This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Does Calling Out Counties in Multi-AVA Sourcing Justify Higher Pricing?

I saw this article recapping a session at Unified regarding AVA flexibility. Most of the referenced data was from a retail perspective. I am curious to know the opinion of this community. Does providing county information for a multi-AVA wine help justify the wine's price in On Premise? Is there a quantitative difference in either the OP buyer's or consumer's view of Multi-County/Multi-AVA sourcing vs "California" as the AVA? There are real costs with sourcing in such a way - but are OP buyers and consumers okay with paying that premium for that specificity?

Thanks in advance. 

  • Interesting topic. I produce a wine labeled as California AVA but list the counties where the grapes are grown. The first vintage had Carignan from Mendocino and Mourvèdre from Contra Costa.  My goal with this particular bottling is to achieve a wine that I really like—in a particular style and at a particular price point—without any interest in expressing a specific regionality (in this particular bottling). However, I think the fruit origins are of some importance for what elements they allow me to bring to the blend. I've never thought of it from the perspective of justifying a price point with this information, but more working backwards from trying to achieve a style and value and then showing my work of how I got there.