WALTER SPELLER

BRUNELLO 2006s CAUSE CONTROVERSY

noreply@blogger.com (Blogger) — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 09:13:00 +0000

The annual en primeur presentation of the 2006 vintage of Brunello di Montalcino last february has already caused widespread controversy even before the wines' official release date.

The Brunello di Montalcino Consorzio, eager to present some good news after a very testing couple of years, in which Italy's most famous wine was associated with fraud and illegal blending practices (click on the Brunellogate tag below), has awarded the 2006 five stars, the highest possible rating. Although 2006 was a very good vintage for Tuscany in general, and in some places even outstanding, many journalists present at the two-day en primeur tastings, in which more than 140 wines were presented, were almost unanimous that the wines generally failed to live up to the year's supposedly superior reputation.

There was widespread disappointment in the fact that too many of the wines seemed either flabby and lightweight (certainly no attributes for long ageing), or overripe while burdened with green tannins. Another outstanding feature, much speculated on by the assembled press, was the fact that almost all the wines were so much paler (some calling it 'truer') than the 2005s were only a year ago.

While many of the reports on these tastings have yet to appear (my detailed tasting report will follow in due course), from day one the Italian and International blogosphere was already buzzing with rumour and speculation as to why a supposedly great vintage has turned out to be of such modest quality in general.

At the same time the Consorzio seems unable to let the dust settle on what has come to be known as Brunellogate, with a recent controversial proposal to change the regulations for Rosso di Montalcino from being 100% Sangiovese to allowing the addition of other varieties, mostly international ones. An open letter from one of the region's premium producers, Mastrojanni, was immediately joined by several others, all arguing that this change would 'dilute' the wine and cause the loss of its identity. The disaffected producers also openly question why the Rosso di Montalcino regulations should be changed to accommodate producers who want to use international varieties, when the region already has a DOC, Sant'Antimo, expressly designed for those who wish to do so. At least for the time being it seems as though the Consorzio is listening and has decided to postpone this controversial proposal.

My picture shows German wine writer Steffen Maus, who plans to publish a book on Tuscan wine later this year, modelling the 'official Brunello shirt' left for us wine writers in our hotel rooms this year.

NEW SLOW WINE GUIDE

noreply@blogger.com (Blogger) — Mon, 07 Mar 2011 17:59:00 +0000

After a two-year wait and much speculation about its format and style, the new Italian wine guide Slow Wine was finally launched in October with the 2011 edition - this after publisher the Slow Food organisation terminated its collaboration with Gambero Rosso on the Vini d’Italia guide.

During a press conference last April at Vinitaly, Italy’s and arguably the world’s largest wine fair, editors Giancarlo Gariglio and Fabio Giavedoni announced the forthcoming launch of the guide to a packed auditorium, and called it an ‘emotional moment’. Although not a single direct reference to the conflicts in the past with Daniele Cernilli of Gambero Rosso, which had led to the split, was made at any time, it was clear that Slow Wine would be different, the starting point being ‘let’s do something new!’ The contrast between the two guides could hardly be greater.

According to the editors, it is not so much Italian wine that has changed in the recent past, but the role of the oenologists, with a noticeable shift away from the cellar and into the vineyard. In other words, terroir is becoming more and more important in Italy, and Slow Wine wants to put this on the record. While it was stressed at Vinitaly that a big part of the guide would be determined by tasting, the focus would lie at least as much on the producers themselves. To this end, a substantial national network of teams was established to carry out more than 2,000 visits, scrutinising cellars and, much more importantly, vineyards, followed by in-depth discussions with every single producer, whenever possible tasting more than the current vintage available on the market.

This represents quite a change from the conventional clinical tasting-room set-up where wines are judged anonymously and under blind conditions. The logical consequence of this approach, nothing less than a revolution in the wine-guide business, was that the classical scoring system, be it scores, stars, or glasses, was made redundant. Still, without criteria to assess the quality of an estate as opposed to its produce, the work could not have been executed, according to Giavedoni. Within the ‘judging process’ there were three fundamental criteria: the actual taste of the wines; their perceived value for money; and the third, most complicated, criterion, the quality of the entire estate, its philosophy and its work processes. Both editors had stressed in April that the guide would not be about ‘organics’, but ‘about serious producers dedicating themselves to terroir’. However, the actual guide’s emphasis on exactly this aspect is impossible to overlook.

Thick as a bible, on the thinnest possible and, needless to say, sustainable paper, Slow Wine’s first edition runs to more than 1,200 pages. It includes profiles of 1,850 producers and estates and describes 8,400 wines from an initial 21,000 tasted, and could well become the standard lexicon for the ‘New Italy’. It introduces each wine-producing region, followed by producers’ profiles. Each producer profile includes the size of the estate, the number of bottles produced, a brief separate overview of the way of working in the vineyard, the producer’s philosophy and a description of the wines tasted. But the most important aspect, and undeniably connected to the Slow Food values and objectives, is a precise listing for each producer stating what sorts of fertilisers and treatments are used on the vines, whether weedkillers are used, if the wines were fermented by natural or selected yeast, and whether the grapes stem from the estate’s own vineyards or not.

But not even Slow Wine can completely refrain from some kind of scoring system, if only to reward with a ‘Chiociola’, the Slow Food Snail, the producers who have impressed the most in the way the have interpreted certain values that are central to Slow Food: the quality and taste of the wines, respect for terroir and environment, and the expression of identity. Of about 150 Chiocioli, not a single one is awarded to a producer using conventional farming methods.

Wines that clearly reflect their terroir, history and environment get a ‘Vino Slow’ award. And while most Italian wine guides use rather vague price bands, all wines described in Slow Wine come with an exact price tag, as well as an indication whether the producer sells directly to the consumer. Tellingly, at first glance all producers described in the guide do so.

With overview maps of each region, producers organised regionally and within each region alphabetically, there are additional columns discussing topics including grape variety and subzone descriptions, producer portraits, discussions on certain relevant publications and viticultural philosophies, as well as an overview at the end of each regional chapter listing the most important DOCs with their varietal makeup, there is genuinely little left to be desired. Slow Wine guide seems to have managed admirably well the balancing act of putting the spotlight on terroir-driven wines produced using organic methods without forsaking conventional producers.

The only thing that I couldn’t help noticing both during the press conference in May and now while looking through the impressive list of collaborators, is how very few women are part of the guide, something that looks rather conventional.

Except for this, Slow Wine is a true labour of love, and one can only hope that the English translation as well as the smart-phone application promised in April will be available soon.

Go attend the SLow Wine App launch and tasting go to http://www.eventbrite.com/event/1318964057

ITALY'S VINEYARDS MAPPED BY FOOT

noreply@blogger.com (Blogger) — Mon, 07 Mar 2011 17:49:00 +0000

Anyone halfway familiar with the maps of the World Atlas of Wine will immediately agree that while France's regions look so tidy and clear, Italy's tangled lines delineating its myriad regions and subregions seem rather to confuse than to clarify the picture. Often this is a direct consequence of Italy's DOC system, which tries to fit literally every corner of the peninsula where vines are planted into some sort of denomination. Some of these DOCs are of only theoretical value, and were registered in great haste just in time for the introduction of the OCM last August, when all legal decisions had to be relayed to Brussels.

