I was reading EricAsimov's NYTimes article on FingerLake CabFranc:
and he suggested that one of the reasons LongIsland wines have not taken off is because of their lack of a signature grape (in addition to lack of quality) to establish their "identity" and proposes the success of the FLX CabFranc (in addition to Riesling) as the reason FLX is much more successful than LongIsland.

This got me to thinking (always a danger on a slow Fri morning): Why is it important for a region, especially an emerging region, to have one signature wine??

Eric (rightfully) points out that "few regions in the world flourish with only one signature wine." Clearly BDX=Cabernet/Burg=PinotNoir/Piemonte=Nebbiolo/Germany=Riesling/NapaVlly=Cab. But does that make other regions that don't have a signature grape less successful?? Friuli? Austria (red)? SantaBarbara? Sonoma? RogueVlly? AltoAdige? Macedonia?

To me, a region can be successful with a diversity of grape varieties. I'm always amused by the Paso folks wanting to establish their fame based on Rhone varietals. Baloney...they grow Nebbiolo and Aglianico as well as anywhere....world class.

So...I toss my question out there to all you folks to ponder. Don't lose any sleep over it, though. Obviously in my [stirthepot.gif] mode a bit.