https://archive.is/0HLl7

###
An Italian consortium has warned British drinkers to stop “abusing” the term prosecco by using it for any sparkling wine.
In a poster being displayed on the London Underground, a picture of a
barrel is featured, alongside the words: “This is not prosecco. Do not
call it prosecco if it is a common effervescent wine.”
The message is being displayed at more than 80 sites across the capital.
It’s projected that 15 million people will see it during the two-week campaign, which began on December 18.
The Prosecco DOC Consortium protects the term “prosecco”, which has been protected under EU law since 2009.
The drink has a geographical designation label (DOC), meaning the wine
must be produced in one of two Italian regions, Veneto or Friuli-Venezia Giulia.
###

Apart from the expected misleading headline ("Italians" sounds like all
60M Italians), does a EU protected denomination have any legal value in post-Brexit Britain?

--
Ottavio Caruso

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 28 Dec 2023 12:39:17 +0000, Ottavio Caruso wrote...

https://archive.is/0HLl7

###
An Italian consortium has warned British drinkers to stop “abusing” the term prosecco by using it for any sparkling wine.
In a poster being displayed on the London Underground, a picture of a
barrel is featured, alongside the words: “This is not prosecco. Do not
call it prosecco if it is a common effervescent wine.”
The message is being displayed at more than 80 sites across the capital. It’s projected that 15 million people will see it during the two-week campaign, which began on December 18.
The Prosecco DOC Consortium protects the term “prosecco”, which has been protected under EU law since 2009.
The drink has a geographical designation label (DOC), meaning the wine
must be produced in one of two Italian regions, Veneto or Friuli-Venezia Giulia.
###

Apart from the expected misleading headline ("Italians" sounds like all
60M Italians), does a EU protected denomination have any legal value in post-Brexit Britain?

On Brexit, existing EU-protected geographical indications were copied
over to a new GB register. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/protected-geographical-food-and-drink-names- uk-gi-schemes

Prosecco is here: https://www.gov.uk/protected-food-drink-names?keywords=prosecco

--
Tim Jackson
news@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 28/12/2023 12:39 pm, Ottavio Caruso wrote:

https://archive.is/0HLl7

###
An Italian consortium has warned British drinkers to stop “abusing” the term prosecco by using it for any sparkling wine.
In a poster being displayed on the London Underground, a picture of a
barrel is featured, alongside the words: “This is not prosecco. Do not
call it prosecco if it is a common effervescent wine.”
The message is being displayed at more than 80 sites across the capital. It’s projected that 15 million people will see it during the two-week campaign, which began on December 18.
The Prosecco DOC Consortium protects the term “prosecco”, which has been protected under EU law since 2009.
The drink has a geographical designation label (DOC), meaning the wine
must be produced in one of two Italian regions, Veneto or Friuli-Venezia Giulia.
###

Apart from the expected misleading headline ("Italians" sounds like all
60M Italians), does a EU protected denomination have any legal value in post-Brexit Britain?

Using the term "The Italians" (or just "Italians" in a newspaper
headline where definite and indefinite articles are usually omitted) is absolutely normal in English. The context makes it clear that it means
the Italian government or some legally-empowered agency which has a
certain amount of authority.

As to the second question, I seem to remember that "champagne" was
regarded as legally protected in the UK even before we joined the Common Market. It follows that "prosecco" is just as protected, as also are descriptions such as "Parmigiano" and "Wensleydale". Not sure about
Cheddar, since I've seen it in the USA (not British Cheddar), but it may
have protection in Europe.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 28/12/2023 16:04, JNugent wrote:

On 28/12/2023 12:39 pm, Ottavio Caruso wrote:

https://archive.is/0HLl7

###
An Italian consortium has warned British drinkers to stop “abusing”
the term prosecco by using it for any sparkling wine.
In a poster being displayed on the London Underground, a picture of a
barrel is featured, alongside the words: “This is not prosecco. Do not
call it prosecco if it is a common effervescent wine.”
The message is being displayed at more than 80 sites across the capital.
It’s projected that 15 million people will see it during the two-week
campaign, which began on December 18.
The Prosecco DOC Consortium protects the term “prosecco”, which has
been protected under EU law since 2009.
The drink has a geographical designation label (DOC), meaning the wine
must be produced in one of two Italian regions, Veneto or
Friuli-Venezia Giulia.
###

Apart from the expected misleading headline ("Italians" sounds like
all 60M Italians), does a EU protected denomination have any legal
value in post-Brexit Britain?

Using the term "The Italians" (or just "Italians" in a newspaper
headline where definite and indefinite articles are usually omitted) is absolutely normal in English. The context makes it clear that it means
the Italian government or some legally-empowered agency which has a
certain amount of authority.

As to the second question, I seem to remember that "champagne" was
regarded as legally protected in the UK even before we joined the Common Market. It follows that "prosecco" is just as protected, as also are descriptions such as "Parmigiano" and "Wensleydale". Not sure about
Cheddar, since I've seen it in the USA (not British Cheddar), but it may
have protection in Europe.

During WW2, to ensure uniformity for rationing, the government mandated
that all cheeses should be a particular form of cheddar cheese, so it
was made all over the UK, as well in the USA. Cheddar cheese is now
considered to describe the process, rather than the locality. It needs
an extra locative description to get protected status, as with West
Country Cheddar.

--
Colin Bignell

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 28/12/2023 08:13 pm, Colin Bignell wrote:

On 28/12/2023 16:04, JNugent wrote:

On 28/12/2023 12:39 pm, Ottavio Caruso wrote:

https://archive.is/0HLl7

###
An Italian consortium has warned British drinkers to stop “abusing”
the term prosecco by using it for any sparkling wine.
In a poster being displayed on the London Underground, a picture of a
barrel is featured, alongside the words: “This is not prosecco. Do
not call it prosecco if it is a common effervescent wine.”
The message is being displayed at more than 80 sites across the capital. >>> It’s projected that 15 million people will see it during the two-week
campaign, which began on December 18.
The Prosecco DOC Consortium protects the term “prosecco”, which has
been protected under EU law since 2009.
The drink has a geographical designation label (DOC), meaning the
wine must be produced in one of two Italian regions, Veneto or
Friuli-Venezia Giulia.
###

Apart from the expected misleading headline ("Italians" sounds like
all 60M Italians), does a EU protected denomination have any legal
value in post-Brexit Britain?

Using the term "The Italians" (or just "Italians" in a newspaper
headline where definite and indefinite articles are usually omitted)
is absolutely normal in English. The context makes it clear that it
means the Italian government or some legally-empowered agency which
has a certain amount of authority.

As to the second question, I seem to remember that "champagne" was
regarded as legally protected in the UK even before we joined the
Common Market. It follows that "prosecco" is just as protected, as
also are descriptions such as "Parmigiano" and "Wensleydale". Not sure
about Cheddar, since I've seen it in the USA (not British Cheddar),
but it may have protection in Europe.

During WW2, to ensure uniformity for rationing, the government mandated
that all cheeses should be a particular form of cheddar cheese, so it
was made all over the UK, as well in the USA. Cheddar cheese is now considered to describe the process, rather than the locality. It needs
an extra locative description to get protected status, as with West
Country Cheddar.

Thank you. I certainly wasn't aware of that, but as I had said, I was
not sure about the level of protection afforded to the term "Cheddar"
(which I prefer to see with a capital initial, just like Wensleydale or Parmigiano).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 28 Dec 2023 20:13:41 +0000, Colin Bignell wrote...

On 28/12/2023 16:04, JNugent wrote:

On 28/12/2023 12:39 pm, Ottavio Caruso wrote:

As to the second question, I seem to remember that "champagne" was
regarded as legally protected in the UK even before we joined the Common Market.

There was a legal battle in the 1960s, in which French Champagne growers
were ultimately successful in the English courts against Babycham (which
at the time was advertised as "the genuine champagne perry"). This was
one element in the gradual expansion of the old English common law
relating to "passing off".

