Tag Archives: Thomas Matthews

Why Italians are offended by our ratings and rankings

Posted on by

Above: the architects of Italian unification (1861). To the far left, Count Camillo Cavour, Italy’s first prime minister, a winemaker (Piedmont). To the far right, Baron Betting Ricasoli, Italy’s second prime minister, a winemaker (Tuscany). In the center, unified Italy’s first king, Vittorio Emanuele II, a winemaker (Piedmont). Ricasoli’s estate Brolio and Vittorio Emanuele’s Fontanafredda still produce wine today.

A wine writer whom I admire greatly (and who happens to work in the editorial office of the Wine Spectator) wrote me today to express his dismay (warranted) with the recent back-and-forth between VinoWire (which I co-edit with my friend Franco Ziliani) and Wine Spectator executive editor Thomas Matthews. (I translated and posted Franco’s most recent entry today).

I can understand his position. After all, we are wine writers, not ideologues. My colleague is right to point out that our debate and discussion should be carried out in a spirit of collegiality and good faith. But I also feel that it is difficult for Americans (in general, not him specifically) to understand how our lists and rankings offend Italian winemakers and Italians in general. Italy was born as a “wine nation” and wine is woven indelibly into its national identity.

Italy’s founding fathers (above) envisioned wine and indigenous grape varieties as an integral part of the nascent Italian economy (remember: beyond its value as a luxury product, wine was considered a food stuff).

One of the reasons why Piedmontese winemakers grow Nebbiolo today is that Italy’s first prime minister, Count Camillo Cavour (1810-1861), recognized its potential in fine winemaking.

The primary reason why Tuscan winemakers grow Sangiovese is that Italy’s second prime minister, Baron Bettino Ricasoli (1809-1880), wrote extensively and prolifically on the virtues of Sangiovese married with Tuscany’s terroir and he boldly replanted his estate — where he had grown a wide range of French grapes — with Sangiovese, Canaiolo, and Malvasia.

Americans do not feel the same connection to wine that the Italians (and French) do. Winemaking was born in this country as a luxury industry and the tastes of our opinion leaders (Robert Parker and James Suckling foremost among them) have been shaped by a youthful winemaking tradition that favors opulence and power over balance and nuance. There’s no doubt about this. Imagine what it feels like to be an Italian and to read that one of your country’s greatest wines (Case Basse) receives pitiful scores (and even in its top vintages!) while a young Brunello producer (owned by one of Italy’s largest commercial winemaking groups) received the coveted 90+.

In the spirit of healthy debate, I encourage you to take a look at the comments at VinoWire to get a sense of the offense perceived by some of our readers in Italy.

Dear Ezio Rivella and Thomas Matthews, please give me a call…

Posted on by

In his post on Friday, Eric referenced my post at Do Bianchi (please see also the post published by me and Franco Ziliani at VinoWire).

In my post on the October 3 Brunello debate, I wrote:

As I watched the live streaming of the Brunello debate on Friday, I couldn’t help but think of Marinetti’s calls to abolish pasta and to “murder the moonshine” (uccidiamo il chiaro di luna! or let’s kill the claire de lune, 1909) when I heard one of Italy’s leading enologists, Ezio Rivella, say that “Sangiovese is a ‘lean’ grape with little color” and that the Italian wine industry would be better served by “using international grape varieties” and “making wines more international in style.”

“You don’t win a 100 points from the Wine Spectator,” said Rivella, “using just Sangiovese.”

Yesterday, Thomas Matthews, executive editor of Wine Spectator, made the following comment on Eric’s post:

After reading this blog entry, I called Ezio Rivella, who is currently in Rome, and spoke with him and James Suckling, Wine Spectator’s lead taster for the wines of Italy. Rivella told us the quotation referenced above was taken out of context, that his point was only to say that Sangiovese can benefit from blending in many cases. He wishes that Mr. Asimov had called him directly to discuss this issue.

Dear Ezio and Thomas, it’s a matter of fact: the statement was made in the context of a debate on whether or not the Brunello appellation regulations should be changed to allow the blending of international grape varieties. And it’s the fact of the matter: Rivella made that statement, voice raised, pointing his finger at Franco and admonishing him, during a debate on whether or not international grapes should be allowed in the Brunello appellation. I watched the debate live over the internet and Franco was there!

Thomas, me thinks thou dost protest too much.

Ezio, feel free to give me a call. Franco knows how to get in touch with me and I know that you and he are in cordial if not friendly contact.

Sincerely,
Jeremy Parzen, Ph.D.

*****

In other news…

Over at Montalcino Report, my friend Alessandro Bindocci reports that 153 Brunello producers have now signed an open letter to agriculture minister Luca Zaia and the Brunello Consortium asking them to keep Brunello 100% Sangiovese. 149 had signed the original letter last week and that number already represented a majority of producers.