2009 Beaujolais Tasting: Non-Cru Wines

Beaujolais, and, specifically, cru Beaujolais, is an excellent option for the serious -- or the not so serious -- wine drinker, a point that was driven home to me during the course of a 2009 Beaujolais tasting which I hosted at the Capital Grille in Orlando on August 9th.  The objective of the tasting was to explore the breadth of Beaujolais for this much-heralded vintage.  The tasting panel consisted of nine people and we were fortunate to be led in this effort by Master Sommelier Andrew McNamara.  The tasting will be reported in two posts: this one covering the non-cru

Master Sommelier Andrew McNamara and John Alport (Augustan)

Adam Chilvers (Wineontheway.com) and Ron Siegel

 wines and a second covering the cru tastings.

The wine lineup is presented in the table below.  The wines were tasted lightest to heaviest with the sparkling and white comprising the first flight.

In his opening remarks Andrew reminded us that Beaujolais is really a part of Burgundy and that the two regions overlap in Beuajolais' northernmost areas.  Beaujolais wine, according to Andrew, owes its heritage to the religious orders that came into the region and made wine from the indigenous grape, Gamay.  Philip the Bold felt that Gamay was only fit to be served to pigs and livestock and ordered the vines pulled out.  The Gamay vines in Beaujolais were spared that fate and have survived and thrived in the region over the years.

While Beaujolais is a part of Burgundy, in many ways it is Rhone-like, says Andrew.  For example, the soil in many parts of Beaujolais is granitic, a Rhone characteristic.  Second, both Gamay and Syrah are descended from Gouvay Blanc, an ancient varietal originally grown in Central Europe.

With the attention being paid to Beaujolais, a number of producers from outside are beginning to make wines in the region.  Most of the very good Beaujolais wines are still, however, mede by Beaujolais specialists. As we turned our attention towards tasting the wines, Andrew stated that the 2009 vintage was the greatest Beaujolais vintage that he had ever tasted.

The first wine tasted was the Domaine Vissoux Brut Blanc de Blanc.  This winery and its practices have been summarized in a previous post.  

This sparkling wine is 100% Chardonnay from grapes grown on a 2.5 hectare, southwest-facing plot which sits on a limestone-clay soil.  This blend of 2006, 2007, and 2008 vintages has seen very little dosage liqueur and has been aged for 18 months.  The bubbles on this wine appear to be short-lived.  Initial bread aroma with a hint of apricot followed by a more distinct rubber note.  On the palate a short, tongue-coating finish.  Less minerality, alcohol, and yeastiness than a traditional champagne.  I will not be running out to buy this wine anytime soon.

The second wine tasted was the Domain des Terres Dorées Beaujolais Blanc.  This winery and its practices have been summarized in a previous post.  On the nose the wine was fruity,

oily with a beeswax character, herbal with a basil tint, and had grapefruit notes. On the palate grapefruit and lemon rind with good acidity.  This wine was lean and light with a residual bitterness on the palate.  This wine was not well regarded by the tasting panel.

At this juncture the tasting switched to the forte of Beaujolais, wines made from the Gamay grape.  The first red wine tasted was the Domaine Dupeuble Pere et Fils Beaujolais.  This producer ferments the wine using natural yeasts, uses no sulfur, and bottles unfined and unfiltered.  This wine had aromas of bubblegum, fruit, rubber, and cotton candy.  Tart cherry on the palate with a hint of bitterness on the medium finish.

The final non-cru wine tasted was the Mommessin Beaujolais-Villages Vielles Vignes.  The grapes for this wine were sourced from 40- to 80-year-old vines located on granite-schist-limestone hillside plots.  The grapes are handpicked, sorted, and vatted as whole bunches, then bled in search of greater concentration.  The grapes are fermented for 9 days in vats after which malolactic fermentation occurs.  Cherry and bubblegum on the nose.  On the palate a tartness and tannin (some wood, some grape).  A full, richer body with fine-grained tannins.  More character and greater length than any of the preceding wines.  Hopefully a harbinger of things to come.

