In three parts: http://www.forbes.com/sites/larryolmsted/2012/04/12/foods-biggest-scam-the-great-kobe-beef-lie/
I wish I could try Kobe beef at some point. But...I just can't bring myself to spend such silly amounts on food.
Wonder why they don't export....
Anyway. We should all clearly have some combined geographic trademarks thingy. A bit mad that such copyrights don't extend beyond borders.
And Tajima-gyu cow. Gah. Gyu means cow, do some simple fact checking mr writer please. Thanks.
I've had Kobe beef outside of Japan. The article is wrong.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 19, 2012, 07:42:32 PM
I've had Kobe beef outside of Japan. The article is wrong.
didn't the article say no kobe in the usa? they also gave a cut off date (that i can't recall) where the us banned japanese beef imports.
What would PETA do?
Quote from: HVC on April 19, 2012, 07:54:20 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on April 19, 2012, 07:42:32 PM
I've had Kobe beef outside of Japan. The article is wrong.
didn't the article say no kobe in the usa? they also gave a cut off date (that i can't recall) where the us banned japanese beef imports.
Well fuck. At least I've seen the real Kobe Bryant play basketball.
Unless Jacob posts an article about an imposter Kobe suiting up for the Lakers.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 19, 2012, 08:00:35 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on April 19, 2012, 07:56:18 PM
What would PETA do?
Whine uselessly.
and use naked models. Well, at least they do things half right. That's more then what greenpeace can say.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 19, 2012, 07:58:10 PM
Quote from: HVC on April 19, 2012, 07:54:20 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on April 19, 2012, 07:42:32 PM
I've had Kobe beef outside of Japan. The article is wrong.
didn't the article say no kobe in the usa? they also gave a cut off date (that i can't recall) where the us banned japanese beef imports.
Well fuck. At least I've seen the real Kobe Bryant play basketball.
Unless Jacob posts an article about an imposter Kobe suiting up for the Lakers.
you saw him from front row seats, didn't you? :P
Quote from: HVC on April 19, 2012, 08:03:04 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on April 19, 2012, 07:58:10 PM
Quote from: HVC on April 19, 2012, 07:54:20 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on April 19, 2012, 07:42:32 PM
I've had Kobe beef outside of Japan. The article is wrong.
didn't the article say no kobe in the usa? they also gave a cut off date (that i can't recall) where the us banned japanese beef imports.
Well fuck. At least I've seen the real Kobe Bryant play basketball.
Unless Jacob posts an article about an imposter Kobe suiting up for the Lakers.
you saw him from front row seats, didn't you? :P
I suspected something was wrong when I saw him passing to teammates. :(
Quote from: alfred russel on April 19, 2012, 07:42:32 PM
I've had Kobe beef outside of Japan. The article is wrong.
:yes:
The HK supermarkets sell Kobe beef 365 days a year.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 19, 2012, 07:42:32 PM
I've had Kobe beef outside of Japan. The article is wrong.
How do you know it was Kobe beef?
I'd order it 'well-done' and drink diet Dr. Pepper with it.
There are many, many different kinds of beef in Japan. They give unique names to different beef produced in different prefectures. "Kobe beef" is only one of many such names. They are all slightly different, but the good kinds all share the common characteristic of Kobe beef - that of extensive marbelling. There is no need to insist on Kobe beef, just Japanese beef will do.
It is good. But personally, I actually prefer US prime. Japanese beef can be too oily and too soft, and they lack the strong "beef taste" that US prime has.
A much cheaper alternative to Japanese beef is "Japanese beef grown in Australia". The marbelling is less, but the price is much more affordable.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 19, 2012, 08:32:16 PM
I'd order it 'well-done' and drink diet Dr. Pepper with it.
That's just nasty. There's no excuse for well-done.
Pretty amusing series of articles, which basically boiled down to: The US government is evil because it allows snobs to get ripped off. My response is boo hoo. The last thing I want my government to do is worry about whether people will buy crappy wine time after time because they think real Champagne is supposed to taste like shit.
It never ceases to amaze me how offended some people become because their government won't play nanny in areas they find of interest.
Quote from: grumbler on April 19, 2012, 08:51:49 PM
Pretty amusing series of articles, which basically boiled down to: The US government is evil because it allows snobs to get ripped off. My response is boo hoo. The last thing I want my government to do is worry about whether people will buy crappy wine time after time because they think real Champagne is supposed to taste like shit.
:yes: It was kind of interesting until I saw the blurb for part 3 about how the "government is the real villain."
This guy's willing to blame everyone but consumers who don't do their homework. If I had the discretionary income to go after a cut of meat like this, I'd absolutely want to check on the import status- the guy didn't even mention the possibility of smuggled meats (bizarre, but it does happen from time to time). Since there's an import restriction on all Japanese beef, I'd be hesitant to even look for it here, because if by some miracle, it
is genuine, chances are that it's been en route long enough that I'd be worried about its expiration.
Why should the onus be on the consumer that a product is what it says it is? What's the difference between this and any other type of copyright or, say, weights and measures? I think this is a totally legitimate aim for government and one of the oldest - insuring that what is for sale is what the merchant promises.
Why should Kobe beef, parmesan or extra virgin olive oil be allowed to be mere puff - an advertising gimmick - when, say, Coca-Cola is safe?
Wagyu beef is ridiculous. It is priced appropriately, though.
Champagne is a joke. I buy CA bubbly (usually Barefoot) and M&C White Star, because, frankly, I can't be arsed to care. For the weekend bottle that my wife and I have, Barefoot is sublime.
Olive oil is the real scam, because most of it is adulterated in Italy. So I buy Greek or Spanish.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 19, 2012, 09:06:39 PMIf I had the discretionary income to go after a cut of meat like this, I'd absolutely want to check on the import status- the guy didn't even mention the possibility of smuggled meats (bizarre, but it does happen from time to time).
:blink:
This is nonsense. You've got some spare cash and want a nice dinner. You've always read amazing things about Kobe beef and fancy trying it when you're eating out. You stop and pull out your smartphone to check whether or not Kobe beef - a protected food in much of the world - is Kobe beef in the US. Or you stop off at a little French place and order something with a Roquefort sauce. Again you check and make sure that Roquefort is importable into the US (it is but at extortionate tariff rates).
No-one does this. That's what those names 'Kobe beef' or 'Roquefort' are doing for the consumer - as surely as any brand name and they deserve protection.
I like the notion that there are geographical locations that make some versions of a product so spectacular that no other product should be allowed to carry a similar name.
Quote from: garbon on April 19, 2012, 09:41:56 PM
I like the notion that there are geographical locations that make some versions of a product so spectacular that no other product should be allowed to carry a similar name.
As the article explains it's about more than the geographic location, and it's not about carrying a similar name but carrying the same name.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 19, 2012, 09:44:15 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 19, 2012, 09:41:56 PM
I like the notion that there are geographical locations that make some versions of a product so spectacular that no other product should be allowed to carry a similar name.
As the article explains it's about more than the geographic location, and it's not about carrying a similar name but carrying the same name.
The article talks about all the restrictions that are put on said name and references local conditions (grazing, water.....and even its stated that one of the important conditions is terroir). :lol:
Color me skeptical, but I'm hard pressed to believe that if the so important lineage had several members raised exclusively together outside of Japan that it'd be recognized as Kobe beef.
Quote from: Monoriu on April 19, 2012, 08:34:39 PM
There are many, many different kinds of beef in Japan. They give unique names to different beef produced in different prefectures. "Kobe beef" is only one of many such names. They are all slightly different, but the good kinds all share the common characteristic of Kobe beef - that of extensive marbelling. There is no need to insist on Kobe beef, just Japanese beef will do.
It is good. But personally, I actually prefer US prime. Japanese beef can be too oily and too soft, and they lack the strong "beef taste" that US prime has.
A much cheaper alternative to Japanese beef is "Japanese beef grown in Australia". The marbelling is less, but the price is much more affordable.
QuoteDuring the second century A.D., a legendary breed of cattle- called Wagyu- were brought from their home on the Asian mainland to a new life in Japan. The breed was refined in the Kobe region of Japan and has become famous around the world for its intense flavor and tenderness. This ancient breed is the foundation for the elite quality of SNAKE RIVER FARMS American Wagyu (Kobe) Beef.
http://www.snakeriverfarms.com/products/wagyu%20beef.aspx (http://www.snakeriverfarms.com/products/wagyu%20beef.aspx)
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 19, 2012, 09:11:37 PM
Why should the onus be on the consumer that a product is what it says it is? What's the difference between this and any other type of copyright or, say, weights and measures? I think this is a totally legitimate aim for government and one of the oldest - insuring that what is for sale is what the merchant promises.
Why should Kobe beef, parmesan or extra virgin olive oil be allowed to be mere puff - an advertising gimmick - when, say, Coca-Cola is safe?
Hey, dude, I can see your Europeaness.
Quote from: citizen k on April 19, 2012, 11:26:26 PM
During the second century A.D., a legendary breed of cattle- called Wagyu- were brought from their home on the Asian mainland to a new life in Japan. The breed was refined in the Kobe region of Japan and has become famous around the world for its intense flavor and tenderness. This ancient breed is the foundation for the elite quality of SNAKE RIVER FARMS American Wagyu (Kobe) Beef.
http://www.snakeriverfarms.com/products/wagyu%20beef.aspx (http://www.snakeriverfarms.com/products/wagyu%20beef.aspx)
[/quote]
QuoteSaga Beef" is one of the approximately 150 beef brands existing in Japan and is highly regarded along with such brands as "Matsusaka Beef" and "Kobe Beef." Amongst these brands, "Saga Beef" attracts the attention of people throughout Japan because of its stable supply and quality. This beautiful marbled beef, which's fat is finely mixed with its soft lean meat, is very nice for steak, "shabushabu" (Hot pot with thin slices of beef and vegetables) and also for a special gift. It is a kind of "kuroge wagyu beef (black haired wagyu)" and has a rich and sweet taste, which are gifted from Saga's mild climate, tasty water and clear, clean air. To produce tasty beef, special care and good farming skills are needed to raise the cattle from calves. In order to relieve cows of stress, feed blending and feeding methods are carefully controlled. Please enjoy the taste of "Saga Beef", produced with care in Saga's rich nature.
http://www.welcomekyushu.com/event/?mode=detail&id=9999900000129&isSpot=&isEvent=
Well, I've tried all three kinds of beef mentioned, and personally, I think they are indistinguishable. At least I can't tell the difference.
In the U.S., Wagyu cattle are bred with Black Angus to make "American Kobe" beef.
I found this while trying to see what the British situation is. Sounds similar, what we're selling isn't proper Kobe. Interesting reverse snobbery of it being sold in Asda, which is owned by Walmart and shares a lot of products.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/wordofmouth/2011/nov/16/asda-wagyu-beef-raising-steaks (http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/wordofmouth/2011/nov/16/asda-wagyu-beef-raising-steaks)
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 19, 2012, 08:51:15 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 19, 2012, 08:32:16 PM
I'd order it 'well-done' and drink diet Dr. Pepper with it.
