This is in no way a classification system or hierarchy, though some have wanted and asked for one. Simply an official delimitation of the two appellations into named sub-zones. It is coming into effect with the 2010 vintage of Barolo, wines can now be labelled with these sub-zones if at least 85% of the grapes are from vineyard(s) wholly within said zone.
I believe wines labeled with names that are inaccurate, incomplete or not conforming to these official names will have to be relabeled starting with this vintage. As an example G. Rinaldi can no longer name one of his Barolo ‘Brunate-Le Coste’, only one sub-zone can be named, so he has chosen to rename it Brunate, the most prestigious vineyard and biggest part of the blend. And in doing so he has been forced to change the blend, as it must contain 85% Brunate grapes (or wine from Brunate grapes most likely.) So his two Barolo are now ‘Brunate’ and ‘Tre Tine’; the latter a fantasy name, dialectal for ‘tre tini’, three vats, and containing what used to be Cannubi SL-Ravera plus the rest of the Le Coste wine. In similar vein Rocche should no longer be allowed, but specified in which of the two famous Rocche: Rocche dell’Annunziata (in La Morra commune) or Rocche di Castiglione.
As the somewhat confusing article alludes to a producer may still use a traditional or new name of a specific plot within a sub-zone. ‘Vigna’ or vineyard. Only allowed after first naming the official sub-zone and bringing stricter yield limits. So Cavallotto’s ‘Bricco Boschis Vigna San Giuseppe’ as an example should still be allowed.
As I’ve mentioned in another thread a different name from the official ‘Menzioni Geografiche Aggiuntive’, both ‘Additional Geographical Definitions’ and ‘Additional Geographical Names’ are used in typical Italian fashion, is definitely needed. If not from the bureaucrats at least among us cognoscenti. The official version is beyond ridiculous. ‘Cru’ makes no sense seeing practically all land is covered by a zone irrespective of history or existence of wines. Vineyard too makes little sense. Some of the zones are relatively huge, e.g. Bussia as a famous one. Calling that ‘a cru’ or ‘a vineyard’? So we are left with the inelegant ‘sub-zone’… Who can come up with something better?
If the consorzio’s article is not a shining example of clarity, the maps are really quite good. Take a look and let the discussion commence:
I am happy they went with Rocche dell’Annunziata and Rocche di Castiglione. I always found that confusing. Why should the customer have to know who owns in which commune?
OTOH they forced Giacosa to stop including the commune name on all his wines. So Falletto is no longer allowed to have “di Serralunga d’Alba” after Falletto. I think they should have everyone include the commune name with the vineyard name.
I also think producers should be able to put the names of multiple vineyards on a blend, as long as it is in order of quantity. I think Brunate-Le Coste was 60-40, so that name seems fine to me. They could have also insisted he put the quantities on the label.
TBH I see the logic. Say I have 5 vines in Monvigliero and 5,000 vines in Rodasca. If I were able to call the bottling Rodasca-Monvigliero or even Monvigliero-Rodasca, then it could be misleading or deceptive.
However it’s not beyond the wit of man to see that some simple rules could have allowed two vineyards to be named together as many have practiced successful dual-site blends for years.
e.g. Largest holding / proportion of grapes harvested must be named 1st & that there must be at least (say) 25% from that vineyard to allow it on the label. Max 2 vineyards and perhaps even a more stringent limit e.g. 90+% must come from the two named vineyards.
However I can see their argument that a cru is a cru, and a blend is blend. A blend confuses any attempt to ‘taste the terroir’ so if the aim is to further promote the concept of cru’s then perhaps they are right to be dogmatic - indeed I would argue the logical step is to ask not for 85%, but 95-100% to ensure better representation of that Cru’s terroir.
I presume the back labels are still fair game, so a winery could label it Barolo Riserva and on the back label list communes & vineyards. Not the same impact as the wine lists would just say Barolo Riserva, but if in a wine shop or on a website we’d still have access to that information.
Linked to maps, the very good Enogea maps are on sale in the regional enoteche / tourist info places in the region. I picked up one for a friend (as well as one for myself) and he was delighted. The Barolo (not just that village, but all the villages) version comes in A1 size, and might appeal framed in ‘man-caves’. There are also maps for each commune, but I don’t know the size. No connections etc. just a nerdily enjoyable map!
A good solution to promote the Cru’s would seem to move toward 100%. Would agree that 85% is a little low, so perhaps there are a group of producers they’re protecting.