It follows that "prosecco" is just as protected, as also are
descriptions such as "Parmigiano" and "Wensleydale". Not sure about Cheddar, since I've seen it in the USA (not British Cheddar), but it may have protection in Europe.

During WW2, to ensure uniformity for rationing, the government mandated
that all cheeses should be a particular form of cheddar cheese, so it
was made all over the UK, as well in the USA. Cheddar cheese is now considered to describe the process, rather than the locality. It needs
an extra locative description to get protected status, as with West
Country Cheddar.

West Country Farmhouse Cheddar or Orkney Scottish Island Cheddar https://www.gov.uk/protected-food-drink-names?keywords=cheddar

Also from the same UK database, "Champagne", "Yorkshire Wensleydale" and "Parmigiano Reggiano".

I assume these have all been copied over from the corresponding EU
schemes.

--
Tim Jackson
news@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Am 28/12/2023 um 16:38 schrieb Tim Jackson:

On Thu, 28 Dec 2023 12:39:17 +0000, Ottavio Caruso wrote...

https://archive.is/0HLl7

###
An Italian consortium has warned British drinkers to stop “abusing” the >> term prosecco by using it for any sparkling wine.
In a poster being displayed on the London Underground, a picture of a
barrel is featured, alongside the words: “This is not prosecco. Do not
call it prosecco if it is a common effervescent wine.”
The message is being displayed at more than 80 sites across the capital.
It’s projected that 15 million people will see it during the two-week
campaign, which began on December 18.
The Prosecco DOC Consortium protects the term “prosecco”, which has been >> protected under EU law since 2009.
The drink has a geographical designation label (DOC), meaning the wine
must be produced in one of two Italian regions, Veneto or Friuli-Venezia
Giulia.
###

Apart from the expected misleading headline ("Italians" sounds like all
60M Italians), does a EU protected denomination have any legal value in
post-Brexit Britain?

On Brexit, existing EU-protected geographical indications were copied
over to a new GB register. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/protected-geographical-food-and-drink-names- uk-gi-schemes

Prosecco is here: https://www.gov.uk/protected-food-drink-names?keywords=prosecco

Thanks for this.

If this is the case, and it is, I think this PR action is totally
stupid. They should employ their money in legally prosecuting fake Prosecco.

--
Ottavio Caruso

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 28 Dec 2023 12:39:17 +0000, Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:

https://archive.is/0HLl7

###
An Italian consortium has warned British drinkers to stop �abusing� the
term prosecco by using it for any sparkling wine.
In a poster being displayed on the London Underground, a picture of a
barrel is featured, alongside the words: �This is not prosecco. Do not
call it prosecco if it is a common effervescent wine.�
The message is being displayed at more than 80 sites across the capital.
It�s projected that 15 million people will see it during the two-week >campaign, which began on December 18.
The Prosecco DOC Consortium protects the term �prosecco�, which has been >protected under EU law since 2009.
The drink has a geographical designation label (DOC), meaning the wine
must be produced in one of two Italian regions, Veneto or Friuli-Venezia >Giulia.
###

I really don't know why people do that. To me "prosecco" means a cheap subsitute for a decent sparkling wine, like Champagne, or even an English sparkling wine. Most Cava is better than prosecco, as well. Italian
winemakers do a lot of good stuff. But fizzy white wine really isn't one of them. The whole prosecco label is a triumph of marketing over substance.

Apart from the expected misleading headline ("Italians" sounds like all
60M Italians), does a EU protected denomination have any legal value in >post-Brexit Britain?

Most of the EU Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) names were transferred into the equivalent UK scheme. Prosecco is one of them:

https://www.gov.uk/protected-food-drink-names/prosecco

Mark

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Am 29/12/2023 um 22:53 schrieb Mark Goodge:

On Thu, 28 Dec 2023 12:39:17 +0000, Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:

https://archive.is/0HLl7

###
An Italian consortium has warned British drinkers to stop “abusing” the >> term prosecco by using it for any sparkling wine.
In a poster being displayed on the London Underground, a picture of a
barrel is featured, alongside the words: “This is not prosecco. Do not
call it prosecco if it is a common effervescent wine.”
The message is being displayed at more than 80 sites across the capital.
It’s projected that 15 million people will see it during the two-week
campaign, which began on December 18.
The Prosecco DOC Consortium protects the term “prosecco”, which has been >> protected under EU law since 2009.
The drink has a geographical designation label (DOC), meaning the wine
must be produced in one of two Italian regions, Veneto or Friuli-Venezia
Giulia.
###

I really don't know why people do that.

The answer is:

To me "prosecco" means a cheap
subsitute for a decent sparkling wine, like Champagne, or even an English sparkling wine. Most Cava is better than prosecco, as well. Italian winemakers do a lot of good stuff. But fizzy white wine really isn't one of them. The whole prosecco label is a triumph of marketing over substance.

--
Ottavio Caruso

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 10:16:53 +0000, Ottavio Caruso wrote...

Am 29/12/2023 um 22:53 schrieb Mark Goodge:

On Thu, 28 Dec 2023 12:39:17 +0000, Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:

https://archive.is/0HLl7

###
An Italian consortium has warned British drinkers to stop “abusing” the
term prosecco by using it for any sparkling wine.
In a poster being displayed on the London Underground, a picture of a
barrel is featured, alongside the words: “This is not prosecco. Do not >> call it prosecco if it is a common effervescent wine.”
The message is being displayed at more than 80 sites across the capital. >> It’s projected that 15 million people will see it during the two-week
campaign, which began on December 18.
The Prosecco DOC Consortium protects the term “prosecco”, which has been
protected under EU law since 2009.
The drink has a geographical designation label (DOC), meaning the wine
must be produced in one of two Italian regions, Veneto or Friuli-Venezia >> Giulia.
###

I really don't know why people do that.

The answer is:

To me "prosecco" means a cheap
subsitute for a decent sparkling wine, like Champagne, or even an English sparkling wine. Most Cava is better than prosecco, as well. Italian winemakers do a lot of good stuff. But fizzy white wine really isn't one of them. The whole prosecco label is a triumph of marketing over substance.

Ottavio has hit the nail on the head, answering not only Mark's post,
but also his own earlier question about why the Prosecco producers are advertising "Do not call it prosecco if it is a common effervescent
wine".

The producers have two targets. Not only to fight the producers of fake Prosecco, but also to educate their potential customers like Mark, who
think the name can be applied to any cheap substitute for a decent
sparkling wine.

Legally, not only must Prosecco come from the Prosecco region, but also
it must have the qualities or characteristics set out in the registered geographical indication.

Unfortunately, for Prosecco the UK Government website hasn't yet
published those, but I expect they will govern things like which grape varieties may be used, production methods, etc, in addition to the
geographical limitation. There's some information here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecco

If Mark still prefers other sparkling wines, that's fine. But at least
he should know what he can expect to get when he sees a bottle in his
local shop.

--
Tim Jackson
news@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 31/12/2023 03:22, Tim Jackson wrote:

On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 10:16:53 +0000, Ottavio Caruso wrote...

Am 29/12/2023 um 22:53 schrieb Mark Goodge:

On Thu, 28 Dec 2023 12:39:17 +0000, Ottavio Caruso
<ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:

https://archive.is/0HLl7

###
An Italian consortium has warned British drinkers to stop “abusing” the
term prosecco by using it for any sparkling wine.
In a poster being displayed on the London Underground, a picture of a
barrel is featured, alongside the words: “This is not prosecco. Do not >>>> call it prosecco if it is a common effervescent wine.”
The message is being displayed at more than 80 sites across the capital. >>>> It’s projected that 15 million people will see it during the two-week >>>> campaign, which began on December 18.
The Prosecco DOC Consortium protects the term “prosecco”, which has been
protected under EU law since 2009.
The drink has a geographical designation label (DOC), meaning the wine >>>> must be produced in one of two Italian regions, Veneto or Friuli-Venezia >>>> Giulia.
###

I really don't know why people do that.

