And both controversial. We're talking about the latest proposed AVAs (Approved Viticultural Areas).

    Blame the French. Back in the 30s when France was riddled with wine scandals (people were bottling Algerian wine and selling it under French labels), a system called "appellation controlee" became popular. With the force of law, it protected geographic names.

    This made wines like Bordeaux and Burgundy more valuable. People could rely on what was in the bottle.

    Because AC enhanced image and increased value, it was rapidly copied elsewhere in the world. Italy, Germany, Spain and Portugal among others, have similar systems.

    The U.S. assigned its first AVA (our answer to AC) in 1983 and has doled out more than 100 since, more than half of them in California.

    Two recent petitions to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms (ATF) for new AVAs have been ruled on in the past few weeks. Both created some controversy.

    Allow me to editorialize for just a moment, and tell you most AVA's have more to do with marketing than anything to do with soil, micro-climate and other growing conditions, which is what AVAs are supposed to be about.

    The approved AVA will be called San Francisco Bay, and includes San Francisco (though no commercial vineyards exist), San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra Costa and parts of Santa Cruz and San Benito counties.

    So any wine produced from grapes grown in any one of these counties, or blends of any or all of them, may use the San Francisco Bay AVA (or appellation) on the label.

    Denied was a petition for a new California Coast (I prefer Coastal California) AVA, that would have basically extended from Eureka south to the Mexican border, but west of the Coastal Range, and include everything in the now existing North Coast, Central Coast and South Coast AVAs.

    The major justification for both AVAs is the same, that being that grapes grown in climates that are influenced my marine conditions and climates are superior to those grown in hot interior valleys. That cooler nights and foggy mornings result in grapes with higher natural acidity and thereby superior overall balance.

    The Coastal California AVA would have been especially helpful, because the current extremely broad "California" AVA is meaningless. You simply have to trust the brand owner. The grapes could be all or part coastal in origin, or they could be 100 percent from Bakersfield or Tehachapi. And even wines with the term "coastal" appearing as part of the name can contain interior grapes, because there is no standard for that term. It's like the old days when "Mountain Chablis" was made entirely from valley floor grapes.

    The arguments against both AVAs were basically the same. Too many climates and soils over a too large area, both ignoring the marine influence issue.

    I was especially puzzled by the comments of a highly respected Napa vintner, Jack Cakebread. In a comment letter to ATF he said: "Area is not distinguishable; makes a mockery of all current viticultural areas...would destroy confidence in the AVA system."

    Jack, I hate to point out that your proud AVA, Napa Valley, is as meaningless as they come. ATF approved everyone who wanted to be in, including people from other valleys (like Chiles and Pope) and they even considered letting Solano County in! It includes very cool Carneros next to the Bay in the south and goes all the way to hot Calistoga. Includes the rich soils of the valley floor and rocky mountain tops, as well as most of Napa County.

    Livermore, Santa Clara and San Mateo certainly have as much in common as Calistoga, the top of Spring Mountain and the city of Napa.

   

SANTA CRUZ UPDATE

  I'll make a wager that I'm the only wine journalist in the world to have tasted every vintage of Santa Cruz Mountain Vineyard wines since 1974.

    Now some smart-alec is going to call and point out that SCMV didn't release a wine until the Estate Pinot Noir of 1975. He'd be right, and let me hasten to add for those who think California Pinot doesn't age...I just opened one of my last remaining bottles of SCMV 75 and it isn't even browning and still offers tons of fruit.

    Regarding the 1974, winemaker Ken Burnap made a five gallon Arrowhead water bottle full of wine from leftover grapes on the vineyard he bought just after harvest.

    SCMV has distribution throughout California and Nevada and quite a few other states. Production is limited, ranging from a few hundred cases of Estate Pinot (not reviewed) to about 2000 of the very popular Merlot. For help tracking down retail outlets: SCMV, 2300 Jarvis Rd., Santa Cruz, CA 95065 (408) 426-6209. E-mail: bobcat@cruzio.com  Visits are by appointment only.

    SCMV 1996 "San Ysidro" Merlot ($19) Not your usually namby-pamby Merlot. This once has real substance. Huge, dark black cherry fruit with something almond-tinged in the bouquet. Earthy-tarry complexity developing and more of that almond in the aftertaste. Rating: 87/85

    SCMV 1996 "Matteson-Santa Cruz" Pinot Noir ($25) Not a giant like the estate Pinot, but a very nice example on its own. Plum, rose petal perfume and a little pomegranate. Beautifully balanced; velvety finish. Elegant, dying rose after-flavors. Rating: 91/88

BEST BUY WINE OF THE WEEK

    SCMV 1993 "Santa Cruz" Cabernet Sauvignon ($19) A blend of Bates and Cinnibar Vineyard fruit, it's winemaker Burnap's most lush and user-friendly Cabernet in two decades. They have previously been excellent, but also as mean as the bobcat gracing his label, and as tough as Bandit, the old dog which used to chase the cat out of the vineyard. This one is so warm and voluptuous you'll want to cuddle up with it. Ripe blackberry, cassis and a little very ripe plum. Round and silky-supple and with a very long and pleasant aftertaste. Case purchases recommended. Rating: 93/90

Subscription Information

Wines are scored using a unique 100 point system. First number rates quality; second number rates value.