That's just nasty. There's no excuse for Dr. Pepper.
Fixed.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 19, 2012, 08:51:15 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 19, 2012, 08:32:16 PM
I'd order it 'well-done' and drink diet Dr. Pepper with it.
That's just nasty. There's no excuse for well-done.
Then I'd pour A-1 steak sauce all over it.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 19, 2012, 09:11:37 PM
Why should the onus be on the consumer that a product is what it says it is? What's the difference between this and any other type of copyright or, say, weights and measures? I think this is a totally legitimate aim for government and one of the oldest - insuring that what is for sale is what the merchant promises.
Why should Kobe beef, parmesan or extra virgin olive oil be allowed to be mere puff - an advertising gimmick - when, say, Coca-Cola is safe?
Because "Kobe" beef doesn't mean anything other than a type of food in the US, nor "extra virgin," nor "parmesan." Coca-cola is made by a single company that is itself (not the government) responsible for its content. In the US Swiss cheese, champagne, New York strip, Kobe beef, Italian sausage, parmesan, etc just describe food types. Snobs care that some of them are elite foods in Europe or Japan, but I think the US government is wise to stay out of that arena. The fact that snobs weep tears of frustration at the thought of having to read the labels of the products they must purchase, just like the rest of us, makes me happy.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 19, 2012, 09:11:37 PM
Why should the onus be on the consumer that a product is what it says it is? What's the difference between this and any other type of copyright or, say, weights and measures? I think this is a totally legitimate aim for government and one of the oldest - insuring that what is for sale is what the merchant promises.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
It's not in the Constitution, pal.
Quote from: citizen k on April 20, 2012, 03:02:16 AM
In the U.S., Wagyu cattle are bred with Black Angus to make "American Kobe" beef.
That sounds like a good idea. Combining the best traits of both kinds of beef. I'd like to try that some day :mmm:
In Japan, the more fat the beef has, the more expensive it is. Sometimes I feel like eating nothing but fat and that's just sad.
I'm with Shelf in general. Though I don't see the problem with calling a steak "Kobe style."
To the people opposed: the liquor store now has Champagne and California Sparkling Wine, instead of just Champagne. What have you lost?
Quote from: grumbler on April 20, 2012, 06:36:56 AMBecause "Kobe" beef doesn't mean anything other than a type of food in the US, nor "extra virgin," nor "parmesan."
It clearly does mean something that's why you pay extra for it and have celebrity chefs pushing it. In countries with these protections that's justified the meaning is attached to a method, location or heritage of producing. If I buy extra virgin olive oil I know that, under EU law, it has a certain meaning (I think it has to be first press for example). Similarly Lincolnshire sausages must have a certain percentage of pork (far higher than average), but aside from that only salt, pepper and sage.
In the US it seems you get the worst of both worlds. You pay the extra price for parmesan or extra virgin olive oil but the product you get isn't necessarily any better or different than standard olive oil or any hard cheese. So you get the price without the meaning.
Also there's nothing snobbish about it and I dread to think what sort of life you've been leading if parmesan and olive oil qualify as 'elite' European foods.
QuoteThough I don't see the problem with calling a steak "Kobe style."
I don't think that's a problem at all. I regularly buy 'Toulouse style sausages'.
I prefer my Kobe beef cooked with napalm from 20,000 feet.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2012, 08:46:24 AM
To the people opposed: the liquor store now has Champagne and California Sparkling Wine, instead of just Champagne. What have you lost?
I have to deal with attitude from jerk-offs that remind me I'm drinking sparkling wine when I say I'm drinking champagne. As far as benefits, I don't see any considering that most of the time such products are labeled to tell you where they are from - if that mattered to me.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 20, 2012, 09:05:25 AM
In the US it seems you get the worst of both worlds. You pay the extra price for parmesan or extra virgin olive oil but the product you get isn't necessarily any better or different than standard olive oil or any hard cheese. So you get the price without the meaning.
:huh:
We have different prices for those products depending on their quality and also import status. I think one would be hard pressed to say that Americans pay a premium price for this:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F_puKPF39MdLI%2FTSOz2AqgrJI%2FAAAAAAAAAP0%2FOYqcQzfteHY%2Fs400%2FKraft%252BGrated%252BParmesan%252BCheese%252B9oz.jpg&hash=205c0fb9f195b940c2bc1bbb425e7fbbbc7a4ba8)
Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2012, 09:12:45 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2012, 08:46:24 AM
To the people opposed: the liquor store now has Champagne and California Sparkling Wine, instead of just Champagne. What have you lost?
I have to deal with attitude from jerk-offs that remind me I'm drinking sparkling wine when I say I'm drinking champagne. As far as benefits, I don't see any considering that most of the time such products are labeled to tell you where they are from - if that mattered to me.
I think champagne is something of an exception - I truly believe that the term has reached the point of generality, and is no longer unique to the Champagne region of France.
Taking out champagne though, I agree that stricter food labelling rules are a good thing, and the article on "American Kobe beef" was eye-opening.
Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2012, 09:12:45 AM
I have to deal with attitude from jerk-offs that remind me I'm drinking sparkling wine when I say I'm drinking champagne.
Is this a common activity for you, announcing that you're drinking Champagne while you're drinking sparkling wine?
Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2012, 09:16:57 AM
:huh:
We have different prices for those products depending on their quality and also import status. I think one would be hard pressed to say that Americans pay a premium price for this:
I'm using parmesan as short hand for parmegiano-reggiano. I know they're different but the last one's a bitch to type more than once in a post :P
It's still a little surprising how hypocritical the US is on intellectual property and trademarks.
Quote from: Jacob on April 20, 2012, 09:23:21 AM
It's still a little surprising how hypocritical the US is on intellectual property and trademarks.
How is the US hypocritical on intellectual property?
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 20, 2012, 09:19:48 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2012, 09:16:57 AM
:huh:
We have different prices for those products depending on their quality and also import status. I think one would be hard pressed to say that Americans pay a premium price for this:
I'm using parmesan as short hand for parmegiano-reggiano. I know they're different but the last one's a bitch to type more than once in a post :P
I copied and pasted :P
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2012, 09:19:02 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2012, 09:12:45 AM
I have to deal with attitude from jerk-offs that remind me I'm drinking sparkling wine when I say I'm drinking champagne.
Is this a common activity for you, announcing that you're drinking Champagne while you're drinking sparkling wine?
Most of the time when I drink champagne it isn't from Champagne.
Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2012, 09:27:07 AM
Most of the time when I drink champagne it isn't from Champagne.
Go on.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2012, 09:28:22 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2012, 09:27:07 AM
Most of the time when I drink champagne it isn't from Champagne.
Go on.
Not sure what you'd like me to say.
Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2012, 09:29:29 AM
Not sure what you'd like me to say.
Do you ever announce that you are drinking Champagne while drinking sparkling wine?
Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2012, 09:29:29 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2012, 09:28:22 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2012, 09:27:07 AM
Most of the time when I drink champagne it isn't from Champagne.
Go on.
Not sure what you'd like me to say.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F27.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_lxwtoeSCRy1qjj0j1o1_500.gif&hash=fec30a1d99334143dfa7e3664542d337abe6713d)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2012, 09:31:20 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2012, 09:29:29 AM
Not sure what you'd like me to say.
Do you ever announce that you are drinking Champagne while drinking sparkling wine?
I'm still not really sure where you are going. Let me give you some scenarios.
1) Someone asks me what I'm drinking. I say champagne and they correct me.
2) I'm at a restaurant and order champagne (with the product from Champagne not on the menu) and I get corrected by the person I'm with
3) I ask at a restaurant if they have any champagne and get told that they have a selection of sparkling wines
4) I'm typing on languish and say that I had some champagne at brunch and then get told that no I didn't.
Now granted 1-3, almost never happens (though it has) as I tend to stay away from establishments and individuals who might feel the need to correct me. But like I said, there really isn't any benefit to me to have the word champagne limited to a product from a specific region.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 20, 2012, 09:05:25 AM
It clearly does mean something that's why you pay extra for it and have celebrity chefs pushing it.
Actually, I don't pay more for it nor do I know of any celebrity chefs pushing it. I don't even know anyone who ever talks about celebrity chefs or who pay extra for it.
QuoteIn countries with these protections that's justified the meaning is attached to a method, location or heritage of producing. If I buy extra virgin olive oil I know that, under EU law, it has a certain meaning (I think it has to be first press for example). Similarly Lincolnshire sausages must have a certain percentage of pork (far higher than average), but aside from that only salt, pepper and sage.
In the US, we have something called "brands" that serve that purpose. A Hebrew National hot dog or sausage has to meet certain standards, for which I will pay extra. I won't pay more if the hot dog package says "extra virgin."
Now, of you want your governments to define all the various food qualities for you, fine (though I note that you don't even know for sure what standards lie "extra virgin" actually mean).
QuoteIn the US it seems you get the worst of both worlds. You pay the extra price for parmesan or extra virgin olive oil but the product you get isn't necessarily any better or different than standard olive oil or any hard cheese. So you get the price without the meaning.
I don't pay extra, and don't know anyone who does. maybe people who watch celebrity chefs do, but they deserve to be conned. I am not in favor of enlarging my government to try to keep fools from being parted from their money. Parmesan cheese is not at all expensive around here, btw. It's just another type of cheese.
QuoteAlso there's nothing snobbish about it and I dread to think what sort of life you've been leading if parmesan and olive oil qualify as 'elite' European foods.
I dread to think of the sort of life you must be leading if the reading comprehension skill you possess makes you think that parmesan and olive oil are considered "elite" European foods by anyone in this discussion.
Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2012, 09:18:36 AM
I think champagne is something of an exception - I truly believe that the term has reached the point of generality, and is no longer unique to the Champagne region of France.
I think Kleenex has also reached such a point of generality, but I can't use that name for my generic tissue paper.
Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2012, 09:40:15 AM
4) I'm typing on languish and say that I had some champagne at brunch and then get told that no I didn't.
That reminds me of a very classic line from a satirical movie that was very popular in Soviet Union. "Only aristocrats and degenerates drink champagne in the morning..." Funny how fitting Soviet wisdoms can be to American life.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 19, 2012, 09:11:37 PM
Why should the onus be on the consumer that a product is what it says it is? What's the difference between this and any other type of copyright or, say, weights and measures? I think this is a totally legitimate aim for government and one of the oldest - insuring that what is for sale is what the merchant promises.
Why should Kobe beef, parmesan or extra virgin olive oil be allowed to be mere puff - an advertising gimmick - when, say, Coca-Cola is safe?
To my mind, the issue is whether something "is what it is". Product labeling should, ideally, include country of origin - most regulatory systems require that if you claim something is (say) made in Japan, that it actually be made in Japan; I'd even go the extra step and make country of origin mandatory (in some cases it already is).