The answer is:

To me "prosecco" means a cheap
subsitute for a decent sparkling wine, like Champagne, or even an English >>> sparkling wine. Most Cava is better than prosecco, as well. Italian
winemakers do a lot of good stuff. But fizzy white wine really isn't one of >>> them. The whole prosecco label is a triumph of marketing over substance. >>>

Ottavio has hit the nail on the head, answering not only Mark's post,
but also his own earlier question about why the Prosecco producers are advertising "Do not call it prosecco if it is a common effervescent
wine".

The producers have two targets. Not only to fight the producers of fake Prosecco, but also to educate their potential customers like Mark, who
think the name can be applied to any cheap substitute for a decent
sparkling wine.

Legally, not only must Prosecco come from the Prosecco region, but also
it must have the qualities or characteristics set out in the registered geographical indication.

Unfortunately, for Prosecco the UK Government website hasn't yet
published those, but I expect they will govern things like which grape varieties may be used, production methods, etc, in addition to the geographical limitation. There's some information here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecco

I imagine it will follow the EU's definitions and prescriptions, since
there's no reason why not:

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.C_.2020.362.01.0026.01.ENG&toc=OJ%3AC%3A2020%3A362%3ATOC

If Mark still prefers other sparkling wines, that's fine. But at least
he should know what he can expect to get when he sees a bottle in his
local shop.

Quite. Or when ordering a glass in a bar. But passing-off doesn't seem
to concern him greatly except as regards getting what he himself wants.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 03:22:12 +0000, Tim Jackson wrote:

On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 10:16:53 +0000, Ottavio Caruso wrote...

Am 29/12/2023 um 22:53 schrieb Mark Goodge:

On Thu, 28 Dec 2023 12:39:17 +0000, Ottavio Caruso
<ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:

https://archive.is/0HLl7

###
An Italian consortium has warned British drinkers to stop “abusing” >> >> the term prosecco by using it for any sparkling wine.
In a poster being displayed on the London Underground, a picture of
a barrel is featured, alongside the words: “This is not prosecco. Do
not call it prosecco if it is a common effervescent wine.”
The message is being displayed at more than 80 sites across the
capital. It’s projected that 15 million people will see it during
the two-week campaign, which began on December 18.
The Prosecco DOC Consortium protects the term “prosecco”, which has >> >> been protected under EU law since 2009.
The drink has a geographical designation label (DOC), meaning the
wine must be produced in one of two Italian regions, Veneto or
Friuli-Venezia Giulia.
###

I really don't know why people do that.

The answer is:

To me "prosecco" means a cheap subsitute for a decent sparkling wine,
like Champagne, or even an English sparkling wine. Most Cava is
better than prosecco, as well. Italian winemakers do a lot of good
stuff. But fizzy white wine really isn't one of them. The whole
prosecco label is a triumph of marketing over substance.

Ottavio has hit the nail on the head, answering not only Mark's post,
but also his own earlier question about why the Prosecco producers are advertising "Do not call it prosecco if it is a common effervescent
wine".

The producers have two targets. Not only to fight the producers of fake Prosecco, but also to educate their potential customers like Mark, who
think the name can be applied to any cheap substitute for a decent
sparkling wine.

Legally, not only must Prosecco come from the Prosecco region, but also
it must have the qualities or characteristics set out in the registered geographical indication.

Unfortunately, for Prosecco the UK Government website hasn't yet
published those, but I expect they will govern things like which grape varieties may be used, production methods, etc, in addition to the geographical limitation. There's some information here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecco

If Mark still prefers other sparkling wines, that's fine. But at least
he should know what he can expect to get when he sees a bottle in his
local shop.

For a long time Asti Spumante was the Italians champagne. Although we
preferred then less well known Asti Martini.

"Champagne" producers need to remember that the entire process of putting
fizzy wine in bottles is a diabolic English invention.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 31/12/2023 03:22, Tim Jackson wrote:

Ottavio has hit the nail on the head, answering not only Mark's post,
but also his own earlier question about why the Prosecco producers are advertising "Do not call it prosecco if it is a common effervescent
wine".

Naw, it's just another name for fizzy lemonade.

--
Max Demian

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Ottavio Caruso wrote:

schrieb Tim Jackson:

Prosecco is here:
https://www.gov.uk/protected-food-drink-names?keywords=prosecco

Thanks for this.

If this is the case, and it is, I think this PR action is totally
stupid. They should employ their money in legally prosecuting fake
Prosecco.

Do we know where this non-Prosecco in shiny metal kegs comes from?

I suspect it is Italian, using the same Glera grapes but carefully using
a name like Frizzante instead of Prosecco, so what is it actually doing
wrong? Would you really expect the barkeeper to play the whole "It's
not Coke it's McDonalds cola" routine ...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 31/12/2023 14:19, Andy Burns wrote:

Ottavio Caruso wrote:

schrieb Tim Jackson:

Prosecco is here:
https://www.gov.uk/protected-food-drink-names?keywords=prosecco

Thanks for this.

If this is the case, and it is, I think this PR action is totally
stupid. They should employ their money in legally prosecuting fake
Prosecco.

Do we know where this non-Prosecco in shiny metal kegs comes from?

I suspect it is Italian, using the same Glera grapes but carefully using
a name like Frizzante instead of Prosecco, so what is it actually doing wrong?

Passing-off and infringement of the Prosecco DOC.

Would you really expect the barkeeper to play the whole "It's
not Coke it's McDonalds cola" routine ...

Absolutely. I want what I ask for, not some substitute, and it's an
offence under The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations
2008 to supply other than what was specified. If I ask for Prosecco, I
expect to receive Prosecco or to be offered a specified alternative
which I can accept or decline.

If you ask for Champagne, but are given Asti Spumante, I think you'd
probably think similarly.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday 28 December 2023 at 19:38:52 UTC, JNugent wrote:

On 28/12/2023 12:39 pm, Ottavio Caruso wrote:

https://archive.is/0HLl7

###
An Italian consortium has warned British drinkers to stop “abusing” the term prosecco by using it for any sparkling wine.
In a poster being displayed on the London Underground, a picture of a barrel is featured, alongside the words: “This is not prosecco. Do not call it prosecco if it is a common effervescent wine.”
The message is being displayed at more than 80 sites across the capital. It’s projected that 15 million people will see it during the two-week campaign, which began on December 18.
The Prosecco DOC Consortium protects the term “prosecco”, which has been
protected under EU law since 2009.
The drink has a geographical designation label (DOC), meaning the wine
must be produced in one of two Italian regions, Veneto or Friuli-Venezia Giulia.
###

Apart from the expected misleading headline ("Italians" sounds like all
60M Italians), does a EU protected denomination have any legal value in post-Brexit Britain?

Using the term "The Italians" (or just "Italians" in a newspaper
headline where definite and indefinite articles are usually omitted) is absolutely normal in English. The context makes it clear that it means
the Italian government or some legally-empowered agency which has a
certain amount of authority.

As to the second question, I seem to remember that "champagne" was
regarded as legally protected in the UK even before we joined the Common Market.

Yes, correct. The name Champagne was protected in English law, using what is now known as "extended passing off", in the 1960s. Furthermore, all existing EU laws were automatically transplanted into UK law when we formally left the EU. Whereas the UK is
free in principle to change such laws, I'm not aware that the laws protecting geographical designations have been repealed since 2021.

