The hottest topic of the last few days: proposed changes in the DOC Rosso di Montalcino rulebook. DOC president Ezio Rivella (former winemaker of Montalcino’s largest producer, Castello Banfi) has summoned an assembly of members for 7th September to discuss the introduction of new varieties into Rosso di Montalcino. So far, Rosso is a 100% Sangiovese by law. Rivella suggests this be changed so that between 5 and 15% of foreign varieties can be introduced: Merlot, Cabernet Sauvignon, Syrah, as well as traditional Tuscan Canaiolo and a few others. There is also the possibility of introducing a Rosso di Montalcino Superiore that will remain 100% Sangiovese. Rivella attempted to have a similar proposal voted back in February 2011 but dropped the idea after it became clear there was no majority in favour.
Montalcino still in the dark.
This time chances are even slimmer. Comments that are being voiced in the blogosphere are universally negative: see e.g. Franco Ziliani, Nicholas Belfrage, Do Bianchi, Juel Mahoney as well as these numerous comments by the wine world’s elite. Francesco Illy (owner of the Mastrojanni winery) voiced his concern too, and it’s clear other historical producers such as Franco Biondi Santi, Fuligni and Col d’Orcia will strongly oppose the motion.
All this is really a continuation of the rampant Brunellogate scandal going on since spring 2008 when a large amount of 2003 Brunello di Montalcino (which by law must also be 100% Sangiovese) was found to be falsified by adding unauthorised grapes. The result was a major disaster for the image of Brunello, and combined with the economic crisis and a major crunch in exports, notably to the US, has put the Montalcino wine industry to its knees. There is currently no question of changing the 100% Sangiovese rule for Brunello so the efforts of the ‘reformist’ camp including Rivella have switched to Rosso.
I do support the opposition to changes in Rosso rules. I love traditional Sangiovese and I wouldn’t like to see Brunello or Rosso changing into inky cassis-laden Cabernet-driven wines. (See this and that article where I criticised atypical wines). I have two reservations, however, about the current outrage about the proposed DOC plan change. One is that the whole debate is getting unnecessarily heated. Italian wine discussions have a dangerous tendency of degenerating into ruthless politics. I feel unhappy when I read that Rivella and his supporters are a ‘gang’ with no moral right to propose any changes to Brunello because Rivella was born in Piedmont not Montalcino. After all, Rivella is a democratically elected president, whether we like it or not, and anyone’s place of birth shouldn’t matter when discussing the merit (or lack thereof) of their technical suggestions.
Francesco Marone Cinzano, owner of Col d’Orcia (with one of the larger non-Sangiovese plantings), said he will oppose the changes. © Fabio Di Pietro.
Secondly, some crucial facts are rarely mentioned by my journalist and blogger colleagues. Foreign grapes are already present in high proportion in Montalcino vineyards: as much as 700 ha out of 3,500. So far they have been used in IGT Toscana wines, DOC Sant’Antimo (both lacking the sex appeal and price tag of anything with Montalcino on the label) as well as fraudulently in Brunello and likely also Rosso. The Brunellogate-related enquiry focused on wine from the 2003 vintage but it’s clear the practice of illegal blending did go on for a number of years on a large scale. Given that before the scandal’s outbreak, vintages between 2004 and 2007 were also vinified and (in part) blended, one wonders if that practice hasn’t really been going on until very recently. The fact is that those grapes are out there, and they’re certainly not being sold on the Montalcino green market on Friday mornings. So what to make of them? Banfi do make some IGT Merlot and Cabernet, as do Col d’Orcia, Frescobaldi, Nardi, Il Poggione, and others. But e.g. Antinori’s estate of Pian delle Vigne releases no IGT (or Rosso, for that matter) even though having quite some non-Sangiovese in their plantings, from what I know. Rivella and other producers behind the motion simply represent a large chunk of the Brunello wine industry, capital, market shares, export agencies, and jobs. It’s naïve to hope they can be completely side-tracked offering them no sensible compromise. The best solution would be if Mr. Rivella took a private jet to Mars or Venus, taking his Merlot with them. But that is just not going to happen. They are here to stay. Even if the motion to change Rosso rules is rejected, it will boomerang in six or twelve months anyway. We need a durable solution. Calling Rivella the incarnation of evil and refusing to discuss any changes is not a compromise.
