der-pizzameister wrote:
> filippo wrote:
>
>> I think it might be found interesting, at least by some of you, the
>> following link to a Wikipedia page displaying a very handy map
>> which compares all the different "Chianti-something" areas:
>>
>> http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immagin...chianti_it.jpg
>
> Thanks for the interesting contribution.
> This map must be pretty unique in the world collection of "Chianti wine"
> maps: honestly I do not see the point of showing the territory of
> Castellina, Radda and Gaiole in blue, while the rest of the Chianti Classico
> area is depicted in red.

You know... when talking about a wine named after a geographical area,
it is always worth, I believe, showing which is the actual area and
which is the extended area where ONE product is allowed to be branded,
that was done in recent years. ;-)

> This map is about Chianti subzones (I beg pardon for my poor English),

Chianti as a wine does not mean anything but this tautology: wine named
Chianti is the wine named Chianti according to regulations. Period.
There is little to do with the Chianti area, and there is no such thing
as a typical style of winemaking with that name. Grape varieties also
seem to be pretty variable over the years. It is just an arbitrary
container to market red wine from the central part of Tuscany. Could you
give any explanations about the whys of those borders displayed in the
above mentioned map? Why such places are within the production areas and
such other places are not? Why are several sangiovese wines branded as
IGT Toscana considered to be way more representative of the Chianti
terroir than many DOCG Chianti Classico ones?

> so actually I find at least superfluous to make a distinction between the
> named three municipalities and the rest of the Chianti Classico area.

The distinction is just the one I made here above: the three
municipalities are the Chianti area. The rest is the production area (by
law) of a wine which is allowed to be branded as Chianti-something.
You may find it superflous...;-) I find it a pretty substancial distinction.

> A map illustrating the different production areas of Chianti wines should in
> first place provide a clear indication of the *current* boundaries of the
> different subzones.

And so does that map, as you can see.

> Using the "blue" pencil for Castellina, Radda, and
> Gaiole at most might serve an aspect of historical relevance.

History will never be wiped out. A territory IS eminently history.
Particularly more than five centuries of political, military, social
history, with respect to what else? The commercial ups and downs of a
mere one single product in the last few decades?

> At any rate consumers and wine lovers have to understand that the Chianti
> Classico production area is -for what concernes wine- *one* without any
> formal distinction between its internal territories.

As far as pedology (soil) and climate is concerned, quite the opposite
is true: the "Chianti Classico" production area is a rather
etherogeneous collection of different terroirs. If you look at the
geologic map, by the way, you can easily spot a glob of substancially
homogeneous character, corresponding to the historical Chianti area.
If you look at the landscape (which is a tell tale sign, when it comes
to agricultural products), nobody with a sufficient actual knowledge of
the area would deny that the Chianti area is quite different from the
Castelnuovo Berardenga area, and from the San Casciano val di Pesa or
Barberino and Tavarnelle val di Pesa surroundings.
Who cares about the lack of "formal" distinction, resulting from a
crazy regulation whose purpose is exactly that: expanding the scope of
"Chianti" in order to exploit this name and market more wine from a
larger area?

> I would find
> preferable not to mix all in a map strict regulations about wine producing
> areas with other things which matters to history.

The blue etched area in that map still refers to wine, although with an
historical approach in mind: it purports to be the area subject to the
earliest known wine regulation dealing with a wine marketed as
"Chianti", the edict of 1716.

>> The blue-striped area is what corresponds to the actual Chianti
>> _district_, i.e. to the _geographical_ area known as Chianti,
>> administratively known as "Lega del Chianti" from the end of 13th
>> century to the end of 18th century
>
> As for what concerns the expression "Chianti district" I guess that sooner
> or later the only acceptable definition will refer to the "Distretto Rurale
> del Chianti" which is an economic and territorial system and -guess what-
> once again is not limited to Castellina, Radda and Gaiole.

That "distretto rurale" is far from being set and ruled, at the moment.
They did not find any agreement, and I am not surprised.
What is more, if you read the "piano di indirizzo territoriale" of
Regione Toscana, you would easily realise that an agreement on that is
not in sight yet. Not surprisingly again, if you consider the recent EU
regulation concerning the use of geographical designations in branding
typical products (Reg CE n.510/2006 of 20 March 2006), which although
not dealing with wine products, yet is setting general principles that
are pretty strict and conflicting with this slacky misuse of the name
Chianti in branding wines :-/