With the tasting of the Mommessin, folks were lessening the frequency of accusatory glances cast my way.  Up to this point the looks were clearly asking "Why are you wasting our time here today?"  I started to breathe a little easier.  Cru wines up next.

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.

Parker's "Magical 20": In Search of the Objective Criteria

Robert Parker's announcement of a Bordeaux "Magical 20" chateaux list -- whose wines will be tasted at The Wine Academy of Spain's Wine Future Hong Kong event on November 8 -- is significant in that it has the potential to: (i) cut through the confusion of the existing Bordeaux classification schemes to create a new Bordeaux "super-scheme" which is positioned just after the First Growths;  (ii) creates winners and losers among the chateaux; (iii) exposes a set of wines below the First Growths to the Asian market -- with attendant benefits to the chosen chateaux and price increases to your favorite wines if you are a consumer in other markets; and (iv) kick-start efforts to modernize the outdated 1855 classification scheme.  Given the potential impact, it is important that we understand Parker's criteria for inclusion on this list.  While we await Mr. Parker's revelations, I will attempt to use available data to try to tease out some of these criteria.

In his announcement, Parker stated, "I have chosen estates that produce wines of first growth quality, although technically not first growths.  Consequently, they are under-valued and very smart acquisitions."  Parker will be accompanied at the tasting by representatives from each estate.  The estates, their current classification, and  their respective AOC are shown in the table below.

My first impression in looking at the list is that there are some names that I would have liked to see on here that are not mentioned.  But then again, I am @wineOrl and he is Robert Parker.  He wins.  The list contains 11 chateaux from the 1855 Classification (5 second growths, 3 third growths, and 3 fifth growths), two from the St Emilion classification, and three from the Graves classification (Pomerol properties have never been classified.).  Every meaningful Bordeaux commune is represented in the list with 70% of the properties being left-bank-based.  Of the individual communes, Pauillac, Marguax, and Pomerol, with four chateaux each, are the most represented.  Nothing in this table appears to be list-composition drivers.

Not finding the criteria above, I turned to the release price of each chateau's primary wine.  In that the 2009 release of the wines will be tasted at Wine Future Hong Kong, I wanted to include that year's price in the analysis but I also wanted to look at least five years back so that meaningful analysis and comparisons could be made.  I was able to obtain time-series data on release prices from  genesiswines.com and those data are presented in Table 2 for the years 2004-2009. 

The series includes two exceptional years (2005 and 2009) and two less-than-stellar years (2004 and 2007).  The prices are stated in British Pounds.  In that 2009 was a stellar year, I wanted to compare it against another stellar year and 2005 fit that bill.  The second comparison was the pricing differential between 2008 and 2004.  In the cases where a price range is given, the low end of the range is used.  The comparisons are shown in the last two columns and indicate no correlation between inclusion on this list and 2004-2008 or 2005-2009 price growth so Mr. Parker could not have used these as criteria for composition of the list.  Onward then.

I looked further into areas such as ownership (a mix of owners to include industrialists, families, insurance companies, etc.), consultants employed (Michel Rolland, Stephen Derenoncourt, among others, but not in a suffocating way), and recent quality-focused investments (Cos, Pontet, and Angelus stand out) but no clear commonalities exist that one could point to and say "these are the objective standards for inclusion in the list."

If we have exhausted the possible objective selection criteria, then inclusion on the list must be subjective.  Could Parker scores have been the basis for inclusion? Let us take a look at that.  Table 3 shows Parker scores for each of the chateaux between the years 2004 and 2009 and a calculated average in the rightmost column. In looking closely at

the list, Pontet-Canet, Pape-Clement, and Smith Haut-Lafite show excellent scores in the down 2007 vintage.  On the other hand, Lynch-Bages and Pichon Lalande scored poorly in 2005, a year when even street-corner vendors were making excellent wines.  This is not the first time that Pichon Lalande has received low scores in a good vintage year.  You might remember a similar occurrence in 1990, another stellar Bordeaux vintage. And this begs the question as to why Ducru-Beaucaillou is not on this list.  It had an average score of 94.8 over the highlighted period; better than some of the wines included herein.

