refer to?
Thomas P
no avatar
User

Dan Smothergill

Rank

Wine guru

Posts

729

Joined

Sat Mar 25, 2006 2:24 pm

Location

Syracuse, NY

Re: Prohibition & Wine Bricks

by Dan Smothergill » Mon Aug 31, 2015 12:02 pm

"Head of household" is a census term. Many women would technically have been barred from making wine. I'm surprised that nothing was needed from the Feds. The Ithaca winemakers told one another not to register with AFT because when the inevitable taxes came your name would be on the list.
no avatar
User

Robin Garr

Rank

Forum Janitor

Posts

21612

Joined

Fri Feb 17, 2006 1:44 pm

Location

Louisville, KY

Re: Prohibition & Wine Bricks

by Robin Garr » Mon Aug 31, 2015 12:09 pm

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.
no avatar
User

Thomas

Rank

Senior Flamethrower

Posts

3768

Joined

Wed Mar 22, 2006 4:23 pm

Re: Prohibition & Wine Bricks

by Thomas » Mon Aug 31, 2015 1:17 pm

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.


For beer but not for wine.

In Section 616 of the Internal Revenue Act a tax exemption was codified for up to 200 gallons of wine from fruit juice for personal storage and consumption. Since the 18th Amendment was all about manufacture, possession and sale of commercial alcohol, Internal Revenue allowed the 200 gallon rule to stay as part of Section 29 of the amendment. (See p. 31, Over A Barrel: The Rise and Fall of New York's Taylor Wine Company.)

There was no such rule for other alcohol products, which is why beer was not covered.
Thomas P
no avatar
User

Hoke

Rank

Achieving Wine Immortality

Posts

11420

Joined

Sat Apr 15, 2006 1:07 am

Location

Portland, OR

Re: Prohibition & Wine Bricks

by Hoke » Mon Aug 31, 2015 1:41 pm

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.


Good points all!

The best answer to why the grape bricks were not prosecuted, and even more important why the many people who used the grape bricks to make wine were neither pursued nor prosecuted: because those people weren't selling the stuff; they were making it for their own consumption. The Feds were interested only in the large scale commerce of alcoholic beverages.

Prohibition was one of the most screwed experiments ever to befoul our country. Despite the fact that the lead-up was over several decades, and that Prohibition was passed only because the anti-liquor forces allied with hate groups and other single-issue organizations to make it happen, once Prohibition was passed, the government suddenly decided they had no actual definition of alcoholic beverages. Woops. And there was no enforcement organization responsible either.

Volsted Act became necessary. And the confused people who had voted for Prohibition suddenly became aware of what they had in fact voted for: the prohibition of beer, wine and booze.. Many were surprised that beer and wine were included.

An alcoholic beverage became anything over a half percent of alcohol.

And enforcement was placed in the hands of tax agents---interesting, that tax agents were chosen. The product itself was deemed prohibited; but the government was primarily concerned about tax evasion---they were not getting the taxes on sales of what they had prohibited for moral reasons. Hence, Revenuers. T-Men.

Prohibition was ill-founded to begin with. Then it got successively worse. Passed for moral/ethical reasons, it became a commercial tax evasion issue of monstrous proportions.
no avatar
User

Thomas

Rank

Senior Flamethrower

Posts

3768

Joined

Wed Mar 22, 2006 4:23 pm

Re: Prohibition & Wine Bricks

by Thomas » Mon Aug 31, 2015 1:50 pm

Hoke:

Under the 18th Amendment, wine already in storage on the day it was signed into law was allowed to remain in inventory as long as it wasn't sold (one of the reasons for all the bad wine on the mrket after Repeal).

In NY, a raid on one warehouse that fell into mob control ended in a fiasco and then the warehouse was auctioned off. The taxman dunned its new owners for back taxes on the sale of illegal wine in which the new owners played no part.

It's always about the money.
Thomas P
no avatar
User

Robin Garr

Rank

Forum Janitor

Posts

21612

Joined

Fri Feb 17, 2006 1:44 pm

Location

Louisville, KY

Re: Prohibition & Wine Bricks

by Robin Garr » Mon Aug 31, 2015 2:57 pm

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
no avatar
User

Thomas

Rank

Senior Flamethrower

Posts

3768

Joined

Wed Mar 22, 2006 4:23 pm

Re: Prohibition & Wine Bricks

by Thomas » Mon Aug 31, 2015 3:13 pm

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


Repeating what I posted more than once: under the 18th Amendment, it remained legal to produce 200 gallons of wine at home as it was before the amendment.

The situation was carried forward from Section 616 of the Internal Revenue Act and the Attorney General reiterated its legality, allowing wine bricks and wine types to go forward.

What you cite is Congress acknowledging that fact and putting it in writing after fifty-plus years.
Last edited by Thomas on Mon Aug 31, 2015 4:05 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Thomas P
no avatar
User

Robin Garr

Rank

Forum Janitor

Posts

21612

Joined

Fri Feb 17, 2006 1:44 pm

Location

Louisville, KY

Re: Prohibition & Wine Bricks

by Robin Garr » Mon Aug 31, 2015 4:04 pm

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

:mrgreen:
no avatar
User

Thomas

Rank

Senior Flamethrower

Posts

3768

Joined

Wed Mar 22, 2006 4:23 pm

Re: Prohibition & Wine Bricks

by Thomas » Mon Aug 31, 2015 4:07 pm

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

:mrgreen:


Robin:

"Congress ... putting it in writing" matters."

True. But in our nation of laws, the enforcement arm also has interpretive power.

Since the Internal Revenue Dept was the enforcement arm, its interpretation of the law is what mattered. The Attorney General (Willibrande?) accepted that interpretation, which allowed Section 616 to stand.

That note in 1978 is Congress doing what it does best: first writes laws badly; then, clarifies them equally badly.
Thomas P
no avatar
User

Victorwine

Rank

Wine guru

Posts

2031

Joined

Thu May 18, 2006 9:51 pm

Re: Prohibition & Wine Bricks

by Victorwine » Tue Sep 01, 2015 6:17 am

I think of the “Wine Bricks” of prohibition days as the advent to the North American “Wine Kits”. Those who didn’t have the room, equipment or patience to deal with “fresh grapes” found these “kits” very convenient.

Salute

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ClaudeBot, Google [Bot], SemrushBot and 1 guest

Powered by phpBB ® | phpBB3 Style by KomiDesign