Inside the Rosso di Montalcino "No" Vote

"The assembly of producers congregated in the Consorzio del Brunello di Montalcino met this afternoon and rejected the proposal to modify the regulations of the DOC Rosso di Montalcino." So began the brief, two-paragraph press release issued by the Consorzio on September 7th to inform the world that this initiative had been soundly defeated.  The results are now history but what actually transpired in that meeting where the vote was taken?  I have consulted with reliable sources in order to gain some insight into the setting and proceedings and will share those insights in this post.

But first let us revisit the purpose of the vote.  According to Decanter.com, the proposed motion would, if adopted, allow: (i) the inclusion of up to 15% of non-Sangiovese varietals in Rosso di Montalcino; (ii) permit irrigation in the vineyards; (iii) remove regulations stipulating that vines used to source Rosso wines be planted on hills and slopes; (iv) allow for the inclusion of grapes planted below 600m; and (v) broaden the acceptable terrain on which vines could be planted.

Now back to the vote.  The meeting to vote on the motion was held in the Teatro degli Astrusi, the newly refurbished 18th-century structure overlooking the old town hall.

According to my sources, the meeting was initially convened at 2:30 pm but did not proceed due to insufficient attendees.  A second call-to-order was made at 3:30 pm at which time the meeting formally began.  A total of 638 votes were included in the final tally but as the theater only seats 180, the multiple-vote-per-producer system becomes readily visible.  According to Decanter.com, voting rights are tied to producer size with small and medium-sized producers having three votes each and the largest producers having as much as 60 votes, depending on bottle count.  My sources indicate that there were about 150 producers present with some attendees having the delegated authority to vote for absentees.

This was a very important vote for producers.  In addition to the production impacts they would feel, they had to contend with the fact that major wine critics like Jancis Robinson had expressed an opinion on the matter and that Decanter, an important industry magazine, was following the story closely.  The tension that came with all this pressure was palpable in the lead-up to the vote.  But with all of the weightiness of the day one of the hallmarks of the afternoon's activities was civility.  The producers were civil and professional as they went about the afternoon's business; for example, producers socialized freely prior to the start of the meeting even though some had taken very public stands for or against the motion.

As indicated in the picture, the theater has seating capacity in the central hall as well as in the boxes lining the walls above.  The producers sat in these seats while the Consorzio President, Vice President, Director Stefano Campatelli, and two advisors sat on a podium at the front of the hall.  The agenda was presented by the President -- brief, as there was only one topic -- after which the producers launched into a debate of the motion.  The three-hour-long debate was heated but civil.

At the conclusion of the debate, the vote was held.  Voting was by secret ballot.  Each producer was called by name at which time the representative filled out a voting sheet and placed it into a box provided for that purpose.  At the conclusion of the vote producers employed a number of strategies to pass the time as they waited for the results.  Some, including the President, left shortly after the vote was taken. Others stayed in the theater while some hung around outside.  Others simply went for an aperitivo.

The results became known 4 hours and 15 minutes after the meeting had been called to order.  There was no official announcement in the theater but news of the results came trickling out and, as all of who had remained in the theater were on the "no" side, the news was received with relief and glee.  The final count was 465 against (a full 70%) and 210 in favor; a stunning, stinging setback for the President and his agenda.

In a previous post on the Rosso di Montalcino affair I had asked where were the men and women willing to stand against the forces seeking to change this aspect of Montalcino culture.  I now have my answer.  They were in the hall and the box seats of Teatro degli Astrusi on the afternoon of September 7th.  And they made sure that they were counted.  And they made their votes count.

The Rosso di Montalcino Affair: Marketing Folly or Cynical Expropriation of a Common Good by a Powerful Few

As the Montalcino producers prepare to vote today on the proposal to change the requirements for Rosso di Montalcino, I could not help but view the exercise as either (i) one of the world's greatest marketing follies or (ii) a cynical expropriation of a common good by a powerful few.  Let's examine the evidence.

