My take on the Rosso di Montalcino controversy

Over the past few days I have undergone a long and arduous mental journey deliberating which side of the
controversy over the proposed changes to the Rosso di Montalcino DOCG I come down on.  May I say that for me, this decision was not nearly as clear-cut and obvious as it has been for many writers and experts who share my passion for wines that express place and tradition.

As I deliberated about this issue I focused to a large extent on the purpose to the creation of the Rosso di Montalcino DOCG, which was to allow Brunello producers to use new and surplus plantings of Sangiovese to produce wines that could be sold more easily on the market without the stringent aging requirements of Brunello, thereby ensuring cash-flow, while protecting the integrity and quality of the loftier Brunello di Montalcino wines. I thought about whether the proposed changes, which would split Rosso di Montalcino into three separate DOCGs, one of which would allow up to 15% blending of "international" grape varieties, would be in keeping with this original intention.  My first thoughts were that the changes certainly had the potential to make it easier for producers to increase the appeal of Rosso di Montalcino for an international wine market as blending would provide an easy avenue to boost quality and consistency of a wine made from the often difficult Sangiovese grape.  A more consistent and marketable "second" wine would then potentially assure the continued quality of Brunello.  This would seem to be in keeping with the original intent of the Rosso DOCG category.

I also thought about the changes from the perspective of benefit to the consumer, particularly from the standpoint of available diversity and choice.  What would the possible consequences of the change be for the consumer?  Certainly the more discerning consumers would still have access to the vaunted Brunello di Montalcino, which of course would continue to be produced from 100% santiovese.  They would also be able to choose either Rosso di Montalcino Sangiovese, or Santiovese Superiore, which would still require 100% Sangiovese content.  So, choice and diversity would certainly not be diminished.

As anyone who knows my wine leanings would know, I am generally very interested in wines that express a sense of place, which often translates to tradition.  This certainly figured into my ruminations, although, where Italian appellation designations are concerned tradition isn't always the quality holy grail some think it should be - think Chianti pre-70's.  However, here is where my thinking always brought back an uneasy, tight feeling in my stomach about the proposed regulations.  Is there a possibility that adding "international" varieties such as Cabernet Sauvignon or Merlot, which by the way, there are liberal allowances for under other designations, is the easy way out?  Would there be a way to strengthen quality and sales of Rosso without sacrificing varietal integrity or potentially starting this unique area of Tuscany down the slippery slope of world wine homogeneity?  I grappled with these questions over the past few days, until I had that inexplicable moment of clarity which often informs our most arduous decisions.  In other words, I finally succumbed to going with my gut feeling over an issue that cold logic simply refused to rule.  This moment came when I read an open letter addressed to the consortium considering the changes by a major area wine producer.  I will attach this letter, originally posted on www.vinissima.net below.  Quite honestly, only yesterday I was still leaning towards being in favor of the proposed changes, but at least for the time being, I am now leaning in the other direction...just a gut feeling...sort of a "do the harder but MORE right thing moment.

“I’ll tell you a story of coffee, not wine. 
It was the seventies, two oil shocks and the whole Italian economy was badly tanned. My father, a few years ago in full control of illy caffè spa, was in financial difficulties as many other Italian companies, and so one day he found himself explaining to banks: 
”But Dr. Illy, the company restructured formula is easy: you buy the coffees of lesser quality and much less money and its financial statements will flourish. ” 
My father, said with his usual ethical position: “I made a promise of excellent quality to my customers and do not want to betray them to save a certain budget.” 
This decision was not the prelude to a tremendous success, but tiring years of difficulty. But that in turn was the preamble of the illycaffè I imagine you all know.

I thank our father for having the courage then: we might be more in roasting coffee, but certainly not how we are doing today in nearly 160 countries. Or maybe we would be gone … … to listen to the banks whose business is another! I am afraid there is – although not so specific in terms of quality, because nobody wants to make a Rosso di Montalcino less good – a very obvious similarity to another level: that of identity. 
We all know how difficult it is to work with Sangiovese. Just as the Nebbiolo of Barolo and Barbaresco. And we all know the story, like ours, almost twenty years ago, of the Piedmont Consortium. 
They made the right choice and they get excellent results: they opted for the protection of their identity. Of their terroir. The difficult but possible way of improving their tradition.

Today we are in a situation similar to these two: both experiences tell us that those who have managed to defend its identity in the end he won. 
Because the consumer, including what is in ourselves, do not consume products with interchangeable pleasures for tastes that are undifferentiated. People consume stories of men of courage, territory, culture and passion. They search for features, specificity and personality. 
And who does not understand this … is designed to disperse his voice in a chorus of platitudes in which anyone can sing. 
Is this what we want? 
As we once lost our identity, to compete with this type of farming? And with that kind of laws on wine? 
Our identity is our first capital and it makes us different and gives us stories to tell different from anyone who does not have intensive viticulture. Think about it, before you throw away a worth that much. 
Thanks for letting me read and pardon the intrusion, but I love too much not to mention to Montalcino.

Sincerely Azienda Agricola Podere Le Francesco Illy Ripi.

I would be interested in other's thoughts on this important issue, particularly opposing viewpoints. So please don't hesitate to share.


Have a great weekend, keep it natural, and keep it interesting,


Rand