However, it would be premature to think that all these DOCs, of which there are literally hundreds, are of little use. And while some of them seem to be the controversial result of strictly bureaucratic decisions, European law prescribes that every wine put onto the market needs to be traceable, and therefore from a registered spot of land. The main issue here is that quite a few of these DOCs are so new that sometimes even local producers don't know the exact boundaries, or opt out of the DOC in favour of an IGT, or IGP, a wine with a much broader geographical indication, so broad that in some cases it renders the significance of provenance completely meaningless, but allows more flexibility.

Another factor playing an important role is that quite a few of these DOCs, at least from a commercial point of view, have neither history nor track record. In this case it makes it hard to see what the denomination stands for, and even harder for wine lovers to make sense of it. Others are well known but their reputation is often tarnished by the high yields allowed or their opportunistic enlargement, literally diluting the wine quality.

I think it nonetheless more desirable to have more DOCs than fewer, as has been proposed by some wine critics and wine lovers. Fewer DOCs would certainly make any future wine map of Italy much clearer, but also less useful. While Italy has embarked on a thorough investigation of the intricacies of its many terroirs, it needs more detail, not less. And even if several of the DOCs seem to exist only on paper, in the future their existence may help producers work together to focus on putting themselves on the map metaphorically as well as literally. It is worth remembering that the international marketing of fine wine has come to rely increasingly on the unique aspects of any wine region. A large DOC such as Romagna DOC, for example, which may seem ideal for clarity's sake, can be so large that it does nothing to explain the differences in soil, altitude and macroclimate.

In this environment, it is clear that mapping Italy's regions is a herculean task which will take several generations to complete, even if, which is unlikely, no more DOCs (or DOPs - and I haven't even mentioned the many DOCGs) are added in the future. A man who has taken on this formidable job is Alessandro Masnaghetti, pictured above. Originally trained as a nuclear scientist, he left the Politecnico in 1988, the same year in which the Italian government decided to shut down all nuclear plants in the country, leaving him no choice but to reorientate his future.

Help came from an unexpected quarter. During his national service he started to record his earliest experiences of eating out in restaurants. He sent off these short 'reviews', describing the food as well as the wines poured during the meal, to Luigi Veronelli, Italy's legendary and most outspoken wine and food critic until his death in 2004. Veronelli was, and still is, a household name in Italy, and one of the first critics to have had his own television programme, Al Tavola alle 7, as early as 1974. It was broadcast at a time when Italian families would sit down for dinner. The impact of the medium cannot be underestimated, especially at that time, and there was virtually not an Italian who owned a television set who didn't know of Veronelli (see, for example, this broadcast on spaghetti alla chitarra. To Masnaghetti's great surprise, Veronelli responded and asked if he would be interested in contributing to the bi-monthly L'Etichetta (The Label), a magazine on wine and food. Masnaghetti admits that at the time it seemed a daunting task, for he had no real journalistic experience and would be working side by side with the great man himself.

A regular feature of L'Eticchetta was 'Le Vigne di Privilegio', or Privileged Vineyards, in which a specific vineyard producing outstanding wine was portrayed. Together with Daniel Thomases, Masnaghetti became responsible for the feature, and the first article he wrote for Vigne di Privilegio was about Pieropan's single vineyard Soave Classico La Rocca. He tells me that, looking back now, it was there that the seed was sown for his future project, Enogea, of which more later.

I met up with Masnaghetti recently and during our conversation he was unable to hide his admiration for Veronelli, who he considers the very first to start mapping Italy's wine regions. Although Veronelli's approach was much informal than what Masnaghetti does now, gathering information on vineyards in any given region by talking to the local farmers, or contadini, who help him identify the finest sites and, most importantly, their names, this nevertheless resulted in a list of vineyards known to produce the best quality. To Veronelli the concept of the cru had always been important, and the vineyard list became an integral part of one of the first comprehensive overviews of Italian wines, Vini d'Italia, a compendium of original labels of Italy's finest wines, a true labour of love, which was first published in 1961, and sold at the astronomical price of 11,000 lire, at a time when the average salary would have been around 70,000 lire a year.

Vini d'Italia, published by Mondadori, became the blueprint for Gambero Rosso's Vini d'Italia, havine the format of a comprehensive series of wine-producer profiles and a star rating system denoting the best. It also included a list of vineyards, which were considered the logical origin of quality. It shows, if anything, that although Italy has been stereotyped as a producer of bulk wine, the notion of single vineyards has always been part of its history, if less well documented and marketed than in certain regions in France.

Masnaghetti's first detailed map, of Barbaresco, appeared in 1994 as a free supplement for subscribers to Ex Vinis, a kind of Wine Advocate of which Masnaghetti was the editor. A great many copies were printed and Masnaghetti tells me that they were stacked in the office for a long time as, due to limited interest, they proved to be a hard sell. Still, this did not deter Masnaghetti from setting up his own periodical, Enogea, in 2005, a bi-monthly newsletter (he himself calls it a monografia di Terroir) in which the groundwork for the maps is published, including an overview of a particular region, a comprehensive tasting of the most important wines and, of course, maps. The newsletter, which is completely void of advertisements, finances the production of the maps, of which some 14 have now appeared. Rich in detail, the maps show all vineyard plots, the exposure, the division into subzones and every producer in the region. See here for an example.

Most of Masnaghetti's expertise in mapping a region comes from his extensive work in Barolo, a patchwork of many vineyards with shared ownership, and a large number of individual producers. He starts by taking photographs such as this, which become the basis for all further investigations. I asked him whether the local land register is not the first port of call but according to him that information is not always publicly available, nor readily accessible. The next step is to get a comprehensive list of vineyards, and here you see the Veronelli signature. But Masnaghetti goes much, much further, by visiting every producer of the region. When I asked him, astonished, how that makes sense, he told me that he never overlooks a single one, especially in the case of shared ownership of such highly priced land as Barolo. Neither would he easily consider doing the work as a commission for a producer consortium, as it is against his spirit, he said. He is also wary of possible arguments over where a certain cru vineyard ends and another, lesser plot begins.

Masnaghetti told me that in case of a dispute, his role as journalist is as useful as his experience. According to him, when you see a hill covered with vineyards, it may look like any other hill, until you start to observe it closely and, if you have the passion, according to Masnaghetti, 'the hill will speak for itself'. For example, a very good indication for quality, or the absence of it, is the actual planted vine itself, as it 'cannot lie'. In Bussia (the famous cru in Monforte d'Alba) you find Dolcetto in certain plots where Nebbiolo cannot be ripened satisfactorly or where the quality of the fruit is too modest. This gives a perfect indication of where the best plots are and that not all the plots within the traditional cru borders are equally good. The same goes for snow, another fantastic parameter: where it melts first, you will find the warmest spots, and hence the best terroir for Nebbiolo in this case. Sometimes there are historic recordings (for example the first maps of Barolo by Renato Ratti, which he drew up in 1979 on the basis of earlier historic material) on which he can literally draw, but this is not often the case.

