|Stuart Walton's essay on wine bottle back labels has met with equal parts agreement and disagreement so far. A selection of visitors' responses
are printed below. Where Stuart or I have something to add to the debate I have included our replies.
Thanks to everyone who took the trouble to respond on what makes for good, or bad, back labels.
Back Label Bull
|Tom's response to Graham:|
I confess I rarely use the specific food-matching suggestions, which as Stuart argues, are usually too general: "great with fish" or "great with cheese" is just too simplistic: goat's cheese? cream cheese? blue cheese? cheddar? I defy any wine to match all four! A local recipe is a really nice idea - and not one I've come across. Having a specific suggestion and recipe for a Spanish dish to go with that bottle of Rioja or Albariño would be a much better use of ink and paper!
He does shouty. He does quiet. Then he does shouty again. Wine-pages' self-styled Simon Templar sounds off once more. Now he's peeved 'cos wine producers are publishing their personal philosophies/menus on their rear labels. Or lamenting the bare-arsed cheek of Château Latour. That's right, Stuart - years of ISO slammers tend to turn even the most level headed pundit into the 21st century schizoid man. But why should they bother with a back label when they've got the Wine Advocate to do it for them? It can tell you that the Latour contains 1% petit verdot. (Yes! a whole 1%.) Meanwhile, does anyone have a suggestion for a wine to go with Stuart Walton, a.k.a. ham role? (With apologies to Ali Catterall.)
|Stuart's response to Daron:|
Love me or hate me, Ali, I always try to give good shouty. I'd be delighted to know what wine is thought best to go with me, by the way. Anybody who says anything Australian will be treated to total ignoral.
A pity about your embargo on Australian wine as your accompaniment, Stuart. In view of Daron's comments the obvious one is Little Boomey Petit Verbose (Tesco £5.99) - awarded Top Trophy at the Adelaide Show.
|Stuart's response to Melvyn:|
Many thanks. I even think I've recommended this myself somewhere.
For once I agree with you, but the only reason I can see for the article is to encourage debate. I am sure that all wine-pages readers (by sheer virtue that they have visited the site) realise that back labels are generally marketing products that are of no great interest to someone with more than a passing interest in wine. It is pretty much irrelevant that the food/wine pairing does not go together, as the consumer will think it does as they have been told it will. How many blind tastings have you been too when the speaker asks the audience to guess the region of origin? Someone offers up Italy, the speaker replies with South? Yes, do you think it may be Puglia suggests the speaker. Yes says the taster. The speaker identifies the wine as being Pinot Noir from Oregan People (however knowledgable) will generally believe what they are told as they have no reason not too. I have seen people really enjoy a Spatlese from Germany with their Grouse. All down to personal taste once again. To extend your point, on a recent research trip to Australia, I could not count the times a cellar door member of staff thrust the winemakers tasting notes under my nose and tried to make me read them. The fact that I had book in hand and was quite happily making my own tasting notes (and not marketing ones) didn't seem to matter. I suppose they are just doing there job as they have been trained to do, so no offence to them as most did a great job.
|Tom's response to David:|
Stuart is now on holiday. I agree that a) many more "sophisticated" wine-lovers will pay little attention to the back label anyway (impossible on most French AOC wines of course), and that b) it's all just marketing and so we shoud accept it: wine is a consumer product, consumer products need marketing, ergo back labels. But there is an opportunity there for some meaningful, creative, useful marketing info rather than the various silly/useless/vague examples cited by Stuart.
Stuart asks whether back labels "really tell us anything worth knowing" and answers his own question by saying they certainly can do. Not much controversy there then. He shows some back labels are useful and some aren't, some have meaningless marketing drivel, others winemaking details to excite the geek. I am a big fan of back labels. They are a way of giving information that cannot be squeezed onto the front label. I like the well-designed back labels on supermarket wines that use symbols and text to explain the wine in a standard way to non geeks. Another useful function of back labels is to carry country specific information. A winery can use a front label - which is the corporate image - which remains the same in all markets. Then different back labels can be affixed for each market containing descriptions in the language of that country and the legal and other information needed by that country such as bar code, recycling logos, health warnings etc. I'm sure if Stuart was living in the USA he'd prefer to buy his Mouton-Rothschild with its classic label unsullied and the nonsensical Surgeon Generals health warning on a separate back label where it can be ignored. And then there's instances where the back label is actually the front label. I bought a case of 'Clos de May' where its classy front label contains just the name and logo. The back label has all the messy legal stuff, alcohol level, bottle size appellations etc. A similar thing happens in Wales. Since the Welsh language isn't legally recognised for wine labels by the EU a small plain label contains all the required information in English and is officially the 'front' label while the big label with a picture and Welsh text is the 'back" label. But we know which label faces outwards on the shelf. It's easy to scoff at food matching suggestions. I am a sceptic on the subject but there is no doubt that many people are worried by food & wine matching and appreciate suggestions. I particularly liked Sainsburys Wine & Recipe Selection range which has a recipe and a picture of the finished dish on a label that is easily peeled off to be stuck in a recipe book. My favourite label design is by California's Ridge Vineyards which show the precise percentage of each variety in their field blends (even though not legally required to), have winemakers notes and winery philosophy. Of course, since they use just one very wide label, no back label is involved.
|Tom's response to Peter:|
Peter, you make many good and powerful points, and the examples you cite make a lot of sense. I think all the arguments for market-specific back labels that reflect local market language and culture makes perfect sense for example, as long as they don't just translate "great with meat" into a dozen tongues :-). Peter runs a cracking little wine label site where some of the examples in his reply can be seen. Its at www.winelabels.org.
Geoff Smith (Napa, California)
Stuart Walton is spot-on with his analysis of back label blather. This phenomenon, which is mostly found on New World back labels, is ridiculous, and should be banned. In the best of cases, the back label blather gives us insight about the psychological make-up of a particular winery owner; however, in the worst of cases, which are predominant, this nonsense rides the farcical wave of wine-gibberish. My own personal favorite from a wine bottle long since forgotten, recommended the contents of the bottle with everything one could possibly eat. That was brilliant. This back label problem however is typical of a cultural cerebral shut-down which is occurring on many levels in our culture (Anglophone?) today. One has only to visit any bookstore in California to find dozens of various "Dummies' Guide To . . ." or "Idiots' Guide to . . ." and, yes, there are guides for wineconsumers! Regarding the back labels, how nice it is not to have to think about what would go best with wine X. How wonderful it is entirely not to have to think at all.
|Stuart's response to Geoff:|
I quite agree Geoff. Back label blather is all part of that culture in which, as the means for communication have continued to expand, the individuals using them have less and less to say to each other..