Italy’s appellation system can be a maze, to put it mildly. Seeing the wood for the trees is not always easy. And whenever a relatively straightforward structure does exist, as in Südtirol/Alto Adige for example, someone inevitably starts shaking those trees and adding new elements that make the whole system more complicated, such as the introduction of a UGA system.
UGA, short for Unità Geografiche Aggiuntive, has probably become one of the most frequently discussed concepts among the decision makers at the consorzi that represent and protect so many Italian appellations.
We can blame Barolo for that, of course. And with good reason, because the introduction of its MGA system, Menzioni Geografiche Aggiuntive, can rightly be called a success. Today, a large number of Barolo producers focus on wines from individual MGAs and on what is generally described as terroir expression. I deliberately say “what is described as terroir expression”, because actually translating that terroir into the glass requires a good producer. Not every Barolo producer has that ability.
Today, however, we are heading about 300 kilometres east, to Soave.
The UGA system has been in place here since 2019, and it is fair to say that it has not produced the intended result. My natural reaction to that is: of course it hasn’t. Before you can explain to a wine lover what a UGA actually adds, you first have to explain what Soave itself can mean today.
Soave DOC, Soave Classico DOC, Soave Colli Scaligeri DOC, Soave Superiore DOCG, Soave Superiore Classico DOCG, Soave Superiore Riserva DOCG, Recioto di Soave DOCG, plus numerous possibilities involving the respective UGA names within many of these categories.
Try turning that into a clear and coherent story for someone who is interested in these white wines from Veneto, but does not fancy spending an evening studying Italian wine legislation first.
And we have not even touched on the composition of the wine yet. Fortunately, you can make that part a little easier on yourself by simply saying that Garganega has to make up the lion’s share. And if you really want to be thorough, you can add that pretty much all sorts of other grapes are allowed alongside it.
Today, however, we are focusing on the appellation structure. And that is precisely where the powers that be in Soave have decided it is time to start reshaping things.
Whether the system will actually become simpler as a result is far from certain. What did you expect?
From zoning to 33 UGAs
In 2019, following years of research into the landscape, soils, slopes and historic vineyard areas, Soave officially recognised 33 geographical zones distinguished by their historical and viticultural identity. With one eye firmly fixed on Barolo’s success, the hope was obviously to create a similar success story.
Names including Castelcerino, Fittà, Carbonare, Monte Grande, Foscarino, Costeggiola and Broia were given official status and could appear on labels. Producers could therefore indicate much more precisely where their Garganega came from.
I actually see value in introducing geographical names in Soave. It is important to understand that the Soave region is anything but one homogeneous winegrowing area. The hills east of Verona contain ancient volcanic soils, limestone and a wide variety of slopes and exposures. At the same time, a considerable part of the appellation consists of flatter and more productive land.
Since the introduction of the 33 UGAs in 2019, these names have been permitted within several Soave classifications. That is precisely what the proposed reform intends to change, by linking the UGAs much more explicitly to Soave Superiore DOCG.
The possible new pyramid
The proposal currently on the table, and to be absolutely clear, it has not yet officially entered into force, would move the UGA names for dry wines to Soave Superiore DOCG and remove them from the other classifications. You could say that geographical precision is being transferred to Soave Superiore DOCG. That could actually make the system clearer.
However, the term Classico would also disappear from Soave DOC. The historic zone itself would obviously continue to exist, but Classico would henceforth move to the DOCG. A future bottle could therefore be labelled Soave Classico Superiore DOCG.
And this is where, for me, the proposal starts to become problematic. Soave seems to be missing an opportunity to create genuine clarity for consumers.
Anyone with even a modest interest in Italian wine is familiar with the term Classico, with Chianti being the most obvious example. It is also relatively easy to explain. Classico identifies the historic winegrowing zone. Everything outside that Classico area represents a later expansion of the appellation. Whether that expansion came about through popularity or opportunism is something you can decide for yourself.
Superiore, on the other hand, has always struck me as a rather vague designation. What does it really tell us?
The basic production rules are usually somewhat stricter in terms of potential alcohol, yields, planting density or other rather technical requirements. Yet there are often exceptions or technical possibilities that make the distinction less absolute than the word Superiore might suggest.
The reason for having a Superiore category will, in most cases at least, remain something of a question mark for me. I do understand that this is a sensitive issue. Established classifications are never easy to challenge, and in Soave the Superiore category has meanwhile reached the highest rung of the ladder with DOCG status.
Turning the denomination into Soave Classico DOCG would, in my view, communicate much more clearly what you actually want to say: this is the historic heart of Soave.
Of course, writing that sentence in an article is probably considerably easier than pushing such a change through the Italian and European administrative machinery.
For the sake of completeness, Colli Scaligeri would also disappear as a separate geographical designation.
The so called crus are not disappearing
Under the proposed new system, the UGAs would retain their place and, in the minds of those behind the reform, would undoubtedly take on a more prominent role.
By moving them higher up the hierarchy, the obvious intention is to increase their prestige and give this geographical classification greater significance. Within the logic of the intended quality pyramid, that makes sense. At the bottom sits the broad Soave appellation. As you move upwards, geographical origin becomes increasingly precise and important.
And that is where the discussion begins.
Moving a geographical name higher up a classification system does not automatically make it more meaningful to consumers.