The product must also be what it claims. If the product is marketed as beef, it can't be cat or rabbit. If the product is marketed as a specific kind, grade or quality of beef, it has to be that as well.
But where a kind of product is simply associated in the public mind with a particular country, it doesn't follow that only products from that country have to have that label - where an exactly identical product can be made elsewhere. I know some places have made that so by statute, but in my opinion, absent a statute, it doesn't and shouldn't follow. A certain type of cheese may be associated with a certain region of Italy or France, but if the exact same kind of cheese is made elsewhere, it seems the most convenient thing for the consumer to call it the same thing, rather than inventing an awkward circumlocution like "parmesan-style cheese", which actually conveys less information to the consumer, and is more misleading, than "parmesan cheese, made in the USA". The consumer, reading "parmesan-style cheese", has no way of knowing whether the stuff is simply 'parmesan cheese (made elsewhere)' or 'some sort of horrible cheeze-wiz type concoction'.
The discerning (or snobbish ;) ) consumer still has the choice of buying "parmesan cheese, made in Italy" or wherever, if they so choose. This gives the choice to the consumer, rather than acting as some sort of protectionism for the producer.
Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2012, 09:40:15 AM
I'm still not really sure where you are going. Let me give you some scenarios.
1) Someone asks me what I'm drinking. I say champagne and they correct me.
2) I'm at a restaurant and order champagne (with the product from Champagne not on the menu) and I get corrected by the person I'm with
3) I ask at a restaurant if they have any champagne and get told that they have a selection of sparkling wines
4) I'm typing on languish and say that I had some champagne at brunch and then get told that no I didn't.
Now granted 1-3, almost never happens (though it has) as I tend to stay away from establishments and individuals who might feel the need to correct me. But like I said, there really isn't any benefit to me to have the word champagne limited to a product from a specific region.
#2 and 3 are not cases of people correcting you, they are cases of people providing you information.
#1 I can see your beef. It's a presumption on their part that you don't know what real Champagne is. Now you could easily counter that presumption by using Champagne to only describe sparkling wine from the Champagne region, but for some reason you prefer not to. So it's this conflict between the desire to not be judged as culturally ignorant on the one hand and whatever motivation impels you to call sparkling wine "champagne" (keeping it real? distaste for affection?) on the other that is the real issue here.
Quote from: grumbler on April 20, 2012, 09:40:54 AM
In the US, we have something called "brands" that serve that purpose.
Exactly. That's the comparison I'd make, these foods are brands. Producers make product and have done for a long time in a certain way and in a certain place. Because of that they charge extra. Both the producers and consumers should be protected from freeloaders stealing their brand name and recognition without producing the same product in the same way and of the same quality.
QuoteNow, of you want your governments to define all the various food qualities for you, fine (though I note that you don't even know for sure what standards lie "extra virgin" actually mean).
I don't need to know in legal terms. That's the benefit of that meaning something is I know that I can pick up any brand of 'extra virgin' olive oil and it will be what I want extra virgin olive oil for in food.
I don't think governments do define various food qualities the producers do and the government, if satisfied that they meet various criteria, grant them protected status - like any other copyright, trademark or whatever.
Quote#1 I can see your beef. It's a presumption on their part that you don't know what real Champagne is. Now you could easily counter that presumption by using Champagne to only describe sparkling wine from the Champagne region, but for some reason you prefer not to. So it's this conflict between the desire to not be judged as culturally ignorant on the one hand and whatever motivation impels you to call sparkling wine "champagne" (keeping it real? distaste for affection?) on the other that is the real issue here.
In that situation you tell the person to fuck off.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 20, 2012, 09:58:04 AM
In that situation you tell the person to fuck off.
If you tell that person to fuck off you forfeit any future right correct someone else's misinformation.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2012, 09:31:20 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2012, 09:29:29 AM
Not sure what you'd like me to say.
Do you ever announce that you are drinking Champagne while drinking sparkling wine?
I'm not grabon, but I can't bring myself to do it.
What cracks me up is that if I do tell someone I'm drinking sparkling wine, they often assume that means I'm drinking one of those cheap $4 bottles of artificially carbonated piss with the plastic stopper in place of an actual cork.
I'm conflicted on the general issue. I actually like the Euro appellation style and it bugs the crap out of me when people misuse proper terms for wine, beer, cigars, and some foods. But I also dislike excessive government regulation. So I guess I'd favor strict but voluntary non-governmental control over stuff like that, but that's probably impossible.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2012, 09:57:16 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2012, 09:40:15 AM
I'm still not really sure where you are going. Let me give you some scenarios.
1) Someone asks me what I'm drinking. I say champagne and they correct me.
2) I'm at a restaurant and order champagne (with the product from Champagne not on the menu) and I get corrected by the person I'm with
3) I ask at a restaurant if they have any champagne and get told that they have a selection of sparkling wines
4) I'm typing on languish and say that I had some champagne at brunch and then get told that no I didn't.
Now granted 1-3, almost never happens (though it has) as I tend to stay away from establishments and individuals who might feel the need to correct me. But like I said, there really isn't any benefit to me to have the word champagne limited to a product from a specific region.
#2 and 3 are not cases of people correcting you, they are cases of people providing you information.
#1 I can see your beef. It's a presumption on their part that you don't know what real Champagne is. Now you could easily counter that presumption by using Champagne to only describe sparkling wine from the Champagne region, but for some reason you prefer not to. So it's this conflict between the desire to not be judged as culturally ignorant on the one hand and whatever motivation impels you to call sparkling wine "champagne" (keeping it real? distaste for affection?) on the other that is the real issue here.
2 isn't being corrected? I'm pretty sure it is a correction if I say champagne and they point out there is only sparking wine. Same with 3, no need to point out i'm using the "wrong" term.
Besides, I don't think I'm using the wrong term and sparking wine sounds ridiculous. In fact, I generally don't hang out with people that use that term either as they tend to help me into one of those four situations outlined above.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2012, 10:03:34 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 20, 2012, 09:58:04 AM
In that situation you tell the person to fuck off.
If you tell that person to fuck off you forfeit any future right correct someone else's misinformation.
What about saying nothing, and smashing them across the forehead with the bottle?
Quote from: derspiess on April 20, 2012, 10:05:03 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2012, 09:31:20 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2012, 09:29:29 AM
Not sure what you'd like me to say.
Do you ever announce that you are drinking Champagne while drinking sparkling wine?
I'm not grabon, but I can't bring myself to do it.
What cracks me up is that if I do tell someone I'm drinking sparkling wine, they often assume that means I'm drinking one of those cheap $4 bottles of artificially carbonated piss with the plastic stopper in place of an actual cork.
I'm conflicted on the general issue. I actually like the Euro appellation style and it bugs the crap out of me when people misuse proper terms for wine, beer, cigars, and some foods. But I also dislike excessive government regulation. So I guess I'd favor strict but voluntary non-governmental control over stuff like that, but that's probably impossible.
Seems to me if the "correct" term is actively misleading others as to what the stuff is, it really isn't "correct" in the first place.
Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2012, 10:09:44 AM
2 isn't being corrected? I'm pretty sure it is a correction if I say champagne and they point out there is only sparking wine. Same with 3, no need to point out i'm using the "wrong" term.
It's not being corrected. You ask for champagne. They infer that you would be interested in sparkling wine, and clarify that they don't have any Champagne but do have the second. "We don't have that, but we have something close."
Quote from: Malthus on April 20, 2012, 09:54:27 AMBut where a kind of product is simply associated in the public mind with a particular country, it doesn't follow that only products from that country have to have that label - where an exactly identical product can be made elsewhere. I know some places have made that so by statute, but in my opinion, absent a statute, it doesn't and shouldn't follow. A certain type of cheese may be associated with a certain region of Italy or France, but if the exact same kind of cheese is made elsewhere, it seems the most convenient thing for the consumer to call it the same thing, rather than inventing an awkward circumlocution like "parmesan-style cheese", which actually conveys less information to the consumer, and is more misleading, than "parmesan cheese, made in the USA". The consumer, reading "parmesan-style cheese", has no way of knowing whether the stuff is simply 'parmesan cheese (made elsewhere)' or 'some sort of horrible cheeze-wiz type concoction'.
I don't think so. My experience in EU where this is the case is that different alternatives become available. So basically you have feta for example which is protected - it's from Greece, from a certain breed of sheep and made in a certain way. The Greeks were delighted to get that because Danish cheese makers were producing 'feta'. Now that's got a different name (I can't remember) and describes itself as a salad cheese. It does actually taste worse than feta in my view. But it sits in the same area in the supermarket, it looks the same and there's a minor price difference.
Similarly if I want a hard cheese then in my local supermarket there'll be own brand 'hard white cheese', gran padano, pecorino romano, parmigiano-reggiano (and probably some more) all doing roughly the same thing but they do have different tastes and uses. If all you're interested in is price then you can go for the cheapest one - if you just want the name you can go for organic, classically educated parmigiano-reggiano and pay for it.
Similarly on sparkling wine. I don't know much about wine so I can't comment, but here I don't think there's any snobbishness about sparkling wine. Champagne's nice and French - but you can also get Cava which is great and Spanish, or Prosecco which is Italian.
I think these laws protect the producers and consumers of goods, but the market hasn't developed by producing dreadful knock-off versions. Lambrini isn't sold as 'champagne style' sparkling wine. In large part that's because the qualities associated with those originals are very widely known and have strong associations. So a 'parmesan-style' cheese that was like cheese-wiz would fail because no-one buying 'parmesan-style' cheese would have wanted or expected that. While 'hard white cheese' or similar but slightly cheaper cheeses will do well and seize those lower price points.
QuoteThe discerning (or snobbish ;) ) consumer still has the choice of buying "parmesan cheese, made in Italy" or wherever, if they so choose. This gives the choice to the consumer, rather than acting as some sort of protectionism for the producer.
But the issue with parmesan - as discussed in that article - is the various regulations that go into how you make it. There are restrictions on what cattle can be used, how you store the cheese and then levels of quality control beyond that to protect the 'brand identity' of parmesan. So it's more than checking whether it's Italian or not.
When I worked in a bar we had a bourbon training thing with a descendant of Jim Beam (his job now was talking to people about bourbon for the company <_<) and I don't think American laws on what is and isn't a bourbon are that dissimilar. But I think this with everything. If I buy bourbon or an Islay whisky I want to be able to pick up a bottle that so describes itself and know that's what I'll get. The same goes for cheese or ham or oil. It would probably go for wine too but I'm ignorant on that stuff so...
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2012, 10:13:35 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2012, 10:09:44 AM
2 isn't being corrected? I'm pretty sure it is a correction if I say champagne and they point out there is only sparking wine. Same with 3, no need to point out i'm using the "wrong" term.
It's not being corrected. You ask for champagne. They infer that you would be interested in sparkling wine, and clarify that they don't have any Champagne but do have the second. "We don't have that, but we have something close."
