Chianti?

Please, Mike, do note that I did not make any universal statement, here above, but simply spelled the obvious: I was not discussing about wine, about the way to approach wine, whether the terroir or anything else should matter while considering wine. I was simply making a point concerning the correct denomination of an individual product: more precisely I was (and am!) questioning the soundness (hence the usefulness, too) of a particular denomination of _origin_, both on scientific grounds (as for the soundness and usefulness) and on a moral basis (as far as the deprived party are concerned). Being the origin essentially a geographical parameter in a product, everybody can see that those who (indeed in their good right to do so) do NOT care about "the relationship to the geographical area", implicitly confess their own lack of interest and their irrelevance in any discourse or reasoning about those issues! By definition, I should say. It is just a matter of "scope". Being my argument beyond UC's scope, by his own admission, what else could I say apart from a general "fair enough" and from returning the very same admission by mine about his words, also expressed more or less the same way?

You are not familiar with UC yet. Most of us would have ignored his comments. He sometimes says interesting things, but most of the time he is just itching for a silly argument that degenerates into "Italian is good, French is an aoofensive word".

Mike Tommasi wrote:

Fair enough. I am not too familiar with alt.food.wine itself either, but to the points being made I generally give all the respect they deserve, regardless of the particular merits or demerits of the person or the people making them. After all, UC's remarks boil down to the single question: "Why the hell should we care about whether Chianti wine relates to the Chianti region or not?". And it is a though one. It deserves to be answered. I dare saying so, notwithstanding all my being a "chiantisan" and a very small vine grower and wine producer, because I am perfectly aware that nobody can escape their fate of _having_ to answer the question why the world should care about them. So, I am particularly eager to make it very clear that I am not making a point about how any wine, or even just a single one, should be made, or drunk. I am just giving (a) a bit of specific geographical information, along with (b) a remark which points out the oddity in the realm of wines of a denomination (the "chianti" one), which is neither a generic wine definition (it does not identify a style, and if it ever did, it was so only in a recent past which is now over, anyway), nor a correct origin denomination, nor a mixture of the above. I think it might be of general interest for any perspective or actual "chianti" drinker to know that the labeling and naming of what they drink is total nonsense. It could help them understand some other strange things about Tuscan wines, or the strange way they seem to relate to denominations (table wines w/ or w/o geographical indication vs vqprd, i.e. doc and docg), and how little such bunch of denomination really relate to the French ones, despite of their nominal similarity.

In this ng Rick Rubenstein found an interesting sangiovese from Imagery, California, "lighter than many tasted Chianti Classico". Rings a bell. Among other things, that makes me thinking about how many old sangiovese clones might have travelled all their way to California in immigrants' packs. Many of them maybe from Chianti as well (the only real Chianti I mean: after all that tiny community of three local councils suffered unparalleled depopulation rates in the decades 30s-60s, with respect to their neighbouring areas, so that this very hypothesis could make some sense). Shall I tell you all the truth? Once Chianti's name has been stolen by that vast part of central Tuscany that we all know, and now that we must share even that pacifier-lollypop which the "Classico" addendum is, meant to mean "the real one" (they knew what they were doing, didn't they?), with a smaller, but definitely more determined part of nonChianti Tuscany (more than as much as the real Chianti: more than 100% rate of expansion, I call it, to speak of the Classico production area alone), once all this happens, as it does, and has been for more than half a century now, and "Chianti wine" does not mean any more "wine from/of Chianti", to me, in my heart as much as in my mouth and nostrils, a bottle of that Imagery Sangiovese might even taste, look, smell, sound, resonate much more Chiantish than so many blackroostered ones I happened to try.

If it cannot be a proper denomination of geographical origin, as it ought to be, then be it a proper generic wine naming term! Rather than helplessly watching this outrage of wines which NEITHER look/smell/taste anywhere near what Chianti wines used to, NOR are they produced in the Chianti district (and in some cases they come from as further as nearly in sight of the sea, or right under the Appenini mountains, just to give an idea), I would feel much more honoured and delighted by seeing our beautiful old sangiovese clones spread everywhere, crowling the world for nice spots of soil and climate where to play their song! Keeping, better yet: carrying!, their name: Chianti!

Right.

The 'REAL' Chianti area for wine is slightly different from the 'historical' Chianti' area. SO WHAT?

You haven't a clue what you are talking about. The wine called 'Chianti' comes from a legally defined area that is not identical to the historical 'Chianti' area. SO WHAT?

How do you define 'Champagne'? Who decides? Does that make it any good?

How much of a match does it have to be?