The average scores earned by the chateaux range from the low 90s to 96, a non-uniform distribution.  However, according to The Wine Advocate Rating System, a wine scoring between 90 and 95 is "an outstanding wine of exceptional complexity and character"; and all of these wines, save one, fall within that orbit.  But so do a lot of other Bordeaux wines that have more stuffing than Le Gay, for example.  Did they create a list and then stop calling when they got 20 people willing to travel to Hong Kong to participate in the event?  I hope not because this is potentially a guide to the Chinese as to what they should be buying next; and in so doing will create winners and losers among the second-tier Bordeaux players.  It will also have pricing implications for Bordeaux buyers like me.

With all of the foregoing, my biggest concern is the potential for creation of a new "super-second" classification scheme which is both subjective and single-sourced.  All previous Bordeaux classification schemes have come about as a result of group action.  In the case of the 1855 classification of the Medoc, Napolean requested a classification schema and it was developed by the brokers based on chateaux reputation and prices.  In the case of the St. Emilion classification, the Syndicat Viticole had begun considering the idea in the 1930s but held off until 1954 when the Institute Nacional des Appellations d'Origine (INAO) agreed to manage the process.  The Graves classification was implemented in 1953 by a jury appointed by INAO and was approved by the Ministry of Agriculture.  The scheme was updated in 1959 and has survived in that state to the current day.  All of these systems need updating to account for the passage of time (the St. Emilion classification is supposed to be updated every 10 years but the 2006 update had been mired in legal wrangling which has finally been resolved) but, given the implications, I would expect a studied, broad-based effort(s) to be the vehicle for such change given the number of stakeholders.  I fervently hope that Parker's "Magical 20" does not become a de facto Bordeaux classification scheme.

Central Florida James Beard Nominees Charity Dinner at Cress Restaurant

The patrons of Deland's Cress Restaurant were tickled pink that their hometown restaurant was hosting the inaugural Central Florida James Beard Nominees Charity Dinner and this delight was manifested in the turnout and their enthusiastic embrace of all aspects of the evening's event. 

The event featured a 7-course meal prepared by an all-star cast of Orlando chefs to include Scott Hunnell of Victoria and Albert's, James and Julie Petrakas of The Ravenous Pig, Kevin Fonzo of K Restaurant and Wine Bar, and Chef Hari Pulapaka of Cress Restaurant.  All proceeds from the event benefitted The Coalition for the Homeless of Central Florida and Second Harvest Food Bank of Central Florida.

The event was slated to begin at 6:30 pm and most people arrived on time.  The doors were closed, however, as management and staff continued with their last minute preparations.  When the door was finally opened, it was only long enough to allow one couple through.  Once that couple was placed in pre-assigned seats, another couple was let in, and so on until all seats were filled.  The table settings were gorgeous and menu presentation impeccable.  Once you arrived at your seat, a member of the wait staff came over and introduced him/herself and offered a flute of Heidsick Monopole Blue Top Brut champagne.

Once everyone was seated, the chefs came out of the kitchen to be introduced to the attendees.  Chef Hari opened the proceedings by thanking his fellow chefs and remarking on how impresesed he was with them.  They had shown up two to three hours earlier and had immediately gone about setting up their material.  Things had run so smoothly that they were now helping him in his set up.  Each chef then introduced him/herself and acknowledged the underlying purpose of the evening and how happy they were to be able to participate in this worthy cause.  Chef Hunnell talked about these chefs being at the vanguard of a food and dining movement in Orlando which is aimed at providing residents and guests with an attractive culinary scene.  Chef Petrakis also referenced this culianry movement but expanded its reach all across Florida.  At the conclusion of their comments, the chefs exited stage left and the serious examination of their handiwork commenced.

