Ian D’Agata is the Italian wine correspondent for the International Wine Cellar, and his proposal was published on the subscription-only IWC site on August 20.
A Modest Proposal for Updating and Protecting Brunello di Montalcino
by Ian D’Agata
Brunello di Montalcino, the flagship wine of the Montalcino area of Tuscany, is a standard-bearer for Italian wine around the world and should be a paragon of quality. It is one of Italy’s best known products, much like pizza and pasta, and it contributes significantly to the image of “made in Italy.” Unfortunately, Brunello has been plagued over the years by an extremely variable level of quality (many bottles simply do not justify their high prices), by huge overexpansion of the Brunello production boundaries, and by widespread suspicions about the authenticity of the final product. Italian law stipulates that Brunello di Montalcino must be made from 100% sangiovese (one of Italy’s two most famous grape varieties), but rumors have been rampant in recent years that many wines contained healthy doses of varieties not allowed by the strict DOCG regulations that are the guidelines for Brunello production.
These suspicions came to a head recently with the well-known “Brunellopoli” scandal, in which a government investigation initiated in September 2007 led to 400 hectares (roughly 970 acres) of vineyards being sequestered by the investigative authorities, and an embargo being placed on sales to the U.S. of 6.7 million litres of 2003 Brunello di Montalcino (and 1.7 million liters of other wines from the area, including 740,000 liters of Rosso di Montalcino, the area’s lighter 100%-sangiovese red, also a DOCG wine). The conclusions of that investigation, made public just this past July, have since led to a total of 1.3 million liters of Brunello and 500,000 liters of Rosso di Montalcino being declassified to the lower quality category of IGT Toscana Rosso, and required measures such as the uprooting of grape varieties that shouldn’t have been planted in the first place in 350 of the 400 hectares originally sequestered by the authorities. One hundred thousand liters of wine were destroyed outright—i.e., sent to the distillery. In addition, 17 individuals were charged with a variety of crimes, and while 8 have come to terms with law enforcement agents (which in the Italian legal system means an admission of guilt in exchange for a lighter sentence), others still have charges ranging from criminal intent to committing commercial fraud and lying in a public office hanging over their heads. If one chose to put a positive spin on this outcome, one could say that only 20% of the total volume of Brunello originally brought into question was ultimately declassified, but this would be akin to deriving satisfaction that you’ve put out the fire after part of your home has burned down.
Unfortunately, despite the scandal and its effect on the image of one of Italy’s greatest wines, both cultural and administrative inertia continue to reign in and around Montalcino, even if good intentions abound. To date, very little has been done to modify and improve current legislation regarding the production of the wines of Montalcino. Instead, despite the various parties putting on a brave face, infighting among the locals continues to undermine the possibility of arriving at a sensible solution that can benefit all of those involved. My numerous visits to the area last year and this year (including 20 interviews with various producers this August alone) have left me with the distinct impression that while most producers are cognizant of the situation they find themselves in, others lack the ability to see the bigger picture, and some seem unable—or unwilling—to work together to resolve the problem.
After 25 years of visiting Montalcino and its producers regularly, my humble objective here is to offer a proposal for resolving the many issues that need to be addressed in order to maintain and foster the prestige of one of the world’s truly great wines.
Understanding Montalcino and Brunello: the problems. Brunello di Montalcino is a relative newcomer to the ranks of “world-famous” wines, with barely 150 years of history. Thanks mainly to the ingenuity of one man, Clemente Santi (at that time, the family name was not yet Biondi-Santi), who isolated what he believed to be a special clone of sangiovese, and later his grandson Ferruccio Biondi-Santi (son of Clemente’s daughter Caterina and Jacopo Biondi), who is generally credited with perfecting Brunello in the 1870s, Montalcino has become synonymous with sangiovese—more specifically, with what was once called sangiovese grosso. Much as the Côte d’Or (Burgundy) is linked to pinot noir and chardonnay, the Mosel to riesling, and the Langhe (Piedmont) to nebbiolo, Montalcino is tied to sangiovese. When well made, Brunello di Montalcino is an outstanding and unique wine—the result of the encounter between a specific terroir and a specific grape variety.
