Why Is It Important for a Region to have a Signature Grape??

I was reading EricAsimov’s NYTimes article on FingerLake CabFranc:
FLX:CabFranc
and he suggested that one of the reasons LongIsland wines have not taken off is because of their lack of a signature grape (in addition to lack of quality) to establish their “identity” and proposes the success of the FLX CabFranc (in addition to Riesling) as the reason FLX is much more successful than LongIsland.

This got me to thinking (always a danger on a slow Fri morning): Why is it important for a region, especially an emerging region, to have one signature wine??

Eric (rightfully) points out that “few regions in the world flourish with only one signature wine.” Clearly BDX=Cabernet/Burg=PinotNoir/Piemonte=Nebbiolo/Germany=Riesling/NapaVlly=Cab. But does that make other regions that don’t have a signature grape less successful?? Friuli? Austria (red)? SantaBarbara? Sonoma? RogueVlly? AltoAdige? Macedonia?

To me, a region can be successful with a diversity of grape varieties. I’m always amused by the Paso folks wanting to establish their fame based on Rhone varietals. Baloney…they grow Nebbiolo and Aglianico as well as anywhere…world class.

So…I toss my question out there to all you folks to ponder. Don’t lose any sleep over it, though. Obviously in my [stirthepothal.gif] mode a bit.

Tom

My guess is the primary reasons would be to reinforce a claim of terroir and the ability to brand with that terroir and variety.

One key word - marketing. Diversity appears to be a wonderful thing, but it is difficult to ‘market’ diversity - believe me, I know this firsthand with SB County.

Echoing the other two, I think if a region (particularly a new one) develops a high reputation for a particular grape, it makes it “easier” for people to say, Oh right, Finger Lakes, I want a riesling, or cab franc, or whatever. Then once an area is developed, it is perhaps easier to “sell” wines made with other grapes.

I am not sure that this logic works for many/most of us that are deeply into wine, but for the average consumer or beginning enthusiast, it is probably easier.

As an initial matter, if you had a Sangiovese from Tuscany and a Syrah, and you knew nothing about the wineries, chances are you would go with the Sangiovese if you wanted to play it safe.

A related interesting question is whether this is a good dynamic for local winemakers. It would seem to stifle diversity and increase a narrow form of competition.

Here is another way to look at it: a region becomes famous for a wine because people like it, buy, and want more. So people who want to get in on the action don’t plant Sangiovese or Barbera in Bordeaux, they plant more Cab and Merlot.

Oregon becomes successful with Pinot Noir…success oriented people plant more! They don’t plant Dolcetto, Gamay etc on a big scale

If you haaaaaaaad to pick one grape for SB, what would it be?

A good number of years ago when we were wine tripping out in the Dundee Hills, we paid a visit to Erath when Dick still owned the winery and tasted the wines where a Dolcetto impressed me much more than the Pinot Noir so bought a few. Several years later stopped by and they said Dick pulled all the Dolcetto vines, probably did not sell too well in pinot country. Syrah is starting to make inroads in the valley.

To me this is really at the heart of the matter. Most people just want to make money, but most people aren’t willing to be the guinea pig. So they play the wait and see approach (i.e. fast-follower strategy). If terroir truly drove decision making, people would recognize what makes a region unique and invest in developing grapes/wine that best showcase what it means to be a wine from that region. The risk implied by choosing the wrong varietal and waiting for it to develop, then market it, have the populace embrace it, and reap the benefits likely far outweigh playing the ‘me-too’ game (as well as expecting to make money…).

If more states/AVA’s/Depts of Agriculture/universities etc. spent time to truly understand what they could be and coordinate a campaign, I believe you would see more unique offerings that successfully compete for shelf-space. But until that occurs, people will constantly compare spending $$ on an unknown wine region (with a known grape varietal) vs one that has decades, if not centuries, of learning/marketing/results behind it.

What would happen if Minnesota developed a truly unique blend, say Marquette/Marechal Foch/Itasca that paired amazingly well with Wild Rice Soup and Tater Tot Casserole? Might folks be more inclined to believe that there is something there worth spending $20 on than a Minnesota Grenache/Syrah/Mourvedre blend?

It is clearly a long-game and dedication to not making immediate inroads (assuming terroir and Signature grapes are important) if this vision is to be realized.