More importantly, I don’t think Merlot is Montalcino’s biggest problem. The biggest problem is quality and strategy. I have been tasting 150 different Brunellos from every vintage since 1997 and most of them just aren’t good enough for the price and prestige. Actually Banfi and Pian delle Vigne are in the better half of Brunellos. Hundreds of hectares in Montalcino are planted in places unsuitable for growing top-quality Sangiovese, not just by large estates such as Banfi but also many newcomers that flocked here in the fat decade of the 1990s. When Banfi and Castelgiocondo and others were investing millions of € and planting Merlot and Cab in the 1990s, nobody objected because Brunello was an easy sell and the slogan of modernising Italian wine still seemed to do magic. All those spoofulated Brunellos continuously obtained the DOCG from the appellation’s internal technical commission, as well as high ratings from many (not all) critics. I’m sorry to say that, but it’s a bit everybody’s sin if Montalcino has reached the exasperated situation of today.
Moreover there doesn’t seem to be any long-term strategy on Rosso. So far, it’s worked as a second vin, a declassified Brunello from lesser-quality grapes, young vines and inferior terroirs. As such it has only been selling on price. It sells OK when it costs 50% the price of a Brunello, but in 2009 and 2010 when Brunello prices fell sharply Rosso came to a complete standstill. Defending the ‘uniqueness’ of Rosso is a noble initiative, but does Rosso really have so much distinction for the average consumer? I don’t think so; the average consumer doesn’t really care about 5% Merlot. With a stagnant market, and unsold wine being a major problem for Montalcino, the pressure on Rosso might well increase in the years to come. It might not sound terribly romantic to the Sangiovese crusaders out there but Montalcino just needs to sell, including perhaps at lower price points than it has so far.
Ezio Rivella looks determined to enforce the changes. Click to hear why.
Do we really need this war to continue? It’s not going to benefit Brunello. It’s time for a real in-depth debate to reconcile the warring parties. Honestly I don’t agree that allowing 5% foreign grapes into Rosso poses such a threat to the identity of Montalcino. (Overoaking, overextraction and plain bad winemaking are much bigger threats, but nobody looks set to stop them institutionally). Chianti is also a Sangiovese-based wine with up to 20% Cab or Merlot allowed, but despite that fact, Chianti actually tastes more of Sangiovese than Brunello in the last few years – and everybody who believes in a 100% Sangio Chianti can choose to do so.
The Rosso motion will probably be rejected democratically by a majority of Montalcino producers. But it’s time the real issues were also addressed, and I would very much like to see a number of other motions voted as well, in order to cure Montalcino of its current cancers:
- a decision to introduce no further changes into Rosso or Brunello regulations for the next 5 years;
- a ban on any additional plantings within the Brunello DOCG to prevent further inflation of this noble wine (Barolo and Barbaresco had the guts to introduce such a ban in 2010);
- a much more stringent quality & typicity exam at granting the DOCG to Brunello and Rosso wines starting immediately, to declassify all substandard wines into IGT (a good 25% should be declassified, I think);
- the beginning of a serious soil & geography analysis, long overdue to introduce a proper ‘zonazione’ (classification into crus) of the Brunello DOCG, perhaps with the introduction of a sub-appellation for the best historical terroirs, and certainly the declassification of less happily located vineyards from Brunello into Rosso di Montalcino DOCG or downright IGT.
Without such a positive plan for Brunello, protesting against the currently proposed changes will just remain a short-term political brawl.
Wojciech, this is a great post, with a lot of insightful and useful information that puts the whole issue into greater perspective. And I think that you’re right: the tragedy here is the antagonism… I believe that the change is a fait accompli. But I also believe in something I once heard Baldo Cappellano say: the battles you know you won’t win are the one you need to fight the hardest for. Thanks, again, for this excellent post and the shouts out…
Thank you for your well informed article. Unlike you, I do not think that adding 5% Merlot in the Brunello is innocent. This addition is a sign of a drift to transform a challenging wine, a wine that requires an educated palate into a “easy” drink marketed for snobs. As over-extraction or the use of too much new barrels, the addition of merlot or cabernet in the sangiovese are signs of rampant globalization of tastes. I am happy to read that the market has sanctioned the “combinazione” in Montalcino. Consumers, especially when they are foreigners, are not so keen to pay an expensive price for an unclean product. Reputation might be the main factor in wine business.
