Franco Biondi-Santi Proposes changes to R di M!?!

How did I miss this?
http://vinowire.simplicissimus.it/2008/ ... varieties/

Perhaps it's blasphemous to argue with Biondi-Santi, but Rosso di Montalcino is the little brother of Brunello - that's what the DOC was created for!!! They've already got a DOC, Sant Antimo, with which they can do practically anything they want. If Biondi-Santi, for 120 years the most uncompromising bearer of tradition in its wines, gives in to international appeal, then I fear the soul of Brunello will be lost. I hope it won't be thought too much if I say it, but I'm shocked by this.

Unless cloned little brothers, whether of wines or of animals, never receive all of their genes from the same parent. Somehow I fail to be shocked.... change happens.

I may not be shocked but I am amused in speculating about what many of those who defend screwcaps and artificial corks as legitimate change will have to say about this particular potential shift. Are the methods and grapes used in the of making Brunello or Rosso di Montalcino older. more "traditional" or more "sacrosanct" than those of using cork?

Ye faithful curmudgeon (but most assuredly not ye faithful Luddite)
Rogov

I am amused in speculating about what many of those who defend screwcaps and artificial corks as legitimate change will have to say about this particular potential shift.

Daniel, with all due respect, please stop lumping screwcaps with artificial corks, which most of us (on either side of the divide) dislike.

Unless cloned little brothers, whether of wines or of animals, never receive all of their genes from the same parent. Somehow I fail to be shocked.... change happens.

I may not be shocked but I am amused in speculating about what many of those who defend screwcaps and artificial corks as legitimate change will have to say about this particular potential shift. Are the methods and grapes used in the of making Brunello or Rosso di Montalcino older. more "traditional" or more "sacrosanct" than those of using cork?

Ye faithful curmudgeon (but most assuredly not ye faithful Luddite)
Rogov

There is no connection whatsoever between these two ideas. Are you interested in the qualities of the wine or the qualities of the packaging?

...There is no connection whatsoever between these two ideas. Are you interested in the qualities of the wine or the qualities of the packaging?

Oliver, Hello....

My interest in general is in the qualities of the wine as well as the impact of the packaging on the wine. In this particular case I am most interested in the reaction of people to changes that do not readily fit into their usual cognitive set.

...Daniel, with all due respect, please stop lumping screwcaps with artificial corks, which most of us (on either side of the divide) dislike.

Oswaldo, Hello...

You are correct in this. One of the dangers of cyberspace is that sometimes the fingers work faster than the brain. My goof but now with apologies.


Best
Rogov

Oliver, Hello....

My interest in general is in the qualities of the wine as well as the impact of the packaging on the wine. In this particular case I am most interested in the reaction of people to changes that do not readily fit into their usual cognitive set.

Daniel,

what does this mean? Perhaps you could explain.

Oliver, Hi......

Not complex.

Some have accepted the screwcap as a positive sign of progress and in this a great number have become quite vocal in their protestation of cork as a closure. Part of their argument against those of us who say that cork may well still have its place is that we are married to "tradition" or "sentiment".

My curiosity in this case is in seeing whether the potential move to allow other than Sangiovese grapes to be used in the production of Rosso di Montalcino will arouse a similar set of arguments and defenses. In other words, will those who tend to belittle tradition and/or sentiment in one case support tradition and sentiment in another. And if yes, the logic involved.

Best
Rogov

Daniel,

There has already been a great deal of resistance to the idea of legalising exotic varieties in Brunello (or Rosso di Montalcino), as you must be aware.

If you are wondering whether some individuals who believe that legalising exotic varieties in Montalcino would be a mistake also believe that cork is not the best packaging solution we have in 2009, I believe both of those things. There is no inconsistency whatsoever in this, and it is a logical fallacy to suppose that there need be. I am in favor of good wine, and I am only against cork in as much as it ruins too much good wine. It's about the wine, not the packaging. Brunello is, when not abused, one of the glories of Italian viticulture; cork is a packaging material that IMO should be judged entirely by how well it protects the wine it encloses. It does so very poorly by any QC standard that makes sense now, in 2009.

