'Chianti' Riserva?

I have never heard of them. If you wish to have a good, although not typical, Chianti Riserva (just Chianti, not CC) you might consider this one:

That winery is almost on the border of the Chianti Classico production area.

They make phantastic cheese too, btw. Been there a year ago, Aljosha Goldschmidt (Swiss of Dutch descendance, iirc) and his wife (British brought up in Venice) are some of the most charming hosts I ever met. And their wine is pretty damn good, too!

M.

True. Those visiting there during springtime should try their "Ricotta" cheese.

So far, I'm unimpressed with this wine. I had it cold, though (it was in my car overnight), so I'll see tonight.

If you refer to "Via Firenze" I would not have much expectations. I have never heard about them (I live in Tuscany) and - frankly speaking - $10 in the US market seems a low price for a good Chianti Riserva.

Yes, I've had much better $10-13 wines from south, Sardinia, and Sicily.

The wine is simply not very good. I told the clerk not to order any more of it. He said someone really liked it and ordered a case. What can I say? I'm sure I didn't get a 'bad' bottle, because I have had bad bottles before. This wine simply didn't have much flavor, despite its intense color. Bad bottles taste 'off', and this wine didn't tatse off.

By the way of this remark about production areas of wines branded as Chianti, or Chianti Classico, ecc., and since there has been some discussion a few weeks ago about the meaning of "Chianti" (i.e. as a geographical in the first place, rather than just a wine denomination), I think it might be found interesting, at least by some of you, the following link to a Wikipedia page displaying a very handy map which compares all the different "Chianti-something" areas:

The blue-striped area is what corresponds to the actual Chianti _district_, i.e. to the _geographical_ area known as Chianti, administratively known as "Lega del Chianti" from the end of 13th century to the end of 18th century and whose icon was a black rooster, the so called "gallo nero". Most notably at the beginning of the 90s Chianti Classico people were stopped by the Gallo bros from displaying on their bottles sold on the American market such collective brand name, and they also changed the name of the Consorzio, til that time named Consorzio del Gallo Nero.

Thanks for the interesting contribution. This map must be pretty unique in the world collection of "Chianti wine" maps: honestly I do not see the point of showing the territory of Castellina, Radda and Gaiole in blue, while the rest of the Chianti Classico area is depicted in red. This map is about Chianti subzones (I beg pardon for my poor English), so actually I find at least superfluous to make a distinction between the named three municipalities and the rest of the Chianti Classico area. A map illustrating the different production areas of Chianti wines should in first place provide a clear indication of the *current* boundaries of the different subzones. Using the "blue" pencil for Castellina, Radda, and Gaiole at most might serve an aspect of historical relevance. At any rate consumers and wine lovers have to understand that the Chianti Classico production area is -for what concernes wine- *one* without any formal distinction between its internal territories. I would find preferable not to mix all in a map strict regulations about wine producing areas with other things which matters to history.

As for what concerns the expression "Chianti district" I guess that sooner or later the only acceptable definition will refer to the "Distretto Rurale del Chianti" which is an economic and territorial system and -guess what- once again is not limited to Castellina, Radda and Gaiole.

You know... when talking about a wine named after a geographical area, it is always worth, I believe, showing which is the actual area and which is the extended area where ONE product is allowed to be branded, that was done in recent years. ;-)

Chianti as a wine does not mean anything but this tautology: wine named Chianti is the wine named Chianti according to regulations. Period. There is little to do with the Chianti area, and there is no such thing as a typical style of winemaking with that name. Grape varieties also seem to be pretty variable over the years. It is just an arbitrary container to market red wine from the central part of Tuscany. Could you give any explanations about the whys of those borders displayed in the above mentioned map? Why such places are within the production areas and such other places are not? Why are several sangiovese wines branded as IGT Toscana considered to be way more representative of the Chianti terroir than many DOCG Chianti Classico ones?

The distinction is just the one I made here above: the three municipalities are the Chianti area. The rest is the production area (by law) of a wine which is allowed to be branded as Chianti-something. You may find it superflous...;-) I find it a pretty substancial distinction.

And so does that map, as you can see.

History will never be wiped out. A territory IS eminently history. Particularly more than five centuries of political, military, social history, with respect to what else? The commercial ups and downs of a mere one single product in the last few decades?