While trying to be more precise with the cru’s they’ve been a little too tough on the blends, so now the blends that have good and marketable fruit sources suffer. I like the idea of giving blends allowances to list each source (given reasonable parameters), at least on the back label, where those interested could get this important information.
Is my memory correct that if any producer registered a ‘name’ for a wine as an additional area within Barolo (e.g.) before 2010, that the name was approved? if they were that lenient, I fail to understand the utility of the additional areas or whatever they’re called.
The whole thing is bloody frustrating. Not your question Pat, but trying to seek out concrete, correct info from the Italian bureaucracy. After googling and searching the sites of the consorzio, the Regione Piemonte and the Ministero delle Politiche Agricole Alimentari e Forestali, Ministry of agriculture, foodstuffs and forestry, all I can come up with is the most recent DISCIPLINARE DI PRODUZIONE DEI VINI A DENOMINAZIONE DI ORIGINE CONTROLLATA E GARANTITA “BAROLO”, found at the first and last site, the Regione doesn’t even have the most recent version posted. So, the official document regulating the appellation Barolo DOCG. Only, it’s sorely lacking in detail and precision, who’d ever think that of such a document? To your question it says in art. 8.3: “In designating and presenting Barolo DOCG wines the use of indications referring to names, company names or private brands is allowed, as long as they cannot be mistaken for ‘Additional Geographical Names’, subject to the respect of the rights acquired, have no laudatory purport and do not mislead the consumer.” Fine(?), but what does it mean in concrete practical terms?
The designation of a single plot or vineyard, ‘vigna’, now only allowed within and following an ‘Additional Geographical Name’ is regulated, but only hinted at in the DOCG regulatory document. Here the site of the Regione has other documents describing the regulations. In short, as my familiarity and patience with legalese is limited: Each Regione has been tasked with making an official list of approved vineyard names. Growers and producers had (and have) the possibility to apply for registering a name on the list. There are two categories: place-names, requiring a cartographic documentation, and ‘traditional’ names requiring showing actual use from commercial documents and having been in continuous use for a minimum of five years before being allowed. Here is the current approved list of the Regione Piemonte if anyone is so inclined: http://www.regione.piemonte.it/agri/politiche_agricole/viticoltura/dwd/menzioniVigna.pdf In one of these documents somewhere it said to use the ‘Vigna’ designation 100% of grapes must come from said vineyard, right now I cannot find where.
The DOCG regulatory document also makes ZERO mention of what percentage of grapes or wine must come from an ‘Additional Geographical Name’ to be allowed to use it. The 85% rule i referenced in relation to blends and Rinaldi’s Brunate is also missing. I found it in an article talking about Rinaldi’s choice, but have found no way to verify it. There is supposed to be an attachment to the regulatory document explaining the rules of ‘Additional Geographical Names’, also impossible to find. I did find an older version of the Barbaresco regulatory document on a blog, with an attachment, but it only outlined the specific geographical borders with references to land registry plots.
Ian, the Enogea maps look cool though I’ve only seen small online representations. The graphic outlay is similar to the official Consorzio sub-zone maps, not surprising as Enogea has designed them too.
I really enjoy maps, a little bit of a map geek. And a pretty big wine geek, so wine and vineyard maps are pretty cool and fun I’m wanting to invest in these but would like to physically see them first.
Also missing from the DOCG regulatory document is any mention of back labels. Surprise! From what I’ve seen in practice in Italy it’s just about anything goes, especially for IGT and Vino da Tavola, there might be stricter rules for DOC and DOCG wines, but I haven’t found them laid out. I would think producers could mention sub-zone and vineyard names and blend percentages, but perhaps not…
That’s pretty interesting. In Bordeaux they’ve exploited a similar loophole to the fullest–they use the back label as the official front label and put all the legal junk there.
I think you’ve adequately summarized my confusion and frustration. I don’t know how anyone that doesn’t stand in the vineyards daily could understand what these changes mean. It may require several years and several bold producers who choose to test the rules before we have a decent grasp on what has happened.
Keith,
If you’re talking about the bottles that are exported to the US, it’s a US regulatory thing, not European. The Federal label approval process allows you to do as you say and declare the back label the main label, and put all the legal text on it. I don’t know how back labels are regulated in the EU.
![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}
![[swearing.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/8/8a0d3f3461d40641d294442fc2be78039bf94d19.gif "[swearing.gif]"){kind=small}
![[swoon.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/f/f425e8dac3e7344bee264da02e55428971be23a9.gif "swoon"){kind=small}
I’m wanting to invest in these but would like to physically see them first.