Producers will speak too, but they may not be able to tell Masnaghetti exactly what he needs to know. It is because of this that he considers it of the utmost importance to speak to each and every single producer, because the wide range of sources will give more balanced information. Apparently, he has yet to meet a single producer who refused to cooperate, or allow him to walk into his or her vineyard to investigate directly or to have the panoramic point of view needed to draw the vineyards.

I asked him if his demarcations are sometimes smaller than those of common wisdom or as indicated by other maps. He confirmed this, but he also claimed that there has never been any real dispute once the maps come out, as his criteria are completely clear and verifiable and each plot is described accordingly. But he is wary of mapping vineyards that are in the process of being officially registered, for fear of seeing his map rendered useless. This is why he has only partly mapped Serralunga and Monforte d'Alba since these communes are still working on an official delimitation of their crus. However, he has already observed that the communes of Barolo and Monforte d'Alba have created crus that more or less encompass the entire commune, while Serralunga and Castiglione Falletto have really worked out the best single sites within their borders.

When I asked him how much time it took to map Barolo, for example, Masnaghetti mentions only three to four months, without the producer visits, that is. But I expect that it would take at least double that time for any normal person who was less of a workaholic. He visits about 10 producers a day. During those visits he doesn't taste wines (he requests samples to taste at home), but asks for permission to go into the producer's vineyard alone. There he investigates vines, soils, exposure and correlation to neighbouring plots, while considering any aspect of the landscape that can give clues, even absent ones. For example, in the Langhe the lowest parts of any hill would consist of trees and shrubs because these spots were considered too cool to ripen grapes satisfactorily. Nowadays in more and more of these sectors trees have been replaced by vines.

Is there no history of terroir in Italy, I asked Masnaghetti, thinking of France. He denied this, while stating that the notion of terroir and cru nowadays is inflated. Because yields in top-quality regions are today so much lower than they once were, wines that were once mediocre are now much better - so much so that it is increasingly difficult to distinguish between very good and great wine, especially when tasting wine when it is young. However, he thinks the real problem, at least for Italy, is not the absence of a cru but the fact that it is communicated badly or not at all. He says that if he were to visit a region and ask the producers about the specific characteristics of the region's wines, most of them would not know what to say as it is not on their horizon - not yet at least.

At the end of our discussion, I wanted to know what the drive was for this enormous work. Masnaghetti grins and says per divertirmi, to amuse myself. But the real reason is surely the satisfaction of accumulating knowledge in order to map a terroir and to transfer his passion to other wine lovers. At least as important to him is to express the fact that wine is so much more than an alcoholic drink. And then, again grinning, he told me that it also gives him great satisfaction, even if he knows only 90% of a given region that he has mapped, to know that he knows it better than most producers there. This knowledge Masnaghetti is more than happy to share with wine lovers, at the incredibly reasonable price of €7 per map.

To order the maps go here:http://www.enogea.it/Enogea/Le_Cartine.html

GIUSEPPE RINALDI SKIRTS AROUND THE ORGANIC QUESTION

noreply@blogger.com (Blogger) — Mon, 28 Feb 2011 22:26:00 +0000

Last May when I visited the Langhe to taste more than 200 embryonic Barolo and Barbaresco wines in this year's en primeur Nebbiolo Prima tastings, it struck me that such density of vine plantings must have a huge impact on soil health.

Although quite a few Piemontese producers do practise sustainable methods, with organic as well as biodynamic viticulture, the majority of growers and producers still stick to conventional methods. Now that the fine-wine debate seems more and more in favour of organic and biodynamic approaches (with the myriad confusions and misunderstandings that come with them), most producers are at least aware of the issues. It also seems highly likely that European wine law will move increasingly towards regulation in favour of sustainability. But many Langhe producers seem to be sceptical of, and sometimes downright hostile towards, any alternative to conventional viticulture. In some cases I received such elaborate or evasive answers to my questions about the possibility of implementing organic methods that I felt I was touching a taboo. And the way it is with taboos, once they are in the open, it is difficult to shove them back into the dark.

During my recent visit to Barolo, I went to see Giuseppe Rinaldi (pictured above) of the eponymous Barolo estate, a Langhe stalwart when it comes to organics. While sitting down for lunch with the Rinaldi family at their home just outside Barolo, their 2008 Langhe Nebbiolo being poured, I asked whether it was possible to practise organic methods in a region so densely planted with vines? I could not have put a worse question to Giuseppe Rinaldi. Immediately I was being told off for trying to pigeonhole him. He won't have it, won't allow it. Not a good start to my visit.

For the uninitiated: Rinaldi tends its vineyards organically, doesn't use any cultured yeast, no temperature control, and his Barolos get very long skin maceration (see below). If all of this weren't enough to put Rinaldi automatically in the traditionalist corner, the estate is also a member of the Vini Veri, or real wine association, where nomen est omen. However, it is being made abundantly clear that Rinaldi doesn't want to be segregated from his fellow Barolisti.

But the topic, just like the family's cute little dachshund snapping at my heels, doesn't want to go away. So I took a deep breath and tried again: 'why do the Piemontese no longer use the ancient methods of vine cultivation - methods that have now been adopted by many producers following organic and biodynamic principles?' Unfortunately the response was no less firm. 'Because the situation is completely different from the time of our grandfathers', Giuseppe snapped back, adding, 'keeping 10 chickens is very different from keeping 10,000. It changes the work as well as the environment' just in case I didn't get it. In the meantime my plate was filled first with spaghetti al pomodoro, then with bell peppers conserved in nebbiolo pomace and vinegar. Cheese and persimmon are to follow. It is whip and carrot.

Why Piemontese producers regularly rely so faithfully on chemical treatments I gather has to do with a trauma caused in the recent past by flavescence dorée, a grapevine disease (but also known to affect other crops) for which there is no known treatment. The disease is, among others, spread by an insect, the leafhopper, and insecticides seem to reduce the occurrence of flavescence dorée. No wonder organic viticulture has yet to catch on widely in the Langhe, but it doesn't really explain the irritation I encounter again and again, when posing the question while in situ.

Rinaldi continued by saying that he doesn't take a stance on the organic debate and, at least to me, plays devil's advocate when saying he actually believes that chemicals have improved the wines from the Langhe. But before I have the chance to ask why on earth, if he doesn't want to take a position in the organics debate, is he a member of Vini Veri, he does a U-turn and says, he of course takes sides.

He went on to explain in more detail. Not using any chemicals means the costs per hectare go up, and the wines become much more expensive. For a producer of Barolo or Barbaresco who can expect a high return (at least until the recent recession), it is less of a challenge, but 'if you are a producer of Dolcetto the market will not want to pay the premium that comes with organic cultivation methods'. In addition, there are many farmers who only grow grapes and sell them on. If their fruit looked less than pristine, they would be unable to make a living. Although this sounds more than logical, I can't help thinking that agrochemicals are some of the most costly products, and a bit like an addiction: every year the vines and the soils seem to need more to achieve the same results.