As far as pedology (soil) and climate is concerned, quite the opposite is true: the "Chianti Classico" production area is a rather etherogeneous collection of different terroirs. If you look at the geologic map, by the way, you can easily spot a glob of substancially homogeneous character, corresponding to the historical Chianti area. If you look at the landscape (which is a tell tale sign, when it comes to agricultural products), nobody with a sufficient actual knowledge of the area would deny that the Chianti area is quite different from the Castelnuovo Berardenga area, and from the San Casciano val di Pesa or Barberino and Tavarnelle val di Pesa surroundings. Who cares about the lack of "formal" distinction, resulting from a crazy regulation whose purpose is exactly that: expanding the scope of "Chianti" in order to exploit this name and market more wine from a larger area?

The blue etched area in that map still refers to wine, although with an historical approach in mind: it purports to be the area subject to the earliest known wine regulation dealing with a wine marketed as "Chianti", the edict of 1716.

That "distretto rurale" is far from being set and ruled, at the moment. They did not find any agreement, and I am not surprised. What is more, if you read the "piano di indirizzo territoriale" of Regione Toscana, you would easily realise that an agreement on that is not in sight yet. Not surprisingly again, if you consider the recent EU regulation concerning the use of geographical designations in branding typical products (Reg CE n.510/2006 of 20 March 2006), which although not dealing with wine products, yet is setting general principles that are pretty strict and conflicting with this slacky misuse of the name Chianti in branding wines :-/

Dear Filippo, I am not going to discuss most of the points from your post simply because I think that an extensive discussion about the Chianti region has already appeared on afw and probably went much beyond the scope of this group. I only find that the whole thing would have been a bit more amusing if there was an adequate counterpart to oppose your thesis. Anyway if you wished to discuss those points my email address is (replace "3" with "e"): dani3l3martini (at) gmx (d0t) n3t

Here I only wish to point out that:

In my reply to UC I clearly spoke of Chianti Classico production area.

The map which url you have posted is not clear for several reasons.

Due to the unhappy choice of colours some part of the generic Chianti area in the province of Arezzo can easily be confused with the subzone named "Chianti Colli Senesi" (both are depicted in yellow).

This map is a unique artwork most likely from a castellinese, raddese or gaiolese (*) folk (or at least by someone whose primary intent was to publish a content suggesting a supposed preeminence of one part over the rest of the Chianti Classico production area).

(*) italian names for citizens from three municipalities within the Chianti Classico production area.

I have never seen a map of that kind in books, magazines, fliers, etc. Make a google image search and you will find:

-maps of the Chianti production area with the *whole* Chianti Classico zone in the same colour. Like this one (the tiny Montespertoli area has not been taken into account, probably that one is an old map):

-maps of the Chianti Classico subzone with each municipality territory displayed in its own colour. A sample here:

That artwork submitted to wikipedia is really innovative because it clearly put a focus on a subset of the territory of the Chianti Classico production area. By the way, it is worth to recall that according to the Chianti Classico wine regulations such subset simply does not exist as a separate entity. And since 1932 -that is almost eighty years ago- wine from San Polo in Chianti (yes I know that pronunciating that toponym might have urticating effects on some people's ears ;-) ) can be bottled as Chianti Classico just like wine from the grapes growing under the Brolio Castle walls.

Take the name of the file: "Sottozone chianti it.jpg" That means that the purpose of the image should be to illustrate the boundaries of the Chianti and Chianti Classico denominations as well as the Chianti denomination subzones. That is not exactly what such a map does. Indeed if you talk about Chianti subzones you would just have to stick to the different production zones as they were defined in the disciplinary regulations published a few decades ago (let's not mix a matter subject to present time regulations and laws with historical documents from the eighteenth century)

Wine made in the eighteenth century has nothing to share with the present time Chianti and Chianti Classico denominations (beside of course the word "Chianti"). So, once again, why putting such stuff from the ancient times when talking about "XX-th century" Chianti subzones? Chianti subzones are a matter of strict wine regulations - or call it bureaucracy if you hate those Chianti wine fellows and the way the two denominations were created - but, please, make things less puzzling than they actually are and avoid the use of a superfluous blue etching when illustrating Chianti subzones.