The Consorzio as well as Brunello producers have spent enormous sums of money positioning Rosso di Montalcino as the early drinking baby brother of Brunello di Montalcino.  And the campaign has worked.  Ask anyone who is even remotely familiar  with Montalcino about Rosso di Montalcino and they will say "Brunello's baby brother."  That is branding, a marketer's delight.  Companies expend a lot of effort and funds to gain that type of association; and once it is attained, they guard it jealously.  Enter the Consorzio.    Let us assume that they found something wrong with Rosso and determined that the fix needed to be a two- or three-wine solution (ignoring for the moment the question of why we are retaining the original Rosso as part of the solution if it has a problem), you would expect that the brand goodwill would be retained by keeping the relationship between the original product and the original name.  Any new nomenclature would be associated with the new instances of the product.  Not so the Consorzio.  They are proposing to throw out all of the investment in branding by having the name Rosso di Montalcino associated with the new product while the existing product gets a new, needlessly confusing name(s); a senseless elaboration of what it already is.  By the standards of even a first-year marketing student, a colossal blunder.

But is it? Or is it a schema for expropriating that goodwill towards another end? Two lines of evidence point towards this latter explanation.  Franco Biondi Santi had previously been reported as being in favor of the proposal to change the requirements but he clarified his position in later statements to the press.  According to doBianchi.com, Mr Santi had previously been in favor of adding softening wines to Rosso but certain provisions in this proposal took the motion above and beyond that consideration.  According to Decanter.com, the motion would revisit vineyard requirements for Rosso to include removing restrictions of (i) planting on hills and slopes, (ii) plantings below 600m, and (iii) terrain from specified geologic periods.   With these changes, it is no longer about softening up Rosso di Montalcino; it is about bringing the unsaleable Sant'Antimo grapes into the fold. Under those conditions, Mr Santi could not support the vote.

With all producers having a common Rosso in their portfolio, the branding efforts, and the goodwill that accrued as a result, was a common good.  If only a select few of these producers have international varietals to add to a blend, and if that blend now retains the name that has been established in the marketplace, then that common good has been expropriated by a few, leaving the majority to try to explain to the marketplace what this new Rosso di Montalcino Sangiovese or Sangiovese Superiore is.  The net benefit is a negative to the producers left holding the bag.

We keep our fingers crossed.

The Rosso di Montalcino Affair: A Crime against Culture?

In a recent post on the Brunello di Montalcino DOCG, I identified the genesis of Rosso di Montalcino as a foil to the lengthy aging requirements of the Brunello.  The early drinking character of the wine would allow a stream of revenue to flow to producers while they awaited the realization of the promise of "big brother" Brunello.  Note that Rosso was not established to be a wine on its own; it was to provide revenue flow from the same infrastructure, resources, and harvesting to meet the day-to-day requirements of the winery while waiting for the "coming."   Yet the Consorzio -- the Brunello di Montalcino producers association -- seems hell bent on changing the character and intent of Rosso, an initiative which I see both as ill-founded and ill-fated and, potentially, a first step along the path of changing the composition of the hallowed Brunello di Montalcino.  In this post I will lay out some of my issues with the proposal.  I would also like to acknowledge quality efforts on this topic by @winewomansong, @doBianchi, and Decanter (which also points to an open letter written by Nicolas Belfrage MW).

The current Rosso di Montalcino battle is a microcosm of a larger overshadowing; the fear of which is driving the revulsion with which the Rosso di Montalcino proposal has been received.  As in many other old-world wine growing regions, Montalcino has been the scene of an ongoing battle between traditionalists and "new agers."  Banfi has been a leader in modernizing Brunello production so when its former oenologist Ezio Rivella was elected president of the Consorzio, it seemed a vote for modernity.  Rivella and Angelo Gaia, the famed Piedmontese producer (and now a Brunello producer of some stature), are identified as being in favor of blending international varietals with Sangiovese to increase the appeal of Brunello on international markets.  Gianfranco Soldera of Casse Basse is at the other end of the spectrum saying, in effect, that real winemakers do not make Cabernet Sauvignon and Merlot and that these varietals are "vulgar" in comparison with Sangiovese.  Lamberto Frescobaldi is quoted in the above Decanter article as saying that whatever needs to be done should be done while Franco Biondi-Santi has taken the position that many of the areas now planted to Sangiovese are not suitable for growing the varietal.