Unfortunately, sangiovese is a grape variety—or, more accurately, a “variety-population” of very closely related grape sub-varieties—that is not easy to work with, either in the cellar or the vineyard. A late ripener, it does poorly in cool or wet climates (such as Montalcino can be), where winter and early springtime snow at more than 1,200 feet above sea level is not uncommon. The variety also fares poorly in clay-rich soils, of which there is now an abundance in the Montalcino production zone, which has been rather generously—and thoughtlessly—expanded over the last few decades. When grown well in suitable sites, sangiovese does not need help from any other variety, as most enologists and producers often point out. There is plenty of evidence that 100%-sangiovese wines (for example, those from Le Cinciole, Felsina, Montevertine, Selvapiana, Poggio di Sotto, Costanti, Salicutti, Case Basse and others) can effectively rival the world’s best, something that far too many people can easily forget.
But due to the difficulty of producing optimally ripe sangiovese grapes in many subzones of Montalcino in many vintages, there has been a secret and not-so-secret push to “improve” the wines through the addition of international or foreign grapes such as cabernet sauvignon, merlot and syrah (and other Italian natives as well, such as montepulciano and nero d’Avola). The problem, however, is that such “blends,” besides being illegal, have little in common with Brunello di Montalcino. The Consortium’s own website description of Brunello makes for interesting, if not downright amusing, reading: “…limpid and brilliant wine with a lively garnet color…,” “…scents of brushland, aromatic woods, small fruit, a light trace of vanilla and fruity jams…”. Nowhere does it mention black, inky colors, or aromas and flavors of black pepper, grilled bacon, bell pepper, chocolate or coffee, all of which have been present in recent years in many wines labeled Brunello di Montalcino. Yet many consumers have continued to pay high prices for Brunellos that should probably not have been sold under that name. And this situation has been exacerbated by the fact that some wine publications, inside and outside Italy, rewarded these suspiciously dark and atypical wines—with color, aromas and flavors far removed from anything resembling 100% sangiovese—with high ratings.
One of the main problems in making outstanding 100%-sangiovese Brunello di Montalcino today is the greatly expanded production zone and the huge increase that has taken place in the number of estates in recent times. The Brunello di Montalcino zone is often likened to a hill, which gently slopes to the valleys below. The entire production area is in fact a nearly circular territory delimited by the Asso, Ombrone and Orcia river valleys, extending over 24,000 total hectares (or nearly 60,000 acres), of which about 3,500 hectares are currently under vine. These are subdivided into roughly 2,000 hectares (about 5,000 acres) from which Brunello is made, 250 hectares for Rosso di Montalcino production, and 900 hectares for Sant’Antimo wines, the latter DOC wine permitted to include international varieties. The hill is located mainly (but not exactly) in the central part of the production zone.
I believe that it is impossible to make truly great wine from every site in as large an area under vine as that of Montalcino. At its current size, its wines simply cannot all be of grand cru quality, no matter how talented the producers might be. Compare Montalcino to Burgundy. The whole of the grand cru Musigny adds up to only 10.7 hectares (26.4 acres), and even the 24 premier cru vineyards of Chambolle-Musigny amount to a total of only 60+ hectares (150 acres). In Vougeot, where the famed grand cru Clos de Vougeot dominates, there are a total of 67 hectares, of which a whopping 50+ hectares, or roughly 75% of the total, are designated as grand cru. It is no coincidence, then, that Clos de Vougeot, the largest grand cru of the Côte d’Or, is generally accepted to be the one very famous Burgundy site that produces a wide range of quality—and many wines that are widely felt not to merit their grand cru appellation.
At the Siena Exposition of 1933, there were only four Brunellos: Biondi-Santi, Angelini, Barbi and Roberto Franceschi—but only Biondi-Santi and Angelini were bottling Brunello regularly. The number of producers has increased relentlessly over the years:
1975 vintage: 800,000 bottles of Brunello produced by about 25 producers.
