The TTB is back in the AVA business again.

The TTB seems to be making AVAs again. Here's an article which discusses that: TTB Thaws, Issues AVA Approvals.

What makes me want to wrinkle my nose a bit is this comment from one of the petitioners: The geographer noted that "The nature of the previous boundary really didn't correlate to anything on the ground: no dotted line, no geographic features like a road or a river." This lack of definition, Shabram said, is corrected by the newly expanded outline of the AVA. This seems to defeat the purpose of an AVA. Why does an AVA need to be in a nice, neat, mappable geographic package, dotted lines and all? Aren't AVAs defined by their specific character? What would happen in Burgundy if the same theory were applied?

The TTB also has expanded the San Francisco Bay Area AVA. Here's the excerpt from the Federal Register: Expansion of the San Francisco Bay Viticultural Area (2005R–413P). The SF Bay AVA was fairly large already and now they're including a chunk of Solano County. I just don't know. They make a somewhat tenuous agrument for the homogenous geography of the area, but, geez Louise, the weather conditions are quite different. Well, what do I know? I sell refrigerators for a living.

In any event, my sense is that commercial interests in Solano County needed a moniker as a sales vehicle for their wines. They couldn't have Napa so they went for the next best thing.

Suisun Valley is its own AVA, Gary, and they are really pushing that (look for the little red and yellow signs next time you're up here). Not sure a "San Francisco Bay" AVA would be very useful in marketing.

Suisun Valley is its own AVA, Gary, and they are really pushing that (look for the little red and yellow signs next time you're up here). Not sure a "San Francisco Bay" AVA would be very useful in marketing.

Apparently somebody thinks it is useful or the winery would not have applied for the expansion. And that is what the regulation summary suggests, to wit: "SUMMARY: This Treasury decision expands the San Francisco Bay viticultural area in northern California. The expansion adds 88 square miles to the viticultural area to its north in Solano County, California. We designate viticultural areas to allow vintners to better describe the origin of their wines and to allow consumers to better identify wines they may purchase." If you read the description of the boundaries it seems like the last chunk of the North Bay that wasn't in an AVA got one. Based upon the justification in the announcement, Los Carneros could just as easily be included in the SF Bay AVA. Wonder why not? What's funny is that I know winemakers in these parts who refuse to use the SF Bay AVA ... go figure.

Suisun Valley is its own AVA, Gary, and they are really pushing that (look for the little red and yellow signs next time you're up here). Not sure a "San Francisco Bay" AVA would be very useful in marketing.

Apparently somebody thinks it is useful or the winery would not have applied for the expansion. And that is what the regulation summary suggests, to wit: "SUMMARY: This Treasury decision expands the San Francisco Bay viticultural area in northern California. The expansion adds 88 square miles to the viticultural area to its north in Solano County, California. We designate viticultural areas to allow vintners to better describe the origin of their wines and to allow consumers to better identify wines they may purchase." If you read the description of the boundaries it seems like the last chunk of the North Bay that wasn't in an AVA got one. Based upon the justification in the announcement, Los Carneros could just as easily be included in the SF Bay AVA. Wonder why not? What's funny is that I know winemakers in these parts who refuse to use the SF Bay AVA ... go figure.

Of course, Gary, you know that a TTB AVA assignment has little to do with the subject of wine quality...

Of course, Gary, you know that a TTB AVA assignment has little to do with the subject of wine quality...

Well, many folks believe in terroir and relate terroir to quality (good and bad) and all these systems of geographical identification used worldwide are, I thought, supposed to help identify a wine's provenance and then we relate that provenance to some set of characteristics or the other. How's that for a run-on sentence? What is chilling here is the size of the SF Bay AVA which is much bigger and less homogenous than most counties. To my mind, it is useless as an aid to guesstimating what's in the bottle. I do see two uses. Some marketing group will start to pitch the SF Bay AVA in magical, mystical tones and create some street cred for the turf. Or, more cyncially now, the wine marketers are counting on people automatically equating AVA with good wine.

By the way, eid-e shoma mobarak.

SF Bay AVA is the St. Joseph of the New World. Meaningless.

But I think all the AVAs are meaningless. So kill me.

-Paul W.