Not complex at all.

Daniel, aside from my earlier complaint, I enjoyed your provocation and understand it for what it is, good natured ribbing and baiting (from the embattled, perhaps ).

To rise to your bait and repeat what Oliver said, but in a different way, your speculation about how us screwcap supporters would side on the Rosso issue depends on the premise that we are in favor of change as a matter of principle. If so, it would be consistent for us to side with Biondi-Santi against the guardians of tradition and, if we didn't, you could rightly taunt us for adopting a double standard.

But our (or, at least, my) position does not derive from any principle other than the pleasure principle. It is not the result of proclivity, temperament or inclination. It is merely pragmatism in the face of what I consider unacceptable cork performance and, perhaps, foolhardy faith in the insufficiently tested long-term performance of screwcaps. I have no position (pro or con) the DOCG system - I enjoy brunellos and supertuscans. Whoever thinks the DOCG system ain't broke should be against change. Ditto for corks. You've stated that you're ready to live with their falure rate. I don't think that's because you are conservative as a matter of principle but because you are a lover of all things good and, for some reason that escapes me, identify corks as belonging to that realm. We all share this love of good things, we simply have different definitions of what constitutes "good things" (not to mention tolerances for spoilage).

Oswaldo, Hi....

You read my intentions perfectly. Alas, your response is so well put that it leaves the devil in me too little room, certainlly not for intelligent rebuttal. Ah well.....the devil falls once again. Hopefully, he falls with grace. One does, after all, hate to wind up slamming into one's own tail bone when hitting the sidewalk.

Best
Rogov

Oh, I'd like to rise to the bait AND join in on the pummeling of Daniel too!!!

For the sake of trolling, you certainly have made a quantum leap, Daniel, in the attempt to further defend screwcap closures. So much for the old tradtional method of going from point a to point b and such standards as "it therefore must follow" in logical pattern.

But in the spirit of camaraderie, I might throw out that this substitution to or addition of has already occured, not too terribly far away and not terribly long ago either. I speak, of course, of Chianto DOCG. Not only did the allowed grape varieties change, but the blending proportions and procedures changed as well. Sangiovese in Tuscany overall has not quite the same prominence, or at least the same dominance as it recently had.

But tradition----for all its worth, and it most certainly has worth---frequently yields to more changes than some of us, especially curmudgeons, like to admit. Chianti has gone through numerous changes and alterations and modifications---long before there was a clearly established DOC system, and quite a few times since.

As a matter of fact, I'd wager a bet that the vast majority of Italian regions and DOC/IGTs have gone through significant alterations in each of their rules and regulations. Heck, I win just by mentioning the IGT designation in the first place. But even in DOCs and DOCGs, if we could keep note of all the changes, minor and major, that have occured in the rules (keeping in mind, of course, that "Italian rules" is a noble oxymoron of the highest sort), it would be a long, long list indeed. Change is more frequent than most like to believe. And regions and rules far more malleable.

Now, please don't take my comments to mean that I am in favor of the Montalcion rules changing. I'm not. I stand right alongside Oliver in wanting to maintain the current regulations in Rosso Montalcino and also supporting screwcaps, and certainly see no disconnest or logical discontinuity.

But nice try, Daniel. Nice try.

I'm amused to note that Franco Ziliani has further stirred the pot by inviting producers of Brunello to sign a declaration that their wine contains only Sangiovese...

Oswaldo, Hi....

You read my intentions perfectly. Alas, your response is so well put that it leaves the devil in me too little room, certainlly not for intelligent rebuttal. Ah well.....the devil falls once again. Hopefully, he falls with grace. One does, after all, hate to wind up slamming into one's own tail bone when hitting the sidewalk.

Best
Rogov

Exceedingly elegant, and much appreciated.