That was 3.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 20, 2012, 10:15:17 AM
But the issue with parmesan - as discussed in that article - is the various regulations that go into how you make it. There are restrictions on what cattle can be used, how you store the cheese and then levels of quality control beyond that to protect the 'brand identity' of parmesan. So it's more than checking whether it's Italian or not.
But then you also have to fall in line that all of those "quality processes" actually make for a superior and distinct product. Besides what happens when there is a bad year? 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 EU rules on "Feta" are completely assinine. There's nothing particular to greece in how it is made.
Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2012, 10:17:53 AM
That was 3.
I can see how #2 could be a correction. Fancy restaurant, snobby waiter, "those wines are not really Champagne, you social climbing little ghetto punk."
Though how snobby can a waiter be in a restaurant that doesn't carry a single bottle of Champagne.
Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2012, 10:20:14 AM
But then you also have to fall in line that all of those "quality processes" actually make for a superior and distinct product. Besides what happens when there is a bad year? 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.
If the brand is crap or average then the market will treat it accordingly.
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?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2012, 10:23:38 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2012, 10:20:14 AM
But then you also have to fall in line that all of those "quality processes" actually make for a superior and distinct product. Besides what happens when there is a bad year? 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.
If the brand is crap or average then the market will treat it accordingly.
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2012, 10:03:34 AM
If you tell that person to fuck off you forfeit any future right correct someone else's misinformation.
That's worth it. They're clearly an arse.
QuoteBut then you also have to fall in line that all of those "quality processes" actually make for a superior and distinct product. Besides what happens when there is a bad year?
Not necessarily superior but different and distinct. You're not saying that x cheese is better so deserves protection but that it's different. In the same way as Coke is different from Pepsi.
Within parmesan itself there is a further quality control before the producers release it as parmesan but that isn't necessarily the case with all products. The rejects are, I think, released as gran padano.
I know Barrister says the rules on feta are assinine. I disagree. I'm only talking about Sainsbury's own brand stuff but in my experience the Greek feta tastes better than the Danish stuff and isn't that much more expensive. Certainly though it tastes different.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 20, 2012, 10:29:45 AM
Not necessarily superior but different and distinct. You're not saying that x cheese is better so deserves protection but that it's different. In the same way as Coke is different from Pepsi.
You aren't simply saying that though as coke and pepsi are both brands. Here you're going even a step even beyond brands as you're saying that not only should the brand be protected but that the category is distinct enough to be protected as a distinct class. But then, you (personally :P) are also saying that people could be tricked into buying something not in that distinct class. ;)
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 20, 2012, 10:29:45 AM
Within parmesan itself there is a further quality control before the producers release it as parmesan but that isn't necessarily the case with all products. The rejects are, I think, released as gran padano.
Good to know.
Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2012, 10:23:54 AMNot 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?
It's not about quality necessarily but difference. But that's what they're doing. This provides a brand protection to all producers of that product in that region. It's a way for them to do that together rather than effectively requiring every farm to create their own brand identity. It extends the protection to all producers in the region who meet the minimum standards.
The way I see it is instead of a brand being owned by a single company like Coke it's a brand owned by a community of producers.
I read the article but haven't experienced Kobe beef so I can't comment. If people enjoy it that's great. But I'd see it the other way. I don't understand why those producers don't try and establish their own brand instead of piggy-backing off the reputation of Kobe.
Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2012, 10:26:00 AM
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."
Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2012, 10:35:35 AM
You aren't simply saying that though as coke and pepsi are both brands. Here you're going even a step even beyond brands as you're saying that not only should the brand be protected but that the category is distinct enough to be protected as a distinct class. But then, you (personally :P) are also saying that people could be tricked into buying something not in that distinct class. ;)
:blush: Explain slower please :P
Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2012, 10:20:14 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2012, 10:51:09 AM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2012, 10:38:40 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2012, 10:26:00 AM
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.
Quote from: derspiess on April 20, 2012, 11:10:32 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2012, 10:38:40 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2012, 10:26:00 AM
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.
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.
The very fact that producers are fighting to use term like champaign or Kobe beef means these terms have value and should be protected.
Quote from: Malthus on April 20, 2012, 11:17:31 AM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on April 20, 2012, 11:17:31 AM
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".
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2012, 09:26:20 AM
Quote from: Jacob on April 20, 2012, 09:23:21 AM
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).
Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2012, 10:23:54 AM
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.
Quote from: Jacob on April 20, 2012, 11:47:27 AM
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.
Quote from: Jacob on April 20, 2012, 11:47:27 AM
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.
Quote from: Jacob on April 20, 2012, 11:55:20 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2012, 10:23:54 AM
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? :huh:
Sidebar: At lunch today by boss ordered Kobe beef. I then order a ceasar salad with extra virgin olive oil and parmigiano-reggiano. :D
What's the problem with extra virgin olive oil?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2012, 12:17:56 PM
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.
You can be sensible about it though. One key EU law case we had to learn involved 'cremant' which the EU designated as sparkling wine from France or Luxembourg that's not champagne. A Spanish cava producer was able to challenge that, successfully, in part because that was a trademark they had and had used the trademark 'gran cremant' in Spain for around 80 years.
Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2012, 12:27:15 PM
What's the problem with extra virgin olive oil?
In the EU it's got a more strictly regulated meaning than in the US. I think generally it has to be first press but there's other stuff too.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 20, 2012, 12:32:11 PM
In the EU it's got a more strictly regulated meaning than in the US. I think generally it has to be first press but there's other stuff too.
You can't heat the olives before pressing.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2012, 12:17:56 PMIt 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.
In my line of work, IP includes branded products.
QuoteTo 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.
I acknowledge there are some differences, but I still thing it is hypocritical not to acknowledge it when at the same time you keep delaying other forms of IP entering the public domain (a number of Disney creations, for example).
Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2012, 12:24:10 PMAre American producers allowed to use the same brand name? :huh:
They seem to use "Champagne" fairly frequently.
Quote from: Jacob on April 20, 2012, 12:35:32 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2012, 12:17:56 PMIt 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.
In my line of work, IP includes branded products.
QuoteTo 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.
I acknowledge there are some differences, but I still thing it is hypocritical not to acknowledge it when at the same time you keep delaying other forms of IP entering the public domain (a number of Disney creations, for example).
There are huge differences IMO. I'd say a proprietary brand name would qualify as IP. Something that is added to the label as a descriptor or denotes that it originates from a particular area, not so much.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2012, 12:33:32 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 20, 2012, 12:32:11 PM
In the EU it's got a more strictly regulated meaning than in the US. I think generally it has to be first press but there's other stuff too.
You can't heat the olives before pressing.
Are there places where you can buy EVOO that is not cold-pressed?
Quote from: derspiess on April 20, 2012, 12:40:33 PM
There are huge differences IMO. I'd say a proprietary brand name would qualify as IP. Something that is added to the label as a descriptor or denotes that it originates from a particular area, not so much.
Champagne is a proprietary brand name. It belongs to the wine producers of the Champagne region, and it applies to the sparkling wine they produce.
Quote from: Jacob on April 20, 2012, 12:35:32 PM
I acknowledge there are some differences, but I still thing it is hypocritical not to acknowledge it when at the same time you keep delaying other forms of IP entering the public domain (a number of Disney creations, for example).
And I see differences and think's it not hypocritical. So there.
Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2012, 12:42:41 PMAre there places where you can buy EVOO that is not cold-pressed?
Apparently the US?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2012, 12:43:35 PMAnd I see differences and think's it not hypocritical. So there.
There indeed.
Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2012, 12:42:41 PM
Are there places where you can buy EVOO that is not cold-pressed?
First I've ever heard about it. Track down the poster who said they don't buy Italian olive oil.
Quote from: HVC on April 20, 2012, 11:25:41 AM
The very fact that producers are fighting to use term like champaign or Kobe beef means these terms have value and should be protected.
That doesn't follow. The fact that something has value doesn't mean it *should* be treated as a species of property, and belong to someone. Particularly where there is no issue of anyone "earning" that value.
In most cases of IP, the argument is that we ought to give IP rights to protect someone's
work - in writing a song, or inventing a new process. Nobody "worked" to be born in France. Being a French wine or cheese maker is no greater effort than being a wine or cheese maker elsewhere. Certainly France is heir to a great tradition of wine and cheese making, but being heir to a tradition isn't the same as creating new value.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 20, 2012, 11:25:29 AM
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.
Naturally, everyone likes having something that they have that others place value on declared a species of property that they own. :lol:
The issue is whether that is a good idea or not.
I'm kinda surprised that the lefty types here seem most outspoken about creating and protecting new property rights, thus commodifying things which had not previously been commodified.
Quote from: Malthus on April 20, 2012, 12:50:21 PM
That doesn't follow. The fact that something has value doesn't mean it *should* be treated as a species of property, and belong to someone. Particularly where there is no issue of anyone "earning" that value.
In most cases of IP, the argument is that we ought to give IP rights to protect someone's work - in writing a song, or inventing a new process. Nobody "worked" to be born in France. Being a French wine or cheese maker is no greater effort than being a wine or cheese maker elsewhere. Certainly France is heir to a great tradition of wine and cheese making, but being heir to a tradition isn't the same as creating new value.
That's the argument for copyright. Trademark protection relies on different logic.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2012, 10:38:40 AM
No watercolor sunsets on the label, no "Angry Beaver Vineyard."
HOW DID YOU DISCOVER MY WINE?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2012, 12:56:37 PM
Quote from: Malthus on April 20, 2012, 12:50:21 PM
That doesn't follow. The fact that something has value doesn't mean it *should* be treated as a species of property, and belong to someone. Particularly where there is no issue of anyone "earning" that value.
In most cases of IP, the argument is that we ought to give IP rights to protect someone's work - in writing a song, or inventing a new process. Nobody "worked" to be born in France. Being a French wine or cheese maker is no greater effort than being a wine or cheese maker elsewhere. Certainly France is heir to a great tradition of wine and cheese making, but being heir to a tradition isn't the same as creating new value.
That's the argument for copyright. Trademark protection relies on different logic.
A trademark still protects a business' goodwill - something that the business created.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 20, 2012, 01:00:00 PM
HOW DID YOU DISCOVER MY WINE?
Once you told me your old employer it was simple detective work.
But it's a goodwill of tradition and standards. Regional foods are held to a higher standard then any Tom, Dick and Harry vineyard. While logically most people know that not all champagne is champagne, people don't work that way. Look at Garbon he knows he's drinking sparkling wine but is compelled to call it champagne so any bad experience he has with "champagne" he will associate with all champagne, both real and not. This diminishes the real stuff.
Quote from: HVC on April 20, 2012, 01:28:29 PM
But it's a goodwill of tradition and standards. Regional foods are held to a higher standard then any Tom, Dick and Harry vineyard. While logically most people know that not all champagne is champagne, people don't work that way. Look at Garbon he knows he's drinking sparkling wine but is compelled to call it champagne so any bad experience he has with "champagne" he will associate with all champagne, both real and not. This diminishes the real stuff.
I refuse to believe HVC wrote this. There isn't a single spelling mistake or smilie anywhere.