1985 vintage: 1.8 million bottles and 95 producers
1995 vintage: 3.5 million bottles and 120 producers
2004 vintage: 6.7 million bottles and 250 producers
Likewise, there once used to be as few as 46.6 hectares (115 acres) of land specifically devoted to viticulture, plus another 38.4 hectares dedicated to “mixed agriculture,” hilariously called promiscuous in Italian, which meant that sangiovese vines could be planted among grain, olive trees and other plants. Today there are 2,000 hectares from which Brunello can be made.
The increase in the number of producers starting up over the years is not startling, given the beauty of the Montalcino countryside, its lovely medieval villages and charming, relaxed country lifestyle. Add to that the fact that buying land in the Brunello production zone has been an outstanding investment in recent decades. In fact, the value of one hectare under vine runs anywhere from roughly 300,000 to 500,000 euros today, an increase in value of more than 2,000% since 1967. One can easily understand why people moved here and started making wine.
This may be the aspect of the current situation that the smaller producers of Brunello resent the most: that some of their colleagues (especially the bigger estates in Montalcino) that have only recently appeared on the scene have done so not out of any deep love of Montalcino’s wine or its territory, but because the zone is an investment cash cow. And the fact that the seven estates singled out in the government investigation produce about half of all Brunello made each year is further food for thought. Adding fuel to the fire was the lack of action taken by the Consortium after it had apparently become aware of the illegal vineyards and of the existence of wines that did not conform to DOCG requirements, which occurred well before the official investigation had been launched.
But there’s a flip side to having such a large number of producers, and so many undistinguished Brunello wines. For starters, Brunello now tends to enjoy strong positive press and worldwide buying demand only in the best vintages, with lesser vintages being sold essentially under the counter at rock-bottom prices. The result in most years is far greater supply than demand, and the consequent negative impact on bottle prices. Perhaps even more damaging, bottlers from outside the area are playing an increasingly visible role in buying up excess wine, something that may further discredit Brunello. These facts alone should push the Consortium and its members to do something about their current plight.
What to do NOW. In my view, it is superficial at best to repeat ad nauseam the commonly heard and read mantra that “producers ought to be allowed to make the best wine they can.” Even though I understand and can agree with the basic reasoning at the core of that statement, the fact is that it is far too general and open to myriad interpretations: essentially, according to this philosophy, producers can do virtually whatever they want in order to make what they consider to be a good wine. For example, should Burgundy or Piedmont producers be allowed to dump in merlot in rainy, weather-challenged years in which the grapes have suffered from rot and other diseases or have failed to ripen properly? Hardly, though that could certainly help them “make better wines.” True, the better producers don’t need government bureaucrats to furnish guidelines on how to make wine: the best producers will always make the best wines, while those with less talent and lower viticultural energy levels will always make poor wines—and this despite rules and regulations. That said, it ought to be apparent to just about anyone by now that wild deregulation and a lack of controls is not the answer, and that some well thought out parameters for making wine are probably a good thing. And as outdated and limiting as many DOC and DOCG rules may be, they do serve to qualify—to some degree at least—a wine coming from a specific production area.
Here are my suggestions for helping the producers of Brunello di Montalcino tackle the issues now before them:
1. Maintain the 100% sangiovese requirement for Brunello di Montalcino
As a result of the recent global financial meltdown, wine consumers virtually everywhere not only suffer from diminished buying power, but they also have different ideas about what sort of wine merits their spending. Whereas a few years ago they might have been willing to spend a significant sum on a bottle that is simply well made, today that alone may not be enough. For added value, they are increasingly looking for wines that deliver a sense of place and an interesting historical background. Furthermore, given Italy’s notoriously high labor costs, it will never be possible for the country to compete with emerging wine areas of the world, which can produce solid wines at bargain-basement prices. As Italy’s wines will always be more expensive than those of its competitors from the New World, competing on the battlefield of international varieties like merlot or chardonnay devoid of any sense of place makes very little sense.
