Tim York wrote:The German wine labelling system derived from the 1971 law is not perfect but it is probably the most informative in the world. However it is necessarily complex in order to be informative.
Otto Nieminen wrote:A counter-rant: I have argued that for speakers of Germanic languages (and English is one) learning to read the labels is not a big effort at all. I think it is a myth, perpetuated through constant repetition, that the labels are complex. But they aren't: Producer, village, vineyard, ripeness + possibly dry or not. What's so difficult about that? Anyone half-interested in wine knows which is which in French labels, so why be so intellectually lazy as to not spend one minute learning the German ones? That the words are longer and that English has less loanwords from German is no excuse IMO. But I must be wrong because I see all the time that Germal labels are difficult.
David M. Bueker wrote:With the advent of Grosses/Erstes Gewachs they have gotten rid of a lot of the info altogether, assuming that if the bottle is really heavy & there's almost no info on the labels then the consumer will know it's a "great, dry wine."
Tim York wrote:Although this system’s laudable intention is to exalt terroir (Forster Pechstein claims, I think, to be the Rheinpfalz equivalent of Grosse Gewächs or grand cru), the result, for me and still more for the completely uninitiated, is an overlay of confusion
Tim York wrote:The main areas in which I think the 1971 labelling imperfect are -
- refusal to provide a hierarchy of sites
- easy confusion between "einsellage" and "grosslage" in the absence of precise knowledge, e.g. Piesporter Goldtröpfchen versus Piesporter Michelsberg
- concentration on must weights as the sole determinant of "prädikat" categories
Tim York wrote:David M. Bueker wrote:With the advent of Grosses/Erstes Gewachs they have gotten rid of a lot of the info altogether, assuming that if the bottle is really heavy & there's almost no info on the labels then the consumer will know it's a "great, dry wine."
David, are they in conformity with the law if they drop all mention of the usual 1971 information?
Keith M wrote:
I don't understand your rant.
Keith M wrote: And you trust such a process to provide a hierarchy of sites?
Keith M wrote:I'd be interested to hear what you'd like added as requirements for the prädikat categories.
Bob Parsons Alberta. wrote:What a fine rant Tim. How the average Joe the Plummer is supposed to know which German wine to enjoy is still beyond me!!
Joe read this...>http://www.germanwineestates.com/understanding_german_wine_labels.htm
Have a fun day everyone!!!
David M. Bueker wrote:In fact Jean Fisch and I once had a lovely back and forth thread regarding the German wine law and how to fix it. I will try to dig it up.
Tim York wrote:Keith M wrote: And you trust such a process to provide a hierarchy of sites?
The fact that the German political process in 1971 was incapable of agreeing on a hierarchy of sites and indeed went further in allowing confusion of "einzellage" and "grosslage" just underlines the imperfection of that law.
If Burgundians can agree on a classification, which I would regard as a model for German circumstances, why can't Germans?
Keith M wrote:David M. Bueker wrote:In fact Jean Fisch and I once had a lovely back and forth thread regarding the German wine law and how to fix it. I will try to dig it up.
WTN:Kesselstatt Scharzhofberger Spatlese 05 & 1971 Wine Laws
David M. Bueker wrote:
Egon Muller is the big dog. He gets to do whatever he wants. I happen to agree with him. Unless it's done correctly it should not be done at all. He has a problem with the Scharzhofberger being given EL status with the Ockfener Bockstein (a significantly inferior site compared to the Scharzhofberger though good in its own right) getting the same status.
David M. Bueker wrote:Tim,
I largely do not care
Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 2 guests