You mistake me. I certainly am interested in geographical designation of wine. It just does not matter to everyone, and in the case of cheap wine its importance is less.

I do not buy 'Chianti' or 'Chianti Classico' because I don't like Chianti or Chianti Classico. Occasionally I buy Chianti Rufina. Those who buy 'Chianti' get what they pay for. Those who buy Chinati Rufina get what they pay for. Those who buy Gaja Barbaresco get what they pay for. As always, it's the producer's name that is most important.

'Chiant' is a sort of brand name, not a geographical designation, whereas 'Chianti Classico' is.

The wine 'Chianti' is convenient and easy to remember for consumers. No-one expects (or rather should expect) a $10 Chianti to be the equal of a $35 Selvapiana Rufina Riserva.

You mistake me. I certainly am interested in geographical designation of wine. It just does not matter to everyone, and in the case of cheap wine its importance is less.

I do not buy 'Chianti' or 'Chianti Classico' because I don't like Chianti or Chianti Classico. Occasionally I buy Chianti Rufina. Those who buy 'Chianti' get what they pay for. Those who buy Chinati Rufina get what they pay for. Those who buy Gaja Barbaresco get what they pay for. As always, it's the producer's name that is most important.

'Chianti' is a sort of brand name, not a geographical designation, whereas 'Chianti Classico' is.

The wine 'Chianti' is convenient and easy to remember for consumers. No-one expects (or rather should expect) a $10 Chianti to be the equal of a $35 Selvapiana Rufina Riserva.

No, that is not my question. My question is:Why the hell should we care about whether Chianti wine relates to the Chianti region or not?". The Chianti wine-producing region is defined by law. That IS the "Chianti region" as far as wine production is concerned. That does not mean I agree with this practice, just a statement of fact.

Perhaps. You should experience what people drink in the US. I just got back from a party at which there were several bottles of wine. I anticipated that the wine would probably be be crap (most Americans don't know s*it about wine) despite the wealth of the host and hostess. So, I brought a bottle of my own along (Michele Chiarlo Barbera d'Asti). It was, of course, most definitely superior to the wine that served.

Perhaps. Remember, KISS. Keep It Simple, Stupid. There are too many DOCs anyway.

The possibility already exists under the IGT system. But which would consumers more readily recognize:

"Toscana IGT" or 'Chianti'?

Chianti means two things 1)a specific area in Tuscany. Wine must be made from Sangiovese and other grapes, depending on the zone. The name chianti can not be used in European Country. At one time there was a conzorzio named Gallo Nero which many of the producers belonged to. These had a Black rooster on the neck band. The folks at E & J Gallo sued or threatened suit so the Conzorzio changed its name but the Black Rooster remains but now is challenged by PETA(an American Animal Rights Group)---apparently they understand Chianti contains some dead c*ck.

As more and more younger enologists & producers chaffed under the Consorzio's standards on uvaggio, cooperage and fermentation times, prominent wineries left the Consorzio just as some abandoned the name Chianti because it limited their use of other non-traditional grapes.

denomination,

And that is what my point is all about. This "specific area" in Tuscany is waaay smaller than the production area of the DOCG wine carrying the same name.

It does not depend on the zone, actually: the main grape remains (should remain) sangiovese. Besides that, and the "traditionally" minority grape of the uvaggio, i.e. canaiolo nero, now an amount of "international" grape varieties is allowed. Such amount, deemed to be "small", is in fact more than enough to impart a totally different character to the wine.

;-)))

It is no longer so, still they proudly stick to a nonChianti label. After all, those who know what they want to drink, do not need any marketing help to direct their purchases.

Interesting... What I stand for is either a "pruning" of the production area so that Chianti could mean "from Chianti" again; or a total broadening of the scope of this name, by letting it go fully generic, so that at least it could mean a well defined style of wine.

The production area of the wine branded as Chianti is HUGELY different from the Chianti region. What is more, "Chianti" no longer means (if it ever did) a well defined style, and not even "uvaggio".. You asking "so what?"...Well, need a sketch?

No reply here, as I can see... guess why?

I may miss a few details. But I bet I have more than just a simple clue about what I am talking about. The wine called "Chianti" is so called just by virtue of a law. The same law defines an area where wine can be called Chianti. It might even be in Chile, as far as the law is concerned. Does this give anybody any clue about what they are going to drink? I do not think so. And, please, stop talking about the "historical Chianti area". Either you talk about the area of production of a wine called Chianti, or you talk about the region called Chianti. The former stole the latter's name. That is it.