In the case of Brunello, allowing the addition of even small percentages of other grape varieties—limits that are rarely respected anyway—could be counterproductive or even damaging to the wine and to the appellation itself. Since the addition of even minimal percentages of cabernet sauvignon or merlot significantly changes the aroma and flavor profile of sangiovese, the resulting wines can end up resembling those made just about anywhere else in the world, and thus do little to convey the uniqueness and somewhereness of Montalcino and its wines. Also, such Zelig wines, readily adaptable to many a site, lose the unique bond linking sangiovese and the Montalcino terroir. In Burgundy or the Mosel, for example, you never hear anyone promoting the use of syrah or chardonnay to help the wines sell. But the same line of reasoning doesn’t seem to apply to Brunello, which is just as unique and blessed a terroir. In fact, many Brunello producers maintain that a goodly number of their Montalcino colleagues, despite what they might say in public, are still resolutely in favor of turning Brunello into a blend and would like the right to include international grapes.
Finally, it is my belief that well-made, true-to-type Brunello offering consumers a unique, high-quality product will not be marginalized on the world wine market, just as the best examples of 100% nebbiolo wines from Barolo and Barbaresco have not been and will not be. Think of the difficult situation now being faced by Vino Nobile di Montepulciano, or even Chianti, where wines that previously had great historic significance have been greatly damaged by liberal additions of many different non-local grape varieties. These changes have resulted in a loss of identity by many wines and confusion in the mind of the consumer, which in turn have resulted in diminished economic returns.
2. Create a new DOC called Montalcino in addition to Sant’Antimo
The creation of a new DOC in addition to the existing Sant’Antimo DOC is of utmost importance. Sant’Antimo would be limited to wines made from white grapes and to Vin Santo, the only one of the various Sant’Antimo wines that currently sells well and has a recognizable identity. A new Montalcino DOC, limited to red grapes only, would allow all producers to cash in on the Montalcino name, which in itself allows for greater sales of important red wines (certainly more so than the obscure Sant’Antimo moniker) and would provide a solution for those producers who own less-than-ideal sites for the production of quality wines made entirely from sangiovese. This new category would and should become comparable to Bolgheri, a Tuscan appellation that has quickly risen to the top of Italy’s vinous hierarchy. Producers would then be able to make wines labeled Montalcino containing various percentages of international grapes along with sangiovese. Given that these wines would still carry the prestigious Montalcino name, an area historically associated with sangiovese, I recommend that sangiovese remain the dominant grape variety, perhaps making up 60% or 70% of the blend, the rest consisting of a mix of international or indigenous grape varieties.
In order to avoid creating wines that are too different from one another and ultimately confusing for consumers and experts alike, the list of other allowed varieties should be strictly defined and limited to no more than four or five (and I would suggest grapes like cabernet sauvignon, cabernet franc, merlot and syrah, and possibly montepulciano). This would ensure that the mistakes made in other DOCs of Italy are not repeated here. My suggestion for allowing the inclusion of at least 30% of other grape varieties is necessary because whereas cabernet sauvignon and merlot strongly mark sangiovese with their presence even when used in small quantities, my own experience is that syrah cultivated to date in Italy has less of a camouflaging impact on sangiovese until it reaches at least 30% of the total blend. I am aware that some producers will find that percentage much too high.
Also, unlike some of the producers I have spoken with, I do not believe that a new Montalcino DOC (and the objective has to be for it to become a DOCG as soon as possible) will engender confusion among consumers, as most foreigners refer to Brunello di Montalcino and to Rosso di Montalcino as Brunello and Rosso, respectively. Nor do I view the creation of this new category as a threat to Brunello or Rosso. This is because a new Montalcino DOC (or DOCG) category will be made up of wines that due to the presence of international grapes in the blends, independent of how good they may turn out to be, will be clearly different from either Brunello or Rosso, which will truly be 100% sangiovese, and therefore not comparable to each other.