But there was a point where the use of chemicals became a problem, even for the most conventional producer, be it of grapes or wines, explains Rinaldi. Chemical treatments against botrytis and fungus readily used in the vineyards started to inhibit the fermentation of the grapes once they were in the tanks. I understand that even adding cultured yeast didn't immediately solve the problem. All this triggered the idea that there had to be some brake on chemical treatments. And Rinaldi and I agree on one point, thank goodness, that even if a neighbour practises conventional viticulture, and is potentially the cause of contamination, that is no reason not to practise organic methods.

Talking to Rinaldi is great fun, at times scary, but mostly hugely entertaining. His, at times cryptic, replies inspire lively discussions, and he doesn't seem to be a man to appreciate shyness in his conversation partner. His nickname Citrico, meaning 'citric', should have been a warning to me, but his combative conversational style only encouraged me to probe the core of the Rinaldi philosophy further.

Rinaldi is very much part of the Barolo fabric (a reason he doesn't take what he perceives as criticism of his community lightly), with the estate founded in 1899. A trained veterinarian, and fifth generation of a wine-producing family, Giuseppe initially seemed to be going in a completely different direction from his father, the iconic Battista Rinaldi. He was custodian of some of the finest vineyard sites in the commune of Barolo: Brunate (of which a part lies in La Morra), Le Coste, Cannubi San Lorenzo, as well as Ravena in Monforte d'Alba. The first from Barolo to graduate from the oenological School in Alba, Battista played a fundamental role in this commune, first as a mayor, but more importantly he was instrumental in the acquisition by the municipality of the castle of Barolo, which became the home of the enoteca of Barolo. After his father passed away in 1992, Giuseppe took over the estate and, owing to his firm traditionalist stance and winemaking, his Barolos, which need long ageing, soon found a devoted following of wine writers and wine lovers alike.

It would be all too easy to put Giuseppe Rinaldi in the traditionalist corner. He ferments in the tronconic oak vats called tini shown here, and leaves his Barolos plenty of time to macerate on the skins, a month or more being the norm. Maturation is in large oak casks only, and there isn't a single barrique to be seen in the Rinaldi cellars. There are two of the basket presses which have become the norm for many quality-focused Barolo producers. Malolactic fermentation happens spontaneously, and the wines are only racked, never filtered.

But even more remarkable is the fact that the Barolos Rinaldi produces are blends of different vineyards. It is this, more than anything else, which is considered ancient practice (although some journalists have expressed doubts whether multi-vineyard blending really is so traditional), while most Barolo and Barbaresco producers choose single-vineyard wines to represent the very top of their production. Not Rinaldi, who blends Cannubi San Lorenzo with Ravera and Brunate with Le Coste. According to Rinaldi, the multi-vineyard site blends allow for more harmonious, more balanced wines. Even if the Cannubi vineyard, a sizeable chunk of 15 ha divided among many owners, is considered one of the very best in the region, dry years can cause water stress, potentially resulting in lower must weights. According to Rinaldi, blending can help to obtain the very best wine possible while taking vintage differences into consideration.

For Rinaldi it is not so much tradition as history that is the most significant factor in the character of the wines. 'If a region forgets its history, it loses its identity and starts to experiment.' Rinaldi told me that the styles resulting from experimentation are always completely different from the ones obtained by experience. I gather that 'experience' in this case refers to the knowledge acquired by many generations, while experiments involve the introduction of modern techniques to the cellar, which in the recent past divided Barolo producers into opposing camps. But Rinaldi assured me he is not necessarily against modernisation, it is just that one should not expect a revolution from it. For Rinaldi the modern revolution that had the biggest impact on the wines of the Langhe was the availability of water in the cellar. It improved cleanliness, which in turn improved the wines. Cleanliness allows a clearer expression of terroir.

After cheese, fruit and cigar (for Rinaldi, not for me), I feel I may finally have passed the test, and Rinaldi takes me to the cellar to taste the 2008s from barrel.

At lunch I was served an unlabelled Barolo that turned out to be the first wine below. The next two wines were tasted from large oak casks and technically may not be called Barolo before their release in 2012.

Giuseppe Rinaldi 2006 Barolo 17 Drink 2012-18
Very closed, but with a perfumed sweet opulence underneath. Rich attack with dense layers of fruit and very fine tannin. Already delicious. Earthy and laurel notes and cherry fruit. Succulent, if that is word to describe Barolo. (WS)

Giuseppe Rinaldi 2008 Barolo 17.5
Cask sample. Although a touch reductive at this stage, there is lots of red fruit, and hints of crushed strawberry and cherry. Sweet, full fruit attack, then filigree tannins. Very seductive. (WS)

Giuseppe Rinaldi 2008 Barolo 18
Cask sample blend of Brunate and Le Coste. More depth and complexity on the nose compared with the straight Barolo, with the merest hint of incense. Beautifully balanced at this embryonic stage, with great tannic structure. Brunate is fermented in open oak casks using pigeage and remontage, and the casks remain open even during the post-fermentation maceration on the skins. (WS)

CHIANTI RUFINA AND ITS SECRET CRUS

noreply@blogger.com (Blogger) — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 07:51:00 +0000

The anteprima, or en primeur, tasting of Chianti Rufina last month can be considered either the very first or the very last of the Italian en primeur tasting season. The event format, showing wines either still in cask or very recently bottled but before their release onto the market, has become very popular in recent years. The various producer consortia throughout Italy seem to believe it is the most effective way to attract the attention of the international wine press, who, in turn, use the events to get a snapshot view of the latest vintage.

The Chianti Rufina anteprima is one of the smallest preview tastings in Italy (it took only a couple of hours to taste the entire selection of wines), reflecting its size within the greater Chianti landscape. It is arguably the only sottozona (subzone), except for Chianti Classico, within the greater Chianti zone which, on the basis of the quality of its wines, truly deserves its DOCG classification.

With 750 ha of registered vineyards producing 3,600,000 bottles, it is the smallest of the seven subzones, although this total will go up to 1,000 ha in the near future due to recent plantings. Although the consorzio states that 25 producers and three bottlers (including a cantina sociale, or co-op) actually bottle the wines, there are also 120 grape growers in the region. And although the total production of Chianti Rufina seems credibly low for 750 ha, the vinous landscape is characterised by several large and very large producer/bottlers, which turn out high volumes of much more modest basic Chianti and bulk wine as well as Chianti Rufina.

The Chianti Rufina slogan is il piu alto frai i Chianti (the highest of the Chiantis), referring to the fact that its vineyards are high up the slopes of the Apennine foothills between 200 and 700 m, higher than the vineyards in Chianti Classico. In fact, quite few vineyards in the Classico zone are between 500 and 600 m, but it is thought that it is Rufina's higher altitudes that are responsible for the wines' trademark acidity, which supposedly sets them apart from their peers, while allowing very long bottle ageing.

