He has never produced Prosecco Doc, he even gave up the name Prosecco Superioreusing only that of Valdobbiadene and he never used the wording Rive. Loris Dall’AcquaCEO of With Vetoraz, represents a free and counter-trend voice in the Conegliano Valdobbiadene area, but with very clear ideas. In addition to being part of the Protection Consortium, he is also in the Confraternity of Valdobbiadene (“But I am no longer a grand master”, he tells us) and last September he was among the creators of the committee created to defend the use of the full name Conegliano Valdobbiadene Prosecco Hills (and not just Prosecco Hills) in the UNESCO materials.
On the eve of elections for the new positions of the Conegliano Valdobbiadene Prosecco Superiore consortium has its say on what should be the path of the denomination to leave behind the promiscuity between Prosecco Superiore and Prosecco Doc.
Your company certainly represents one of the most important companies in the world of Prosecco…
I’ll stop it right away. We are producers from Valdobbiadene.
Is the distinction that important?
I would say that it is fundamental, we must decide whether our production, commercial and communication path must go in the direction of a Prosecco system in whose heart the stylistic model substantially beats or in the direction of the historical territory, where hills, exposures and altitudes give character and identity . Unfortunately, the perception of Prosecco is becoming flattened on the form of the wine which must obviously be of quality but at the same time respond to a simple and legible idea, made up of the relationship between sweetness, acidity and bubbles, eliminating the original variables. In this way, the historicity of the Conegliano Valdobbiadene area and its original expressions are erased, without thinking that the great variables that persist on our hills represent wealth and identity.
When did you decide to no longer use the wording Prosecco on your labels?
It starts from afar, already in 2007 on the labels we indicated only Valdobbiadene but when the new DOCG and obviously the new great DOC was born in 2009 we thought that we could clarify these two worlds and therefore we reintroduced, in a small way, the indication of Prosecco on the labels. However, given that this clarity was never made, in 2017 we returned to indicating only the production area: Valdobbiadene.
Are there companies that are following a similar path?
Among small companies there is some reality, among companies with a production of more than half a million bottles I believe we are the only ones.
Was it a choice that put your market in crisis?
Absolutely not. Certainly ours is an established brand and this made it easier for us. I am aware that it is a more difficult choice for a little-known company because the foreign market is very linked to the word Prosecco, but we demonstrate that it is a path that can be followed while still obtaining commercial satisfaction.
Don’t you think, however, that faced with two such different realities, Prosecco Doc which represents around 6-700 million bottles per year and Prosecco Superiore Docg which instead stands at 100, a problem of recognisability of the wine is inevitable?
Let’s take sauvignon for example, certainly among the most cultivated white grape varieties in the world. Along the Loire two o’clock appellation of Sancerre and Pouilly Fumé are almost opposite, both dedicated to the same grape variety but there is no confusion and no company aspires to represent or be represented by a denomination that is not its own. And certainly the critical mass is small, so you can’t hide behind mere production numbers.
Let’s say that part of the confusion arises when the production regulations allow companies to call the wine in many different ways: Valdobbiadene but also Conegliano Valdobbiadene or just Conegliano, with or without Prosecco Superiore…
As far as we are concerned, although our wine-growing area only lies in the western area of the DOCG, we will be willing to indicate Conegliano Valdobbiadene on the label rather than just Valdobbiadene if it helps to clarify the two systems. From my point of view it is precisely the term Prosecco that creates a mix between two very different territories. Mine is not an attack against the two denominations but I would like them to live with well-defined identities and not mix.
Prosecco aside, you don’t even use the indication “Rive” in your production. Yet, that should be the maximum exaltation of the peculiarities of the territory…
Even though I do not use this indication, I am not against its application, so much so that our grapes all come from areas attributable to the Rive. However, I make this reflection: if we have not yet been able to describe the identity of the Prosecco Superiore di Conegliano Valdobbiadene, how can we dilute our communication efforts in 43 micro-denominations? I find the comparison that is generally made with i stimulating climate of Burgundy but it also requires a modicum of intellectual honesty, on the one hand we have a territory that for centuries has exalted differences, where the Premier Crus represent around 10% of the production and the Grand Crus just under 2%, on the other a denomination where the banks cover more than 80% of the vineyards. A little too much to talk about cru, right?
There will soon be elections for the renewal of the administrative bodies of the Consortium, what are the most important challenges?
The elections will be held with the usual systems, so I believe that some changes will be almost impossible to implement but, here is what I would like to change, in increasing order of difficulty. First of all, a clear position on the name of the denomination to be used on the label. Secondly, the institution of the single yield in the vineyard.
That is to say?
Today the vast majority of companies in the historic area next to Conegliano Valdobbiadene also offer Prosecco Doc produced in some cases with vineyards outside the historic area but also with the production limits permitted by law. The introduction of the single yield would make many of these labels disappear and the area of origin of the grapes would be clearer. Today a company totally based in the Conegliano Valdobbiadene area, perfectly respecting the legal indications, can have around 20% of product that does not fall within the DOCG but can be downgraded to DOC. It is obvious that this hypothetical company will create a new DOC wine that will be included in his portfolio, perhaps saying that the grapes are from the historic area, once again fueling this great confusion.
And the third point of the proposal?
Review personal requirements for eligibility within the Consortium. Today we experience a great conflict of interest within many companies precisely because of the often co-existing production of DOCG and DOC wines. In my opinion, eligibility on the board of directors of the Consortium should provide that at least 51% of the candidate’s company production refers to the denomination for which he is applying for. If it’s not clear, I’ll give you an example: we produce around 1.2 million bottles per year exclusively of Conegliano Valdobbiadene, there is no Prosecco Doc in Col Vetoraz. Now let’s imagine a company that produces 5 million DOCGs but also 15 or 20 million DOCs. My interest will be entirely aimed at Conegliano Valdobbiadene, yours will most likely be partly for Conegliano Valdobbiadene, but a much greater part for the world Prosecco Doc.
I believe that the establishment of a single yield in the vineyard and the elimination of conflicts of interest in the universe of the Prosecco world is truly indispensable.
Point blank question: will you run in the next elections?
No. And no one would vote for me anyway!
Before saying goodbye, one last question about Prosecco Rosé….
(laughs). Better to say goodbye.