Clearly, it needs to be underscored that producers, the Consortium and the government itself should invest heavily in this new Montalcino DOC. It would be unthinkable to create a new DOC that may well reduce some producers’ earnings at first (at least until the quality of their wines becomes established in the marketplace) without strong government support and sponsorship of promotional and marketing activities. The end result, one hopes, would be that the wines sporting the Montalcino moniker will one day be as well known as those of Bolgheri and other Supertuscans. One need only think of the great critical and commercial success of wines such as Masseto or Grattamacco, or of Percarlo or Flaccianello in Chianti, to realize how successful an approach such as this might be, if handled properly. As some Montalcino producers may not be interested in making a high-end Supertuscan, but might rather prefer simply to make large quantities of blended wine, the guidelines for the new DOC might be structured to allow slightly larger yields than those currently allowed for Sant’Antimo, in an effort to diminish production costs. Clearly, those producers wishing to make the highest quality wines possible would be free to reduce yields as they see fit. Last but not least, creating a new DOC called Montalcino would also free legislators of the worry of having to change the existing Rosso di Montalcino DOC guidelines, which many producers do not want to see adjusted in any way.
3. Leave the Rosso di Montalcino DOCG as it is
I am well aware that many producers in Montalcino, rather than opting to create a new Montalcino DOC, would instead prefer simply to break down the existing Rosso di Montalcino appellation into a Rosso di Montalcino Superiore and another one, simply called Rosso di Montalcino or Montalcino Rosso. In their view, the Superiore would remain the Rosso di Montalcino of today and a 100% sangiovese wine, except for a new obligatory aging period of four months or so in wood, while the Montalcino Rosso would be an altogether new category in which international grape varieties would be allowed. A variation of this theme has already been brought up in a recent Consortium assembly and shot down, because the originally proposed second category was going to be Rosso di Montalcino Sangiovese rather than Rosso di Montalcino Superiore but it was not clear whether this new category would be 100% sangiovese. So it will be some time before this idea is brought up again—at least not until the new members and new president of the Consortium are elected, which will be some time after April of 2010.
In any case, I fear that labeling a wine with the long and difficult to pronounce name of Rosso di Montalcino Superiore is, quite simply, not a good idea, as export markets do not take kindly to these cumbersome names. Furthermore, limiting the use of international grape varieties to a category of wine called Rosso di Montalcino would always place these wines at a perceived quality disadvantage compared to Brunello in the eyes of potential clients. This is because Rosso di Montalcino has always been viewed as the lesser and lighter of the two wines.
Considering that producers will have to use their merlot and cabernet and syrah in wines that no longer fetch the high prices that Brunello di Montalcino usually does (or did) on the strength of its name alone, it would seem to make little sense to burden the new entity with a name that would automatically relegate it to the role of second, or even third, fiddle (especially since the Superiore label would go to the 100%-sangiovese wine). Understandably enough, such a move would be unlikely to be accepted by many of the producers themselves. The obvious concern of some is that the new Bolgheri-style DOC wines may one day outshine Brunello. But truly great, well-made 100% sangiovese wine is a thing of unparalleled beauty, as unique and as wonderful as a great 100% pinot noir or nebbiolo from a great site. The wines are not comparable: Percarlo and Cepparello are not better than Ornellaia or Paleo, just different. Ultimately, a strong group of new Montalcino DOC wines will kill off the bad Brunellos now on the market, and such a development will ultimately help to make Brunello di Montalcino a much better wine, and a better value for your money. Of course, if some producers one day start saying that Brunello production guidelines ought to be changed due to the success of the new Montalcino DOC, then they’re a lost cause and can only be left to their own devices.