Curiously, despite this superior position, the regulations for Chianti Rufina are no more stringent than those for the other subzones (except for the release date of the wines), with production regulations more lenient than for Chianti Classico, especially with regard to varieties permitted: 70% Sangiovese is the minimum, with a generous allowance of 30% of 'authorised' varieties, which can be indigenous, for example Canaiolo, but are much more likely to be Merlot and Cabernet Sauvignon, while up to 10% white wine grapes are allowed.

The required ageing for the Riserva category is also shorter than for Chianti Classico, with a mandatory seven months in oak and at least three in bottle. All this seems to suggest, perhaps unintentionally, that Sangiovese, a late-ripening variety, cannot entirely stand on its own at these heights. Needless to say, in Rufina there are quite a few producers relying on Sangiovese and Canaiolo only, but the addition of international varieties to the blend is still prevalent.

As Chianti Rufina is known only by the happy few, I asked the current president of the consorzio, Giovanni Busi, who has since departed to become president of the consorzio of Chianti (not to be confused with the consorzio of Chianti Classico), how he felt the wines could be given greater exposure. The key tool according to him is organising events such as the en primeur tasting, aimed specifically at journalists.

This year's tasting was preceded by a seminar presented by Ian d'Agata of the Italian Wine Academy and Jens Priewe, a German journalist with long-standing expertise in Italian wines, comparing the 2007 Burgundy vintage with that of Chianti Rufina, in the company of Jean-Marc Boillot, Bertrand Devillard and Véronique Pages. The differences are, unsurprisingly, more obvious than the similarities, and the comparison seemed somewhat trivial, despite the high-profile guests - although we did learn during the presentation that both Pinot Noir and Sangiovese have low levels of anthocyanins and a notable absence of acyl anthocyanin, combined with high levels of malvidin. (Me neither.)

What was noticeable during the seminar was the continuous emphasis on the role of terroir in the burgundies - so much so that at some point I thought it was meant as a cryptic message to any producer of Rufina present. And terroir, at least to me, seems the key to marketing the Rufina wines. It is here that most of the work needs to be done: in the vineyard. While I did notice the acidity as a structuring element in the Rufina wines, it was not so exceptionally high that it could be used as a convincing style descriptor to set the Rufina wines apart from the rest. Regulations allowing up to 30% other than indigenous varieties, and the amazingly outdated allowance of white grapes in the blend, are a further obstruction to defining Rufina's profile more clearly, while quite a few wines showed a lot of new oak, masking further the potential subtleties of the origin of the wine.

However, it would be wrong to conclude that terroir investigation is something completely unknown here. Crus or special vineyard sites are known, if not to the general public, at least to the locals. D'Agata mentioned several, including Pelago, Monsecco, Cafaggio and Travignoli. When I requested a copy of the original powerpoint sheet with all the cru names, I was told that for copyright reasons the names could not be given out. It seems Rufina's terroir secrets will remain under lock and key, at least for the moment.

THE WINES

Rufina may be cloaked in secrecy but it is well worth discovering, with a handful of producers over-delivering. The most renowned, Frescobaldi and Selvapiana, have the critical mass to get noticed in the international market, and although both estates produce high-quality wines, the former seems perhaps more focused on catering for that international market, with the latter more interested in a genuine expression of origin. There are several smaller operations which tend their vineyards organically, but an overwhelming enthusiasm for this sustainable way of working I did not immediately detect, perhaps due to the large size of some of the producers.

Overall quality is good, much better than for comparable wines from the other subzones, and at still very reasonable prices. However, personally, I would like to see more of that famous acidity.

The first set of wines were tasted during the seminar the day before the official anteprima tasting.

All wine are listed in the order tasted.

Marchesi Gondi, Villa Bossi Riserva 2007 Chianti Rufina 16 Drink 2010-14
Concentrated deep ruby. Quite immediate and heady nose of cherry and spicy oak and leathery note. A touch port-like. Touch dusty too and perhaps the beginning of tar. Slightly rustic palate. Good cherry fruit definition, stalky, ever so slightly vegetal tannins. Charming in its rusticity and will improve. 13.5% (WS)

Frascole, Riserva 2007 Chianti Rufina 16.5 Drink 2010-16
Deep ruby, just starting to show some age on the rim. Quite sweet and concentrated, almost jammy, cherry pie, but spicy note pulls it up. Concentrated cherry fruit on the palate too, with tannic core, persisting on the finish. International in profile, but very well made. 14.5% (WS)

I Veroni, Riserva 2007 Chianti Rufina 15 Drink 2010-14
Very sweet fruit pie nose with balsamic note. Alcoholic. The alcohol also renders the palate slightly rough. Quite tannic finish. Seems unbalanced. Old school. 13.5% (WS)

Lavacchio, Cedro Riserva 2007 Chianti Rufina 15.5 Drink 2010-14
Very deep ruby with purple tinge. Developed, very ripe, dried fruit, even a touch of browning apple. Sweet spice, and a hint of vanilla. Almost liqueur-like opulence. Opulent on the palate too, seems very late harvest. High acidity keeps it lively. Alcoholic cherry liqueur finish. Tries too hard. 14.5% (WS)

Frescobaldi, Montesodi Riserva 2007 Chianti Rufina 17 Drink 2009-16
Very dark, deep, opaque ruby. Posh, sweet and ripe, and quite full-bodied. Generous, almost rich finish, hints of fruit cake. Quite a mouthful, but grainy tannins, and highish acidity giving it life and interest. Very long finish. Flirty and international. 14.5% (WS)

Selvapiana, Bucerchiale Riserva 2007 Chianti Rufina 16 Drink 2012-18
Concentrated ruby, just beginning to show some age on the rim. Sweet but reluctant nose. Same reluctance on the palate. Alcohol slightly biting. Quite powerful tannic structure. Earthy notes. Acidity almost imperceptible until the finish. Despite surprisingly low acidity level, it has some ageing potential, but the alcohol, at least at this stage, bites. Long finish. 15% (WS)

THE ANTEPRIMA

Stylistically there seem to be two broad styles of wine: one quite rich, concentrated, and one more elegant but more tannic too. Perhaps this is due more to picking date than to vineyard location, and although acidity is perceptible in all wines, it is not necessarily more pronounced than in the better wines from the Classico region. Some wines, especially from the 2008 vintage, are quite jammy, and in this case acidity is required to add much-needed freshness. This more extracted style often has an international edge, with oak being another defining component. The 2009 vintage showed generally fresher and more elegant than the 2008 Riservas.

Vintage 2009 v 2008
The winter preceding the 2009 growing cycle was characterised by very low temperatures and plenty of rain, which replenished the low water tables. Owing to a very hot May, with temperatures shooting up to 30 °C and higher in some places, flowering and fruit set were swiftly completed so that harvest was expected a good 10 days earlier than normal. This optimism was somewhat tempered by a warm and humid July, causing increased fungal pressure on the vines.

The beginning of August was dangerously similar to 2003 with very high day-time temperatures almost reaching 40 °C, but September proved to be more unsettled, with heavy rains in the middle of the month presenting producers with the dilemma of whether to start the harvest or take the risk and sit out the rain. Although the beginning of the growing cycle suggested a very early harvest, the last Sangiovese grapes were not picked until 20 Oct, and much more in line with what is considered the norm. Although alcohol levels are up due to high sugar accumulation in the berries, this is paired with quite good acidity levels, and the vintage is considered superior to 2008.

