Not a question but an observation

[Scooter68]

I am not a snob by any means but he may be right in a sense. Once you open the door that wine can be anything other than grapes then where do you draw the line? Fermented honey could be wine, fermented corn mash could be wine. I think we just choose to call fermented fruit wine like we call fermented honey mead.

In that case you best make sure that you never add any "Non-Grape" product to your wine. The OIV definition of "wine" certainly leaves no room for anything other grapes to be used in what they call "Wine" for any reason or purpose.

Of course there will always be those who press a case too far - Fermenting vegetables, flowers and a variety of things that, strictly speaking, cannot be called "Wine." Quietly closing the door on those who use something other than just grapes to make "Wine" would certainly purify discussions, but then it would also restrict winemakers as well.

Just as the European wine makers tried to poo-poo American wines and came up on the losing end, I would suggest that any sort of discrimination via a strict definition of what constitutes "wine" would leave this site and winemakers in general in a poorer state and demonstrate a close-minded attitude that would do more harm than good to wine making in general

But then that's just one persons opinion and a 'beginner' at that. I was started down this road when I was served an Apfelwein in a German restaurant over 25 years ago and eventually that lead to me creating my fermented fruit beverages a little over 3 years ago. Beverages that I and millions of others would call wine.

I would suggest that you draw your line in the sand very carefully, even in casual discussions on forums like this.

 

[sour_grapes]

I am not a snob by any means but he may be right in a sense.

I have absolutely no problem with calling fermented fruit other than grapes "fruit wine" or "country wine" or just "wine." But I agree with Thig that Wagner is right in a sense: I recognize that the very word wine comes from the word for vine. I don't think that etymology trumps current usage, but it sort of tells us that "wine" means grapes, or it did originally.

Edited to add: Huh! I did not know this, but the Oxford English Dictionary says that the use of the word vine to mean anything other than a grape-vine is only done in the US. That is, although I grew up calling things like a clematis plant or any climbing plant a "vine," the rest of the English-speaking world does not.

 

[Thig]

I would suggest that you draw your line in the sand very carefully, even in casual discussions on forums like this.

Personally I don't have a problem calling whatever you want because I only make it to drink myself or give away. If I were a commercial producer I would want to defend what it's called and what is in it. Just like the bourbon industry protects what you can call bourbon if it is not at least 51% corn.

 

[GaDawg]

BTW: I have a Luna Bianca in production. I made one some years ago, and was highly pleased with the result. It's supposedly WE's most robust white. Although I haven't come close to trying all their white kits, it's the heaviest I've done. I'm thinking I'll put the bottles in cases and stash them in a closet, to help fight the urge to try one before a year is up.

I pitched the yeast for my Luna Bianca yesterday! I have 3 bottles from the Luna Bianca I made last year, really enjoy this wine!

 

[cmason1957]

Personally I don't have a problem calling whatever you want because I only make it to drink myself or give away. If I were a commercial producer I would want to defend what it's called and what is in it. Just like the bourbon industry protects what you can call bourbon if it is not at least 51% corn.

That 51% isn't the bourbon industry. It is from the law that dictates what bourbon is. I went to a bourbon tasting, put on by Jim Beam recently. They gave us this bit of information.

On 4 May 1964, the United States Congress recognized Bourbon Whiskey as a “distinctive product of the United States.” The Federal Standards of Identity for Distilled Spirits (27 CFR 5) state that bourbon must meet these requirements:

Bourbon must be made of a grain mixture that is at least 51% corn.
Bourbon must be distilled to no more than 160 (U.S.) proof (80% alcohol by volume).
Bourbon must be aged in new, charred oak barrels.
Bourbon may not be introduced to the barrel at higher than 125 proof (62.5% alcohol by volume).
Bourbon which meets the above requirements and has been aged for a minimum of two years, may (but is not required to) be called Straight Bourbon.
Bourbon aged for a period less than four years must be labeled with the duration of its aging.If an age is stated on the label, it must be the age of the youngest whiskey in the bottle.
Only whiskey produced in the United States can be called bourbon.

There was another part added later about Kentucky being the only state name that can appear on the label.

 

[winemaker81]

Wow. This spurred a good discussion. And being the internet, it's a wide tangent from the original post.

I'm a generalist -- I refer to non-beer, non-distilled fermented beverages generally as "wine". The basic production mechanics are identical for everything I can think of that fits this definition. [I'm sure there are exceptions, but I'm not recalling them at this moment.] In the context of this forum, I contend this makes the most sense. We are all wine makers and our interests vary wildly.

If the discussion is more specific, I use a descriptor like "fruit wine", "country wine", "mead", "flower wine", or "grape wine". Now days we can add "kit wine" and "juice bucket" to this list. If we're in the grape wine or fruit wine sub-forums, the tighter context narrows things down so we might skip some of the descriptors.