@Jeremy: I don’t think it’s a fait accompli. In fact I think an overwhelming majority of producers is against the change (in part because they have little to gain, having no Merlot. The political mood seems very much against Rivella.
@Swiss Amateur: I guess you’re right about globalization, philosophically. That’s why I think it should be a 5% margin at most. Just trying to find a pragmatic solution to the stalemate.
@Jeremy: apologies for your comment disappearing (eaten by iPad
.
Excellent post if for no other reason that this is a complex issue. It’s not black and white, though some are making it out to be. You have gone into detail about the issues and have introduced some notable suggestions.
As for certain areas of the Brunello appellation not being suitable to quality grapes, that’s a given and something others have pointed out. But at this point, no one is about to pave the way for these areas to be eliminated. What producer would agree to that, especially if they know they are in one of these zones? The cat’s out of the bag, so the Brunello appellation will continue to be identified for its current boundaries – both the great zones and the lesser ones.
The key here is for consumers to look for the best producers, which is the case in other parts of Italy and the rest of the world. Just saying Napa Valley is no guarantee of quality, so it’s the same with Brunello di Montalcino. The difference is that over the decades, the term Brunello di Montalcino has become equated with that of one of the world’s greatest red wines. It still is, despite the wines being made from inferior areas. It’s just that you have to look toward the best producers.
We have attended the same tasting over the past seven to eight years and I agree that there are inferior wines. Maybe we need to continually promote the best producers – whoever they are in your opinion or mine.
As for the vote on the Rosso, I tend to agree with you that most producers will oppose this. Clever how the proponents of allowing 5% Merlot have also proposed a Rosso di Montalcino Superiore, which I’m sure in their minds, gives the producers an out when it comes to tradition. But this Superiore designation makes little sense. Brunello is Brunello and Rosso is Rosso. Things are complicated enough here and throughout much of Italy – let’s not make it any worse.
Tom, many thanks for your comment. I agree about Rosso Superiore – nobody needs this. However I don’t quite agree with about the Napa / Brunello similarity. Napa is a much larger area, and it’s natural that there be differences in style and quality. The European system of appellations is much more controlled, however, and should at least try to safeguard a quality standard if one exists already. Montalcino used to be much more consistent than it is now, because it only consisted of 700 ha 20 years ago (now 3500). This totally uncontrolled growth has resulted in a big crash of average quality. This shouldn’t have happened and I think it’s not too late to declassify some parts. Appellation boundaries change and nobody should take them for granted, especially if you fail to produce consistent quality.
Publicising good producers of course is a prerequisite – something you, I and all our colleagues do every year – but I feel it’s not enough.
My point on Napa Valley had nothing to do with size – it is larger than Montalcino, but it is still not that large. My point was that Napa Valley means quality in the eyes of most consumers and let’s face it, the most widely planted grape in Napa is Cabernet Sauvignon. So a Napa Valley CS is thought of as something special, even when it’s not. The same for Brunello di Montalcino- most people think this is a great wine. What is stands for is greatness, and that is achieved by many producers, but other estates simply produce less than excellent wines.
So image and not size or grape varieties link Montalcino and Napa Valley- along with many other great wines zones. As in every wine region, the best producers are the ones who make notable wines every vintage. The best producers in Montalcino can make a lovely wine with only Sangiovese, be it a Brunello or Rosso.
That said, I am hardly surprised the question of introducing other varieties into a Rosso is being discussed. I am against it, but as you pointed out, they need to sell wine. I am certain you are correct when you write that the majority of producers are against this idea. Bottom line, make the best wines you can and you’ll sell them.
My position is the following:
1) Brunello di Montalcino DOCG 100% Sangiovese forever.
2) Rosso di Montalcino Superiore DOCG 100% Sangiovese (not only DOC)
3) Rosso di Montalcino DOC from 85% to 100% Sangiovese
4) Sant’Antimo DOC only for white wines, pink wines and vinsanto.
