Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Cider Digest #1226
Subject: Cider Digest #1226, 26 May 2005
From: cider-request@talisman.com
Cider Digest #1226 26 May 2005
Forum for Discussion of Cider Issues
Dick Dunn, Digest Janitor
Contents:
Re: Cider Digest #1225, 22 May 2005 (Steury & Noel)
Re: Cider Digest #1224, 19 May 2005 "Small wineries" .... ("John C. Campbe...)
question about juxtaposition of apple trees and Magnolias ("John C. Campbe...)
Re: The Supremes and Cider ("McGonegal, Charles") (Dick Dunn)
Send ONLY articles for the digest to cider@talisman.com.
Use cider-request@talisman.com for subscribe/unsubscribe/admin requests.
When subscribing, please include your name and a good address in the
message body unless you're sure your mailer generates them.
Archives of the Digest are available at www.talisman.com/cider
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Cider Digest #1225, 22 May 2005
From: Steury & Noel <steurynoel@mail.potlatch.com>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 05:48:20 -0700
re: Frequin rouge
Pommiers a cidre: varietes de France, by Bore and Fleckinger (INRA),
classifies Frequin rouge as "amere," bitter. But under remarks, they say
there are a number of distinct varieties known by the same name.
Tim Steury
Diane Noel, Tim Steury, and David Steury
1021 McBride Road
Potlatch, ID 83855 USA
208.875.0804
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Cider Digest #1224, 19 May 2005 "Small wineries" ....
From: "John C. Campbell III" <jccampb@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 13:34:04 -0400
> (snip)
> Subject: Re:small wineries (and cidermakers) win in US case
> From: Mike Faul <carraig@earthlink.net>
> Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 08:32:35 -0700
> (snip)
It surely isn't going to help us here in Maryland .... see the editoral
opinion by our local newspaper editor:
jccampb
*Our say: Wine ruling should make Maryland reconsider*
By THE CAPITAL EDITORIAL BOARD
THE CORK was barely out of the champagne bottle before Maryland wine
consumers realized that this week's Supreme Court ruling on shipments of
alcohol will have no effect in this state. They still won't be able to ship
wine into Maryland.
The Supreme Court struck down laws in Michigan and New York that allowed
wine to be shipped inside state boundaries but not from out-of-state
sources. A five-justice majority held that this inconsistency is
unconstitutional. By discriminating against out-of-state wine producers, the
states were grabbing authority over interstate commerce that the
Constitution's Commerce Clause reserves for Congress.
The ruling was a long time coming, but it did not remove archaic and
specious laws in Maryland and a few other states. A Marylander who grows
fond of a wine discovered during a visit to a California winery will
discover that he cannot ship those wines home. Maryland insists that all
alcoholic beverages ? whether from inside or outside the state ? pass
through a wholesaler and a retailer before they can reach the consumer.
Why this stubborn, anti-consumer position? Most obviously, the state wants
to be sure of collecting its taxes. Also, state wholesalers and retailers
don't want to be cut out of the business of selling wine. The wholesalers
have one of the most influential lobbies in Maryland and, for selfish
reasons, have repeatedly blocked efforts to give consumers more choices.
The loss of tax revenue would be insignificant. Consumers will not routinely
ship wine at significantly higher costs if it is available at their local
retail outlets. However, many wines are not available in Maryland because
small producers cannot afford the distribution costs or are poorly
represented. So the consumer is out of luck unless he packs the wine in his
suitcase and takes his chances with the law.
You won't hear supporters of Maryland's current law defending restraint of
trade or expressing any compassion about the consumer's difficulty in
getting wine here. Instead, you will hear the bogus argument that wine
ordered online could end up in the hands of minors. When underage drinkers
can get a six-pack with a false ID, why should they order a bottle of wine
with a credit card, then wait patiently on the family doorstep for it to
arrive?
Justice Anthony Kennedy saw the fallacy of this argument. Writing for the
high court's majority, he said that the states ^\provide little concrete
evidence for the sweeping assertion that they cannot police direct shipments
of out-of-state wines. ^] States that allow out-of-state shipments have not
experienced the problems Maryland officials conjure up.
We hope some Maryland legislator will bring this up for debate again. The
Supreme Court ruling offers new ground for discussion.