2008 has become known as 'bizarre' due to a very unusual growing cycle and weather pattern. A regular winter with normal rainfall was followed by a very cool and rainy spring, lasting until mid June, not only protracting the growing cycle but also causing much lower yields, in some cases 20% lower than in 2007. These circumstances are beneficial for fungal diseases, and downy mildew in particular kept many producers on their toes throughout the season. At the end of June the weather improved throughout, although August saw hail affecting parts of Tuscany. Harvest started for Sangiovese in the third week of September. Producers who decided to delay harvest as long as they dared were rewarded with a warm and dry September, and October saw practically no rain at all, compensating for the much less promising start to 2008.

Although the straight Chianti Rufina can be released on 1 Sep in the year following the vintage, several wines poured at the anteprima were cask samples.

2009 CHIANTI RUFINA

Colognole 2009 Chianti Rufina 16.5 Drink 2011-15
Cask sample. Oenologist Federico Staderini.
Deep, youthful crimson with purple rim. Concentrated, and quite intense dark fruit nose, with elegant spicy edge. Quite closed at this stage, but enough stuffing. Acidity seems well balanced and with tannic grip on the finish. Needs time to open up. 13.5% (WS)

Frascole 2009 Chianti Rufina 16 Drink 2011- 13
Cask Sample. Oenologist Federico Staderini. 25,000 bottles produced per year.
Medium concentrated crimson. Lively fruit somewhat suppressed by bell-pepper notes at this stage. Much better on the palate, with lively fruit and stalky tannin. Not for the long haul, but very pleasant and honest. 13.5% (WS)

Il Prato 2009 Chianti Rufina 15.5 Drink 2011-12
Cask sample, no indication of alcohol. Oenologist Davide Scorbi.
Deep crimson with violet tinges. Mature, if appealing, with intense cherry pie. Perhaps a touch of cut apple. Elegant palate, if at first not immediately reminiscent of Sangiovese, more in the bramble fruit and raspberry spectrum. Quite a lot of tannin giving it a rustic finish, and perhaps the fruit cannot entirely match this. (WS)

Travignoli 2009 Chianti Rufina 16 Drink 2011-15
Cask sample, no indication of alcohol. 200,000 bottles produced.
Medium deep crimson. Immediate, appealing cherry nose and violets repeated on the palate. Quite stalky tannins, fruit seems to wrestle somewhat with the emphatic structure at this stage. Acidity lifts the fruit flavour on the finish, but makes the tannins more pronounced too. Needs to settle, but there are very good prospects as the finish has real fragrant length. (WS)

Le Coste 2009 Chianti Rufina 15.5 Drink 2011-14
Cask sample. Oenologists Vittorio Pandolfini and Antonio Grati. Bottles produced 100,000.
Impenetrable dark crimson. Ripe, intense forest fruits and cherry confit nose. Quite intense dark fruit on the palate too, but contrasted by high acidity and stalky tannins. Seems much bigger than the 12.5% alcohol indicated. Closes up on the finish, but the concentration suggests ageing potential. 12.5% (WS)

Cantine Sociale VI C A S, Montulico 2009 Chianti Rufina 15 Drink 2010-12
Cask sample, no indication of alcohol. Oenologist Paolo Alfonso Garberoglio.
Medium concentrated violet ruby. Quite fruit driven, with the merest hint of farmyard. Pleasant, fragrant fruit, with medium body and juicy acidity. Medium length. Seems ready now. (WS)

Dreolino 2009 Chianti Rufina 15 Drink 2011-13
Cask sample, no indication of alcohol. Bottler producing 900,000 bottles of Chianti and Chianti Rufina per year.
Deep crimson with violet tinges on the rim. Seems quite developed, with tobacco and hints of tar. Earthy too. Light, violet cherry fruit palate immediately followed by acidity. Could do with more concentration. (WS)

Fattoria di Basciano 2009 Chianti Rufina 15.5 Drink 2011-13
Cask sample. Oenologist Paolo Masi. The estate is part of the Cantine Masi Renzo. While the Fattoria produces around 150,000 bottles of Chianti Rufina per year, the Cantine produces in excess of 1,800,000 bottles.
Concentrated dark crimson. Dusty, but very appealing sweet concentrated red fruit nose with hints of spice and cinnamon bark and rhubarb. Ongoing sweet fruit sensation with stalky, dusty tannin. Drying tannins on the finish. A good commercial wine, but tannins demand food. 13.5% (WS)

Fattoria di Grignano 2009 Chianti Rufina 15 Drink 2011-13
Cask sample, no indication of alcohol. Oenologist Franco Bernabei. Production is 100,000 bottles per year.
Medium concentrated ruby, seems already maturing. Very vinous, sweet cherry nose. Much more lively on the palate due to a generous dose of acidity. Quite rustic tannins, drying out the finish. Alcoholic bite. (WS)

Il Capitano 2009 Chianti Rufina 15.5 Drink 2011-13
Cask sample. Production of Chianti Rufina circa 50,000 bottles.
Concentrated violet ruby. Sweet nose with fruitcake notes. Fairly simple but refreshing. Modestly fragrant but tannic finish. 13.5% (WS)

Il Lago 2009 Chianti Rufina 15.5 Drink 2011-13
Cask sample, no indication of alcohol. Oenologist Fabrizio Moltard. Production 60,000 bottles.
Medium concentrated violet ruby. Fruits of the forest with a hint of cacao powder. With air more perfumed concentrated sweet fruit. Sweet fruit attack too with acidity kicking in immediately. Medium bodied impression, quite appetising but not terribly long. (WS)

Lavacchio, Cedro 2009 Chianti Rufina Drink 14.5 Drink 2011-12
Cask sample, no indication of alcohol. Oenologist Dr Federico Staderini. 70,000 bottles produced.
Concentrated crimson. Cherry nose with bell pepper notes. Juicy cherry palate marked by quite drying tannin, which completely dominates the finish. (WS)

Selvapiana 2009 Chianti Rufina 17.5 Drink 2012-16
Cask sample, no indication of alcohol. Oenologist Franco Bernabei. 130,000 bottles produced.
Only medium concentrated ruby. Quite serious, stalky fruit nose. Cherry fruit with marzipan-textured tannins. Quite a lot of structure, but very persistent fruit too. Very serious for the category and with ageing potential. Buy and wait. (WS)

Marchesi Gondi, San Giulano 2009 Chianti Rufina 15 Drink 2011-13
Cask sample, no indication of alcohol. Oenologist Carlo Corino. 40, 000 bottles of Chianti Rufina produced.
Deep crimson with violet ruby rim. A mixture of savoury, meaty notes with hints of cherry and cassis. Sweet, almost compote like fruit saved by acidity and stalky tannins. Seems unsettled, and ever so slightly artificial. (WS)