I am not saying that the map is presenting false information. The blue area inside the red one has an historical meaning. The map is just presenting a mix of true things. Which not always lead to a good outcome.

Kind regards.

Daniele

Forgot to say that I am not going to serve in the role because I am not a fierce supporter of thesis which conflict with yours. Beside from that I do not live within the Chianti area (the Chianti area according to your personal definition), nor within the extended one, nor even within the hyper-extended one and I think that it is better to leave to people born there the whole controversy about the geography of Chianti. It's more fun. It is so amusing when I visit Radda or Gaiole and happen to listen to retired old men who blame San Casciano Val di Pesa while they are sitting at a table and playing cards. Localism! woooh :-D what would be Italy without that?

I meant to write this: "please do not make things more puzzling than they actually are"

Liebe Pizzameister,

thanks for your interesting remarks (in the other post) about that artwork (which is not a meisterwerk of mine, I have to say). Just an objection here: this point about Chianti is not (or it does not need to be just) a point of localism. It is a point of truthfulness. Of stolen identity. I believe it is much more general issue than just a localistic tantrum. Thanks again, F

Never said that :-) I know that your ideas about the Chianti region are shared by a number of people. I know that there are even books about this Chianti quarrel. Take this one with a self explanatory title:

The author is the president of the Gaiole touristic information office. May be I'll buy it.

Objection accepted. But I also think that a little hint of campanilism would not totally disqualify some ideas about the Chianti region. At any rate I love the Chianti region both "the one you mean" and the "extended one". And would like to see your parts in the province of Siena not affected by the urban development that ruined some parts in the province of Florence. Good luck.

Daniele

awhh macaronic English... I meant localism!

True. But chiantigiani people seem to be very shy when it comes to the defence of their identity and history. They lack self confidence. Hopefully the publication on wikipedia of that map is the sign of new trend.

;-)) Of course I know both this title and Enzo very well. I definitely recommend this book, although I now says that he would write it in an entirely different manner. It was written as a hot reply in the aftermath of the 1997 meeting in Pontignano where the eight (!) mayors whose municipalities are wholly or partly included within the borders of the "Chianti Classico" production area, signed an agreement, the infamous "Pontignano pact".

Of course not. But at stake here are both this point of stolen identity AND the effective scam taking place and targeting the international consumer.

That is also the point! As long as the Chianti could remained confined to the real thing, no doubt whatsoever could arise about its socioeconomic "mission": it is a rural area whose landscape-related and touristic peculiarities are undeniable. Not so if we included the mixed industrial areas of the NW and W part of the Chianti Classico production area. Only a crystal clear relation with its history and origin can guarantee the possibility of an environmental and landscape protection of that area.

der-pizzameister :

Absolutely true. Good point. It should be emended. And thanks to the wikipedia nature, it could ;-)

Most likely. But please note that what the caption to the etched area points out, is the extend of the supposedly earliest attempt at drawing boundaries for a production area of the _wine_ branded as Chianti, as in the edict of 1716 by Cosimo III de' Medici. It must be said that:

1) that edict is by no means "nearly coincident" with the present days boundaries of the Chianti Classico production area, as the Consorzio used to claim (without explicitly quoting that edict, guess why :-D), although now the text on their web site seems to have been changed 2)That edict attempted to define a production area for the Chianti wine, in a very awkward manner, by stating that the Chianti area was constiting of...the Chianti plus something else, of course without explicitly naming the real Chianti, part of that odd summation. For those able to understand this oldish italian: " Per il Chianti e' restato determinato sia: dallo Spedaluzzo fino a Greve, di li' a Panzano con tutta la Potesteria di Radda, che contiene tre terzi, cioe' Radda, Gajole e Castellina, arrivando fino al confine dello Stato di Siena, &c..." This wording IS the proof that the very edict of 1716 was not in good faith, but instead the first instance of unduly extension of the Chianti name for the sake of the economic interest of the florentine wine sellers guild. In fact, it was the very first documented theft of Chianti identity! The map maybe fails to show the tiny strip added to the Chianti in that occasion, i.e. the road from Radda to Spedaluzzo, via Greve.