I'm serious about my wine!
Actually I hate the stuff :P (there's a smilie for ya lol )
Quote from: Malthus on April 20, 2012, 01:00:09 PM
A trademark still protects a business' goodwill - something that the business created.
Let me retract and take a different tack.
The work that French Champagne bottlers are performing is the effort to create a better product than Andre.
BTW, in case you guys don't have it, Andre is the absolute bottom-of-the barrel American sparkling wine.
Quote from: HVC on April 20, 2012, 01:28:29 PM
But it's a goodwill of tradition and standards. Regional foods are held to a higher standard then any Tom, Dick and Harry vineyard. While logically most people know that not all champagne is champagne, people don't work that way. Look at Garbon he knows he's drinking sparkling wine but is compelled to call it champagne so any bad experience he has with "champagne" he will associate with all champagne, both real and not. This diminishes the real stuff.
Again, those "traditions and standards" apply to individual producers, not a whole country. For evidence, I enter that Simpsons episode where Bart goes to France as an exchange student and is forced to make wine containing anti-freeze. :P
To the extent that there are truly national standards, they are protected by creating mandatory country of origin labelling. To the extent that "Champagne" is a product of a particular quality, that is protected by enforcing quality standards in production.
Both of these steps - country labelling and production standards - protect consumers, while offering them choices. A better system than the arbitrary one of saying that only certain countries or regions can use certain words to refer to exactly the same thing.
If i recall correctly not all sparkling wine from France is labeled champagne, it has to come from the champagne region. If its anything like port then being part of a region isn't enough, either. They have to follow quality standard and use specific processes and grapes. Theses vineyards are audited by a members board/group to ensure that standards are indeed met. If champagne is the same, which I would assume it is, then it's more then just having a vineyard in the country. If I'm mistaken in
That regard then I agree champagne should not be a protected name.
Quote from: Jacob on April 20, 2012, 12:36:09 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2012, 12:24:10 PMAre American producers allowed to use the same brand name? :huh:
They seem to use "Champagne" fairly frequently.
Champagne isn't really a brand. As I said earlier, it is kinda like a step above a brand as each of the Champagne Houses already has its own brand.
Also, the rule on Champagne here is a bit complex as I think technically places that were using it before the rule are grandfathered in but as pointed out, nicer brands here tend to opt for sparking wine.
Quote from: HVC on April 20, 2012, 01:28:29 PM
But it's a goodwill of tradition and standards. Regional foods are held to a higher standard then any Tom, Dick and Harry vineyard. While logically most people know that not all champagne is champagne, people don't work that way. Look at Garbon he knows he's drinking sparkling wine but is compelled to call it champagne so any bad experience he has with "champagne" he will associate with all champagne, both real and not. This diminishes the real stuff.
:huh:
I don't equate Andre with champagne from Champagne even though I'll call both champagne. Nor do I assume that because I bought some sparkling wine from Champagne that it'll be amazing.
Quote from: Malthus on April 20, 2012, 02:17:15 PM
Quote from: HVC on April 20, 2012, 01:28:29 PM
But it's a goodwill of tradition and standards. Regional foods are held to a higher standard then any Tom, Dick and Harry vineyard. While logically most people know that not all champagne is champagne, people don't work that way. Look at Garbon he knows he's drinking sparkling wine but is compelled to call it champagne so any bad experience he has with "champagne" he will associate with all champagne, both real and not. This diminishes the real stuff.
Again, those "traditions and standards" apply to individual producers, not a whole country. For evidence, I enter that Simpsons episode where Bart goes to France as an exchange student and is forced to make wine containing anti-freeze. :P
To the extent that there are truly national standards, they are protected by creating mandatory country of origin labelling. To the extent that "Champagne" is a product of a particular quality, that is protected by enforcing quality standards in production.
Both of these steps - country labelling and production standards - protect consumers, while offering them choices. A better system than the arbitrary one of saying that only certain countries or regions can use certain words to refer to exactly the same thing.
This. :hug:
The region thing goes beyond that too, in regard to grapes (and I assume different produce). Different soil acidity, substrate, percepitation, and seasonal variations produce different sugar levels and tastes in grapes which then effect the taste and quality in the wine. Even using the exact same process could and does lead the different wines. Hell there's variations between years at a single location, imagine the variation a continent away.
Quote from: Malthus on April 20, 2012, 02:17:15 PM
To the extent that "Champagne" is a product of a particular quality, that is protected by enforcing quality standards in production.
What enforcement powers do French vineyards have over American bottlers?
Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2012, 02:26:04 PM
Quote from: HVC on April 20, 2012, 01:28:29 PM
But it's a goodwill of tradition and standards. Regional foods are held to a higher standard then any Tom, Dick and Harry vineyard. While logically most people know that not all champagne is champagne, people don't work that way. Look at Garbon he knows he's drinking sparkling wine but is compelled to call it champagne so any bad experience he has with "champagne" he will associate with all champagne, both real and not. This diminishes the real stuff.
:huh:
I don't equate Andre with champagne from Champagne even though I'll call both champagne. Nor do I assume that because I bought some sparkling wine from Champagne that it'll be amazing.
iused you because you were the most vehement "champagne by any other name" person here. You may not, and i'll take you at your word, but i feel many consumers, perhaps the majority, would.
Quote from: Malthus on April 20, 2012, 11:17:31 AM
See, I just don't get what the "harm" is where everyone knows the stuff was not made in France.
Great piece from 60 Minutes on the European truffle market in France and Italy, and how the Chinese counterfeit truffle industry is fucking it all up.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7394364n
Yes, that's right: the little yellow bastards are even counterfeiting truffles.
Quote from: Tyr on April 19, 2012, 07:38:05 PM
I wish I could try Kobe beef at some point. But...I just can't bring myself to spend such silly amounts on food.
You can buy Kobe beef in Canada. There are even local producers of Kobe beef here in Quebec.
Quote from: viper37 on April 20, 2012, 02:33:11 PM
Quote from: Tyr on April 19, 2012, 07:38:05 PM
I wish I could try Kobe beef at some point. But...I just can't bring myself to spend such silly amounts on food.
You can buy Kobe beef in Canada. There are even local producers of Kobe beef here in Quebec.
Go back to the original article - it isn't "real" Kobe beef.
Quote from: viper37 on April 20, 2012, 02:33:11 PM
There are even local producers of Kobe beef here in Quebec.
you didn't read the article, did you? :P
beaten by one second lol
Quote from: HVC on April 20, 2012, 02:35:21 PM
beaten by one second lol
But still basically typo-less. You're en fuego Hillary. :punk:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2012, 02:28:54 PM
Quote from: Malthus on April 20, 2012, 02:17:15 PM
To the extent that "Champagne" is a product of a particular quality, that is protected by enforcing quality standards in production.
What enforcement powers do French vineyards have over American bottlers?
They would not - no more than they could (for example) enforce IP rights over the name "Champagne".
In all cases, the enforcement would have to be local. The US (or state, dunno who has jurisdiction) gov't would have to enforce either:
(1) A system whereby US bottlers were required to use only "sparkling wine" (which some here are advocating); or
(2) A system where US bottlers wishing to sell the same product had to (a) include country of origin on their labels and (b) meet certain bottling quality standards consistent with the description of the product "champagne" (which I am advocating).
French bottlers are out of the picture either way, unless you want a system whereby they are going around the world suing people for violating their IP - and even that would require that local laws be changed to allow for this.
Anyway, i think we're just differing on how to seperate the products out, Malthus. My view is why go the extra step of labeling something "Champagne made in France" or "Champagne made in California" (where the origin of a wine can be placed out of the way and probably not shown on wine lists in a restaurant) when you can just have "Champagne" as the designation of the sparkling wine region in france and "Sparkling wine made in XXX" for all others.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2012, 02:37:05 PM
Quote from: HVC on April 20, 2012, 02:35:21 PM
beaten by one second lol
But still basically typo-less. You're en fuego Hillary. :punk:
you've jynxed me now :( :D
Also, if i produce a medication like zanex using the same process and same ingredients can i label it Zanex Made in Hilario's basement. Is that really any different?
*edit, ok ya i pushed that a bit too far into Marti territory. I'm just trying to say that in my mind champagne is a brand name. a regional shared one, but a brand name. I'm probably wrong, but that's what shades my perception.
Quote from: HVC on April 20, 2012, 02:39:09 PM
Anyway, i think we're just differing on how to seperate the products out, Malthus. My view is why go the extra step of labeling something "Champagne made in France" or "Champagne made in California" (where the origin of a wine can be placed out of the way and probably not shown on wine lists in a restaurant) when you can just have "Champagne" as the designation of the sparkling wine region in france and "Sparkling wine made in XXX" for all others.
Because your method gives consumers less information, is more likely to lead to confusion, and requires everyone in the world to do it the same way to work.
Say I buy a bottle of wine in country X. That bottle just says "champagne" on it. Unless the whole world has adopted the strict "Champagne means only sparkling wine made in the Champagne region of France" rule, I have no way of knowing if this stuff is actually "Champagne" that meets that description, or the local product. If it says "Champagne (made in Country X)" there is no ambiguity, and no need to require everyone else to conform.
but the made in country x thing is usually small and hidden at the back of the label. it can be just as misleading. Champagne is not just a regon, it's also a method and stardard. How do you enforce that stanard. Right now i assume it's like port where it's internally enforced amongst all vineyards in that region. I can start a vineyard, take cheap wine and just carbonate it like pop i can sell it as champagne, but it isn't, not really. Making champange champagne only protects the customer more, in my view.
also, i feel weird and snooby arguing about wine lol. moreso given the fact that i really do dislike wine :D
and i think the whole world has. well, first world. Save the US (and canada?)
True Fact: Bourbon does not legally have to originate from Kentucky. But we all know the best stuff does.
Quote from: derspiess on April 20, 2012, 02:50:53 PM
True Fact: Bourbon does not legally have to originate from Kentucky. But we all know the best stuff does.
I thought it was Bourbon county and I thought that was Kentucky only law.
Quote from: HVC on April 20, 2012, 02:50:39 PM
also, i feel weird and snooby arguing about wine lol. moreso given the fact that i really do dislike wine :D
and i think the whole world has. well, first world. Save the US (and canada?)
Snooby Snooby Doo!!!
:P
Anyway, I don't consider myself to a wine snob, either. As long as it meets certain basic requirements and is not White Zinfandel, I'm pretty lax.
I am a certified beer, whiskey, & cigar geek, however :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2012, 02:53:22 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 20, 2012, 02:50:53 PM
True Fact: Bourbon does not legally have to originate from Kentucky. But we all know the best stuff does.
I thought it was Bourbon county and I thought that was Kentucky only law.
Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey must be produced in Kentucky. :contract:
Believe it or not, there is no Bourbon at all produced in Bourbon County, Kentucky. AFAIK the only counties that produce it are Franklin (Buffalo Trace, Four Roses), Anderson (Wild Turkey), Woodford (Woodford Reserve), Nelson (Maker's Mark, Heaven Hill), and Bullitt (Jim Beam :cool: ).