It follows that "prosecco" is just as protected, as also are
descriptions such as "Parmigiano" and "Wensleydale". Not sure about
Cheddar, since I've seen it in the USA (not British Cheddar), but it may
have protection in Europe.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 00:12:43 +0000, JNugent wrote:

On 28/12/2023 08:13 pm, Colin Bignell wrote:

On 28/12/2023 16:04, JNugent wrote:

On 28/12/2023 12:39 pm, Ottavio Caruso wrote:

https://archive.is/0HLl7

###
An Italian consortium has warned British drinkers to stop “abusing” >>>> the term prosecco by using it for any sparkling wine.
In a poster being displayed on the London Underground, a picture of a
barrel is featured, alongside the words: “This is not prosecco. Do
not call it prosecco if it is a common effervescent wine.”
The message is being displayed at more than 80 sites across the
capital.
It’s projected that 15 million people will see it during the two-week >>>> campaign, which began on December 18.
The Prosecco DOC Consortium protects the term “prosecco”, which has >>>> been protected under EU law since 2009.
The drink has a geographical designation label (DOC), meaning the
wine must be produced in one of two Italian regions, Veneto or
Friuli-Venezia Giulia.
###

Apart from the expected misleading headline ("Italians" sounds like
all 60M Italians), does a EU protected denomination have any legal
value in post-Brexit Britain?

Using the term "The Italians" (or just "Italians" in a newspaper
headline where definite and indefinite articles are usually omitted)
is absolutely normal in English. The context makes it clear that it
means the Italian government or some legally-empowered agency which
has a certain amount of authority.

As to the second question, I seem to remember that "champagne" was
regarded as legally protected in the UK even before we joined the
Common Market. It follows that "prosecco" is just as protected, as
also are descriptions such as "Parmigiano" and "Wensleydale". Not sure
about Cheddar, since I've seen it in the USA (not British Cheddar),
but it may have protection in Europe.

During WW2, to ensure uniformity for rationing, the government mandated
that all cheeses should be a particular form of cheddar cheese, so it
was made all over the UK, as well in the USA. Cheddar cheese is now
considered to describe the process, rather than the locality. It needs
an extra locative description to get protected status, as with West
Country Cheddar.

Thank you. I certainly wasn't aware of that, but as I had said, I was
not sure about the level of protection afforded to the term "Cheddar"
(which I prefer to see with a capital initial, just like Wensleydale or Parmigiano).

Cheddar has been generic for decades AFAIK.

Shops used to be full of Canadian and NZ Cheddar before we went all
European.

I'm not sure that NZ sells NZ Cheddar at home.

Cheers



Dave R


--
AMD FX-6300 in GA-990X-Gaming SLI-CF running Windows 10 x64

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 03:22:12 -0000, Tim Jackson <news@timjackson.invalid> wrote:

The producers have two targets. Not only to fight the producers of fake >Prosecco, but also to educate their potential customers like Mark, who
think the name can be applied to any cheap substitute for a decent
sparkling wine.

No, that's not at all what I'm saying. My point is precisely the opposite: Prosecco *is* a cheap substitute for a decent sparkling wine. That is, practically every other "named" sparkling wine (eg, Champagne, Cava,
Cremant) is better than Prosecco.

But that is, of course, precisely Prosecco's problem: there's no expectation
of quality inherent in the name and hence it gets genericised. People don't call any old sparkling wine "Champagne", because they know that real
Champagne is better than what's in their glass.

Mark

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 01/01/2024 21:59, Mark Goodge wrote:

On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 03:22:12 -0000, Tim Jackson <news@timjackson.invalid> wrote:

The producers have two targets. Not only to fight the producers of fake
Prosecco, but also to educate their potential customers like Mark, who
think the name can be applied to any cheap substitute for a decent
sparkling wine.

No, that's not at all what I'm saying. My point is precisely the opposite: Prosecco *is* a cheap substitute for a decent sparkling wine. That is, practically every other "named" sparkling wine (eg, Champagne, Cava,
Cremant) is better than Prosecco.

Only according to you. But that's entirely subjective. There are no
criteria for 'better' other than purely personal preference.

Why you presumably ask for or buy Cava or whatever is because *you*
prefer it. Others who ask for or buy Prosecco obviously do so because
*they* prefer it. And there are rather more of them, as its popularity conclusively shows.

To say one is 'better' than another which is considerably more popular
is sheer pretentiousness.

But that is, of course, precisely Prosecco's problem: there's no expectation of quality inherent in the name and hence it gets genericised. People don't call any old sparkling wine "Champagne", because they know that real Champagne is better than what's in their glass.

Being more expensive doesn't mean it's 'better'.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Am 31/12/2023 um 11:23 schrieb Jethro_uk:

"Champagne" producers need to remember that the entire process of putting fizzy wine in bottles is a diabolic English invention.

Champagne and Spumante are naturally fizzy, that is, the "fizz" is not
added afterwards, like our glorious Lambrini.

--
Ottavio Caruso

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Am 01/01/2024 um 21:59 schrieb Mark Goodge:

On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 03:22:12 -0000, Tim Jackson <news@timjackson.invalid> wrote:

The producers have two targets. Not only to fight the producers of fake
Prosecco, but also to educate their potential customers like Mark, who
think the name can be applied to any cheap substitute for a decent
sparkling wine.

No, that's not at all what I'm saying. My point is precisely the opposite: Prosecco *is* a cheap substitute for a decent sparkling wine. That is, practically every other "named" sparkling wine (eg, Champagne, Cava,
Cremant) is better than Prosecco.

But that is, of course, precisely Prosecco's problem: there's no expectation of quality inherent in the name and hence it gets genericised. People don't call any old sparkling wine "Champagne", because they know that real Champagne is better than what's in their glass.

Mark

Your £2 fake Prow-Sekkow from Farmfoods may be cheap, but the real
prosecco is not that cheap.

--
Ottavio Caruso

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 1 Jan 2024 23:02:34 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:

On 01/01/2024 21:59, Mark Goodge wrote:

On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 03:22:12 -0000, Tim Jackson <news@timjackson.invalid>
wrote:

The producers have two targets. Not only to fight the producers of fake >>> Prosecco, but also to educate their potential customers like Mark, who
think the name can be applied to any cheap substitute for a decent
sparkling wine.

No, that's not at all what I'm saying. My point is precisely the opposite: >> Prosecco *is* a cheap substitute for a decent sparkling wine. That is,
practically every other "named" sparkling wine (eg, Champagne, Cava,
Cremant) is better than Prosecco.

Only according to you. But that's entirely subjective. There are no >criteria for 'better' other than purely personal preference.

So? I'm expressing an opinion, and suggesting that, if correct, it may be
part of the reason why Prosecco suffers from being genericised.

Unlike you, I don't feel the need to insist that a mere opinion is incontovertible truth.

Mark

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 09:17:33 +0000, Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:

Am 01/01/2024 um 21:59 schrieb Mark Goodge:

On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 03:22:12 -0000, Tim Jackson <news@timjackson.invalid>
wrote:

The producers have two targets. Not only to fight the producers of fake >>> Prosecco, but also to educate their potential customers like Mark, who
think the name can be applied to any cheap substitute for a decent
sparkling wine.

No, that's not at all what I'm saying. My point is precisely the opposite: >> Prosecco *is* a cheap substitute for a decent sparkling wine. That is,
practically every other "named" sparkling wine (eg, Champagne, Cava,
Cremant) is better than Prosecco.

But that is, of course, precisely Prosecco's problem: there's no expectation >> of quality inherent in the name and hence it gets genericised. People don't >> call any old sparkling wine "Champagne", because they know that real
Champagne is better than what's in their glass.

Your �2 fake Prow-Sekkow from Farmfoods may be cheap, but the real
prosecco is not that cheap.

From waitrose.com:

Prosecco �7.49 to �13.99
Cava �7.99 to �11.99
Cremant �9.99 to �15.49
English Sparkling Wine �19.99 to �44.99
Champagne �21.99 to �299.99

From tesco.com:

Prosecco �4.75 to �12.00
Cava �5.75 to �13.00
Cremant �12.50 to �12.50
Champagne �15.00 to �67.00

All prices for standard 75cl bottles. Tesco doesn't have a category for
English sparkling wine so it's too unreliable to compare. Farmfoods doesn't
do online retail.

I dunno about you, but I'd call �7.49 (lowest price at Waitrose) cheap. And wine which only costs �4.75 (lowest price at Tesco) is going to be
practically undrinkable unless you're already drunk. I'll grant that Tesco
has a cheap and almost certainly nasty Cava as well. But, either way,
Prosecco is at the low end of the price range.