 T

The first course was an Amuse Bouche composition with contributions from a majority of the chefs: Applewood Smoked Bison with an Apple-Walnut Salad from Chef Hunnell; Blue Fin Tuna and Scallop Tartare with Caviar and Hazelnut from Chef Petrakis; Pickled Deep Creek Ranch Pickled Beef Tongue Reuben with House Kraut, Caraway Gribiche, and Toasted Pumpernickel from Chef Fonzo; and Pasture Prime Farm Milk Fed Ranger Chicken Bisteya with Tikka Masala Ice Cream and Preserved Lemon from Chef Pulapaka.  This was paired with the Heidsick champagne referenced earlier.  

The second course was a Chef Hunnel creation and featured Spanish Octopus, Summer Tomatoes, Arbequina Olive Oil.  It was paired with a 2010 Legado del Condo Albarino Rias Baixas, a Spanish white wine.

The third course, offered by Chef Pulapaka, was a Roasted Local Snowy Grouper, Local Shellfish "Cioppino", and Summer Truffles.  It was paired with a 2006 Domaine GuffensHeynen Macon Pierreclos.

The Intermezzo was Blackberry Blood Orange with an Habanero gel.

Course 4: Oxtail Tortellini, Butter-Poached Maine Lobster, Sunchokes, Lobster Mushrooms.  A Chef James Petrakis offering paired with 2007 Jose Maria da Fonseca Domini Plus Douro, Portugal.

Course 5: From Chef Fonzo, a Braised Lake Meadow Naturals Goat Rib, Goat Belly Confit, House-Made Goat Cheese Pudding, Succotash of Sweet Corn and Summer Beans.  Paired with 2004 E&E "Black Pepper" Shiraz, Barossa Valley, Australia

The sixth course was a cheese composition: Artisanal Cheeses and Accoutrements.  Paired with 2008 Benton Lane First Class Pinot Noir, Oregon

Course seven was a dessert course from Chef Julie Petrakas.  It was a Fig Duo: Creme Caramel, Black Mission Fig Compote, Dark Choclate-Brown Turkey Fig Tartlet, Fig-Cardamon Sorbet.  Paired with Taylor Fladgate Tawny Port 40-Year Old, Portugal



By this time I was truly tuckered out (To be truthful, I had blown my wad long before this.).  This had been a truly formidable array of dishes offered up by chefs at the top of their game.  Two of the dishes/pairings which stood out for me were courses four and five.  Course four was special because I did not initially get the rationale of the pairing given the white sauce-red wine combo.  Hidden under all the white, though, was the oxtail tortellini and the lobster mushrooms and they were more than adequate to support the Portuguese red.  On course five, I have eaten goat in the past but in more of a comfort-food style (Curried goat, for example).  This was my first encounter with this gourmet-style presentation of goat and ... I liked it.  All of the pairings worked well in my estimation with the exception of the Black Pepper Shiraz which had a brackish taste and added nothing to the dish.

Midway during the meal, Bill Budzinski of the Elusive Grape announced an upcoming live auction of seats  at their restaurants donated by the participating chefs.  This announcement lent a further dash of excitement and anticipation to the evening's proceedings.  After the meal was completed, Bill proceeded with the auction.  The first offering seemed to take everyone by surprise because, before you knew what was happening, my table mates had "won" at the opening price.  This did not happen again as people warmed to the proceedings.  The most hotly contested offering of the evening was two seats at Cress Restaurant.  The author's wife became involved in a bidding war with two other tables which was only terminated by having all six of us agree to a joint dinner which would also be attended by Chef and his wife and Bill and his wife.  A welcome relief.

Post the auction, all of the chefs and the kitchen staff were brought out to take a bow.  Chef Pulapaka thanked them for their support and thanked the attendees for thier participation.  The chefs were all very gracious in their concluding remarks.