Quote from: Malthus on April 20, 2012, 02:38:57 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2012, 02:28:54 PM
Quote from: Malthus on April 20, 2012, 02:17:15 PM
To the extent that "Champagne" is a product of a particular quality, that is protected by enforcing quality standards in production.
What enforcement powers do French vineyards have over American bottlers?
They would not - no more than they could (for example) enforce IP rights over the name "Champagne".
In all cases, the enforcement would have to be local. The US (or state, dunno who has jurisdiction) gov't would have to enforce either:
(1) A system whereby US bottlers were required to use only "sparkling wine" (which some here are advocating); or
(2) A system where US bottlers wishing to sell the same product had to (a) include country of origin on their labels and (b) meet certain bottling quality standards consistent with the description of the product "champagne" (which I am advocating).
French bottlers are out of the picture either way, unless you want a system whereby they are going around the world suing people for violating their IP - and even that would require that local laws be changed to allow for this.
Not really. There are collective certification marks recognized in the US. ROQUEFORT is registered, and COGNAC has been determined to have rights even though not registered as a certification mark.
Quote from: Caliga on April 20, 2012, 03:01:30 PM
Believe it or not, there is no Bourbon at all produced in Bourbon County, Kentucky.
My mind has been boggled. You'd think someone would set up shop to take advantage of the marketing opportunities.
I think it's called bourbon because Bourbon County used to be *huge*. Woodford County used to be a part of it and that's where bourbon production actually started (where Woodford Reserve is today). Sometime in the 19th century a lot of Kentucky's counties were subdivided.
I agree with you, though... it's kind of weird there isn't at least a small producer there. I think bourbon country is completely redneck so they should be plenty of cheap labor handy. :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2012, 02:53:22 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 20, 2012, 02:50:53 PM
True Fact: Bourbon does not legally have to originate from Kentucky. But we all know the best stuff does.
I thought it was Bourbon county and I thought that was Kentucky only law.
ATF regs :contract:
Quote from: HVC on April 20, 2012, 02:29:55 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2012, 02:26:04 PM
Quote from: HVC on April 20, 2012, 01:28:29 PM
But it's a goodwill of tradition and standards. Regional foods are held to a higher standard then any Tom, Dick and Harry vineyard. While logically most people know that not all champagne is champagne, people don't work that way. Look at Garbon he knows he's drinking sparkling wine but is compelled to call it champagne so any bad experience he has with "champagne" he will associate with all champagne, both real and not. This diminishes the real stuff.
:huh:
I don't equate Andre with champagne from Champagne even though I'll call both champagne. Nor do I assume that because I bought some sparkling wine from Champagne that it'll be amazing.
iused you because you were the most vehement "champagne by any other name" person here. You may not, and i'll take you at your word, but i feel many consumers, perhaps the majority, would.
Well I certainly equate them all with the general experience I have drinking champagne as for the most part they all give me the same overall feeling. Now its true that I have different thoughts on sweet versus dry versions but that's why I check the label on for things like brut etc. Even though Gloria Ferrar has its products labeled as sparkling wine that doesn't prevent me from equating them to the same class as those from Moet&Chandon as they are most similar for most of my purposes. Now never at any point to I think I'm drinking champagne from Champagne when having some from California but that has little to do with the artificially created class names.
Quote from: HVC on April 20, 2012, 02:50:39 PM
but the made in country x thing is usually small and hidden at the back of the label. it can be just as misleading. Champagne is not just a regon, it's also a method and stardard. How do you enforce that stanard. Right now i assume it's like port where it's internally enforced amongst all vineyards in that region. I can start a vineyard, take cheap wine and just carbonate it like pop i can sell it as champagne, but it isn't, not really. Making champange champagne only protects the customer more, in my view.
also, i feel weird and snooby arguing about wine lol. moreso given the fact that i really do dislike wine :D
and i think the whole world has. well, first world. Save the US (and canada?)
:huh:
Most places I go to they typically split the wines by the places they are from./you can generally make it out from the label on the bottle.
I don't really understand this whole method thing as brands generally make statements about what their methods are and you can easily find that out. Why do I need the government involved in helping me find out about standards? I guess it would be awful if so & so listed they were doing x but weren't...but it seems to me that such info would eventually get out / if it really made a big difference, I wouldn't enjoy that product. ;)
Now where I do think this is relevant is at times when the gov't decides what can be called cheese and what has to be cheese product etc. That's important as that's about nutrition and a person might think they are getting some healthy cheese but are actually eating mostly plastic.
Quote from: grumbler on April 20, 2012, 06:36:56 AM
The fact that snobs weep tears of frustration at the thought of having to read the labels of the products they must purchase, just like the rest of us, makes me happy.
:D
As a self-confessed snob, I found this comment amusing. Because naturally given my resplendent and highly refined winesnobbines, I can easily identify champagne champagne from the fake stuff (which I hereby now designate as "garbagne"), and in any case would never think of purchasing any wine - sparkling or otherwise - without carefully reading the label and reflecting on the marque, the designation of origin, vintage (if applicable) etc. No self-respecting snob would do otherwise.
No: the victims here are the poor, benighted salt-of-the-earth non-snobs who just want to pick up some champagne for a special occassion but end up overpaying for some tank fermented garbagne with a bogus label. It is only due to my carefully refined sense of noblesse oblige that I condescend to take up the mundane and tiresome task of criticizing such practices.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 20, 2012, 03:43:58 PM
No: the victims here are the poor, benighted salt-of-the-earth non-snobs who just want to pick up some champagne for a special occassion but end up overpaying for some tank fermented garbagne with a bogus label. It is only due to my carefully refined sense of noblesse oblige that I condescend to take up the mundane and tiresome task of criticizing such practices.
Do the non-snobs even care? A) They don't know better and B) already like the non-great stuff that they associate with being great...otherwise why would they be buying it?
Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2012, 03:47:18 PMDo the non-snobs even care? A) They don't know better and B) already like the non-great stuff that they associate with being great...otherwise why would they be buying it?
Well, if we label things properly the non-snobs will have the opportunity to make the decision for themselves.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2012, 10:51:09 AM
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.
There is only one AOC designation for all of Champagne (for sparkling wines). Within the AOC designated area there are a number of different vineyards which all have different ratings and are categorized as different "crus". However, unlike say in Burgundy, the different crus don't carry their own separate AOC designations. Both vintage wines (which have to be from a single year), and the non-vintage wines (which don't and typically aren't) are designated as AC Champagne. If a sparkling wine doesn't qualify under the rules for AC Champagne, then it can't be called champagne in the EU even if all the juice comes from the delimited region.
Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2012, 03:47:18 PM
Do the non-snobs even care?
If they don't, they should, and good conscience does not permit me to allow such poor souls to remain mired in darkness and ignorance.
I dunno Minsky - I've had some fine "champagnes" from Canada and Spain.
Quote from: Jacob on April 20, 2012, 03:52:47 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2012, 03:47:18 PMDo the non-snobs even care? A) They don't know better and B) already like the non-great stuff that they associate with being great...otherwise why would they be buying it?
Well, if we label things properly the non-snobs will have the opportunity to make the decision for themselves.
But you aren't really. What you are actually doing is vaunting up the product of a particular region / group of growers and saying the gov't feels that this product is so distinct as to deserve it's own name. Rather than opening up the choice (as you've established that anyone who doesn't get the same label isn't worthy of it), ostensibly, you've set up an agency that tells individuals what is truly "better"...when all you've really told them is that said makers have a really good lobbyists and lawyers. :)
Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2012, 04:04:57 PM
I dunno Minsky - I've had some fine "champagnes" from Canada and Spain.
Can't be called champagne if it's from Spain :contract:
Try a
crémant made according to the
méthode traditionnelle if you want to pay less and end up with a better bottle than "cheap" entry level champagne.
I don't think you guys are going to get anywhere with Minsky on this one. I remember having a similar discussion with him on Bordeaux wines and IIRC he didn't think it was possible for vintners from other regions to reproduce one. This was years ago, but it seems like I said "even if the soil, climate, grape variety, and yeast used are the same?" and he didn't think so.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on April 20, 2012, 04:11:57 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2012, 04:04:57 PM
I dunno Minsky - I've had some fine "champagnes" from Canada and Spain.
Can't be called champagne if it's from Spain :contract:
Try a crémant made according to the méthode traditionnelle if you want to pay less and end up with a better bottle than "cheap" entry level champagne.
Tasted like champagne to me. :)
Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2012, 04:07:56 PMBut you aren't really. What you are actually doing is vaunting up the product of a particular region / group of growers and saying the gov't feels that this product is so distinct as to deserve it's own name. Rather than opening up the choice (as you've established that anyone who doesn't get the same label isn't worthy of it), ostensibly, you've set up an agency that tells individuals what is truly "better"...when all you've really told them is that said makers have a really good lobbyists and lawyers. :)
Vaunting up? :lol:
Anyhow, you think it'd be acceptable for someone to start up a series of colleges (or a business school) and call them Stanford, Yale and Harvard and hand out diplomas and certificates that are similar to the ones that the more established institutions hand out?
I mean, it's not like anyone who cared would be fooled so why vaunt up these other schools? Just because they have good lobbyists and lawyers?
Quote from: Caliga on April 20, 2012, 04:14:16 PM
I don't think you guys are going to get anywhere with Minsky on this one. I remember having a similar discussion with him on Bordeaux wines and IIRC he didn't think it was possible for vintners from other regions to reproduce one. This was years ago, but it seems like I said "even if the soil, climate, grape variety, and yeast used are the same?" and he didn't think so.
Well the thing is I am much more open to the
terroir argument when it comes to regular wines. There I can see how the specific land and conditions can impact the taste of the wine.
But for champagne? It's all about the secondary fermentation.
Quote from: Caliga on April 20, 2012, 04:14:16 PM
I don't think you guys are going to get anywhere with Minsky on this one. I remember having a similar discussion with him on Bordeaux wines and IIRC he didn't think it was possible for vintners from other regions to reproduce one. This was years ago, but it seems like I said "even if the soil, climate, grape variety, and yeast used are the same?" and he didn't think so.
Hmm, if all those things are the same, AND drainage and aspect are the same AND similar viticultural and vinification methods are used, then the results should be very similar. But really I can't think of any place that does have the same soil and climate as Bdx.
With sparkling, it's actually easy to make the comparison because many of the big Champagne marques make wines elsewhere. Eg. Roederer makes a very nice sparkling wine in Anderson Valley. But if you taste it horizontally vs the Champagnes from the same house, there is a very obvious difference in style.
Semi-related, I was trying to explain to a co-worker once why the Remy Martin bottle at the bar had the word "Champagne" on it & I think I made his head explode. I think he was unable to comprehend that "Champagne" can refer to either the better-known region or some of the areas in the Cognac region.
On a separate occasion I had someone argue with me tooth & nail that cognac is not a brandy.