Mark

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message news:gfk8pihbpsi3b51245u0op2786tetkkdp7@4ax.com...

On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 09:17:33 +0000, Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:

Am 01/01/2024 um 21:59 schrieb Mark Goodge:

On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 03:22:12 -0000, Tim Jackson <news@timjackson.invalid> >>> wrote:

The producers have two targets. Not only to fight the producers of fake >>>> Prosecco, but also to educate their potential customers like Mark, who >>>> think the name can be applied to any cheap substitute for a decent
sparkling wine.

No, that's not at all what I'm saying. My point is precisely the opposite: >>> Prosecco *is* a cheap substitute for a decent sparkling wine. That is,
practically every other "named" sparkling wine (eg, Champagne, Cava,
Cremant) is better than Prosecco.

But that is, of course, precisely Prosecco's problem: there's no expectation
of quality inherent in the name and hence it gets genericised. People don't >>> call any old sparkling wine "Champagne", because they know that real
Champagne is better than what's in their glass.

Your �2 fake Prow-Sekkow from Farmfoods may be cheap, but the real
prosecco is not that cheap.

From waitrose.com:

Prosecco �7.49 to �13.99
Cava �7.99 to �11.99
Cremant �9.99 to �15.49
English Sparkling Wine �19.99 to �44.99
Champagne �21.99 to �299.99

From tesco.com:

Prosecco �4.75 to �12.00
Cava �5.75 to �13.00
Cremant �12.50 to �12.50
Champagne �15.00 to �67.00

All prices for standard 75cl bottles. Tesco doesn't have a category for English sparkling wine so it's too unreliable to compare. Farmfoods doesn't do online retail.

I dunno about you, but I'd call �7.49 (lowest price at Waitrose) cheap. And wine which only costs �4.75 (lowest price at Tesco) is going to be practically undrinkable unless you're already drunk. I'll grant that Tesco has a cheap and almost certainly nasty Cava as well. But, either way, Prosecco is at the low end of the price range.

quote:

Unlike Champagne and Franciacorta DOCG, Prosecco is usually
produced using the alternative Charmat-Martinotti method, in
which the secondary fermentation takes place in large stainless
steel tanks rather than in each individual bottle,[24] making
the wine less expensive to produce, and the minimum production
time is 30 days

unquote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecco

"Stainless steel tanks", a " minimum production time of 30 days*"

Need one say more ?


bb


* Champagne is required to age for 15 months to develop completely.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_method



--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 02/01/2024 18:11, Mark Goodge wrote:

On Mon, 1 Jan 2024 23:02:34 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:

On 01/01/2024 21:59, Mark Goodge wrote:

On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 03:22:12 -0000, Tim Jackson <news@timjackson.invalid> >>> wrote:

The producers have two targets. Not only to fight the producers of fake >>>> Prosecco, but also to educate their potential customers like Mark, who >>>> think the name can be applied to any cheap substitute for a decent
sparkling wine.

No, that's not at all what I'm saying. My point is precisely the opposite: >>> Prosecco *is* a cheap substitute for a decent sparkling wine. That is,
practically every other "named" sparkling wine (eg, Champagne, Cava,
Cremant) is better than Prosecco.

Only according to you. But that's entirely subjective. There are no
criteria for 'better' other than purely personal preference.

So? I'm expressing an opinion, and suggesting that, if correct, it may be part of the reason why Prosecco suffers from being genericised.

Unlike you, I don't feel the need to insist that a mere opinion is incontovertible truth.

But it wasn't just a mere opinion, was it? You ascribed it to everyone
as fact, saying:

"there's no expectation of quality inherent in the name and hence it
gets genericised. People don't call any old sparkling wine "Champagne",
because they know that real Champagne is better than what's in their
glass".

I think you're insisting there that what you now say was mere opinion is incontrovertible truth. There's no possibility of error or 'if correct' expressed, is there?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 02/01/2024 18:34, Mark Goodge wrote:

On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 09:17:33 +0000, Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:

Am 01/01/2024 um 21:59 schrieb Mark Goodge:

On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 03:22:12 -0000, Tim Jackson <news@timjackson.invalid> >>> wrote:

The producers have two targets. Not only to fight the producers of fake >>>> Prosecco, but also to educate their potential customers like Mark, who >>>> think the name can be applied to any cheap substitute for a decent
sparkling wine.

No, that's not at all what I'm saying. My point is precisely the opposite: >>> Prosecco *is* a cheap substitute for a decent sparkling wine. That is,
practically every other "named" sparkling wine (eg, Champagne, Cava,
Cremant) is better than Prosecco.

But that is, of course, precisely Prosecco's problem: there's no expectation
of quality inherent in the name and hence it gets genericised. People don't >>> call any old sparkling wine "Champagne", because they know that real
Champagne is better than what's in their glass.

Your £2 fake Prow-Sekkow from Farmfoods may be cheap, but the real
prosecco is not that cheap.

From waitrose.com:

Prosecco £7.49 to £13.99
Cava £7.99 to £11.99
Cremant £9.99 to £15.49
English Sparkling Wine £19.99 to £44.99
Champagne £21.99 to £299.99

From tesco.com:

Prosecco £4.75 to £12.00
Cava £5.75 to £13.00
Cremant £12.50 to £12.50
Champagne £15.00 to £67.00

All prices for standard 75cl bottles. Tesco doesn't have a category for English sparkling wine so it's too unreliable to compare. Farmfoods doesn't do online retail.

I dunno about you, but I'd call £7.49 (lowest price at Waitrose) cheap. And wine which only costs £4.75 (lowest price at Tesco) is going to be practically undrinkable unless you're already drunk. I'll grant that Tesco has a cheap and almost certainly nasty Cava as well. But, either way, Prosecco is at the low end of the price range.

It has been shown time and time again in blind tastings that even
experts can't reliably distinguish wines on type or price, so the only
true indicator is personal preference. And even that is variable, as
shown with virtually every bottle that seemed wonderful abroad but, to
use the euphemism when you get back, 'hasn't travelled well' as if
something mystical has happened in the bottle.

For example:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/jun/23/wine-tasting-junk-science-analysis

I dare say you'll insist that you could distinguish a Cava from a
Prosecco, or a more expensive one, in a blind tasting but I wonder if
you've ever truthfully put it to the test?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 02/01/2024 19:23, billy bookcase wrote:

"Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message news:gfk8pihbpsi3b51245u0op2786tetkkdp7@4ax.com...

On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 09:17:33 +0000, Ottavio Caruso
<ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:

Am 01/01/2024 um 21:59 schrieb Mark Goodge:

On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 03:22:12 -0000, Tim Jackson <news@timjackson.invalid> >>>> wrote:

The producers have two targets. Not only to fight the producers of fake >>>>> Prosecco, but also to educate their potential customers like Mark, who >>>>> think the name can be applied to any cheap substitute for a decent
sparkling wine.

No, that's not at all what I'm saying. My point is precisely the opposite: >>>> Prosecco *is* a cheap substitute for a decent sparkling wine. That is, >>>> practically every other "named" sparkling wine (eg, Champagne, Cava,
Cremant) is better than Prosecco.

But that is, of course, precisely Prosecco's problem: there's no expectation
of quality inherent in the name and hence it gets genericised. People don't
call any old sparkling wine "Champagne", because they know that real
Champagne is better than what's in their glass.

Your Ł2 fake Prow-Sekkow from Farmfoods may be cheap, but the real
prosecco is not that cheap.

From waitrose.com:

Prosecco Ł7.49 to Ł13.99
Cava Ł7.99 to Ł11.99
Cremant Ł9.99 to Ł15.49
English Sparkling Wine Ł19.99 to Ł44.99
Champagne Ł21.99 to Ł299.99

From tesco.com:

Prosecco Ł4.75 to Ł12.00
Cava Ł5.75 to Ł13.00
Cremant Ł12.50 to Ł12.50
Champagne Ł15.00 to Ł67.00

All prices for standard 75cl bottles. Tesco doesn't have a category for
English sparkling wine so it's too unreliable to compare. Farmfoods doesn't >> do online retail.

