And then again sub-areas, innovation and knowledge: how to harmonize all this? What Riccardo Viscardi wants to address in this article is a somewhat technical discussion, but we hope it will be understandable and interesting even for non-experts, as it offers an important insight into the future of production styles and philosophies of Italian wines in each territory.
Historic and more established territories are undergoing a moment of transformation due to two converging influences: the first dictated by the market, which seems to prefer wines that are less tannic and have a lighter texture; the second by a greater scientific knowledge about grape varieties, assisted by a technique well supported by high-quality winemaking tools in the cellar, which allow for better extractions from the skins and greater protection of the aromas. Better wines are thus born.
However, taking these concepts to extremes leads to some critical interpretation issues of the areal. Some of the requirements of territorial recognizability of specific appellations are eroded when not even trespassing on other appellations that use the same grape variety or blend.
A constructive meeting
On a hot August holiday, we discussed this topic with a great professional, which has led countless companies to success since the 1990s. We exchanged views on the territory of Montalcino, so single-vineyard wine with historical references and well-known subzones and (so far) decidedly codified taste characteristics.
Our attention focused on the dirt road leading from Castelnuovo dell’Abate to Sant’Angelo in Colle, commonly called the Sesta area (but beware of confusion: there is also a company with the same name). Leaving aside even important differences within the subzone, a few are established peculiar characteristics: a salty tendency on the palate, an elegant and well-integrated tannic quota, the nose that although anchored in red fruit and black cherry scents has in the yellow spices its recognizable note (this classic aspect is influenced by the type of vinification).
The focus of the talk
The discriminating and focal point of the comparison was: new winemaking and new fermentation decisions, as well as perhaps different clones and harvest times, how much can they deviate from the parameters mentioned so far?
Should or should not the producer be subject to the recognized practice of subarea characteristics?
If his research leads him to ensure that the wine, still remaining within the Brunello di Montalcino olfactory canon, becomes too similar to one from the subzone Montosoli or from the Western Cerbaie or of the higher areas of the designation, in texture or taste definition how should it be considered? A leap of faith and confusion or an innovative interpretation? Corporate style?
One thing is clear: this situation totally disrupts the reading of the whole territory. I want to remind you that we are talking about textures, not biologically of super extracts or wines nailed on tannin.
What do you guys think?
On this issue I would like to know the ideas of our readers, your position and that of the producers themselves.
I personally believe that an adherence to the texture of the subzone is desirable, perhaps limiting some of its roughness but not totally eliminating at a young age a grip in the center of the mouth that has made Montalcino’s fortune in the world.
Having thrown the stone I await your comments.
For the avoidance of doubt, the wine at the center of the talk is one of the appellation’s most prized. But the talk is not limited to Brunello di Montalcino. The same theme could be addressed in the area of the Valpolicella, the Langhe or other territories..
PRODUCER