In my view, the fear on the part of some producers that a sangiovese-only Rosso category would not sell is overblown. The main reason so much Rosso di Montalcino made in recent vintages has not sold well is because too many of these wines are awful—and they’re certainly not good enough to merit their prices. Up until the 2006 vintage, many Rosso di Montalcinos were overly tannic and bitter, and displayed none of the charms one would expect from a lighter 100%-sangiovese red. But producers should be encouraged by the utterly delicious 2007s and the outstanding press they have received inside and outside Italy. It may be no coincidence that the first vintage of Rosso di Montalcino that reached the market after the scandal is significantly lighter in color and more typical of sangiovese than virtually any Rosso vintage in recent memory.
Finally, not changing the Rosso di Montalcino DOCG will appease those who view it as an historic entity with a specific tradition attached to it, as well as those producers that have no trouble selling their Rossos, and those who say they fail to see why it should disappear. It could be argued that it was a mistake to have named this category so in the first place or to have limited it to sangiovese: in fact, already back in 1967 these wines were called with a name that allowed them to cash in on their Brunello namesake, rosso da vigneti di Brunello—or, translating from the Italian, red wine from vineyards of Brunello—but so be it.
4. Modify and improve the current guidelines for producing Brunello
Technical committee. A big part of the problem at the heart of last year’s scandal was that tasting committees named by the Chambers of Commerce did not do their jobs: for years they simply rubber-stamped many a Brunello that came under examination for DOCG approval. This is a problem that all other DOC and DOCG wines face. It also calls into question why Brunello producers have had to bear so much of the blame for what transpired over the years in Montalcino. Since the DOCG neckbands are handed out after the wines are tasted and reviewed by members of a tasting committee appointed by a government body such as the local Chamber of Commerce, it would only seem logical for Italian legislators to review the functioning of these entities.
It might behoove producers to bring back a technical committee. Up until 1995 or 1996, it was mandatory for all Brunello producers to send their wines to the Consortium’s technical committee, which would then offer the producer advice on what potential problems his or her wines might have, if any. It might be time to re-establish such a committee. Though I am not a fan of more bureaucracy, if the end result would be to avoid a mess such as last year’s scandal, then why not? Clearly, the usefulness of such a committee is directly related to its independence and technical know-how. The committee should consist of three members only, who evaluate the wines blind and send their conclusions honestly and directly, and in secret, to each producer. In theory, such a committee ought to act as an advocacy group for the wines made by the members, and should discuss with members any wines that are not what they ought to be, in the spirit of all for one and one for all. And of course, it also needs to be independent of any pressures from the producers themselves, especially those that are the biggest financial supporters of the Consortium itself.
Further yield reduction. Because far too much Brunello is being made today and because the wineries that currently make Brunello cannot be prevented from doing so, one obvious way to enforce at least some quality control is through further reduction of maximum allowable yields. The current limit of 80 quintals per hectare (just over 61 hectoliters per hectare) is too generous. Though reducing maximum yields would result in higher overall production costs and may entail a further rise in prices, high-quality Brunello will never have trouble fetching high prices. Today, it is almost entirely the mediocre wines being made in unsuitable sites that are experiencing most of the sales problems. My suggestion is that the maximum allowable yield for Brunello di Montalcino be reduced to 60 or even 50 quintals per hectare. Given that there are a ridiculous 8 million bottles to sell from the 2004 vintage, reducing this number by at least a couple of million is an absolute necessity. The must that is not used to make Brunello could then be used for either Rosso di Montalcino or the new Montalcino DOC wines, theoretically improving the quality of those wines by the addition of higher-quality sangiovese juice.
Creation of a cru system and identification of specific production subzones. It is hard to speak of one Brunello di Montalcino. Wines made in an area as diverse and large as Montalcino are bound to be radically different, even if they’re made in more or less the same manner. This natural diversity ought to be a strength and a valuable marketing tool for the producers, but unfortunately this is not generally how it is viewed. In fact, the terroir of Montalcino is a mosaic formed in different geological eras, characterized by extremely variable soil composition, altitudes and exposures, the latter two variables being of critical importance in Montalcino. The lower valley vineyards lie on alluvial deposits with deep and soft topsoil from the quaternary period, featuring a very large presence of clay and clay-sand marl. Farther uphill there is less topsoil; here there are deposits formed by the break-up of limestone and marl, plus some tufa (volcanic) rock. And sites with an abundance of organically poor, very friable and carbonate lime-rich galestro soils are particularly well suited to sangiovese. The great expansion of the boundaries of the Montalcino production zone through the years has included many areas that are very rich in clay, where sangiovese fares poorly (and where producers not so secretly would like to plant merlot).
