First, I agree that the ship on the use of “Port” on new domestic fortified wine labels after March 2006 has sailed. While there are numerous reasonable arguments for retaining “Port” on domestic wine labels, the “powers that be” way above my pay grade have made the rules and we must now accept and live with them.

This may not necessarily all bad considering the reputation of domestic fortified “port-style” wines following Repeal and well into the 1960s. Let me empatically emphasize – THOSE DAYS ARE OVER. Today, despite your comment on quality to the contracy, American fortified wine producers are dedicated to making high quality “port-style” wines. Over 200 California wineries form Temecula to Medocino, Paso Robles to Amodor make a “port-style” fortified wine. Granted, the majority of these wines are either limited production or from small wineries but the commitment to produce quality fortified wines from classic or Portuguese varieties in genuine.

I would challenge consumers to discuss the issue of quality when considering fortified wines from California producers like Prager, Quady, Ficklin, J Pedroncelli, Meyer Family, Deaver, Pessagno, Tesouro, or Fesestra. These port-style wines reflect their unique sense of place and are never intended to be Portuguese Port. They American fortified wines made from American grapes and wine spirits.

My final point relates to consumer education. You are correct that the media is the most influencial source of consumer information on wine, wine styles, and related wine issues. In my view, American fortified wine has been almost totally ignored by the media. RARELY do you find any comment or review of domestic fortified wines in media including your own publication. I find it difficult to believe that out of over 200 California wineries producing fortified wines, only a handful are EVER mentioned or reviewed in the press. For the past two years, the Sweet and Fortified Wine Association has conducted a public tasting with special emphasis on inviting the wine media to participate. Only one member of the media attended the event and he was a free-lance wine writer.

Your comment that the domestic fortified wine segement is “dead” and that no one cares enough to compete is not altogether true. If you talk to the tasting rooms, when consumers taste a domestic fortified wine, they buy! Certainly there must be some reason for over 200 wineries to offer fortified wine in there portfolio. Maybe the problem isn’t that the industry doen’t care, maybe it’s media who doesn’t care.

Taking this one step further, some of this neglect of domestic fortified wines rests in the lap of so-called “wine educators” who think the only fortified wine of merit comes from Portugal. They need a little education themselves.

So if we can’t call these domestic fortified wines “port” anymore, what do we call them? This is a huge issue for American producers made even more difficult by rules, regulations, and “policies” established by the TTB who regulates what can be said on wine labels. Many of these archaic rules date to provision of repeal and have no relevance to the current wine industry. For example, the terms “fortified” and “wine spirits” are prohibted from use on fortified wine labels to describe what is in the bottle. Similiarly, any term with “port” or including p o r t is prohibited as in “port-style” or “Ameriport”. The inablility to use common terms recognizable to wine consumers on labels further aggravates the issues of consumer education and awarness.

Finally, the Sweet and Fortified Wine Association is a new organization of producers whose mission is indeed consumer education on domestic fortified and sweet wines but we can’t do it alone. We need the help of the media and wine educators to spread the word. Visit our website (sweetandfortifiedwine.org) or contact us at sweetandfortified@sbcglobal.net with comments or suggestions that will help consumers and the media better appreciate American fortified “port-style wines.

Thanks for the opportunity to respond to your blob.

What a silly thing to declare Steve.
Would have read better if prefaced by “In my personal opinion……”

You obviously have not tasted in the 1945 adobe cellars of Ficklin Vineyards. In my (46 year) opinion, their 20 year old Tawney and
1957 Vintage Madera California Ports are unrivaled.

Also, may I please remind, Rhenish, Hock, Sherry, Port, Claret, Malmsey, etc. are English words.

My guess is it will not make one bottle difference in anyone’s sales in the short term, but perhaps over the long term Champagne producers or Port producers can add to their brand and name value. Domestic sparkling wine should feel no impact whatsoever because no Champagne can compete on value.

May I offer an oxidized cloudy white wine to anyone? 2-4-6 Trichloralanisol taint to the first taker … one whif and your hippocampus will forever be indebted to you, because now you will know what corked really is.

iPhone tells me to get the wine off the bottom shelf that has been sitting in the sun for a year … low and behold, a gem to be cherished.

I thought Burgundy was a color of an Oldsmobile from the early 80′s.