I don't have many co-workers I can relate to :mellow:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 20, 2012, 04:20:03 PM
Hmm, if all those things are the same, AND drainage and aspect are the same AND similar viticultural and vinification methods are used, then the results should be very similar. But really I can't think of any place that does have the same soil and climate as Bdx.
Ok, then I guess we do agree. I haven't searched, but I bet there's some region somewhere that claims to have the same climate, etc. and tries to mimic the Bordeaux styles (you would think somewhere in Oregon or Washington would be in a position to make such a claim, right?)
Quote from: derspiess on April 20, 2012, 04:20:59 PM
Semi-related, I was trying to explain to a co-worker once why the Remy Martin bottle at the bar had the word "Champagne" on it & I think I made his head explode. I think he was unable to comprehend that "Champagne" can refer to either the better-known region or some of the areas in the Cognac region.
On a separate occasion I had someone argue with me tooth & nail that cognac is not a brandy.
I don't have many co-workers I can relate to :mellow:
I have ancestors from Champagne. OMG am I descended from alcohol :(
Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2012, 04:18:52 PM
Well the thing is I am much more open to the terroir argument when it comes to regular wines. There I can see how the specific land and conditions can impact the taste of the wine.
Tobacco is pretty much the same way. That's why it's pretty much impossible to replicate the taste of a Cuban cigar. Not that you can't make a better cigar, just that Cuban cigars have a very unique taste.
Quote from: Jacob on April 20, 2012, 04:16:04 PM
Vaunting up? :lol:
Yes, the distinction makes it pretty clear that the products that don't get the name aren't as good. Sheilbh sort of claimed that wasn't the case but then talked about how bad feta is that isn't from Greece.
Quote from: Jacob on April 20, 2012, 04:16:04 PM
Anyhow, you think it'd be acceptable for someone to start up a series of colleges (or a business school) and call them Stanford, Yale and Harvard and hand out diplomas and certificates that are similar to the ones that the more established institutions hand out?
I mean, it's not like anyone who cared would be fooled so why vaunt up these other schools? Just because they have good lobbyists and lawyers?
I don't think that's the right comparison. A similar angle would be if it was decided that only the top 20 universities could be called universities and everything else had to be called a college (or something else). After all, each already has a great reputation as individual brands, what would be the point of the distinction? You'd be establishing that said schools are the very best by controlling the terminology.
I like Cuban cigars, but I guess I don't smoke cigars enough in general to tell them apart from a good Dominican cigar.
Quote from: Caliga on April 20, 2012, 04:22:30 PM
Ok, then I guess we do agree. I haven't searched, but I bet there's some region somewhere that claims to have the same climate, etc. and tries to mimic the Bordeaux styles (you would think somewhere in Oregon or Washington would be in a position to make such a claim, right?)
Washington might be close but Bordeaux is maritime and the Washington wine regions are well inland.
Quote from: Caliga on April 20, 2012, 04:31:27 PM
I like Cuban cigars, but I guess I don't smoke cigars enough in general to tell them apart from a good Dominican cigar.
I would say there's somewhat less distinction now than there was 10-20 years ago (shit, I'm not only old but have been smoking cigars for a long time!). Back then, all Dominican cigars tended to be very mellow & light tasting. Now it's all over the spectrum of tastes & strength, with the different tobaccos & blends that have been developed.
Whenever the embargo is lifted, it will be interesting to try Cuban tobacco blended with other tobacco, as well as introducing some different types of tobacco to Cuban farms. Not to mention how nice it will be to have a more reliable supply of Bolivar Belicosos Finos.
Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2012, 04:18:52 PM
But for champagne? It's all about the secondary fermentation.
No the base wine is very important, both directly and indirectly in terms of influencing the level of dosage.
Danish feta and German feta are rubbish compared to the real thing. I did buy a good Yorkshire feta a few years back though, they have changed their name to "Yorkshire Fettle" after the EU designation took effect, I hope their sales have held up, an excellent cheese.
Sparkling wines.........I prefer Asti over Champagne for family celebrations. Champagne is typically quite strong, about 13%, Asti is bubbly gnat's piss at about 6%....the good news about that is you can open several bottles, the teens can have a couple of glasses with impunity and old buggers like me don't fall asleep from excessive alcohol, it is a fun drink, IMO Champagne is a more serious drink. Of course a bottle of real Champagne is a convenient gift for people who have done one a minor favour, perhaps 95% of my champagne purchases are of this nature................perhaps they would all really prefer 3 bottles of Asti instead :hmm:
Incidentally, I find the argument that this is all about snobbery rather odd. For example, many British people are rather fond of Spanish Cava (Champagne from Spain :D ), probably due to drinking vast quantities of it on holiday in Spain. Anyway, if such a person visits then you want to get some Cava in , not Champagne, not Asti..............surely it is simply convenient that these various wines are accurately and succinctly labelled?
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 20, 2012, 05:07:52 PM
Incidentally, I find the argument that this is all about snobbery rather odd. For example, many British people are rather fond of Spanish Cava (Champagne from Spain :D ), probably due to drinking vast quantities of it on holiday in Spain. Anyway, if such a person visits then you want to get some Cava in , not Champagne, not Asti..............surely it is simply convenient that these various wines are accurately and succinctly labelled?
Because Spanish wines/champagnes (;)) don't have any spanish text on the label. :P
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 20, 2012, 04:51:38 PM
Danish feta and German feta are rubbish compared to the real thing. I did buy a good Yorkshire feta a few years back though, they have changed their name to "Yorkshire Fettle" after the EU designation took effect, I hope their sales have held up, an excellent cheese.
Sparkling wines.........I prefer Asti over Champagne for family celebrations. Champagne is typically quite strong, about 13%, Asti is bubbly gnat's piss at about 6%....the good news about that is you can open several bottles, the teens can have a couple of glasses with impunity and old buggers like me don't fall asleep from excessive alcohol, it is a fun drink, IMO Champagne is a more serious drink. Of course a bottle of real Champagne is a convenient gift for people who have done one a minor favour, perhaps 95% of my champagne purchases are of this nature................perhaps they would all really prefer 3 bottles of Asti instead :hmm:
That's something you have in common with my wife, your liking for Asti.
I prefer a nice Andre Cold Duck.
While we're on the subject of bourgeoise food, THIS:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Ff%2Ffc%2FMimolette_vieille_etuvee.jpg%2F250px-Mimolette_vieille_etuvee.jpg&hash=13734555fe600fb0119d7f787ce5a80b99c83f69)
Is fucking awesome cheese. I'm seriously tempted to drop $167 to get a 5 pound ball of it. And I'd eat it all in one go, and have absolutely no regrets.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 20, 2012, 09:58:04 AM
Quote from: grumbler on April 20, 2012, 09:40:54 AM
In the US, we have something called "brands" that serve that purpose.
Exactly. That's the comparison I'd make, these foods are brands. Producers make product and have done for a long time in a certain way and in a certain place. Because of that they charge extra. Both the producers and consumers should be protected from freeloaders stealing their brand name and recognition without producing the same product in the same way and of the same quality.
Problem solved, then. Brands are already protected under US law. Unless these things are not brands, in which case they are not protected.
A producer that makes a product, blah, blah, blah, has only to brand it and it is protected.
QuoteI don't need to know in legal terms. That's the benefit of that meaning something is I know that I can pick up any brand of 'extra virgin' olive oil and it will be what I want extra virgin olive oil for in food.
I buy by brand. I don't need to know what arbitrary government standard has been applied to a product, i only need know whether I like that brand or not. Labels don't influence my taste buds.
Quote from: Fireblade on April 20, 2012, 06:24:39 PM
While we're on the subject of bourgeoise food, THIS:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Ff%2Ffc%2FMimolette_vieille_etuvee.jpg%2F250px-Mimolette_vieille_etuvee.jpg&hash=13734555fe600fb0119d7f787ce5a80b99c83f69)
Is fucking awesome cheese. I'm seriously tempted to drop $167 to get a 5 pound ball of it. And I'd eat it all in one go, and have absolutely no regrets.
Looks like a Pokeball. I CHOOSE YOU PIKACHU!
Quote from: HVC on April 20, 2012, 02:39:09 PM
Anyway, i think we're just differing on how to seperate the products out, Malthus. My view is why go the extra step of labeling something "Champagne made in France" or "Champagne made in California" (where the origin of a wine can be placed out of the way and probably not shown on wine lists in a restaurant) when you can just have "Champagne" as the designation of the sparkling wine region in france and "Sparkling wine made in XXX" for all others.
Better yet, have the Champagnois label their wines "Sparkling wine made in Champagne" to be consistent all around.
Alternatively, the Champagne Houses could create brands of sparkling wines, and get know for quality by brand, rather than forcing consumers to trust some government bureaucrats to ensure that Champagne brand sparkling wine meets some arbitrary standard.
Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2012, 04:04:57 PM
I dunno Minsky - I've had some fine "champagnes" from Canada and Spain.
It's Cava and it's lovely :contract:
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 20, 2012, 09:19:48 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2012, 09:16:57 AM
:huh:
We have different prices for those products depending on their quality and also import status. I think one would be hard pressed to say that Americans pay a premium price for this:
I'm using parmesan as short hand for parmegiano-reggiano. I know they're different but the last one's a bitch to type more than once in a post :P
We just call it Reggie, here.
Quote from: Fireblade on April 20, 2012, 06:20:43 PM
I prefer a nice Andre Cold Duck.
So the other day I had to stay billing late in the office. I downed a bottle of Strawberry Andre for old times sake. I don't think I'd do that again as it was only 7%!
how strict are geographic trademarks I have to wonder?
Could one have Kobe styled beef?- make clear its not Kobe beef but it is the same stuff pretty much, just from elsewhere. Or Kendel style cake or champagne style wine or whatever.
Or is all mention of the place in question utterly verbotten?
Swedish meatballs. :mmm:
Quote from: Tyr on April 21, 2012, 06:50:45 AM
how strict are geographic trademarks I have to wonder?
Could one have Kobe styled beef?- make clear its not Kobe beef but it is the same stuff pretty much, just from elsewhere. Or Kendel style cake or champagne style wine or whatever.
Or is all mention of the place in question utterly verbotten?
Well part of the taste is from what the livestock eats/the type of soil the crop grows in. For instance Soylent Green from India and China has a straggly gamey taste while Soylent Green from Britain is somewhat greasy and has a high fat content.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 21, 2012, 07:11:40 AM
Well part of the taste is from what the livestock eats/the type of soil the crop grows in.
Yup; just ask any chick that swallows whether she can tell a smoker or not. Or a fag, for that matter.
Quote from: Tyr on April 21, 2012, 06:50:45 AM
Could one have Kobe styled beef?- make clear its not Kobe beef but it is the same stuff pretty much, just from elsewhere. Or Kendel style cake or champagne style wine or whatever.
Or is all mention of the place in question utterly verbotten?