Il Pozzo, San Giuliano 2009 Chianti Rufina 15 Drink 2011-13
Cask sample, no indication of alcohol. Part of the Cantine Bellini operation (see below).
Medium concentrated crimson. Seems reductive and the fruit cannot entirely cover the green notes. This problem repeats itself on the palate. Violet cherry flavours at first, to be followed by unripe acidity and clinging tannins. (WS)

2008 CHIANTI RUFINA

Il Capitano 2008 Chianti Rufina 14 Drink 2010
Very dark ruby. Two samples requested and both show oxidative notes, robbing the nose of freshness. No charm on the palate either. 13.5% (WS)

2008 CHIANTI RUFINA RISERVA

Colognole, Riserva 2008 Chianti Rufina 16.5 Drink 2012-16
Cask sample. Deep ruby starting to open up on the rim. Sweet, somewhat unfocused at this stage, but with well balanced oak and hint of vanilla. Definitely modern style. Much younger on the palate with very good balance between fruit, grainy tannins and structuring acidity. Closes up on the finish, but concentration is there, and structure is right. Decant or wait. 13.8% (WS)

Frascole, Riserva 2008 Chianti Rufina 16 Drink 2011-14
Cask sample. Medium deep ruby with first signs of age on the rim. Jammy cherry and cassis nose. Intense sweet fruit palate. Unashamedly popular. Rich finish matched by persistent, but tasty tannin. 14.5% (WS)

Travignoli, Riserva 2008 Chianti Rufina 17 Drink 2012 -16
Cask sample. Dark ruby with violet tinges. Concentrated dark nose, with hints of saddle and nutmeg. Well balanced palate with fragrant, persistent fruit, knit together by compact tannin. Tannin ever so slightly dominant, but will mellow out. (WS)

Le Coste, Riserva 2008 Chianti Rufina 14.5 Drink 2011-13
Deep, maturing ruby. Ripe rich red fruit and hints of cut apple and cocoa powder. Quite high acidity seems unripe. Perhaps the initial signs of oxidation has dried the fruit out. Second sample shows much more freshness, but the unsettling oxidative note is noticeable on the palate, and the acidity looks hard on the finish. A lightweight. 12.5% (WS)

Fratelli Bellini, Riserva 2008 Chianti Rufina 15.5 Drink 2011-14
Cask sample. Oenologist Paolo Alfonso Garberoglio. Although the total production of the Cantine is 1 million bottles, only a small part of that is Chianti Rufina.
Very deep, youthful ruby. Concentrated, slightly alcoholic nose, with earthy, chalky notes. Fragrant, gentle red fruits and elevated acidity and grainy tannins. Not super concentrated, but succulent and pleasant. 12.5% (WS)

Frescobaldi, Castello di Nipozzano Riserva 2009 Chianti Rufina 16 Drink 2011-14
Oenologist Nicolò D'Afflitto. 800,000 bottles produced.
Deep ruby. Undeniable international nose of ripe, red and dark fruits and new oak. Allegedly appealing to the masses, it nevertheless seems slightly old-fashioned. The palate is determined by the red fruit and vanilla spiciness recipe. It is well balanced, and has good length, but perhaps the terroir could shine through a bit more. Roast aromas on the finish. 13.5% (WS)

Frescobaldi, Montesodi Riserva 2008 Chianti Rufina 16.5 Drink 2011-16
Deep ruby, with the beginning of age on the rim. Lifted Christmas spice and cherry fruit nose, but with more complexity than the Nipozzano. Lots of concentrated sweet fruit here, with the right dose of acidity to pull it up and stalky tannins to give it longevity. Again, terroir should be given more chance to shine through and perhaps with less immediate, concentrated fruit. 14.5% (WS)

Castello del Trebbio, Lastricato Riserva 2008 Chianti Rufina 16 Drink 2012-17
Cask sample with no indication of alcohol. Oenologist Luca D'Attoma. Production 300,000 bottles.
Medium deep ruby with the beginning of age on the rim. Slightly backward fruit and with a hint of tobacco leaf and a spur of oak. Needs lots of air. Elegant cherry fruit palate. Slightly rustic, or perhaps unsettled tannin. Fragrant finish with real depth. Fruit closes up and tannins persist. Needs more age, although tannins seem quite big for the fruit. (WS)

Basciano, Riserva 2008 Chianti Rufina 15.5 Drink 2011-14
Curiously dark, impenetrable. Dusty, savoury and almost meaty opening, only a touch of tobacco leaf. Concentrated and with lots of slightly austere acidity and upfront (oak?) tannin. Has length, but seems unbalanced. 14% (WS)

Fattoria di Grignano, Riserva 2008 Chianti Rufina 15.5 Drink 2011-14
Cask sample, no indication of alcohol. Oenologist Franco Bernabei. Production 100,000 bottles.
Concentrated ruby, with rim just beginning to shed its violet. Jammy nose with baking spice and hints of cherry and dried fruit, cut apple. Fruit-cake impression on the palate counteracted by lively acidity. Vanilla and fruit-cake notes on the finish. Slightly confected, and could do with more genuine fruit flavours. (WS)

I Veroni, Riserva 2008 Chianti Rufina 16 Drink 2011-14
Cask sample, no indication of alcohol. Oenologist Emilo Monechi. Production 10,000 bottles.
Medium deep ruby. Intense cherry on the nose and palate. Modern style, without being overoaked. (WS)

Il Lago, Riserva 2008 Chianti Rufina 16 Drink 2011-16
Cask sample, no indication of alcohol. Deep ruby. Dried cherry, strawberry marmalade and spice, and a touch alcoholic. Almost over the top, persistent cherry fruit. Good tannic structure with zippy acidity to keep the cherry opulence in check. (WS)

Lavacchio, Cedro Riserva 2008 Chianti Rufina 15.5 Drink 2011-15
Cask sample. Impenetrable ruby. Popular and international nose of hugely concentrated red fruit, oak and a hint of leather. Well balanced, but interchangeable. Lots of concentration on the palate too, perhaps even too much. (WS)

Marchesi Gondi, Pian dei Sorbi Riserva 2008 Chianti Rufina 16 Drink 2011-16
Cask sample no indication of alcohol. Very dark purple ruby. Almost explosive, heady dark fruit compote, hint of Moroccan leather and nutmeg. Very striking contrast with the much more restrained palate, with succulent acidity, and better focus too. (WS)

Il Pozzo, Riserva 2008 Chianti Rufina 17 Drink 2012-16
Cask sample. Deep crimson, very youthful looking. Slow to open up, it starts off with fruit-cake and plummy aromas. Intriguing palate of cherry and orange peel. Seems very young. Quite marked tannin here, but adds to the wine's complexity. Brooding. (WS)

VINTAGE 2010 - ITALY

noreply@blogger.com (Blogger) — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 14:08:00 +0000

Although the Bordeaux vintage rumour mill traditionally starts to spin almost before grapes are visible on the vine, Italy is much more cautious about vintage predictions. This may have to do with the fact that harvest dates on the peninsula extend from one of the earliest in Europe (Sicily's whites) to one of the very last (Piemonte's Nebbiolo and Campania's Aglianico). Hence, a clear general picture tends to emerge much later than for most French wine regions.   

