![]() |
![]() ALSO SPONSORED BY: ![]()
Wine Industry Insight |
![]() |
Recommended background links:
After roughly five months of plastering the San Francisco Federal Court docket with thousands of scattershot pages of mostly disorganized, poorly labeled, heavily redacted and frequently irrelevant and incoherent filings, the hot mess, grudge match between Constellation-subsidiary Robert Mondavi Winery and The Vineyard House is finally scheduled to begin Monday, August 31.
NOTE: Because of the uneven and often incomprehensible nature of the court filings, we have not included as many document links as in the past. As usual, most other than the ones above, links will be live for premium subscribers.
In an attempt to create a focus out of the morass of filings, on July 7, 2020, Wine Industry Insight emailed the attorneys for the dueling parties and asked if they could each, separately, create five bullet points that “explain the most significant issues they see at stake, and what that means for the wine industry.”
Neither side replied.
That’s not unusual in cases where neither side is terribly interested in having the public fully understand the issues. It could also be interpreted as believing that there are no consequences, or that the attorneys do not actually understand what the consequences might be.
In any event, silence is the mother of speculation and inaccuracy.
Value is underpinned by image which is enhanced by the perception of scarcity.
Scarcity allows To Kalon grapes to sell for as much as $38,000/ton — approximately 4X as much as fruit from adjacent vineyards. WII could find no definitive, quantitative evidence in the court record that wine made from To Kalon grapes is better than adjacent fruit.
However, the haphazard mish-mash of filings and their obscure titles may have obscured that. We certainly would have asked for this data had the attorneys responded to questions.
The ag appraisers we have spoken with with all agree that the price of vineyard land is tied to the price of the grapes grown on it.
There may be a discussion of this in the many redacted documents by both parties and the secret filings under seal.
Map from The True Story of To-Kalon Vineyard by Matt Stamp. Right-click map to view a larger image.
(Redacted. Full text for for Wine Executive News Premium Subscribers.)
(Redacted. Full text for for Wine Executive News Premium Subscribers.)
Other than B Cellars, no other evidence revealed so far indicates that any winery, including RMW, has used To Kalon as a brand. Indeed, Doug Frost MW/MS, TVH’s expert witness noted that in his declaration (link$):
Not a Wine Executive News Subscriber?
Subscribe to Wine Executive News now, and get the rest of this original article along with everything else on the site every day, including original documents, spreadsheets,and source materials for just $29.99 per month or $209 per year
(Redacted.)
(Redacted.)
TTB records accessible online from 1993 to present show that, in addition to B Cellars, at least five other wineries have registered To Kalon labels.
Other wineries, such as Paul Hobbs, did not designate To Kalon as a “fanciful name” and were not found during searches of the TTB Certificate of Label Approval database.
That makes this an anecdotal comparison of ratings rather than a definitive one.
Links below are live for Wine Executive News Premium Subscribers.
In addition, one might have expected RMW and TVH to have had their dueling MWs — Mark De Vere (for RMW) and Doug Frost (TVH) address this issue in a substantive way in their filings.
Nowhere could that discussion that could be found in the court docket’s chaotic dumpster-fire document disaster.
A TTB online record search for To Kalon from 1993 to present show that least six wineries other than RMW made To Kalon wines. No entries were found for the alternate spellings: To-Kalon or ToKalon.