In general "red", "white", "blush", or "rose" wine refer to grape wine. Any other fruit is typically identified with the fruit. This appears to be widespread terminology. Scooter made a (probably) unintentional point that supports this when he mentioned Apfelwein, which is "apple wine" in German, so places outside of the USA use this terminology. I have friends from Europe who talk about various fruit wines their grandparents made.

I'd like to hear feedback from non-Americans.

Getting back to Wagner, read chapter 1. He states directly that anything made from fruit other than grapes is an "oddity" and it is certainly not wine. Am I being too harsh by calling it snobbishness? He wrote this 40 years ago, and the home winemaking industry has certainly changed in that time. Could be that he was simply the product of his time.

 

[Thig]

That 51% isn't the bourbon industry. .

Yeah there is not much about bourbon I don't know, my bunker pics are attached. My point was to those making and selling a product what you call it is important.

 

[Scooter68]

winemaker81 Wrote "Getting back to Wagner, read chapter 1. He states directly that anything made from fruit other than grapes is an "oddity" and it is certainly not wine. Am I being too harsh by calling it snobbishness? He wrote this 40 years ago, and the home winemaking industry has certainly changed in that time. Could be that he was simply the product of his time." (Emphasis Added)

I agree Winemaker - Many things and terms that are commonly spoken of on this forum would be either forbidden legally in some countries (For commercial sale products) or are considered simply poor practices. Nonetheless I find in interesting that in Germany (One the leading European wine producing countries) They have no problem calling it Apfelwein (See: https://www.tripsavvy.com/frankfurts-apfelwein-4031381) Even some of the larger stores in this country class and apply the term "Wine" to non-grape based wines. (https://www.totalwine.com/wine/fruit-wine/c/000035)

While I cringe at some of things some folks want to turn into "Wine" I nonetheless call it personal preference. I prefer to use the comment - "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should."

There are many things that governments step into and end up making a mess of rather than helping or protecting the consumers. So citing a government regulation alone doesn't always convince me. It may limit me in some ways but I may remain unconvinced and in disagreement. Best example that comes to mind it the snarled up mess regarding food marking about "expiration dates." Terms like Best By, or Use before, Cook or Freeze by, and on and on. There are so many different laws that I am left in amazement how food packaging can be done at all because the laws vary from state to state. BUT I digress.

The point is that when someone kicks out a comment on a forum like this that if it isn't made from grapes it isn't wine, I find myself considering the "Ignore" option, but I will try to remain more open minded. I believe that trying to kick dirt or cast doubt on the worthiness of someones wine making choices truly does run the risk of coming off as snobbish and inconsiderate. I try to refrain, not always successfully, from commenting about someones' choices for wine making materials even when it seems just plain weird, out-there, strange. I also hope that others will chose their words carefully, again before they seem to be drawing a line in the sand.

 

[Scooter68]

As a side note and unrelated to what constitutes wine. Some 30-40 years ago UPS was not permitted to ship items within the state of Arkansas. (This was what I was told at that time.)
All due to law passed to protect the USPS and/or some other shippers. Bizarre but then no more bizarre than many protectionist laws the are passed to benefit some senator or representatives favorite industry. So just because a law exists, doesn't always mean it passes the common sense test.

 

[sour_grapes]

That 51% isn't the bourbon industry. It is from the law that dictates what bourbon is.

On 4 May 1964, the United States Congress recognized Bourbon Whiskey as a “distinctive product of the United States.”

Umm, yeah, but I think it is a fair read to say that the bourbon industry more or less wrote that law -- the Congress just passed it!

Getting back to Wagner, read chapter 1. He states directly that anything made from fruit other than grapes is an "oddity" and it is certainly not wine. Am I being too harsh by calling it snobbishness?

In my opinion, no, you are not being too harsh.

 

[Scooter68]

Umm, yeah, but I think it is a fair read to say that the bourbon industry more or less wrote that law -- the Congress just passed it!

In my opinion, no, you are not being too harsh.

Totally agree on both points.

 

[Scott Harbison]

Yeah there is not much about bourbon I don't know, my bunker pics are attached. My point was to those making and selling a product what you call it is important. View attachment 51950View attachment 51951

Very nice set up Thig!

 

[Scooter68]

Whenever one sets hard fast "rules" there is always the chance of alienating people or even creating a serious negative out of what was thought to be a positive. Perhaps the issue of defining wine as fermented drink made ONLY from grapes is just such an issue. But to each his own as long as you don't attempt to demean or isolate others who hold somewhat different opinion.

As my final comment as a sidebar, on the sidebar topic of what constitutes wine... I offer this link: https://www.hiddenlegendwinery.com/what-is-mead/the-story-of-mead/

What I found most fascinating is the connection between the term Honeymoon and Mead or Honey Wine as it has been called at times through history.

 

[winemaker81]

While I cringe at some of things some folks want to turn into "Wine" I nonetheless call it personal preference. I prefer to use the comment - "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should."

Given some of the things I've fermented, I'm in no position to ever criticize what someone else tries.

 

[Scooter68]

And then there are those things I "Fermented" unintentionally....