I dunno about you, but I'd call Ł7.49 (lowest price at Waitrose) cheap. And >> wine which only costs Ł4.75 (lowest price at Tesco) is going to be
practically undrinkable unless you're already drunk. I'll grant that Tesco >> has a cheap and almost certainly nasty Cava as well. But, either way,
Prosecco is at the low end of the price range.

quote:

Unlike Champagne and Franciacorta DOCG, Prosecco is usually
produced using the alternative Charmat-Martinotti method, in
which the secondary fermentation takes place in large stainless
steel tanks rather than in each individual bottle,[24] making
the wine less expensive to produce, and the minimum production
time is 30 days

unquote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecco

"Stainless steel tanks", a " minimum production time of 30 days*"

Need one say more ?

Well, you could at least say what the problem is.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Am 02/01/2024 um 18:34 schrieb Mark Goodge:

On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 09:17:33 +0000, Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:

Am 01/01/2024 um 21:59 schrieb Mark Goodge:

On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 03:22:12 -0000, Tim Jackson <news@timjackson.invalid> >>> wrote:

The producers have two targets. Not only to fight the producers of fake >>>> Prosecco, but also to educate their potential customers like Mark, who >>>> think the name can be applied to any cheap substitute for a decent
sparkling wine.

No, that's not at all what I'm saying. My point is precisely the opposite: >>> Prosecco *is* a cheap substitute for a decent sparkling wine. That is,
practically every other "named" sparkling wine (eg, Champagne, Cava,
Cremant) is better than Prosecco.

But that is, of course, precisely Prosecco's problem: there's no expectation
of quality inherent in the name and hence it gets genericised. People don't >>> call any old sparkling wine "Champagne", because they know that real
Champagne is better than what's in their glass.

Your £2 fake Prow-Sekkow from Farmfoods may be cheap, but the real
prosecco is not that cheap.

From waitrose.com:

Prosecco £7.49 to £13.99
Cava £7.99 to £11.99
Cremant £9.99 to £15.49
English Sparkling Wine £19.99 to £44.99
Champagne £21.99 to £299.99

From tesco.com:

Prosecco £4.75 to £12.00
Cava £5.75 to £13.00
Cremant £12.50 to £12.50
Champagne £15.00 to £67.00

All prices for standard 75cl bottles. Tesco doesn't have a category for English sparkling wine so it's too unreliable to compare. Farmfoods doesn't do online retail.

I dunno about you, but I'd call £7.49 (lowest price at Waitrose) cheap. And wine which only costs £4.75 (lowest price at Tesco) is going to be practically undrinkable unless you're already drunk. I'll grant that Tesco has a cheap and almost certainly nasty Cava as well. But, either way, Prosecco is at the low end of the price range.

Mark

https://www.diemmevini.com/Mathusalem-Dirupo-Valdobbiadene-Prosecco-Superiore-Docg-Extra-Dry-Andreola

This is a DOCG (not your fake Prow-Sekkow from Tesco).

--
Ottavio Caruso

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 02/01/2024 18:34, Mark Goodge wrote:

On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 09:17:33 +0000, Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:

Am 01/01/2024 um 21:59 schrieb Mark Goodge:

On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 03:22:12 -0000, Tim Jackson <news@timjackson.invalid> >>> wrote:

The producers have two targets. Not only to fight the producers of fake >>>> Prosecco, but also to educate their potential customers like Mark, who >>>> think the name can be applied to any cheap substitute for a decent
sparkling wine.

No, that's not at all what I'm saying. My point is precisely the opposite: >>> Prosecco *is* a cheap substitute for a decent sparkling wine. That is,
practically every other "named" sparkling wine (eg, Champagne, Cava,
Cremant) is better than Prosecco.

But that is, of course, precisely Prosecco's problem: there's no expectation
of quality inherent in the name and hence it gets genericised. People don't >>> call any old sparkling wine "Champagne", because they know that real
Champagne is better than what's in their glass.

Your £2 fake Prow-Sekkow from Farmfoods may be cheap, but the real
prosecco is not that cheap.

From waitrose.com:

Prosecco £7.49 to £13.99
Cava £7.99 to £11.99
Cremant £9.99 to £15.49
English Sparkling Wine £19.99 to £44.99
Champagne £21.99 to £299.99

From tesco.com:

Prosecco £4.75 to £12.00
Cava £5.75 to £13.00
Cremant £12.50 to £12.50
Champagne £15.00 to £67.00

All prices for standard 75cl bottles. Tesco doesn't have a category for English sparkling wine so it's too unreliable to compare. Farmfoods doesn't do online retail.

I dunno about you, but I'd call £7.49 (lowest price at Waitrose) cheap. And wine which only costs £4.75 (lowest price at Tesco) is going to be practically undrinkable unless you're already drunk. I'll grant that Tesco has a cheap and almost certainly nasty Cava as well. But, either way, Prosecco is at the low end of the price range.

So is the Cava you consider to be superior.

I like both Cava and Prosecco, would expect to pay more than those really low prices so I assume I am avoiding anything fake.

When it comes to Champagne, it has to be a good one. I don't like the cheaper stuff.

--
kat
>^..^<

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 03/01/2024 09:09, Ottavio Caruso wrote:

Am 02/01/2024 um 18:34 schrieb Mark Goodge:

From tesco.com:

   Prosecco                £4.75 to  £12.00
   Cava                    £5.75 to  £13.00
   Cremant                £12.50 to  £12.50
   Champagne              £15.00 to  £67.00

All prices for standard 75cl bottles. Tesco doesn't have a category for
English sparkling wine so it's too unreliable to compare. Farmfoods doesn't >> do online retail.

I dunno about you, but I'd call £7.49 (lowest price at Waitrose) cheap. And >> wine which only costs £4.75 (lowest price at Tesco) is going to be
practically undrinkable unless you're already drunk. I'll grant that Tesco >> has a cheap and almost certainly nasty Cava as well. But, either way,
Prosecco is at the low end of the price range.

Mark

https://www.diemmevini.com/Mathusalem-Dirupo-Valdobbiadene-Prosecco-Superiore-Docg-Extra-Dry-Andreola

This is a DOCG (not your fake Prow-Sekkow from Tesco).

Apparently the £4.75 Prosecco from Tesco does make it to DOC.
--
kat
>^..^<

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

kat wrote:

I like both Cava and Prosecco, would expect to pay more than those
really low prices

It's cheaper than a plaque removal visit to the dentist ...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 09:09:50 +0000, Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:

Am 02/01/2024 um 18:34 schrieb Mark Goodge:

From tesco.com:

Prosecco �4.75 to �12.00
Cava �5.75 to �13.00
Cremant �12.50 to �12.50
Champagne �15.00 to �67.00

All prices for standard 75cl bottles. Tesco doesn't have a category for
English sparkling wine so it's too unreliable to compare. Farmfoods doesn't >> do online retail.

I dunno about you, but I'd call �7.49 (lowest price at Waitrose) cheap. And >> wine which only costs �4.75 (lowest price at Tesco) is going to be
practically undrinkable unless you're already drunk. I'll grant that Tesco >> has a cheap and almost certainly nasty Cava as well. But, either way,
Prosecco is at the low end of the price range.

https://www.diemmevini.com/Mathusalem-Dirupo-Valdobbiadene-Prosecco-Superiore-Docg-Extra-Dry-Andreola

This is a DOCG (not your fake Prow-Sekkow from Tesco).

Are you suggesting that Tesco (and their suppliers) are breaking the law by labelling this bottle as Prosecco?

https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/products/273782335

Mark

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:kvkrc7Fmj8pU1@mid.individual.net...

