Bordeaux Style 52

We would not have to adopt the stringent requirements you mentioned. My idea would allow each AVA to produce a blend made from whatever grapes they grow in the AVA that they deemed best to make the best possible blend and to name that blend after the AVA. As with France, each AVA could be subdivided into seperate AVAs if soil and climate indicated this to be representative of a local terroir. In my opinion is not important for the consumer to know exactly what is in the bottle. The criteria should be the taste not necessarily the particular grapes it is made from. Of course, there is nothing saying that the individual producers could not list the grapes and percentages on the label if they wished. BTW, how many American wines named Cabernet Sauvignon are 100% Cabernet Sauvignon? This is true of the Merlot and other varieties as well. Most are "Blends" although the "Other" grape(s) may account for 20% or less, you still do not know exactly what you are drinking now with the present system.

Under my concept, for example, one could compare a red blend named Catoctin produced in the Catoctin AVA with a red blend named Linganore produced in the Linganore AVA. Each AVA would be allowed to use whatever grapes they deemed to make the best possible blend. Of course there could be many producers in each AVA with each having their own idea of what the "best" is for them. This way AVA could be compared with AVA and it would foster compebreastion amongst produces in each AVA and between the AVAs themselves.

I think one of the reasons my idea is not well received is because the AVAs in the United States for the most part, do not have attractive sounding names. I think the exception is the AVA in which I am located; the Catoctin AVA. To me, this has an appealing name and is reportedly from an Indian language meaning "spotted rock". If other AVAs had American Indian names or names that sounded more appealing, I think the idea might catch on more readily.