Forbes on Kobe Beef (and Champagne)

[derspiess]

Does all of the Champagne get thrown out as it doesn't meat the quality standards?  I've actually no idea though it seems unlikely given that people can speak about good and better years.

The way I believe that works is that the vintner does not declare a vintage for that year and it is either blended with another year for a non-vintage Champagne, or sold off for other purposes.

[Admiral Yi]

My understanding is that all French Champagne which doesn't have an appellation d'origine controllee ("Grand Cru Bourgeois") is a blend of different year's harvests.

[derspiess]

My understanding is that all French Champagne which doesn't have an appellation d'origine controllee ("Grand Cru Bourgeois") is a blend of different year's harvests.

Okay.

[derspiess]

Agreed, so you don't need a special food name designation. The market can freely react to branded California champagnes without separating them into a separate category called sparkling wine.

I'm not so sure that the general public can distinguish that easily.  Korbel puts effort into making their bottle look European.  No watercolor sunsets on the label, no "Angry Beaver Vineyard."

Yep, but I guess the general public is mightily confused to begin with. 

The better California/Oregon bubbly makers avoid calling theirs Champagne (though they correctly print "Methode Champenoise" on the label).  Korbel tastes decent but I wish they'd drop the "Champagne" thing.

What I find interesting in Argentina is that there are an awful lot of wine snobs there (my father in law definitely being one of them), but pretty much all sparkling wine makers there call theirs "Champaña" and nobody seems to have any objections to it.

[Malthus]

Agreed, so you don't need a special food name designation. The market can freely react to branded California champagnes without separating them into a separate category called sparkling wine.

I'm not so sure that the general public can distinguish that easily.  Korbel puts effort into making their bottle look European.  No watercolor sunsets on the label, no "Angry Beaver Vineyard."

Yep, but I guess the general public is mightily confused to begin with. 

The better California/Oregon bubbly makers avoid calling theirs Champagne (though they correctly print "Methode Champenoise" on the label).  Korbel tastes decent but I wish they'd drop the "Champagne" thing.

What I find interesting in Argentina is that there are an awful lot of wine snobs there (my father in law definitely being one of them), but pretty much all sparkling wine makers there call theirs "Champaña" and nobody seems to have any objections to it.

See, I just don't get what the "harm" is where everyone knows the stuff was not made in France.

The "problem" is that consumers would, allegedly, be confused between California champagne/sparking wine and the French stuff, right?

If some Argentinians are drinking "Champaña" they could hardly be confused, and I doubt many people drinking California "champagne" are, either. If they are, just make 'em sell the stuff with country of origin on it.

Here, in wine stores, there is no possible confusion because wines are physically seperated on the shelves by country of origin, making this a non-issue for the retail purchaser - but then, whe have an odd government monopoly system.

[Sheilbh]

One interesting recent trend in wine - again I'm generally ignorant - is that countries like Argentina and Australia are signing up with deals with the EU where they respect names like Champagne and other wines.  In large part this is because there are now Argentine and Australian wine-making brands and traditions that they want to protect and to have recognised in Europe.  I believe there's similar moves in the US by California and other states' vineyards who don't like their 'brand' being used by others.

Edit:  So I think on the wine the New World wines may have disliked this while they were sort-of insurgent wines.  Now they're established in their own right they see the attraction.

[HVC]

The very fact that producers are fighting to use term like champaign or Kobe beef means these terms have value and should be protected.

[Admiral Yi]

See, I just don't get what the "harm" is where everyone knows the stuff was not made in France.

If we assume for the sake of argument that French Champagne is all high quality, then the harm is a consumer who thinks it can be shit too, because of his experience with Andre.

[derspiess]

See, I just don't get what the "harm" is where everyone knows the stuff was not made in France.

For me personally, I'm just a bit OCD about how certain items are classified, and it's a huge pet peeve of mine when people use the wrong terms.

But the "harm" comes from the 'brand' Champagne carrying a higher status, which in some US consumers' minds may put Korbel ahead of other California sparkling wine producers that are playing by the 'rules', even though in terms of quality, the reverse is often true.

It's not so much that I'm shedding tears for California bubbly makers, but it just seems rude for Korbel to break with commonly-accepted convention and call its product "Champagne".

[Jacob]

It's still a little surprising how hypocritical the US is on intellectual property and trademarks.

How is the US hypocritical on intellectual property?

Defining it such that it excludes things like Champagne, Kobe beef, Bordeaux and so on while being adamant that other IP be protected (and that those who define it otherwise are being unethical).

[Jacob]

In fact, Sheilbh, one of the things you brought up was customers getting bilked as a place said it was Kobe beef and unbeknownst to them it wasn't actually...but they were still happy with their meal.  Not that I'm advocating deception but if all those quality standards don't result in a product that can easily be noted as distinct by non-connoisseurs, what's the point in creating a legal distinction?  Why couldn't growers in Greece who follow certain standards create their own brand?

They did. The issue is that American producers are very happy to seize that brand identity for their own purposes.

[derspiess]

Defining it such that it excludes things like Champagne, Kobe beef, Bordeaux and so on while being adamant that other IP be protected (and that those who define it otherwise are being unethical).

Maybe I'm dead wrong, but I wouldn't define it to include those things. 

[Admiral Yi]

Defining it such that it excludes things like Champagne, Kobe beef, Bordeaux and so on while being adamant that other IP be protected (and that those who define it otherwise are being unethical).

It was a bit of a quibble.  IP means knowledge, which has virtually nothing to do with the place of origin rule.  People in California know everything the Champagnois know about making bubbly.

To claim hypocrisy on trademark vs. origin you have to overlook differences (possibly fundamental ones!) between the two.  Such as the fact that the origin people are trying to grab back something that has been in the public domain for a very long time.

[garbon]

In fact, Sheilbh, one of the things you brought up was customers getting bilked as a place said it was Kobe beef and unbeknownst to them it wasn't actually...but they were still happy with their meal.  Not that I'm advocating deception but if all those quality standards don't result in a product that can easily be noted as distinct by non-connoisseurs, what's the point in creating a legal distinction?  Why couldn't growers in Greece who follow certain standards create their own brand?

They did. The issue is that American producers are very happy to seize that brand identity for their own purposes.

Are American producers allowed to use the same brand name?

[garbon]

Sidebar: At lunch today by boss ordered Kobe beef. I then order a ceasar salad with extra virgin olive oil and parmigiano-reggiano.