Well, to respond in the spirit of where my humble little thread has gone: I am a traditionalist, and I believe that one should not change things for the sake of change only, but rather because it is an improvement or a step forward. So, corks . . . . I am all in favor of alternative closures for mid-range wines, and short term drinkers, and I'm beginning to think that they should be obligatory for everyday drinkers. But, if you want to age a wine, you need a natural cork. And quite frankly, if I buy a premium wine, I want it to have a natural cork.

To clarify my comments above, my shock is that Biondi-Santi, who is supposed to be one of the guardians of tradition, is proposing these changes. Also, I am getting tired of people complaining about the production standards of Brunello (or Rosso) - if you don't want a true Brunello, then leave it alone, rather than demanding that it change to suit you. Why is it that people don't seem to acknowledge that Sant Antimo exists? If you want to take Sangiovese from Montalcino and add some Cab, or Merlot, or Syrah, or whatever to it, you don't want to make Brunello, you want to make a Super-Tuscan, so why not use the DOC created for Super-Tuscans from Montalcino? Because they still want the appeal of the name Brunello on the bottle I suppose, for those people who buy names and scores instead of wines. If you want to propose something that improves Brunello, or any traditional wine, while still keeping its identity, then great. But what we don't need is more internationalized, de-individualized, soul-less wines. Anyway, I think Franco is fundamentally wrong - Rosso is the little brother: that's what it was created to be. Another thing we don't need is to lose the chance to have a glimpse of Brunello at a more reasonable price, only to have it replaced with a trophy wine. Totally betrays the purpose of Rosso.

So, the score for me: traditional wines, big yes, traditional closures, preferable in some cases but not always. And to answer it as Rogov posed it: to me, the identity of Montalcino's wines is more sacred than what they're closed under.

But, if you want to age a wine, you need a natural cork.

Why?

I'm not being snarky, or argumentative. I'm serious. Why do you need a natural cork to age a wine?

No one has ever sufficiently explained that to me.

I've heard people say "the jury's still out" and "there are not sufficient long term trials" (meaning, of course, there never will be to the resistors because evidence isn't important). But no one has ever, carefully, explained to me this strange statement that a natural cork is a necessity for long term aging of wine.

I'm not even saying you can't, or shouldn't age a wine under natural cork. I'm saying no one has ever explained why such is an absolute and uncompromising no-alternative possible necessity.

But, if you want to age a wine, you need a natural cork.

Why?

Hey Hoke,

My understanding is that if you want a wine to evolve, rather than simply to be preserved, some exchange of oxygen with the atmosphere is necessary to the reactions. But, I'm an astronomer, not a chemist, and can't say anymore than that's what I've heard.

But, if you want to age a wine, you need a natural cork.

Why?

Hey Hoke,

My understanding is that if you want a wine to evolve, rather than simply to be preserved, some exchange of oxygen with the atmosphere is necessary to the reactions. But, I'm an astronomer, not a chemist, and can't say anymore than that's what I've heard.

Ryan, would you accept "that's what I've heard" as given truth about oxygen in nebulas?

Would you accept "that's what I've heard" if you'd heard people explain to you that the earth is flat? Or that the sun revolves around the earth?

You're a scientist, so I'd expect a little more from you than "that's what I heard".

But did you also hear that with current technology screwcaps can be designed to allow a controlled amount of oxygen exchange with the atmosphere? And if you had heard that, would you believe it as equally? And thus believing would you immediately change your mind about the necessity of natural cork to age wine?

And if you had evidence provided to you that a screwcap closure could allow oxygen exchange if desired, and at a controlled instead of uncontrolled rate---would you then have overcome your objections to screwcaps as a valid closure?

Mind you, I'm not disallowing your point---although if the anti-screwcap/pro-cork can maintain there's not enough research to justify use of screwcaps for long term aging, I don't see how they can also claim there's enough research to continue justifying the use of a natural cork closure that's already proven to be flawed at what it does. Seems to me it would work both ways---wouldn't the jury have to be out on that as well? Mind you, I'm not a scientist, so I imagine that can be explained away (probably with a mathematical formula that I'd never understand. )

I can (barely) understand the status quo ante approach the cautious take on cork/screwcap change. I don't agree with it, but I can at least understand it. I understand caution and being sure. But what I can't understand is rejecting a new technology when, in many ways it has proven superior to the previous technology (for tradition or or not, cork is technology, albeit of the middle ages and renaissance) and has yet to be proven inferior.

