"D. Gerasimatos" > wrote in message
...
> In article > ,
> Tom S > wrote:
>>IMO if a California wine says "Napa" anywhere on the label, it should be
>>made from fruit grown in Napa. Period.
>
> Well, it is a brand name. You have to be careful with that. If I start a
> new winery and call it the "Pasadena Winery" even though I am
> sourcing my fruit from Rancho Cucamonga is that a problem? What if, say,
> 100
> years from now Pasadena starts growing highly acclaimed wine grapes and
> the
> region surpasses Napa in prestige? Do I have to give up the "Pasadena
> Winery"
> name because my fruit comes not from Pasadena but from Rancho Cucamonga?

I see your point, which is certainly valid. Actually, it applies to my own
operations! Chteau Burbank doesn't get _any_ fruit from the Burbank area.
It's all from Santa Barbara County at this time, and maybe Napa and Sonoma
(or other) someday as well.

Still, that's not the same thing as misappropriating a prestigious place
name to enhance the cachet of some very inferior crap. If anything, it's
quite the opposite. Also, my bottle is very clearly labeled to indicate the
origin of the fruit.

In the case of Napa Ridge e.g., I'd bet the appellation indicated is
"California". That's as non-specific as it's possible to get and still be
made from California fruit. Typically, that would indicate the San Joaquin
Valley, which is much better suited to growing raisins, almonds and cotton
than grapes for table wine.

Tom S