We return to a topic we discussed 10 years ago: the use of a single, 100 percent, pure variety falsely regarded as traditional.
Tasting several vintages of Tignanello by Antinori during the celebration of its 50th anniversary since its release, chatting with Piero Antinori and Renzo Cotarella it was said that the reasons why at that time the blend between Sangiovese and 20 percent Cabernet Sauvignon and Cabernet Franc was thought of were related to the fact that there had not yet been serious clonal or mass selection of Sangiovese. Giacomo Tachis argued that yes, it was a great grape variety, especially if “helped” by some Cabernet.
Other times, however, that make us realize that the use of a pure variety is a point of arrival and has nothing to do with what many consider “traditional.” In this regard, I would like to repost an editorial I wrote over a decade ago that deals with these very issues. Nothing new under the only, in short.
The “purity of the race”
The title is obviously provocative and in no way intended to flirt with abominable theories such as were advocated and implemented by dangerous groups of criminals in our recent past. In my intentions it has to do with the world of wine and a trend, I think unconsciously, that leads many neophytes to believe that the genetic aspect, that which concerns the vine to be more clear, is the most important and absolutely decisive in defending the winemaking tradition.
Such positions are often encountered especially in Italy and have given and are giving rise to
querelle
endless and sometimes quite superficial and anti-historical. It ends up that in the wake of an all-out defense of concepts far more ideological than true, overshadow what is true tradition, resulting in even conspicuous changes being made without realizing it.
The false history of pure grape varieties
The idea of varietal purity in wines such as Barolo, Barbaresco and Brunello di Montalcino, in fact, is a historical fallacy. Alongside Nebbiolo and Sangiovese, now imposed at 100 percent, there have always been accessory grape varieties, Barbera in the Langhe, Canaiolo and Colorino in Tuscany, in small percentages, with a maximum of 10 percent, which helped the producers of the time, we are talking about before the DOCGs came into effect in 1980. Of course, we are talking about traditional grape varieties, not Merlot or, worse, Cabernet Sauvignon, which with their pyrazine contents could alter typical organoleptic characters of those wines. But the most important thing is the principle, in my opinion, and this could be maintained Authorizing in blends only those varieties traditionally found in the vineyards (as is provided, for example, in the new specification for the Pievi di Mntepulciano, ed.).
Only in certain cases, as in that of the Carmignano which is equally a DOCG wine and is much older than those mentioned above, just the “deprecated” Cabernet has been there for at least three centuries. In the famous proclamation of the Grand Duke of Tuscany Cosimo III de’ Medici, dated 1716, in fact, the Tuscan wines worthy of protection with an “ante litteram” appellation were Pomino, Valdarno di Sopra, Chianti, which was then Chianti Storico, produced only in the municipalities of Radda, Castellina and Gaiole, and, indeed, Carmignano. E Cabernet was present even then., and predictably before then.
The defense of what tradition?
With the same consistency with which today tradition is defended, therefore, one would have to argue for the absolute necessity of maintaining Cabernet in the vineyards of Carmignano and, I would add, other varieties, perhaps even Pinot Noir, in those of Pomino, as well as the need to maintain all the minor grape varieties that have always been present in the vineyards of Barolo, Barbaresco and Brunello di Montalcino. That would be A secular reading of the Tuscan tradition, at least as good as the defense of Sangiovese elsewhere. Most importantly, it would have a cultural value that would go beyond the latest controversy and a defense of the purported “purity of breed” of wine that has little to do with historical reality.
