Tom S writes:

>
>I don't know if it was clear to others, but Norton is an unusual grape,
>being neither vinifera, labrusca nor a hybrid of those. It's indigenous to
>North America and produces a pretty nice, full bodied red wine. It appears
>to not be worthy of very extended aging though, based on my limited
>experience.
>


Tom, I agree that it's not California cabernet. And I have only limited
experience with really old Nortons.

I have not re-read my post, but I wasn't intending to put Norton on the
pedestal of Great Wines of the World; merely to point out an interesting grape
worthy of critical consideration, with a history which parallels America's.

Not all second-tier and emerging regions of the wine world are going to produce
awesome elixir of the gods; we know that.

I liken it instead to the interesting and unusual "finds" you can make when
touring, say, Hungary, or Greece.

I lament the passing of varietal diversity, as all regions are converting the
world's vineyard into an essential monoculture, plunging headlong into the race
for the best cabernet or chardonnay.

What about those other, equally wonderful pinotages from South Africa,
tempranillos of Spain, the sangioveses of Italy, and the malbecs of Argentina?
(I have a special passion for a good grenache--which can be as hard to find as
a good pinot noir).

The same can be said for some of the grapes of the Eastern US. Vidal ice wine
from Canada can be just as luscious as any great riesling.

I think we can agree there are some really awful wines made in "lesser"
regions, and maybe agree that the best wines of those regions will never
consistently challenge the best of Napa/Bordeaux/McLarenVale.

But I also think the ambiance is important. A chilled Vouvray from the Loire,
or a rose from Provence can be just as enjoyable, in the right context, as any
of the "bug guns".

I'm aware as I write this that these facts are self-evident to this newsgroup.

I see very little snobbery here, and that's why I love reading this bulletin
board!

---Bob