On 02/01/2024 18:34, Mark Goodge wrote:

On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 09:17:33 +0000, Ottavio Caruso
<ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:

Am 01/01/2024 um 21:59 schrieb Mark Goodge:

On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 03:22:12 -0000, Tim Jackson <news@timjackson.invalid> >>>> wrote:

The producers have two targets. Not only to fight the producers of fake >>>>> Prosecco, but also to educate their potential customers like Mark, who >>>>> think the name can be applied to any cheap substitute for a decent
sparkling wine.

No, that's not at all what I'm saying. My point is precisely the opposite: >>>> Prosecco *is* a cheap substitute for a decent sparkling wine. That is, >>>> practically every other "named" sparkling wine (eg, Champagne, Cava,
Cremant) is better than Prosecco.

But that is, of course, precisely Prosecco's problem: there's no expectation
of quality inherent in the name and hence it gets genericised. People don't
call any old sparkling wine "Champagne", because they know that real
Champagne is better than what's in their glass.

Your �2 fake Prow-Sekkow from Farmfoods may be cheap, but the real
prosecco is not that cheap.

From waitrose.com:

Prosecco �7.49 to �13.99
Cava �7.99 to �11.99
Cremant �9.99 to �15.49
English Sparkling Wine �19.99 to �44.99
Champagne �21.99 to �299.99

From tesco.com:

Prosecco �4.75 to �12.00
Cava �5.75 to �13.00
Cremant �12.50 to �12.50
Champagne �15.00 to �67.00

All prices for standard 75cl bottles. Tesco doesn't have a category for
English sparkling wine so it's too unreliable to compare. Farmfoods doesn't >> do online retail.

I dunno about you, but I'd call �7.49 (lowest price at Waitrose) cheap. And >> wine which only costs �4.75 (lowest price at Tesco) is going to be
practically undrinkable unless you're already drunk. I'll grant that Tesco >> has a cheap and almost certainly nasty Cava as well. But, either way,
Prosecco is at the low end of the price range.

So is the Cava you consider to be superior.

Rather surprisingly, given the closeness in pricing Cava is made using
the "traditional method", same as champagne.

The wine is first matured in casks then bottled. Yeast and sugar are added
for the secondary fermentation which takes place in the bottle which actually creates the bubbles; which for Cava takes a minimum of 9 months (15 for champagne) The bottles end up cork down and all the yeast which has
settled is removed, sugar added and the bottles finally recorked.

Proscetto is made in large stainless steel tanks where the yeast is added
by the bucketload to create the bubbles and then scooped off the top
after a minimum of 30 days. It's then bottled under pressure same as
Watneys Red Barrel, and Coca Cola..

It's also available in tins from Lidl

quote:

" Lidl is selling cans of prosecco for under �1.50 "

unquote:

https://www.goodto.com/food/food-news/lidl-selling-cans-of-prosecco-596002

As with all wines regardless of the actual process presumably the quality of the
actual grapes used must have a big influence.


bb

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 01 Jan 2024 21:59:38 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote...

But that is, of course, precisely Prosecco's problem: there's no expectation of quality inherent in the name and hence it gets genericised. People don't call any old sparkling wine "Champagne", because they know that real Champagne is better than what's in their glass.

I think you've just shown why the Prosecco producers are putting out the adverts Ottavio has commented on. They have perhaps left it rather
late, though.

The problem they are fighting is that you and others have no expectation
of quality inherent in the name, hence it gets genericised.

This is a very old problem, and is why the Champagne producers sued
Babycham in the 1960s. They were successful. That is one reason why
you can now expect a product from the Champagne region when you see the
name, not just any old low quality sparkling wine or perry.

Compare the United States, where they've had a more uphill battle.
There the term 'champagne' is regularly used on lower quality sparkling
wine that doesn't come from the Champagne region or have the associated
quality controls. "California Champagne" is a thing. https://vinepair.com/wine-blog/loophole-california-champagne-legal/

--
Tim Jackson
news@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, January 2, 2024 at 2:13:24 PM UTC, Norman Wells wrote:

On 01/01/2024 21:59, Mark Goodge wrote:

On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 03:22:12 -0000, Tim Jackson wrote:

The producers have two targets. Not only to fight the producers of fake
Prosecco, but also to educate their potential customers like Mark, who
think the name can be applied to any cheap substitute for a decent
sparkling wine.

No, that's not at all what I'm saying. My point is precisely the opposite: Prosecco *is* a cheap substitute for a decent sparkling wine. That is, practically every other "named" sparkling wine (eg, Champagne, Cava, Cremant) is better than Prosecco.

Only according to you. But that's entirely subjective.

What does "entirely subjective" mean?. Do you have a subjectivity meter
which read 100% when you fed the previous posters paragraph into it?

Even the Guardian article you subsequently cited, doesn't seem to support
your claim of "entirely subjective". For example:

----------------- https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/jun/23/wine-tasting-junk-science-analysis

'... In Hodgson's tests, judges rated wines on a scale running from 50 to 100. In practice, most wines scored in the 70s, 80s and low 90s.

'Results from the first four years of the experiment, published in the Journal of Wine Economics, showed a typical judge's scores varied by plus or minus
four points over the three blind tastings. A wine deemed to be a good 90
would be rated as an acceptable 86 by the same judge minutes later and
then an excellent 94.'
--------------------

If the wine judges were entirely subjective, I think one would expect a rather greater variation in scores, than quoted above.

There are no
criteria for 'better' other than purely personal preference.

Another apparently rather absolutist statement. The Guardian article does
go on to give some details about the chemical composition of wines, which
might provide some potential criteria for "better".

Why you presumably ask for or buy Cava or whatever is because *you*
prefer it. Others who ask for or buy Prosecco obviously do so because
*they* prefer it. And there are rather more of them, as its popularity conclusively shows.

To say one is 'better' than another which is considerably more popular
is sheer pretentiousness.

But that is, of course, precisely Prosecco's problem: there's no expectation
of quality inherent in the name and hence it gets genericised. People don't call any old sparkling wine "Champagne", because they know that real Champagne is better than what's in their glass.

Being more expensive doesn't mean it's 'better'.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

billy bookcase wrote:

quote:

" Lidl is selling cans of prosecco for under Ł1.50"

unquote:

presumably as generic somethingsecco

wasn'y one of the DOC rules that if it's served from a keg/pump
arrangement, it can't be prosecco?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 03/01/2024 15:52, pensive hamster wrote:

On Tuesday, January 2, 2024 at 2:13:24 PM UTC, Norman Wells wrote:

On 01/01/2024 21:59, Mark Goodge wrote:

On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 03:22:12 -0000, Tim Jackson wrote:

The producers have two targets. Not only to fight the producers of fake >>>> Prosecco, but also to educate their potential customers like Mark, who >>>> think the name can be applied to any cheap substitute for a decent
sparkling wine.

No, that's not at all what I'm saying. My point is precisely the opposite: >>> Prosecco *is* a cheap substitute for a decent sparkling wine. That is,
practically every other "named" sparkling wine (eg, Champagne, Cava,
Cremant) is better than Prosecco.

Only according to you. But that's entirely subjective.

What does "entirely subjective" mean?. Do you have a subjectivity meter which read 100% when you fed the previous posters paragraph into it?

It means by judgement, not by any measurable or verifiable 'objective' criteria.

Even the Guardian article you subsequently cited, doesn't seem to support your claim of "entirely subjective". For example:

----------------- https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/jun/23/wine-tasting-junk-science-analysis

'... In Hodgson's tests, judges rated wines on a scale running from 50 to 100.
In practice, most wines scored in the 70s, 80s and low 90s.

'Results from the first four years of the experiment, published in the Journal
of Wine Economics, showed a typical judge's scores varied by plus or minus four points over the three blind tastings. A wine deemed to be a good 90 would be rated as an acceptable 86 by the same judge minutes later and
then an excellent 94.'
--------------------

If the wine judges were entirely subjective, I think one would expect a rather
greater variation in scores, than quoted above.