Meanwhile, I hope other folks can better explain to me, or at least explain in better detail and specification, why screwcaps are not suitable for long term aging. Again, I'm serious, and not being the least bit snarky or trolling. I really would like to understand.

Would you accept "that's what I've heard" if you'd heard people explain to you that the earth is flat?

The earth isn't flat?????


Best Albeit Smiling
Rogov

You're a scientist, so I'd expect a little more from you than "that's what I heard".

Are you deliberately trying to temp me Hoke - come on, you know I've got an explanation for everything

You are right of course, that the job of a good scientist is to question everything. However, don't confuse "question everything," with "doubt everything," the former of which I think of as "Positive Skepticism," and the later as "Negative Skepticism." If we were taught to "doubt everything," then each student of science would have to redevelop the history of science from scratch. Rather, there are times when the job of a scientist, if they do not have the means of the knowledge to test something themselves (we don't have time to redo every experiment and calculation we read about in a journal), to evaluate whether or not a statement or argument is reasonable. It is also the job of a good scientist to acknowledge the limitations of their knowledge.

So, perhaps it was poor word choice on my part to say "that's what I've heard." Perhaps I should have said "that's how I understand it, to the extent that it's been explained to me." I was simply acknowledging the limits of my understanding, that I do not have the expertise or knowledge to explain the underlying chemistry, and that I was not claiming to have any authoritative knowledge. But, I have enough knowledge of chemistry to present a logical argument as to why I would consider the necessity of oxygen exchange necessary to the aging of a wine. But before I present that, I'd like to "call you on the rug" for knowing more than you explicitly stated (please take it in the good humour intended). By responding to my statement with the developments in screw-cap technology (which yes, I am aware of) to allow oxygen exchange, you admit to 1. having heard before the explanation I gave, but furthermore 2. knowing that it is acknowledged as enough of a problem that proponents of screw cap are trying to develop ways to correct it. So here's the logic. It is generally acknowledged that wines sealed under some forms of screw cap, which don't allow exchange with the atmosphere, can be prone to reduction, which is considered a fault in wine. A reductive environment is one which tends to remove oxygen from a substance. Chemical reactions will slow or stop if there is an overabundance of their products already present. So, reduction reaction will not occur if a sufficient amount of oxygen is present in the environment. Thus, to prevent reduction, you need oxygen available to the wine in reasonable amounts - obviously you don't want to go to the other extreme. So, to properly age a wine, you must walk the balance between the two, and allow a proper amount of oxygen to be present. So, like I said, this is my application of logic to the question, not the opinion of a professional chemist, and I won't claim that it is the absolutely correct explanation. But it is a reasonable enough one that I believe my original statement can also be considered reasonable.

Incidentally, the idea that it was once though that the earth is flat is a popular misconception. Since classical antiquity, the educated have known that the earth is a sphere (the Greeks figured that out). The flat earth idea arose out of the fear of the unknown amongst the uneducated. And in the case of Columbus, their concern was simply that in unknown waters he would be lost at sea, and that they would lose the money they put into the voyage - Isabella was very educated, and did not believe that the earth was flat; and mariners have understood for ages that the earth is round.

So, have you had enough?

Best Wishes,
Ryan

Ryan, would your position change if you became convinced that screwcaps existed that allowed oxygen ingress/exchange at the rate allowed by a "perfect" cork?

Ryan, would your position change if you became convinced that screwcaps existed that allowed oxygen ingress/exchange at the rate allowed by a "perfect" cork?