Back in the ’80s, producers used to describe the Brunello production zone as roughly divided into a northeastern section sloping out towards Torrenieri, a southwestern portion jutting out towards Castelnuovo dell’Abate, and a southern portion where S. Angelo in Colle is located. We know today that this subdivision is too simplistic. For example, the newer area of Camigliano is completely different, geologically and climatically speaking, than those of the other towns (and the same applies to S. Angelo Scalo and Tavernelle). Generally speaking, wines made on the northern slopes of the main Montalcino hill facing Buonconvento and Torrenieri are lighter, higher in acidity and more perfumed, while those of the southern sector (Castelnuovo dell’Abate, S. Angelo in Colle, S. Angelo Scalo and Camigliano) are softer and smoother, and ready to drink sooner. The wines made immediately in and around the hamlet of Montalcino itself are widely considered to be the best balanced and potentially the finest of the lot, though outside of the warmest years some Brunellos made in and around Castelnuovo dell’Abate and S. Angelo in Colle are now considered to be even better.
There can be as much as a two to four week difference in harvest dates between vineyards on the northern side and those on the southern side of the hill, but of course the myriad differences in exposures add another important variable.
It seems only logical that if the wines of Bordeaux are thought of in terms of Left Bank and Right Bank, if Napa Valley includes such very different appellations as Stag’s Leap, Oakville and Howell Mountain, and if even a less-famous but increasingly high-quality viticultural area such as Canada’s Niagara region has a Beamsville Bench and a St. David’s Bench to speak of, then it’s hard to understand why Montalcino does not yet have its own subzones.
Montalcino has always been associated with specific sites for quality wine production. For example, an archaic system of crus was already in place in past centuries, so it seems silly not to have one today. In the 14th century, specific high-quality areas, easily identified with existing sites today, were already being recognized. In fact, it appears that there were two different types of land sales in the area of Montalcino: those sales referring to land under vine, and those referring to specific vineyards, the ancestors of today’s sites leading to many single-vineyard bottlings. Names such as Collemattoni, Pian dell’Oro, Poggio Lupaia, Il Colle, La Pescaia and Campo Il Fornello were already mentioned and have modern-day equivalents. True, one needs to remember that many of these localities were mainly planted to moscadello, as moscadello di Montalcino was for the longest time the premier wine associated with Montalcino. Nonetheless, it is evidence of the fact that specific crus and sites for winemaking had always been known in Montalcino. Of course, great wines do not always come just from single hallowed sites. When carefully assembled into a balanced whole, lesser sites might come to play an important role in supplying, for example, much-needed acidity (from less favorably located vines yielding slightly underripe grapes) or fuller body owing to grapes culled from warmer sites, which would tend to give chunkier, less refined wines on their own.
This situation is analogous to what has transpired over the last 20 years or so in Piedmont. Whereas almost all Barolos and Barbarescos were once blends made from nebbiolo grapes from different vineyards, today’s unofficial cru system there has provided producers with considerable marketing advantages and clear financial rewards. In fact, this tactic has proved so successful that it has been taken to an excess, with seemingly every other Barolo or Barbaresco now sporting a single-vineyard name, even when that vineyard is nothing special. Nevertheless, Piedmont offers an example of how even an unofficial classification might turn out to be a powerful tool by which to distinguish the different personalities of wines made from various areas of Montalcino. And, in Piedmont at least, it has led to an official system of subzones being put into place.