Just answer, please. Is Champagne made in Champagne or not? We are talking about your statement, here, the one (still readable in my quoting) according to which "the relatioship to the historical area is of no great importance", do you remember?

There is no such thing as the amount of a match, as far as the question "is such and such thing coming from X region or not?" is concerned: it either comes from there, or it does not. I repeat my questions: are the above named products produced in the geographical (not historical! geographical!) areas bearing the same name, or are they not?

You seem to miss the whole point here: whether or not a product (any product! it may be wine or muck, for that) originates from the geographical area bearing the name with which it was branded, is of huge relevance NOT to the product, BUT to the geographical area. Which is inhabited by people, I like to remind you. The name of a country BELONGS to its citizens! Whether or not such a name might be "useful" for the commercial purposes of some guild of producers of whatever, based wherever, is of no relevance whatsoever with respect to this issue.

Even more so, then: why bother stealing someone else's name?

In your wildest dreams: Chianti IS a geographical designation, because it is the name of a well defined district. Like Napa valley. Outside of that valley you are not in Napa valley (pretty obvious, is it not?). You are somewhere else. Even if some outrageous law would allow producers of nutcrackers to brand their products with the name Napa. Need a sketch? By the way, both denominations "Chianti" and "Chianti Classico" _have_ to do with a limited production area, so you can see that both of them deal with geography. Only, they do so in a completely wrong and falsified way.

And? Does this affect in any way or amount what I am saying? I do not think so. You are just restating the obvious. Basically, what you are saying is: Chianti is what the regulations decide it is. Ok. Then, please, have a restful seat, be quiet and confident that when the law will be changed you will get notice of it first, so that you will know how to think and talk, ok? In the meanwhile, there are a few guys willing to bring a couple of issues to everybody's attention. Nothing of interest to you, I have to admit. Yet there is more to life than your schemes.

Here is more on chianti from our FAQ. Classico sub zones:

S.Casciano Val di Pesa--includes Mercantale Val di Pesa, Montefridolfi and S.Andrea in Percussina

Greve--La Mole, S.Polo in Chianti, Strada in Chianti

Tavernalle in Val di Pesa--Badia a Passignano, S.Donato in Poggio

Barberino Val d'Elsa

Radda in Chianti

Castellina in Chianti

Gaiole in Chianti--includes Ama in Chianti

Poggiobonsi

Castelnuevo Berardenga--includes Ceretto, Pianella, Quercegrossa, S.Gusme, Vagliagli

I once tried unsuccessfully to do a tasting with a wine from each of these "townships" but failed because a wine from each township wasn't available. Hazan also thought that outside the borders of classico; chiantis >

montalbano and rufina made excellent riservas. To confuse matters further some chianti zones overlap with other DOC/Gs-

For instance if you grow sangiovese in the Chianti Montalbano zone it can also be used for Carmignano normale or Riserva or Barco Reale; in the Chianti Colli Senese depending on where you are located you can also produce Vino Nobile or Rosso di Montepulciano or Rosso or Brunello di Montalcino. And finally some chianti producers have estates on the borders of two of the zones like Pasolini Dall Onda whose chianti wines had grapes from the classico and colli fiorentini zone.

Sub-Regions in Chianti:

Classico

Colli Senesi

Rufina

Colli Fiorentini

Montalbano

Colli Aretini

Colline Pisani

"Joe "Beppe"Rosenberg"

SO WHAT?

There are no official subzones within the Chianti Classico DOCG production area. Rather than zones (in the sense of wine production zones), we may speak of the different "comuni", i.e. administrative constituencies, corresponding to local councils (headed by a mayor), which is what the following townships are:

where (S.Andrea) the HQ of Consorzio resides. In the farthest NW extremity of the expanded area. This fact alone tells a lot about the character of the expansion "Chianti district" -> "Chianti Classico production area": whether it was the result of some "natural" extension, or rather an act of authority (by a dictorial government, btw, in 1932).

Actually, as from 1972, the township of Greve along with the included villages, owns by law the right to append "in Chianti" after their name, after several rejected attempts, thus defeating the fierce opposition of the three "historic" communities of Gaiole, Radda and Castellina. Apparently, between the end of the 60s and the beginning of the 70s, the whole bunch of Chianti-region and Chianti-wine-producers had more urgent problems to deal with than this "purely administrative" thingy.