Brunello and Rosso with 100% Sangiovese are both insuperable, both must be DOCG to increase quality and credibility. DOCG can specificy areas of production, minimum number of plants per hectare, the form of new vineyards, cultivation system permitted to existing vineyards, density vines per hectare, maximum of buds per vine in specialized cultivation, consent to emergency irrigation, winemaking and bottling in site, standards for labeling and so on. Exactly the same is done in all other DOCG with specification Superiore.
On Decanter.com Franco Biondi Santi, Montalcino’s eminence and flag, has declared that not changed his position since he said nearly three years ago that blended Rosso di Montalcino could work.
In http://www.decanter.com/news/wine-news/529230/outrage-as-montalcino-proposes-blended-rosso: “In some areas the vine excels, in others it simply does not”, he said. “Rather than change Brunello, we should think about allowing other red grapes, grown within the denomination, to Rosso di Montalcino”.
And in http://www.decanter.com/news/wine-news/529244/biondi-santi-nardi-hint-at-yes-vote-in-montalcino: “Since I know the land of Montalcino very well,” he emailed Decanter.com yesterday (1 september), “I can confirm that small additions of other vines (Merlot, etc…) could balance the wine in small percentages”.
I have written to Nick Belfrage by Giusy Andreacchio to explain him that I could not subscribe his appeal because it divided the wine lovers in “good children and bad children” as at the nursery, when the problems of Montalcino remain serious also after the vote (69% NO and 31% YES for change rules DOC Rosso). Rosso remains 100% Sangiovese, for now.
Precision about number of hectares of vineyards planted or number of bottles in Montalcino after 1966 (the first DOC) is a great problem.
In 1966, the vineyards of Brunello officially recorded were only over 100 hectares. Gigi Brozzoni (seminario Veronelli) wrote about these.
But Stefano Cinelli Colombini also add those who were not registered to selling wine without invoice. In the years ’60 and ’70 many italian customers refused to buy if they did not receive bottles without invoice, so any statistical number before number of guaranted bottles DOCG 1981 would be waste paper. Stefano Cinelli Colombini wrote to me that from 1800 to 1945 there were never less than 2,000 hectares of vineyards. In 1975, the vineyards of Brunello officially registered, however, were 280 hectares (as wrote Gino Veronelli on Vini & Liquori).
In 1980 born DOCG Brunello and its controls: all producers were forced to referring the tax documents with the official production (otherwise no permit to sign DOCG) and all not registered vineyards in Montalcino have the right to be included in Brunello DOCG.
In 2005 its were even officially registered 4,500 hectares (as it is written on the “Structure Plan” of Montalcino in September 2009).
Today are 3,500 as following: 2,100 hectares of Brunello (Sangiovese 100%), 550 of Rosso di Montalcino (Sangiovese 100%), 450 of S. Antimo (100 hectares of Sangiovese and 350 other varieties), 400 hectares of other varieties (including Moscadello, IGT, Chianti DOCG).
But there are only five or six estates that have always produced essentially the same wine with stable techniques in vineyard and cellar and related documentations and tests. Among the other 240 producers are mostly those who came from outside only in the last thirty or forty years, or fraction of those who have registered their vineyards until 1975.
Franco Biondi Santi on 2008 declared that “In some areas the vine excels, in others it simply does not”, because many producers planted Sangiovese in unsuitable soils.
Sangiovese is suffering more than others international varieties the difference between a vineyard and another (called the stamp of terroir). According to the opinion of Stefano Cinelli Colombini in a comment on Intravino, “Montalcino has an ideal strip of land that goes from 180 to 450 meters above sea level that widens in the south, and thins to the north a lot, almost forming a crescent. This strip is essentially homogeneous and gives the highest quality with minimal variation between a year and the next. Under this strip, the western land has the same problems of the internal Maremma, and the eastern land is similar to the southern part of the Chianti Classico: in both cases and above crescent the variations between vintages are much stronger.
There would also be a lot of “cleaning” to do. For me is most important the contents of the bottle than labels. I drink wine, not label.
Thank you for developing on this Mario. A lot of useful info. Truth is in the bottle, I agree, although it helps knowing what stands behind that bottle too.