Of course not! That is wahy I think that the publication of this map on Wikipedia is a very remarkable fact indeed! Of course, where on earth if not on Wikipedia could such a map find its way?

map):

I do not think that Montespertoli is part of the Chianti CLASSICO production area. Hopefully at least, their arrogance did not go this far!

Which is a very instructive map indeed. Thanks for posting the link. Everybody can see that the Chianti Classico itself is a HUGE extension of the Chianti area, it is actually an effective DOUBLING of it. And if instead of the surface we look at the vineyard surface, the results are even more striking. Let alone the data of the grapes production.... And please note that in terms of political-administrative power, what used to be a three municipalities district (three mayors) has now been transformed into an eight (!) municipalities entity: the loss of weight for the poor three chiantisan mayors is absolutely obvious!

Exactly. The regulations, ideed aim at simply substituting one piece of reality with an invention. The effects of this attempt are becoming more and more evident: people (mainly tourists) arriving in San Casciano val di Pesa, or in Barberino val d'Elsa, soo more closely connected to Florence and Pisa and their international airports, are now induced to believe that they are in the Chianti area. Why on earth should they drive any further, on those bloody dirty (and bendy!) roads leading to Radda, Castellina, Gaiole? What is there that we (tourists) cannot find here (in SanCAsciano etc)? You see? It is not a localistic tantrum. A real theft of name, of indentiy, of history.. and yes!.. of economy as well, is taking place! DO NOT, please, DO NOT endorse such an outrage.

It does indeed! ;-) Its real name, ever since, was San Polo ad Ema. In the Chianti one and only one San Polo has ever been, and it name has never been with the "in Chianti" suffix: San Polo in Rosso, which was the place of one of the "pievi" (hence "pivieri", a further subdivision of the "terzi" of Chianti, a religious one this time), that is of baptismal churches.

True concerning the wine. But only as late as in 1972 San Polo ad Ema got the legal right to append the "in Chianti" suffix to its name, as other small villages of the municipality of Greve. Yes, the so called (self-called, of course) "capital" of Chianti, Greve, owns this legal right only since 1972! After three unsuccessful attempts, and withstanding the fierce opposition by the three Chianti municipalities of Radda, Gaiole and Castellina. What a capital, indeed...

I agree, that has been a mere addendum to the modern subzones. But, as I tried to explain earlier in this post, it is related with wine production boundaries, although (I admit) only from an historical point of view.

Exactly.

You may be right, but please note that also the 1932 "Chianti" wine has very little resemblance with 2000 "Chianti" wine. The truth is, Chianti as a wine defining term has very little meaning. And that very little is entirely arbitrary and also ever changing.

You may be right here too, although I believe that if this will have even a tiny chance of putting the healty germs of doubt into people's minds, if people (even just a tiny minority) around the world will start questioning why this theft took place, and challenging its legitimacy, THAT will be a very good outcome. Do big wine producing guys wish to be left alone with their business? Then please could they leave the Chianti name alone in the first place.

Thank you for the very interesting discussion.

[cut]

Montespertoli is not part of the Chianti Classico area. Now some land of the municipaility of Montespertoli falls within the "Chianti Montespertoli" subzone, the rest I think is part of the "Chianti Colli Fiorentini" subzone. Would it be ever included in the Chianti Classico production area, and worse should the municipality name turn into "Montespertoli in Chianti" -but of course it won't ever happen- the town name would be furiously blamed from Badiaccia a Montemuro to Castellina Scalo, shortly later riots would arise from Piazza to S.Vincenti. Men, women... -and wild boars too- united in their Chianti rage against the evil lords of the Chianti Classico Consortium! :-D

Seriously. You people from Gaiole, Radda and Castellina (or at least those of you who feel the thing is so crucial) won't ever gain the exclusivity of use of the word Chianti. It's simply a lost battle. Most people know that the Chianti area has to be identified with the Chianti Classico production area. That's how things are going and you do not have the numbers to change this. But there is *still* one thing you can do. Work on that which is feasible: as for what concerns wine I think that the three municipalities (as well as the other territories in the Chianti Classico area) would benefit from the introduction of subzones for the Chianti Classico denomination. That way each territory would have its identity outlined. It would also be a good thing for the consumer.

Daniele