If given that, and if it could be shown that they would hold such a seal indefinitely, without degradation, then sure. Although I think I'd be happier with a semi-permeable synthetic cork that could accomplish the same thing, and without imparting any off flavors. My concern is that it really doesn't take very much effort to open a screw cap, as compared to a closure inserted in the neck of the bottle. A screw cap must after all grip or be adhered to the bottle, rather than being held in place by the bottle itself. The friction between the inside of the next and a cork (natural or not) is much greater, due to compression, than the friction between the capsule of a screw cap and the outside of the bottle. So, aside from the chemical concern, I'm also concerned about it from a mechanical perspective.

But, please not my earlier comments: for young drinking wines, and whites in particular, I think screw caps should be almost obligatory.

Now, back to my original subject: why, when what people appear to want is Super-Tuscans from Montalcino, has the Sant Antimo DOC been ignored? I fear it is simply because producers of Brunello would rather betray Brunello's identify than give up the market appeal of the name, (which really steams by blood, because those people that are buying Brunello for the name only really don't care if it tastes like Sangiovese, or maybe even don't care if it tastes like Italy, let alone Tuscany). Can they legally display the name Montalcino on the bottle, but just not as part of the appellation or designation of origin? Sorry for the rant, but I adore Brunello, it is my favorite wine on the planet, because Sangiovese is my favorite red grape, and Brunello is its highest expression. And it really kills me when people taste Brunello, and essentially complain because it doesn't have the wieght, or the color, or whatever . . . . but that's not Sangiovese! People seem to have forgotten (if they ever knew it to begin with), that the wines for which Bordeaux rose to prominence were lightly colored wines - that's what the word Claret means, for goodness sake! Why is it that people (some critics included) refuse to meet wine on its own terms? No one faults Pauillac for not tasting like Pomerol (well, maybe Michael Rolland does). Why then must they fault Brunello for not tasting like a Super-Tuscan? You must always meet a wine on its own terms. Always, always. always. And sure, you can fault one apple for not tasting as good as another apple - but don't fault an apple for not tasting like an orange.

Thanks, Ryan.

Yeah, I was noodging just a bit with my reply. Couldn't help myself. But I was serious too.

I'm not insensitive or dismissive of some people's concerns that a screwcap may actually be too good at what it does, and close of the wine from any oxygen ingress, and that aged red wine as we know it now depends on that paradigm to become what we expect it to become. Hence my pointing out to you the new permeability aspect of screw caps.

I would far rather have a screwcap closing my precious bottle, thereby allowing controlled oxygen exposure, instead of a cork, which is at the very best a hit or miss proposition for such a wine. Simply put, the screwcap appears to be the better and more efficient closure for doing what it is supposed to do without egregious flaw, taint or outright failure.

And your subsequent response to Oswaldo's question has elicited just the response I wanted too, so I have no further questions of you at this time. You may leave the inquisition chamber. That's because you science guys inevitably yield to logic. (Or at least like to believe you do.)

Ryan, would your position change if you became convinced that screwcaps existed that allowed oxygen ingress/exchange at the rate allowed by a "perfect" cork?

If given that, and if it could be shown that they would hold such a seal indefinitely, without degradation, then sure. Although I think I'd be happier with a semi-permeable synthetic cork that could accomplish the same thing, and without imparting any off flavors. My concern is that it really doesn't take very much effort to open a screw cap, as compared to a closure inserted in the neck of the bottle. A screw cap must after all grip or be adhered to the bottle, rather than being held in place by the bottle itself. The friction between the inside of the next and a cork (natural or not) is much greater, due to compression, than the friction between the capsule of a screw cap and the outside of the bottle. So, aside from the chemical concern, I'm also concerned about it from a mechanical perspective.

My dad is a materials scientist, and I had a conversation once with him and a colleague about cork. It has the very unusual property of being able to be compressed substantially, then springing back to almost 100% of its original volume, and retaining that elasticity for many years. Synthetic corks are completely useless for long-term aging; they lose their elasticity and let air in much more quickly than does bark cork.

Screwcaps are crimped onto the ridges in the bottleneck by the machine, friction doesn't come into it.