As difficult as it will be to convince producers of its necessity, a careful study of a readily identifiable set of subzones requiring five to seven years will be a useful step in the right direction. Geological and climatic data gathered over the years tells us that creating subzones based on the hamlets where viticulture is practiced by a critical mass of producers might be a good start, although it must be noted that DOCG rules do not allow this, so the bureaucratic work ahead will be considerable. The first step ought to be to draw up an official division of the Montalcino hill into a northern and a southern sector. A welcome next step might be to further subdivide the Montalcino production zone into townships of origin, such as is the case, for example, with Bordeaux’s Pauillac and Margaux, or Burgundy’s Chambolle-Musigny and Vosne-Romanée. In Montalcino, these might include Torrenieri, Buonconvento, Montalcino, Castelnuovo dell’Abate, S. Angelo in Colle, S. Angelo Scalo, Tavernelle and Camigliano. The latter three present enough geologic and altitude diversity to warrant being classified separately.
Within these larger subzones, two specific sub-areas need to be identified: those of Montosoli in the north and Sesta in the south. Montosoli is located between Buonconvento and Montalcino and is characterized by vineyards that, though located on the northern side of the hill, have a mainly southeastern or southwestern exposure, and are rich in galestro, whereas many of the soils around Buonconvento are richer in clay. Sesta, located between Castelnuovo dell’Abate and S. Angelo in Colle, is one of the few areas in Montalcino that is particularly rich in gravel and rocks. The distinctive mineral component of its wines is a trait not usually found in Brunellos made elsewhere.
And some producers who own documented vines on both sides of the hill and in different townships may well choose not to use a subzone on their label, preferring simply to make a Brunello di Montalcino, much as some producers of Barolo or Barbaresco choose not to make single-vineyard wines. Of course, subzones are not in themselves the solution and will never be able to explain all the minute differences between wines made within Montalcino, but they can help better delineate among different wines made from very different terroirs. It must be noted, however, that with the creation of the European Union, such decisions now also need to go through Brussels.
Some producers fear the stigma and possible loss of revenues that might derive from their wines being labeled with what might be perceived as a lesser township of origin. Though there is no doubt that the current Montalcino territory is too vast (many feel that only one-quarter to one-third of the Montalcino production area is ideally suited to making top-flight 100%-sangiovese wines), it is also clear that the true potential of some areas has not been fully explored in modern times. It’s quite possible that global warming and the use of more modern viticultural techniques may come to change current perceptions of what each subzone can yield. Much as is the case with the wines of Margaux and Pauillac, to cite just one example, the various Brunellos made in different subzones of Montalcino will each have their distinguishing features, and consumers will be able to choose the styles that are most to their liking. One need only think of the wonderful wines made in the Castelnuovo dell’Abate jurisdiction, perhaps the very best area of all except in the warmest of years, to realize that the Brunello production zone as it was intended decades ago (basically that area immediately around the hamlet of Montalcino itself) was far too restrictive. Conversely, some townships held in lower esteem today were once much in vogue. For example, in the 17th century 12.5% of the Montalcino territory was under vine, but also 10% of the bordering Buonconvento territory. At that time the Buonconvento area produced almost twice as much wine as all of Montalcino (actually, it is likely that a great deal of the land under vine back then that was attributed to Buonconvento has now become part of the Montalcino production zone). In fact, the top portions of the small hills (poggi in Italian) that dot the low-lying landscape of Buonconvento, which lies at a lower altitude than Montalcino, are quite likely to give good Brunellos indeed, and more than one top producer feels this way.
Though Montalcino and its producers face major challenges, Brunello di Montalcino is potentially one of the top dozen wines made in the world. Certainly the majority of producers are aware that something needs to be done to improve the current situation. I am confident that, in typical creative Italian fashion, they will find a workable solution. And that is certainly the hope of those who love Brunello di Montalcino, not just the wine but also the passionate people who make it and the beautiful land in which it is born.
![[wink.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/04707e6a7bbb03e0153e349d8a9270d30e1e9525.gif "wink"){kind=small}
![[thankyou.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/d/df165fe9c1593d19166ae7e1ffe5e272089cc07b.gif "thankyou"){kind=small}