All-in-all a very successful evening: the event raised $13,500 for charity; the guests had an enervating evening where they went away satisfied and with a feeling of having done something good; the participating chefs seemed to have had a good time; Chef Pulapaka represented his abode and his constituents admirably; and the small kitchen did not in any way restrain the artistry and creative forces of these dynamic chefs.

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.

2009 Beaujolais Tasting Lineup and Profiles of Selected Producers

In preparation for our upcoming 2009 Beaujolais Tasting, I have provided an overview of the Beaujolais sub-region, elaborated on the Beaujolais appellations, discussed the characteristics of the Gamay grape, and sang the praises of the 2009 vintage.  Based on the foregoing, the wines in the table below have been selected to allow us a taste-through of the sub-region.  In order to round out the coverage that has been provided to date, I

will profile the producers, beginning with Domaine du Vissoux and Domaine des Terres Dorées -- two producers with similar viniculture philosophies -- in this post.

Domaine du Vissoux

Domaine du Vissoux product will be used for our sparkling, Fleurie, and Brouilly wines.  The estate, located primarily in the hamlet of Vissoux, is owned by Martine and Pierre-Marie Chermette and the main property is a southeast-facing parcel sited on a bed of granite and planted to Gamay (14 hectares, Beaujolais) and Chardonnay (0.5 hectare, Beaujolais Blanc).  The Gamay vines range between 75- and 90-years old while the Chardonnay vines are approximately 25-years old.  The estate also grows another 0.5 hectare of Chardonnay grapes on 25-year-old vines in the nearby hamlet of Nandry and, further, has vineyards in Oingt-Le Bois à Oingt (6 hectares of Chardonnay), Brouilly (15 hectares), Fleurie (4.5 hectares), and Moulin-à-Vent (4.5 hectares).

The estate pursues an "integrated agriculture" policy with practices such as: (i) tilling or shallow ploughing between vines (or, alternately, grassing); (ii) yield control through hand-pruning; and (iii) growth management (budding, branch thinning).  Grapes are picked manually at optimal ripeness and are sorted both in the vineyard and in the cellar.

The estate's vinification practices are minimalist in order to provide the best environment for the character of the fruit to shine through.  Unlike most of the producers in Beaujolais, Domaine du Vissoux uses natural yeasts rather than 71B, the tomato-based, industrial yeast which is thought by some to impart candy and banana aromas and flavors to the wine. Further, little or no sugar is added to the must to increase the alcohol levels and little or no sulfur is added.  Grapes are vinified using semi-carbonic fermentation with twice-a-day pump overs beginning after two or three days of maceration.  The maceration periods are: 4 to 6 days for Beaujolais Nouveau; 6 to 8 days for "spring Beaujolais;" and 10 to 12 days for cru.  The macerated grapes are then pressed in a pneumatic press.


Domaine des Terres Dorées

Domaine des Terres Dorées product will be used for our Beaujolais Blanc and Moulin-à-Vent wines. Domaine des Terres Dorées is located in Charnay, a village about 30-minutes drive from Lyon, in an area called The Golden Stone Region (so called because the color of the limestone used in its historic buildings imparts a "warm, golden-brown complexion" to these stone houses).  The owner and winemaker is Jean-Paul Brun.  The primary vineyard is a 25-hectare parcel sited on permeable clay and limestone soil and planted to Gamay.  Jean-Paul also farms a 3-hectare Chardonnay plot and a 2-hectare Pinot Noir plot in close proximity to the main vineyard.  Further afield he owns small, granite-based parcels in Moulin-à-Vent, Morgon, and Côte de Brouilly.

Jean-Paul's style leans to the traditional with an emphasis on allowing the fruit to shine through unencumbered.  Like Domaine du Vissoux, he uses indigenous yeasts, does not chaptalize, and uses little or no sulfur.  Further, he does not filter his wines due to a belief that filtering strips out some of the natural flavors of the wine.

******************************************************************************************************

I will cover the remaining producers in subsequent posts.