Please note also that the one and only San Polo existing in the Chianti district is named "in something else": it is San Polo in Rosso, in the local community of Gaiole. San Polo in Rosso also used to be the site of a baptysmal church (pieve) in the "Third" (Terzo) of Gaiole, according to the territorial organization of "the peoples" in the three Thirds in which Lega di Chianti was divided (from 13th to late 18th century): the entire population was gathered around their parish churches, and these were in turn bounded to their respective "pievi" (hence the name "Piviere" for the corresponding territory. Needless to say, Greve was never part of that Lega. Panzano was. Even after the end of Lega di Chianti, the destiny of Greve kept on going different from that of Chianti. In the 19th century Greve was put together with the Valdarno district (Figline), whereas the three comuni of Chianti were either on their own (Vicariato di Radda) or with Siena, to whose "provincia" they still belong nowadays. Irony of history..

Please note the appended geographical denominations: "in val di Pesa" and "val d'Elsa". Had these towns ever been in Chianti, they would be called like the three following hereby:

Ama is just that: Ama.

Same here: the "Berardenga" is the name that Siena ever since gives to the area between the springs of Bozzone and Ambra creeks, from the Chianti ridge to river Biena and Taverne d'Arbia. In that corner of Tuscany crossed by the incredibly ancient borders of the religious powers (dyoceses) of the bishops of Arezzo, Fiesole, Siena, Volterra, the Berardenga was that part of territory in the hands of the State of Siena, right facing the enemy, i.e. the State of Florence, which in turn was ruling (since the beginning of 13th century), on the other side, on the small borderline area named....Chianti.

It would be very entertaining and exciting, really, to taste different sangiovese wines from the different parts of the "historical" district of Chianti. Where strong variations in the soil are possible in some cases from one hill to the next one, like in the SE border where you can really watch the colour of the ground and the kind of plant cover change from the loamy soil (announcing the "terra di Siena") between San Felice and San Gusme', to the sandy one characteristic of the spot right south of Brolio castle, announcing the rocky nature of the Chianti core. Not to mention the wild variations exposure and microclimate, just compare the area near San Marcellino with the one near Montevertine. Or the area near Ricavo with the one near Ama. To make things even more complicated, the polymorphic character of sangiovese, rather a galaxy of very different clones. Not to speak about the different wine making practices.. So much complexity due to nature and human cultural factors, to be willing to mess things further up with laws and regulations, DOCs and DONTs...;-)

It is apparent to anyone who is conscious that 'Chianti' is a valuable brand name for "Italian wine". People who never or hardly ever drink wine know what 'Chianti' , even if they don't know what 'Chianti' , which are two different things. Those people don't care about 'region'. Those who do, don't buy 'Chianti' anyway: they buy Chianti Classico Riserva or Chianti Rufina Riserva, or something like that. They spend more than $8.99. 'Chianti', though, fills the price point for those who want that $8.99 bottle and expect to get something better than cheap California jug wine.

And of course irrelevant.

SO WHAT? Everything is negotiable. Deal with it. Wine people are in busines to SELL WINE, not give history lessons.

Nonsense. The grapes can come from both inside and outside the region and be mixed together. 'Chianti' today means "Tuscan red wine made primarily from Sangiovese grapes". Whether you or I disagree with this practice is irrelevant: that is what 'Chianti' means today, and no more.

Irrelevant. There is nothing that requires 'Chianti' to be named in the same way that Champagne is. I'm not saying I agree or disagree. It is in the hands of the government and Tuscan wine people.

It is the only thing relevant to the issue.

Because it's the best-recognized name for Italian wine!

Yes. The market for the wines is different, and the knowledge-level of the people who buy them is different.

Which seems to elude your grasp.

They have that authority. Deal with reality.

I never said I AGREE or DISAGREE with this practice; I was merely EXPLAINING their reasoning. Have you any idea how many wines there are? How much competition in the $10 price point?

Yum! Vin au coq. My favorite dish.

Ok, you say it is a valuable brand name, because it is useful. I say it is not: how many words/concepts do you think an average consumer can grasp, at a time? Try and define what Chianti means in those few words. Then look at how "usefully" and "valuably" you make it at identifying wine, going like that! :-DD It's your money, not mine!

..

That is what I am saying!;-D Talk wine and say "production area". Do not talk about "historical area". It is not about history, it is about geography. One thing is geography, another is the area of distribution of a specified product branded with a particular name.

:-DD "no more"...no more than absolutely nothing! There are scores of "Tuscan red wine made primarily from Sangiovese grapes" which are not, and many cannot, be 'Chianti'! And many a 'Chianti' may leave you undecided about the "primarily"..What an useful definition..indeed.

I think you may miss some recent European Union regulations concerning the use of geographical denominations in labeling products..;-)) That is not entirely irrelevant. I would say: stay tuned, dude.