Many thanks to the provocative comments some of you left after my post of April 13. I'd like to reprint Rachel Black's in its entirety, with some emphases added by the editor (me):
This is a very interesting post. First, yes, I agree with Lynch that the Maremma is very different from the rest of Tuscany in every way. Again, yes, most consumers are too ignorant (as in lack of education) to grasp diversity in wine--it is confusing. If you don't know it, it can't be good, right? There is something essentially human about fearing the unknown, especially when it comes to things we ingest. This is truly the omnivore's dilemma but we have recently reached an extreme where our narrow tastes have seriously harmed biodiversity and cultural diversity more generally. 'Native' grape varieties are a case in point: as you note, this trend is bolstered by wine marketing, and I would argue a great deal of uninspired wine journalism.
Second, the question that interests me most is why it is important to determine origins? There is obviously no answer to at what point a grape can be considered 'autoctono'; however, what is interesting here are the political and economic reasons for trying to determine origins. In the case of Sangiovese, origin myths seem to be attached to ideas of authenticity and, in turn, economic gain based on the popularity of a very modern creation--'Super Tuscan' wines. It really is odd. At the same time, the vitigni autoctoni movement in Italy seems to be a call back to age-old regional diversity and greater local identity in the face of industrial homogenization. Yet, like all calls to arms, this will be a struggle.
Finally, humans have been messing with plant genetics for a very long time. Since vitis vinifera is a favourite, it is one of the plants we have messed with the most. I would argue that genetically origin myths are quite difficult to nail down. We would probably learn a great deal about human movements and settlements around the Mediterranean and of our dependence on wine as a social and economic good. Maybe we could tell something of the ongoing relationship between humans and vines as the two adapted to new social, climatic and economic circumstances.
What is most interesting here is why we search for origins and why diversity is often resisted.
I love the confluence of "origin myths seem to be attached to ideas of authenticity" with "a great deal of uninspired wine journalism." And here's why: I am sick to death of all the blathering about "real" and "authentic" and "local" and all the rest of the magic words that seem to characterize the "progressive" wing of wine marketing/writing/fandom these days. The terms have lost whatever meaning they might have possessed in days of yore. Or even 2-3 years ago.
To me this is all of a piece with the holier-than-thou ideology of Zluffud (Slow Food as pronounced in Italian), the monastics of the local-ingredients-let's-eat-more-root-vegetables movement and so on.
Here's the thing. The measure of quality in wine is neither its precise chemical metrics nor its mystical qualities as bearer of all traditional agrarian-goodness quiddity. (Analogous to the simpletonian opposition of "industrial" to biodynamic winemaking.) Excuse me, but there is a middle ground. Quite a broad one. And nuanced.
To me as a wine-drinker and importer, the really important criteria of a wine are in a positive response to these questions:
Does it have character? (Is it distinctive and not like a heap of other wines?)
Do you want it again -- and again?
Do you want to share it with your friends?
Can you afford to buy it?
Fashionable constructs like "tradition" and "authenticity" and "purity" tend to fall away as irrelevant as you contemplate this approach to appraising wine.
Recent Comments