------------------------------
Subject: question about juxtaposition of apple trees and Magnolias
From: "John C. Campbell III" <jccampb@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 10:19:06 -0400
I'm thinking about putting Southern Bay Magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora) on
the northern side of my orchard, the trees at full maturity (I have one
elsewhere on my acreage) seem to have a drip shield of about 30 ft in
diameter. Does anyone know of specific reasons to not have Magnolias near
apple trees? (the leaves do not compost and in fact I dispose of them
outside of my normal leaf piles because they apparantly do not 'work' for
composting.
jccampb
------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Supremes and Cider ("McGonegal, Charles")
From: Dick Dunn <rcd@talisman.com>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 21:50:17 -0600
Re the responses in CD 1224 to the US Supreme Court decision on interstate
direct wine shipment: I have to say I'm not as optimistic as Mike Faul,
but fortunately also not quite as pessimistic as Charles McGonegal.
BTW, let it be kept in mind that both Mike and Charles are REAL wine/
cidermakers: they are in the business, with licensed commercial operations.
I point that out because a lot of us (including myself) are gadflies...
adverse legal decisions on wine/cider sales may annoy or inconvenience us,
but they don't affect our paychecks.
Now, again, why does this all matter? Because it is so difficult to get
a variety of good ciders. Cidermakers are scattered all over the country.
If you'd like to sit down and compare half a dozen craft ciders, to learn
and understand, decide what you like, etc...you end up having to travel
all over to buy them, or find someone to ship them to you, or dodge the
laws. The US interstate laws against direct shipping are the biggest
obstacle to understanding and appreciation of quality cider in the US.
When we were working on updating and expanding the BJCP cider categories,
one constant stumbling block was trying to provide commercial examples
for the categories...and that's a direct consequence of not being able to
get the good commercial ciders in enough areas to make the examples helpful
to judge-training and the like.
In the following, where I say "winery" I'm referring to cidermakers as
well, since in effect (from a regulatory standpoint) they're like wineries.
Some of this is political. Sorry. If politics would stay out of my cider
glass, I wouldn't get political on the matter.
Perhaps part of the reason behind the views of Mike, Charles, and myself is
where we live. Mike's in California: progressive politics, strong large
wine industry, populist legislature. Charles is in Wisconsin: much more
conservative, small young wine industry, business-oriented legislature.
(I'm in Colorado: mixed politics, young but very active wine industry,
legislature controlled from another planet or perhaps another dimension.)
So Charles's view--that the Supreme Court decision could make the situation
worse--might well turn out to be true in states like Wisconsin, with little
wine industry and strong distributorship lobbies...and that might turn out
to be "most" states--by number of states--but not by population.
California will probably try to be as open as possible, since in the long
run it means they'll export a lot more than they'll import. Ben Watson
mentioned a news item that New York is proposing to open up licensing to
out-state sellers to sell in New York, but only to sellers in states which
allow New York wineries to sell into them. That's a significant incentive
given New York's population. If other larger-population states follow
that lead, it could force the hands of states with small-to-moderate wine
industries who are inclined to be protectionist.
Still, the pairwise-by-state registration, fees, etc., could end up little
changed from how they are now. One of the best things to do, as Charles
suggested, is not to think the war is over and cider can move freely. It's
only one little battle.
<soapbox>
As Charles said, watch your state legislatures. Also watch for strange
alliances (history and politics both make strange bedfellows), such as
distributors joining with prohibitionists (this has already happened)--
each wanting to ban direct sales even though for very different reasons.
Be aware of the issues that will be raised, particularly the specious ones.
First, there is no indication and no credible evidence that direct sales
will increase the danger of sales to minors...it's just silly. Second,
"loss of tax revenue" is a red herring since we're talking about sales
that aren't happening at all now.
If you find that you're in a state which suddenly has expanded freedom
for buying out-of-state ciders, USE IT! Take advantage of it and encourage
others to take advantage of it as well. The more that people find and use
a more-free trade situation, the less likely they are to put up with it
being taken away from them.
</soapbox>
- --
Dick Dunn rcd@talisman.com Hygiene, Colorado USA
------------------------------
End of Cider Digest #1226
*************************
