Even with the changes and added flexibility in the Chianti DOC in recent years, the Tuscans have done a fine job of holding the line and requiring some level of traditional wine making in Chianti. I think the wisdom of adding the IGT categories, opening them up for experimentation while keeping the DOCs traditional, is going to pay off in the long run.
Hmmm. I don't think they've done either---that is, admirably holding the line or keeping the DOCs traditional.
The line has shifted pretty dramatically over the years, and there's very little of the traditional left in Chianti. The "formula" for Chianti has changed, and we've seen changes in almost every aspect, from processes to aging regimens to varietal constituencies.
As Oliver said, when you ask about Chianti, you have to know what Chianti you're asking about. You have seven different classified regions of Chianti. You have at least three demonstrably different classes of Chianti (Chianti "Normale", Chianti Classico/barrel aged, Chianti Riserva), which vary from pure stainless steel rushed to market (soft grape juice available in March following the previous vintage!)) to aged, to even further aged. Add in the wide (even wild) variation in style, from the tradtional to the ultra-modern, and I'd say Chianti is quite literally all over the place these days.
Oliver McCrum wrote:
How have the Chianti producers 'held the line?'
Simple enough, Oliver: They've managed to avoid following the points-chasing muse to the extent that most Chiantis retain at least a vestige of traditional character and don't fall into the universal modern niche that makes Sicilian Nero d'Avola and Central Coast Pinot Noir and Barossa Syrah taste like they came out of one large vat.
Really? All Central Coast Pinot Noir tastes like it came out of one large vat?
I sat down yesterday in a tasting of 39 Pinot Noirs from Monterey (courtesy of the Monterey County Vintners and Growers Association members), and I must say that the very last thing I would say is that they seemed to come out of one very large vat. There was wide----extremely wide---variation in almost every aspect of the wines.
True, there were demonstable similarities in some of the wines that came from the same vineyards---but that's a good thing in my book, not a bad thing! I could divide the wines up by winemaker's style, but could just as easily make a case for standout terroir (Chalone AVA, but not Chalone Vineyards, as a good example), and vintage variations were quite distinct as well.
If you're referring to the over-ripe/jam bomb phenomenon of some (okay, even many) Central Coast Pinot producers, yes, they were clearly there. A couple were virtually undrinkable because they tasted like badly described and seriously overboiled Welsh's Grape Jelly. But there were just as many, if not more, examples of restrained, lovely, even elegant Pinots. There were also chunky/earthy ones, rooty tooty ones, plain jane ones, bland ones, and even one really bad one. But they were hardly out of one vat.
Taste Michaud next to Manzoni and tell me they came out of one vat. Heck, taste Estancia next to Hahn even. Or DeTierra from that one incredibly funky vineyard next to Pessagno's version of same, and you get two different snapshots of the same grape from the same place. Taste a Santa Lucia Highlands next to an Arroyo Seco next to a Chalone and you'll notice the differences.
And that's just Monterey.