They're all personal opinions, nothing measurable or quantifiable. And
very variable at that, as the article shows.

There are no
criteria for 'better' other than purely personal preference.

Another apparently rather absolutist statement. The Guardian article does
go on to give some details about the chemical composition of wines, which might provide some potential criteria for "better".

But 'better' itself is inherently a subjective thing.

You can measure things like the alcohol content, the sugars present,
acidity, fizziness, and the colour, for example, but none of those, or
of any other measurable quantity, equates to 'better'. They're just
higher, lower, or redder. Ultimately it comes down to what *you* like,
not any measured quantity of anything or anyone else's opinion.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 03 Jan 2024 14:22:37 +0000, Tim Jackson wrote:

Compare the United States, where they've had a more uphill battle

Is the US signatory to the international rules on DOC etc ?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Andy Burns" <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote in message news:kvlev8FqdprU1@mid.individual.net...

billy bookcase wrote:

quote:

" Lidl is selling cans of prosecco for under L1.50"

unquote:

presumably as generic somethingsecco

wasn'y one of the DOC rules that if it's served from a keg/pump arrangement, it can't
be prosecco?

According to wiki It was originally named after a grape variety

When it became popular it was named after a village and then a
region which gradually grew in size

quote:

The wine was defined by the grape used to make it, Prosecco. The village of Prosecco was about 150 km from the growing areas, and had never grown
the glera grape. British importers started to be interested in importing the wine in quantity; in response the Italian minister of agriculture expanded the "denominazione di origine controllata" (DOC) to cover far-away Prosecco.
This was followed by claiming UNESCO world heritage status for "Prosecco
Hills of Conegliano and Valdobbiadene" a few years later

unquote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecco

It seems I was mistaken and the pressure under which it's bottled or
canned is from natural CO2

quote:

As the fermentation process goes on, the pressure of CO2 increases. After
it has reached the set level - usually 4-6 bar - the wine is filtered and bottled under pressure. Bottles are immediately released on the market,
without ageing.

unquote

Unlike say keg beer, or Guinness etc which apparently use nitrogen


bb


--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message news:un4cnb$g4q$25@dont-email.me...

On Wed, 03 Jan 2024 14:22:37 +0000, Tim Jackson wrote:

Compare the United States, where they've had a more uphill battle

Is the US signatory to the international rules on DOC etc ?

Surely all of the US's contributions to World Cuisine, MacDonalds,
KFC, Coca Cola, and Budweiser are already protected by trademarks ?


bb

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 19:31:56 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk wrote...

On Wed, 03 Jan 2024 14:22:37 +0000, Tim Jackson wrote:

Compare the United States, where they've had a more uphill battle

Is the US signatory to the international rules on DOC etc ?

I think DOC is an Italian designation which has been subsumed into the
EU rules. Unless anyone has more definitive information?

If you scroll down to "The Modern Era" in the link I gave previously, it
says there was a separate agreement in 2005 between the EU and the US:

Quote:
"In exchange for easing trade restrictions on wine, the American
government agreed that California Champagne, Chablis, Sherry and a half-
dozen other 'semi-generic' names would no longer appear on domestic wine
labels – /that is unless a producer was already using one of those
names/."

--
Tim Jackson
news@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Am 04/01/2024 um 00:52 schrieb Tim Jackson:

I think DOC is an Italian designation which has been subsumed into the
EU rules. Unless anyone has more definitive information?

It's a moving target. I was once told by an Italian restaurateur
visiting the UK that DOP [1] would replace both DOC and DOCG but I am
not up to date with the whole thing.

Incidentally, last time I was in Italy was pre Covid. I did the most
British thing an Italian would do: go to a supermarket and buy the
cheapest red wine just to get drunk. I bough a €1 local wine in a tetra
brik. I though this was going to be gross. It turned out it was a great
wine, no DOC, no DOCG etc.

[1] https://www.eataly.com/us_en/magazine/culture-and-tradition/italian-certifications

--
Ottavio Caruso

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 04/01/2024 09:53 am, Ottavio Caruso wrote:

Am 04/01/2024 um 00:52 schrieb Tim Jackson:

I think DOC is an Italian designation which has been subsumed into the
EU rules.  Unless anyone has more definitive information?

It's a moving target. I was once told by an Italian restaurateur
visiting the UK that DOP [1] would replace both DOC and DOCG but I am
not up to date with the whole thing.

Incidentally, last time I was in Italy was pre Covid. I did the most
British thing an Italian would do: go to a supermarket and buy the
cheapest red wine just to get drunk. I bough a €1 local wine in a tetra brik. I though this was going to be gross. It turned out it was a great
wine, no DOC, no DOCG etc.

Rosso tipico (from whichever region)?

If they sell it, local Italians are drinking it. Always the quickest and
most reliable criterion.

[1] https://www.eataly.com/us_en/magazine/culture-and-tradition/italian-certifications

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, January 3, 2024 at 6:19:52 PM UTC, Norman Wells wrote:

On 03/01/2024 15:52, pensive hamster wrote:

On Tuesday, January 2, 2024 at 2:13:24 PM UTC, Norman Wells wrote:

On 01/01/2024 21:59, Mark Goodge wrote:

Prosecco *is* a cheap substitute for a decent sparkling wine. That is, >>> practically every other "named" sparkling wine (eg, Champagne, Cava,
Cremant) is better than Prosecco.

Only according to you. But that's entirely subjective.

What does "entirely subjective" mean?. Do you have a subjectivity meter which read 100% when you fed the previous posters paragraph into it?

It means by judgement, not by any measurable or verifiable 'objective' criteria.

So if you don't have a subjectivity meter, and are therefore unable to
measure the previous poster's alleged subjectivity, that seems to mean
that your opinion that their comments were "entirely subjective", is itself
an entirely subjective opinion, by your own criterion. Hoist by your own petard, if you ask me.

[...]

But 'better' itself is inherently a subjective thing.

You can measure things like the alcohol content, the sugars present,
acidity, fizziness, and the colour, for example, but none of those, or
of any other measurable quantity, equates to 'better'. They're just
higher, lower, or redder. Ultimately it comes down to what *you* like,
not any measured quantity of anything or anyone else's opinion.

You can also measure certain aspects of the drinker's mental and
physical responses to the wine. Human sensory perceptions (and
their interpretations of such sensory inputs) have evolved over millions
of years, primarily as a survival mechanism, if you accept the survival
of the fittest view of evolution.

So to dismiss a drinker's perception of, and opinion about, the taste
of a given wine, as "entirely subjective", seems a bit of a stretch.
Especially since you can't measure subjectivity.

Effectively, you seem to claiming that the word "better" has no meaning,
at least as regards wine, and therefore all bottles of wine are of equal quality.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 04/01/2024 17:02, pensive hamster wrote:

On Wednesday, January 3, 2024 at 6:19:52 PM UTC, Norman Wells wrote:

But 'better' itself is inherently a subjective thing.

You can measure things like the alcohol content, the sugars present,
acidity, fizziness, and the colour, for example, but none of those, or
of any other measurable quantity, equates to 'better'. They're just
higher, lower, or redder. Ultimately it comes down to what *you* like,
not any measured quantity of anything or anyone else's opinion.

You can also measure certain aspects of the drinker's mental and
physical responses to the wine. Human sensory perceptions (and
their interpretations of such sensory inputs) have evolved over millions
of years, primarily as a survival mechanism, if you accept the survival
of the fittest view of evolution.

So to dismiss a drinker's perception of, and opinion about, the taste
of a given wine, as "entirely subjective", seems a bit of a stretch. Especially since you can't measure subjectivity.

Effectively, you seem to claiming that the word "better" has no meaning,
at least as regards wine, and therefore all bottles of wine are of equal quality.

No, 'better' as regards wine means that you like it more.

It's 'quality' that has no meaning if it doesn't correlate with liking
it more.

Since the object of the exercise is to produce something you like, it's
bizarre to say that a bottle of wine you don't like as much as another
is of better quality.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)