A simple question: did you know that Soave already has 33 different UGAs? The experts will obviously nod knowingly, but the vast majority of wine lovers will simply have no idea. And it is not as if these UGAs were introduced yesterday either.
Riserva could disappear
The proposal currently under discussion goes considerably further than simply rearranging the quality pyramid. It also includes changes to several production requirements for Soave Superiore DOCG.
The maximum yield for Soave Superiore would increase, while the required natural alcohol level of the grapes would also be adjusted. Garganega would obviously remain the central grape variety, although the rules governing secondary varieties are also being reconsidered.
For wines actually marketed with a UGA name on the label, another important distinction is proposed concerning the date on which they may be released.
A regular Soave Superiore could be released relatively soon after the harvest. A wine carrying a UGA or the name of a specific vineyard would have to wait longer before being released.
The proposal also removes the Riserva category. This is being presented as a way of simplifying things for consumers.
From my perspective, that is hardly an improvement either. Riserva is a well established term. The moment I see Riserva on a label, I know that I am dealing with a more serious wine that has undergone a longer period of maturation, whether or not that includes ageing in oak.
Why remove one of the few terms in this whole structure that hardly needs explaining?
Why does Soave want to change all this?
Behind this entire reform lies a problem Soave has been struggling with for much longer. That problem has a name: image.
For many people, Soave is still associated with large volumes of affordable, fairly ordinary white wine, rather than the ambitious and genuinely impressive Garganega wines produced from historic hillside vineyards.
That perception obviously exists and it will not simply disappear. As long as the very large producers and cooperatives have major interests in the appellation, they will continue to leave their mark on the Soave “brand”.
Speak to some of the smaller producers locally and the frustration becomes pretty obvious as soon as the names of some of the larger players come up.When it comes to Soave’s image, relations between the smaller and larger producers are clearly somewhat strained.
The introduction of the 33 UGAs in 2019 was obviously intended, at least in part, to improve that image. The fact that the UGAs have gained so little recognition among the wider wine drinking public is understandably frustrating.
Who is actually asking for this?
During a visit to the region, we put the question to several smaller producers. What do they themselves think about the possible transfer of the UGAs to Soave Superiore DOCG and all the reshuffling of the quality pyramid?
Their answer was remarkably down to earth.
First of all, there is apparently still some doubt as to whether the proposed reform will ultimately be implemented in its current form.
At the same time, they raised a much more fundamental question: what does this shift actually achieve?
Take our own Soave producer, GianniTessari. They produce two wines, Scalete and Perinato, from grapes grown within UGAs. Yet the names of those UGA’s do not feature prominently on the labels. The wines have their own names instead.
When we asked why, the answer was strikingly simple.
You, as an Italian Wine Ambassador, know Soave’s 33 crus and understand their significance. The vast majority of wine consumers do not know them and feel no particular need to learn them.
Yes, we could market Scalete as Tenda or Perinato as Pigno, but our colleague down the road could do exactly the same. The same UGA name would then appear on wines from several producers, partly diluting the identity we have built around Scalete and Perinato.
Because the crus themselves are not widely known, consumers could even get the impression that they are dealing with a more uniform type of wine. And that is obviously not what we want.
On top of that, we deliberately choose not to produce a Superiore. Under the new system, we would have to do so if we wanted to use the UGA, effectively forcing us to change our own winemaking philosophy.
And this was not something we heard only from our own producer. Similar comments came from several other quarters. Most of these producers showed little enthusiasm for the reform.
Economics obviously plays a role too
Reducing this entire discussion to labels and crus would hide part of the truth. Economics certainly matters here. What did you expect?
At the same time, Soave has introduced measures intended to bring the available volume more closely into line with market demand.
Production of the broader Soave DOC will be further regulated over the coming years. The larger players are dealing with surpluses, while smaller producers fear that the resulting image problem will affect them as well and understandably fear being left with wine they simply cannot sell.
That economic context also needs to be taken into account when looking at the reform.
No further expansion of the current Soave area. Restrictions on new plantings within the existing appellation. Lower maximum yields. It all forms part of a broader strategy. The Consorzio is trying to create more value around Soave and to distinguish the different faces of the appellation more clearly.
A classification, however, is not the same thing as a reputation. And that may well be the most interesting conclusion to emerge from this entire discussion.
With its 33 UGAs, Soave has done an impressive amount of work to map and define the geographical diversity of the region. That has value in itself. Anyone who studies Soave in depth gains a much more precise understanding of the appellation as a result.
A geographical area can be defined through research, maps and a disciplinare. Reputation develops in a very different way. It requires producers who actually use the name, wines that prove their quality, sommeliers who tell the story and, ultimately, consumers who are willing to remember that name.
A simple and clearly understandable structure can be a very useful tool in achieving that.
Soave DOC for the broader vineyard area surrounding the historic core.
Soave Classico DOCG replacing Superiore, where the inclusion of the UGAs becomes tangible because the vast majority of them are located within or around the historic Classico zone.
And the possibility of using Riserva for both.
Sometimes the solution can be simple.
Filed under: Second opinions?, Vini Italiani | Tagged: classico, garganega, Italian wine ambassador, riserva, Soave, superiore, uga, unita geografica aggiuntiva, Veneto, wijn, wijnblog, wijnkennis, wineblog, wineblogger | Leave a comment »