You can have x-style stuff :)
Quote from: Fireblade on April 20, 2012, 06:24:39 PM
While we're on the subject of bourgeoise food, THIS:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Ff%2Ffc%2FMimolette_vieille_etuvee.jpg%2F250px-Mimolette_vieille_etuvee.jpg&hash=13734555fe600fb0119d7f787ce5a80b99c83f69)
Is fucking awesome cheese. I'm seriously tempted to drop $167 to get a 5 pound ball of it. And I'd eat it all in one go, and have absolutely no regrets.
If you want cheese shaped deliciousness then you have to try this:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lujoplanet.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fimg_2840-torta-del-casar.jpg&hash=cbfd5e005bc09b4269052285299cf2c07f90bee0)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torta_del_Casar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torta_del_Casar)
Quote from: Jacob on April 20, 2012, 04:16:04 PM
Anyhow, you think it'd be acceptable for someone to start up a series of colleges (or a business school) and call them Stanford, Yale and Harvard and hand out diplomas and certificates that are similar to the ones that the more established institutions hand out?
http://www.ccis.edu/ (http://www.ccis.edu/)
You know, for the first time I noticed the that Latin roots in the word "Champagne".
Quote from: Jacob on April 20, 2012, 03:52:47 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2012, 03:47:18 PMDo the non-snobs even care? A) They don't know better and B) already like the non-great stuff that they associate with being great...otherwise why would they be buying it?
Well, if we label things properly the non-snobs will have the opportunity to make the decision for themselves.
... which is why we have country of origin labelling on things - much less ambiguous than some alleged "rule" that is followed in some places, but not others, that a product called "champagne" must come from France. With country of origin labelling, there is no doubt whatsoever where the stuff comes from, right? So non-snobs, who are unlikely to know exactly which jurisdictions have or do not have this "rule", cannot be fooled, correct?
Quote from: The Larch on April 21, 2012, 04:36:07 PM
Quote from: Fireblade on April 20, 2012, 06:24:39 PM
While we're on the subject of bourgeoise food, THIS:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Ff%2Ffc%2FMimolette_vieille_etuvee.jpg%2F250px-Mimolette_vieille_etuvee.jpg&hash=13734555fe600fb0119d7f787ce5a80b99c83f69)
Is fucking awesome cheese. I'm seriously tempted to drop $167 to get a 5 pound ball of it. And I'd eat it all in one go, and have absolutely no regrets.
If you want cheese shaped deliciousness then you have to try this:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lujoplanet.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fimg_2840-torta-del-casar.jpg&hash=cbfd5e005bc09b4269052285299cf2c07f90bee0)
That looks delicious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torta_del_Casar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torta_del_Casar)
Quote from: Scipio on April 22, 2012, 11:12:02 AM
Quote from: The Larch on April 21, 2012, 04:36:07 PM
Quote from: Fireblade on April 20, 2012, 06:24:39 PM
While we're on the subject of bourgeoise food, THIS:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Ff%2Ffc%2FMimolette_vieille_etuvee.jpg%2F250px-Mimolette_vieille_etuvee.jpg&hash=13734555fe600fb0119d7f787ce5a80b99c83f69)
Is fucking awesome cheese. I'm seriously tempted to drop $167 to get a 5 pound ball of it. And I'd eat it all in one go, and have absolutely no regrets.
If you want cheese shaped deliciousness then you have to try this:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lujoplanet.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fimg_2840-torta-del-casar.jpg&hash=cbfd5e005bc09b4269052285299cf2c07f90bee0)
That looks delicious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torta_del_Casar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torta_del_Casar)
Quote from: grumbler on April 22, 2012, 01:54:48 PM
Quote from: Scipio on April 22, 2012, 11:12:02 AM
Quote from: The Larch on April 21, 2012, 04:36:07 PM
Quote from: Fireblade on April 20, 2012, 06:24:39 PM
While we're on the subject of bourgeoise food, THIS:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Ff%2Ffc%2FMimolette_vieille_etuvee.jpg%2F250px-Mimolette_vieille_etuvee.jpg&hash=13734555fe600fb0119d7f787ce5a80b99c83f69)
Is fucking awesome cheese. I'm seriously tempted to drop $167 to get a 5 pound ball of it. And I'd eat it all in one go, and have absolutely no regrets.
If you want cheese shaped deliciousness then you have to try this:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lujoplanet.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fimg_2840-torta-del-casar.jpg&hash=cbfd5e005bc09b4269052285299cf2c07f90bee0)
That looks delicious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torta_del_Casar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torta_del_Casar)
Quote from: DGuller on April 20, 2012, 09:47:59 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2012, 09:40:15 AM
4) I'm typing on languish and say that I had some champagne at brunch and then get told that no I didn't.
That reminds me of a very classic line from a satirical movie that was very popular in Soviet Union. "Only aristocrats and degenerates drink champagne in the morning..." Funny how fitting Soviet wisdoms can be to American life.
:shifty:
Quote from: The Brain on April 22, 2012, 01:56:50 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 22, 2012, 01:54:48 PM
Quote from: Scipio on April 22, 2012, 11:12:02 AM
Quote from: The Larch on April 21, 2012, 04:36:07 PM
Quote from: Fireblade on April 20, 2012, 06:24:39 PM
While we're on the subject of bourgeoise food, THIS:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Ff%2Ffc%2FMimolette_vieille_etuvee.jpg%2F250px-Mimolette_vieille_etuvee.jpg&hash=13734555fe600fb0119d7f787ce5a80b99c83f69)
Is fucking awesome cheese. I'm seriously tempted to drop $167 to get a 5 pound ball of it. And I'd eat it all in one go, and have absolutely no regrets.
If you want cheese shaped deliciousness then you have to try this:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lujoplanet.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fimg_2840-torta-del-casar.jpg&hash=cbfd5e005bc09b4269052285299cf2c07f90bee0)
That looks delicious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torta_del_Casar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torta_del_Casar)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2012, 12:43:35 PM
Quote from: Jacob on April 20, 2012, 12:35:32 PM
I acknowledge there are some differences, but I still thing it is hypocritical not to acknowledge it when at the same time you keep delaying other forms of IP entering the public domain (a number of Disney creations, for example).
And I see differences and think's it not hypocritical. So there.
The differences are fundamental. I have no idea what Jake is talking about. It's like saying that the only place that can make Hamburgers is hamburg, decades after extra-regional producers started making them, and the rest are "grilled beef patties."
I also take severe issue with the idea that trademark-like protections can be enforced based on geographical location and a process used by a diffuse group rather than by innovators and their legal assigns, but maybe that's just me.
Quote from: Jaron on April 22, 2012, 10:47:28 PM
Quote from: The Brain on April 22, 2012, 01:56:50 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 22, 2012, 01:54:48 PM
Quote from: Scipio on April 22, 2012, 11:12:02 AM
Quote from: The Larch on April 21, 2012, 04:36:07 PM
Quote from: Fireblade on April 20, 2012, 06:24:39 PM
While we're on the subject of bourgeoise food, THIS:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Ff%2Ffc%2FMimolette_vieille_etuvee.jpg%2F250px-Mimolette_vieille_etuvee.jpg&hash=13734555fe600fb0119d7f787ce5a80b99c83f69)
Is fucking awesome cheese. I'm seriously tempted to drop $167 to get a 5 pound ball of it. And I'd eat it all in one go, and have absolutely no regrets.
If you want cheese shaped deliciousness then you have to try this:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lujoplanet.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fimg_2840-torta-del-casar.jpg&hash=cbfd5e005bc09b4269052285299cf2c07f90bee0)
That looks delicious.
It looks like a prop from a Japanese bukkake porn. :yuk:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torta_del_Casar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torta_del_Casar)
Quote from: Jacob on April 20, 2012, 04:16:04 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2012, 04:07:56 PMBut you aren't really. What you are actually doing is vaunting up the product of a particular region / group of growers and saying the gov't feels that this product is so distinct as to deserve it's own name. Rather than opening up the choice (as you've established that anyone who doesn't get the same label isn't worthy of it), ostensibly, you've set up an agency that tells individuals what is truly "better"...when all you've really told them is that said makers have a really good lobbyists and lawyers. :)
Vaunting up? :lol:
Anyhow, you think it'd be acceptable for someone to start up a series of colleges (or a business school) and call them Stanford, Yale and Harvard and hand out diplomas and certificates that are similar to the ones that the more established institutions hand out?
The first part is silly. Obviously that's a fraud, and in any event the proper analogy would be an individual champagne-maker labeling their products with the same brand name of another, better champagne-maker.
As for the second part--juris doctor (® Harvard Law School, 1890-2012)?
God I hate non-champagne socialists <_< :bleeding:
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 22, 2012, 11:28:40 PM
God I hate non-champagne socialists <_< :bleeding:
What are your feelings on hillbilly whiskey socialists? :)
Quote from: Fireblade on April 22, 2012, 11:35:35 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 22, 2012, 11:28:40 PM
God I hate non-champagne socialists <_< :bleeding:
What are your feelings on hillbilly whiskey socialists? :)
I think we should protect your important cultural patrimony :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 22, 2012, 11:28:40 PM
God I hate non-champagne socialists <_< :bleeding:
Isn't the real socialism to let anyone use the name? :frog:
Quote from: Ideologue on April 22, 2012, 11:08:37 PM
Quote from: Jacob on April 20, 2012, 04:16:04 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2012, 04:07:56 PMBut you aren't really. What you are actually doing is vaunting up the product of a particular region / group of growers and saying the gov't feels that this product is so distinct as to deserve it's own name. Rather than opening up the choice (as you've established that anyone who doesn't get the same label isn't worthy of it), ostensibly, you've set up an agency that tells individuals what is truly "better"...when all you've really told them is that said makers have a really good lobbyists and lawyers. :)
Vaunting up? :lol:
Anyhow, you think it'd be acceptable for someone to start up a series of colleges (or a business school) and call them Stanford, Yale and Harvard and hand out diplomas and certificates that are similar to the ones that the more established institutions hand out?
The first part is silly. Obviously that's a fraud, and in any event the proper analogy would be an individual champagne-maker labeling their products with the same brand name of another, better champagne-maker.
As for the second part--juris doctor (® Harvard Law School, 1890-2012)?
I like the analogy I made better. :P
Quote from: grumbler on April 20, 2012, 07:01:18 PM
Alternatively, the Champagne Houses could create brands of sparkling wines, and get know for quality by brand
You mean like Moet, Taittinger, Veuve, Perrier-Jouet etc? Dom Perignon. Cristal.
The champagne houses are among the most recognizable brands in the wine world.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 23, 2012, 09:13:03 AM
Quote from: grumbler on April 20, 2012, 07:01:18 PM
Alternatively, the Champagne Houses could create brands of sparkling wines, and get know for quality by brand
You mean like Moet, Taittinger, Veuve, Perrier-Jouet etc? Dom Perignon. Cristal.
The champagne houses are among the most recognizable brands in the wine world.
:lol:
Sorry. I guess I need to make my sarcasm less subtle.