So here we have this fundamental discussion about the future of the region and, after advancing a proposal and then rescinding it, the Consorzio has advanced another proposal which calls for remaking Rosso di Montalcino into a blend with up to 15% of international varietals and adding a Rosso di Montalcino Sangiovese Superiore and a Rosso di Montalcino Sangiovese to the mix with the key differences between the latter two being yield, alcohol content, and acidity levels.  This proposal has been greeted with loud hoots of disapproval around the world (Free Willy and Save the Rosso signs are going up all over.).  The Consorzio is being accused of aiding the large producers in getting rid of their unsold Merlot crop by drowning it in Rosso; of fixing a problem that does not exist; of disadvantaging smaller producers vis a vis larger producers; of seeking to segment a market that has exhibited no need for segmentation; and of not demonstrating an understanding of the market.

While the battle is about Rosso, methinks this is really only one skirmish in the war regarding the future of Brunello di Montalcino.  Sure, if a large producer has offerings across the Rosso board, and a smaller producer has only one offering,a  consumer could conceivably discriminate against the small producer based on a perception of inability to compete and, following, a lack of staying power.  Sure this adds cost and complexity to the production of Rosso, and confusion in the customer environment, with potentially deleterious consequences.  But what I think opponents fear most is that a loss on the Rosso front opens up Brunello to similar attacks from the arch-enemies of tradition.

I would like to look at this battle through two different lenses: European Union (EU) Wine Laws and Italian cultural patrimony.  Earlier this year I attended an EU Wine Law conference hosted by UC Davis School of Law and held at the UC Davis campus in Davis, CA.  In one of the sessions, Alessandro Baudino, Attorney and Partner in the firm Franco Baudino e Associati, indicated that the 2009 EU reform targeted: improved wine producer competitiveness; perception of Community wine quality; and preservation of Community wine making traditions.  It is the EUs view that implementation of the laws will, amomg other things, guarantee fair competition in the wine industry.  Firstly, it appears to me that the move to dismantle Rosso di Montalcino is not exactly an action focused on preservation of Montalcino wine-making tradition.  The tradition, and the "sense of place" espoused in the laws, has been to make Brunello di Montalcino from 100% Sangiovese Grosso planted in demarcated areas of Montalcino.  Further, approximately 68% of the yield can be classified as Brunello with the remainder sold in bulk or allocated to an easy-drinking wine called Rosso di Montalcino.  So while the EU diplomats are out arguing for protection of these special places in world trade forums, the Consorzio is undercutting them by saying that these places and traditions are not so special after all.  See, we can add some names and change some blends and voila.  But you had still better protect us.

As a corollary to the above, the Consorzio is tasked by the Farming Policy Ministry with protecting and enhancing the value of Montalcino DOC wines.  Rather than protecting, this proposal expands the number of wines in a dilutionary manner (maybe delusionary would be better) with further unintended consequences sure to accrue. Rather than protecting the wines of Montalcino, the Consorzio proposal sets the stage for similar depradation of the Brunello franchise.

I have just finished reading a book by Felch and Frammolino titled Chasing Aphrodite: The Hunt for Looted Antiquities at the World's Richest Museum (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2011).  The book revolves around the Getty Museum's purchasing of looted antiquities but a major underlying theme is the fight by Italian authorities for repatriation of instances of the country's cultural patrimony that had illegally ended up in these large institutions.  General Roberto Conforti and Salvatore Morando of the Caribinieri Art Squad, Paolo Ferri of the state's prosecutors office, Judge Muntoni, Maurizio Fiorelli and Francesco Rutelli of the Italian Culture Ministry all played key roles in breaking the back of the looted-art conspiracy and gaining repatriation of the stolen objects to Italy.  Where are like-minded cultural fighters in the Rosso di Montalcino affair?  Not at the Consorzio.  They are more akin to the tambarolo, the men who robbed the ancient sites of the artifacts before selling them to dealers. Except this time the cultural heritage will be plundered in plain view.  And to add insult to injury, the pieces that are being removed from the shelves will be replaced with foreign wares.  And further, deeper encroachment into the patrimony may be in the offing.  With a victory in the "Rosso Affair" under its belt, the "internationalists" could ask to deepen the international component(s) of the blend as we move forward in time and (heresy) seek to impose the same type of construct on Brunello.

If there is a problem with Sangiovese, the Consorzio should facilitate its fixing.  So if, for example, there are areas of Montalcino planted to Sangiovese that should not be (as per Franco Biondi Santi), then maybe tightening the demarcation boundaries should be considered.  If major growers are sloshing around in Merlot, then maybe they should consider making an IGT wine and naming it in a fashion that does not confuse the market.  Robbing Rosso of its name and intent, and diluting its impact by confusing the buying public, is nothing less than a crime against culture.