[soap.gif]

Not sure. You are correct that Napa’s signature grape is Cabernet. But what is the signature grape of Sonoma - Cabernet? Chardonnay? Pinot Noir? In some places, I might even argue Zinfandel.

Tom, I say the more signature grapes a Region has, the merrier.

Take the SCM - Cabernet, Pinot Noir and Chardonnay. RRV - Zinfandel and Pinot (although Tom Dehlinger’s Cabernet is awfully good). SLH - Pinot, Syrah and Chardonnay. Sonoma Valley and Dry Creek Valley - OK, just Zinfandel (a good Zinfandel is enough).

Still, few regions in the world flourish with only one signature wine. For as long as riesling has prospered in the Finger Lakes, winemakers there have debated what its red counterpart ought to be

.
I think he’s entirely wrong. Many European regions have regulations that mandate specific grapes/blends. So what is the signature wine of CdP? A Grenache-based blend. How much Sangiovese is planted in France? How much Cinsault in Austria? Maybe if he said many regions have both a red and white signature wine, he’d have been more accurate. But please let him explain what the well-known reds of Germany might be. The fact that they may grow some red grapes doesn’t make them “signature” wines.

That said, Mel has a good point - people plant what sells. If they make more money selling grapes than walnuts, they cut down the trees and plant vines. And while Napa and Montalcino might be able to grow many grapes really well, that doesn’t mean they’d make as much money selling the resulting wine as they do now.

I’m not sure that regions need a signature grape - most people, at least in the US, buy wine by the grape not by the region. Go into a store and listen to the people who aren’t sure whether a Syrah or a Chianti refers to a grape or a region or a type of wine making.

So someone looking for Merlot is frequently less worried about where it’s from than the fact that it’s Merlot. That’s one reason all the Pinot Noir and Merlot and Chardonnay is planted in places that make no sense. And outside of Asimov, how many people, even on this board, have ever heard of Finger Lakes Cab Franc, much less tasted any? The locals have probably had more Rkatsiteli, which BTW, isn’t a bad choice of grapes for the region.

I think Larry’s problem isn’t selling the region so much as the fact that he’s not making Chardonnay or Merlot. To his credit BTW, and I’m looking forward to trying some of that Cinsault, but it’s a pioneering effort to get people to try a grape like that, rather than Cab.

I think this is spot on – probably both for the average wine consumer as well as the more serious ones. If someone walks into a wine shop and is faced with a $50 merlot from California or, as the shop owner claims, this really good $15 merlot from Argentina, chances are the Argentinean will sell. (The reverse may be true for a more knowledgeable consumer of course!). But I do think there is also the issue of how to get that $15 merlot into the store, which may be dependent on a number of marketing issues as have been mentioned above.

I’d echo this, and marketing in a more innocent recognition / identity sense, than anything more aggressive.

It needn’t be a single grape variety, perhaps 2-3 or more, or specific blends or unusual native grapes. It can also be wine style e.g. Rutherglen fortifieds, Friuli orange / natural wines.

What really turns me off a region, is the same old international grapes such as Cabernet Sauvignon, Chardonnay, Merlot, Shiraz/syrah. The wines may be good, but unless there is something different / unique about them, I get a huge wave of ‘why bother?’. When I started this wine journey I would have been more prepared to try whatever was offered, but now I’m seeking something with more individuality, or grapes / wine styles that still excite me / are firm favourites.

Science.

Missouri has a signature grape: norton. It doesn’t seem to have helped.

You can’t be special unless there is only one true grape that flourishes in that area.

I wonder when that up-and-coming Châteauneuf-du-Pape place will catch on…

Instead of signature grape maybe one should say signature wine.

I think that a region needs critical mass.
Napa and Bordeaux have lots of famous wineries. Santa Barbara could use more.
Long Island has a long ways to go in this department

Wonder how Asimov defines success in terms of FL cab Francs? I have tasted some nice to ok ones but only the CF from Damiani made me wanna re-visit the winery to buy more. CF’s from Paumonock, Wolffer, Bedell, Macari,to name a few, seemed better to my taste, ditto dry rose made from CF on LI…Living near Siberacuse, we aren’t that far from the various FL’s and we visit 1-2x/year…Don’t see much in the way of FL CF’s on the shelves or wine lists locally…FL Reisling sells well up here

But Grenache is the signature grape for CDP isn’t it? It’s the dominate grape in all the blends and in some with the top producers it’s the only grape. According to wiki, 72% of the area is Grenache vines.