Old bottle, same old questions

[shoveler]

Found a bottle while shoveling and it has a few features that I'd throw to someone else for help. The internet couldn't solve my answers.

First, it's a clear bottle (looks to be 4/5 quart, but doesn't say so) with no screw top; must have had cork. Second, it has the obligatory post-prohibition jargon "Federal Law Forbids bla bla bla" embossed just below the neck. OK, it really doesn't say bla, bla, bla, I

just get tired of writing it out. Third, at the base of the bottle (forget the technical name for this area of the bottle, forgive me) it says "Jose Barardo", the maker I assume, and underneath that Bombarral-Portugal, a city in Portugal where Jose must have had his operation. Finally, there is nothing stamped on the bottom of the bottle (that term I do know).

All I could learn from the internet was that the city of Bombarral, like most in Portugal, does have a wine making industry. And I was able to find a Barardo trademark that was filed in the US, but has since expired. Unfortunately, the trademark has no mention of Jose, and I suspect this is a red herring. Finally, there is this multi-gazillionare named Jose Berardo (not Barardo) who has a history in the wine business, but the name is spelled wrong. Interestingly, I have found a connection between one of his mega-ventures that not only includes wine making (Quinta dos Loridos), but is located in Bombarral-Portugal. I don't know when the operation was started, especially the wine making bit, but that's next on my list.

Question: If the bottle did contain wine, why it have the FED warning embossed? To my knowledge, wines (imported or US) were not required to carry this warning. Could someone please confirm?

Is it possible that Jose changed his last name from Barardo to Berardo? I've tried researching that, but no luck. Maybe he's in witness protection![]

 

[ScottBSA]

A guess would be that the wine was fortified to a degree that would put it over the alcohol limit for the Federal Law statement. Brandy was wine before being distilled. I would discount the single letter difference in the two names. Maybe it was a transcription error between what was ordered verbally to be on the bottle and what was delivered. I don't know what the lowest amount of alcohol need to make the Federal Law statement. Maybe a quick search might reveal it. What is/was the time frame on his company.

Scott

 

[epackage]

This could be the answerto your quetion....


The Cullen–Harrison Act, named for its sponsors, Senator Pat Harrison and Representative Thomas H. Cullen, enacted by the United States Congress March 21, 1933 and signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt the following day, legalized the sale in the United States of beer with an alcohol content of 3.2% (by weight) and wine of similarly low alcohol content, thought to be too low to be intoxicating, effective April 7, 1933. Each state had to pass similar legislation to legalize sale of the low alcohol beverages in that state. Roosevelt had previously sent a short message to Congress requesting such a bill. Sale of even such low alcohol beer had been illegal in the U.S. since Prohibition started in 1920 following the 1919 passage of the Volstead Act.Throngs gathered outside breweries and taverns for their first legal beer in many years.

 

[cowseatmaize]

Ah, good old 3.2%. I remember when everything was topsy turvy in the early days of going from 18-21. It was state by state at the time. I went to Colorado and could have 3.2%, in flight was regular as was Chicago. Back in Mass was 19 still but RI was 18. Were you as confused as I was? [][]

 

[shoveler]

Thanks for all the great post responses. Quinta dos Loridos, Jose Berardo's enterprise, is still in operation, but I can't find reference to when it opened, or when he started making wine. Recognizing that Quinta dos Loridos is way more than just wines. Check out the website. I like the idea of a single letter transposition, but would lean even closer to the alcohol percentage issue. Very interesting, something that just didn't cross my mind. So if this bottle contained Porto at say 25% alcohol (50 proof), it would probably require the Fed warning. I'd show you a pic of the bottle, but it's not very interesting or revealing. So what if there was a Jose Barardo, not Berardo, making high(er) percent juice, I wonder what happened to his operation? If it's Berardo we're talking about, well I have my answer. He went on to great things and is now the "most interesting man in the world". A word from our sponsor Dos Equis. Cheers.

 

[shoveler]

Regarding the Cullen–Harrison Act, when did higher percentage alcohol become legal. Say your standard 12-13% wine, or 80 proof bourbon?

 

[shoveler]

Another question. So beer wine or beer bottles that dated to the so-called post-prohibition period did not require the Fed warning for the simple reason that they were low alcohol? Combined with the bootlegging issue. And then does that suggest that it wasn't until the post-prohibition period ended that high percent alcohol was again legal? Recognizing state to state differences have to be taken into consideration.