Brunello di Montalcino DOCG

Montalcino, centered on a little hilltop town located 110 Km south of Florence in the southern portion of Siena province, is home to Brunello di Montalcino DOCG and its associated wine, one of the most famous, revered, and sought after in all of Italy.  The town, sitting at 1900 feet above sea level at its highest point, encompasses approximately 24,000 hectares and is bordered by the River Orcia to the south, the River Asso to the east, and the River Ombrone to the north and west.

Source: http://www.atlantawineschool.com/images/thumbpages/montalcino.html

Of the 1200 or so hectares available for viticulture in the area, slightly less than half is used to grow Sangiovese Grosso (its official name) or, as it is more commonly called, Brunello di Montalcino.

Source: http://www.wine-toscana.com/tuscany.htm

Montalcino has a warm, Mediterranean climate that is cooled by its altitude. The area is one of the warmest and driest (20 inches of rainfall per year) in Tuscany but that is tempered somewhat by cool evening breezes. The warm, dry conditions allow the grapes to ripen fully, an end result that is aided and abetted by the protection from hailstorms and rainfall that is afforded by the Amiato mountain range to the south.

Source: http://www.casasantapia.com/maps/brunellomap.jpg

In general, the soils in Montalcino are sandier and have greater limestone content than is the case for the remainder of the Chianti region. To the north and east, the soil is primarily clay with a high volcanic-sandstone content. In the western third, the soil is a calcium-rich, chalky gravel marl over a clay subsoil. At the highest point the soil is schist-based.

The 1200 hectares of Montalcino suitable for viticulture is located between 300 and 500 meters above sea level.  The most desirable vineyards are located on south-facing slopes where the intense sunlight and cool maritime breezes lead to more powerful, complex wines.  Grapes grown on north-facing slopes tend to ripen at a slower pace and have distinctively different aromas and flavors.  Due to the steepness of the terraces, manual harvesting is the norm.

Brunello (the name means "little dark one," a reference to the brown hue of the skin) di Montalcino is one of Tuscany's eight DOCGs, a status it obtained in 1980. Sangiovese Grosso is a clone of the Sangiovese grape which produces wines with rich fruit, quality tannins, and elevated acidity, factors which contributes to long ageing.  The production rules for Brunello di Montalcino are as follows:

• 100% Sangiovese Grosso produced within the delimited zone
• Vineyards must be planted on hills with good exposure at altitude not surpassing 600 meters
• Maximum yield of 80 quintals/hectare
• Maximum of 2.7 kilos of wine/vine
• 68% of yield can be called Brunello
• Aged a minimum of 2 years in wood and 4 months in bottle; Riserva to be released a minimum of 5 years after harvest
• 12% minimum alcohol
• All production operations to be carried out within the production zone
• Wine required to undergo chemical and tasting tests prior to bottling in order to receive certification
• May only be sold in Bordeaux-style bottles

Brunello di Montalcino wines have been described variously as "full-bodied and earthy," with a muskiness on the nose and red berries on the palate.  The wine is generally characterized by significant tannin, concentration without jamminess, blackberry, black cherry, chocolate, and leather.  The wine ages slowly and gracefully and pairs well with hearty Tuscan dishes such as wild boar.  Some of the important Brunello producers are Altesimo, Casanova di Neri, Poggio Antico, Siro Pacenti, and Biondi-Santi.

A second tier wine, Rosso di Montalcino DOC, was introduced in 1990 to allow wineries to market a Sangiovese Grosso after 1 year rather than the four years they traditionally wait to introduce the Brunello. Rosso is less expensive than Brunello and is also lighter, less intense, and easier to drink.

Brunello di Montalcino wines have historically been matured in large old Slovenion oak casks which impart no flavors to the wine.  The wine produced using this traditional method has been characterized by some as tannic and dry and "modernists" have sought to address this complaint by ageing in new French oak barrels.  These barrels soften the Sangiovese tannins and contribute a "lingering" vanilla flavor to the wine.

The Consorzio di Vino Brunello di Montalcino is responsible for the protection of Brunello's "welfare and reputation."  It does so through activities such as marketing the wines, rating the vintages , and ensuring that DOCG standards are adhered to by association members.  This voluntary association was created in 1967 and now represents about 250 producers.