'Interesting' seems to be the word that sums up the 2010 vintage, immediately followed by 'heterogeneous'. At least these are the adjectives most frequently used in the Italian media when discussing 2010. The main reason for what looks like a rather modest vintage in terms of quality was an excessive amount of rain. During the winter and early spring the growing cycle started off with soils saturated with water, which can be beneficial if the season proves to be hot and dry. However, instead of the heat needed, most regions experienced continuous cool weather, which soon indicated a late harvest, in many cases protracted by a cool and rainy end of the summer. Or, in the words of Assoenologi, the Association of Italian Enologists: 'September could have been better'.   

It was September especially that caused such variation throughout Italy, with good and mediocre results side by side, although the vintage on the whole is likely to lack the stuffing for excellence. According to Assoenologi, the total crop is 45.5 million hl, similar to the previous year's 45.8 million hl, and both years were particularly wet. But while the 2009 vintage was one of excesses - high and low temperatures, sun and rain - 2010 in comparison was simply not warm enough in many areas.   

The first to start the harvest was Sicily, for white wine grapes, on 18 Aug. In Veneto, Chardonnay and Sauvignon Blanc, considered early-ripening varieties, were not brought in before mid September and Soave's Garganega even later, sometimes as late as mid October. Although in August the situation had looked promising in Veneto, with hot days and cool nights, September brought irregular weather with more rain.   

In Conegliano, heartland of Prosecco, depending on the site and altitude, some perfumed and refreshing wines will result, although the thin-skinned grape was attacked by rot thanks to the protracted harvest and rain, making severe selections in the cellar obligatory. Although more robust than the whites, the red varieties in Veneto as well as in parts of Friuli are characterised by low levels of anthocyanins in the skins. Friuli, also faced with a rainy harvest, seemed to have fared better because of the ongoing ventilation by the prevailing bora winds.   

As always, all eyes are on Piemonte, as this region, together with Tuscany, produces some of the world's most admired wines, Barbaresco and Barolo, and the quality of the vintage is often, even if not always correctly, seen as a blueprint for the whole of Italy. The typical 2010 characteristics of a very cool spring also delayed the growing cycle in Piemonte by more than two weeks. However, this far-north-western region largely escaped the September rains that other regions had to endure, keeping fungal disease at bay. In this vintage much depended on superior sites, the ones that guarantee full sun exposure and higher than average temperatures. Hence expectations for Nebbiolo from prime areas are high, and good sugar levels have been reported in most of the Langhe. More modest qualities are expected from Dolcetto and Barbera from lesser sites. Production levels have remained stable since 2009, which is not necessarily a good thing, considering the street protests staged by producers in Asti just before the harvest, claiming grape prices had sunk so low that harvesting would no longer make economic sense and demanding the return of state-subsidised distillation.   

The growing cycle in Emilia-Romagna was delayed by some 14 days, and the autumn rains made picking dates critical, with some producers expressing great concern at the beginning of September about the ripeness levels of the grapes. While the harvest at the end of August started off with rain, the weather soon changed to sunny warm days, helping increase ripeness levels, and cool nights reducing the risk of fungal attacks for the later-ripening red varieties.   

More or less the same picture emerges in Tuscany, where the beginning of the growing cycle was delayed more than two weeks by cool, wet weather. The whole cycle was determined by cool weather, after an initial spike of high temperatures. Canopy management, including leaf plucking to expose the embryonic fruit to the sun as well as optimising ventilation, and bunch thinning, appeared to be some of the most effective tools. Producers who spent long hours in the vineyards were presented with wines of much higher alcohol and riper tannin levels than could initially have been expected. Although the season has resulted in good rather than great raw material, there will be plenty of suprises, not least in Montalcino, which reportedly received less rain than the rest of Tuscany.  

Not even the south escaped the rains, although here they were more evenly spread. In Campania most of the rains fell before June, replenishing water tables. By mid June temperatures had shot up, accelerating the fruit set and leaf growth, only to be interrupted by cool July, before the season's climate became more regular. Only producers who remained viligant, keeping vigour and yield in check and guarding against fungal disease, succeeded. The rest of the season was more benign than on average in Italy with a hot, dry August, indeed so hot in some areas that fruit burn could have resulted, but owing to very cool nights (with diurnal temperature variation up to 14 °C), the grapes remained healthy and held on to their all-important acidity. Harvest was also delayed by some two weeks in Campania, but the general quality of the grapes seemed to be good to high. Harvest began with the earlier-ripening varieties at the end of September, and the first week of October seeing the beginning of the harvest for Falanghina and Fiano. Aglianico, mostly planted at higher altitudes, was not picked before mid November, which in fact is not exceptionally late.   

Puglia seems to be the exception this year, with an initial delay of the growing cycle of only one week, which was quickly reversed by a warm and even season, with grapes harvested in good health. Although some 2,000 ha of vines were grubbed up in 2010 at the EU's behest, the region somehow managed to produce 20% more grapes than in the previous year.   

Sicily's total production, on the other hand, declined by some 30%, not least owing to the EU subsidies available to those who grubbed up their vines, but a large part was also the result of an intense green harvest to keep fungal attacks during a wet growing season under control. Although some good wines can be expected, overall the harvest was delayed by more than a week, and produced fruit of more modest extract levels than normal.

  At the beginning of November, after the harvest was mostly done and most producers were sighing with relief, the rains came back with an unexpected violence, especially in the Veneto between Verona and Friuli, causing dams to break and causing widespread flooding in the vineyards, with the Soave town of Monteforte d'Alpone worst hit. This picture shows a Soave vineyard after the worst of the rains. The main traffic artery between Venice and Milan, the Serenissima Autostrada, was blocked, while large parts of Vicenza disappeared under water (see picture top left). The most optimistic reports of the damage caused by the relentless rain estimate a total cost of 250 million euros, while the bleakest forecast predicts that Italy's especially wet 2010 will cost over a billion euros.   

Although some of the resulting damage to land and livestock was nothing short of tragic, I couldn't help but think that everyone on the plain was affected whereas all those with vineyards on the hillside were not. Surely this is an indication that if this kind of weather pattern persists in the future, terroir specifics will force the grape growers to retire to the hills, where wine quality is so much more assured.

ALL CHANGE AT AVIGNONESI

noreply@blogger.com (Blogger) — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 14:00:00 +0000

The news in 2008 that Avignonesi, arguably Vino Nobile di Montepulciano's most emblematic producer, had sold the majority of its shares to the Belgian Virginie Saverys sent a ripple through Italian wine blogs - all of them worried about a historic Italian estate falling into foreign hands. What most of the critics did not realise was that although the Avignonesi name goes back to at least the 16th century, it didn't start bottling wine until 1978.

Whereas grape growing and winemaking had always been part of the Avignonesi activity, its vinous rise to fame started only after Adriana Avignonesi married the agronomist Ettore Falvo in the 1970s. It was he who immediately modernised the estate with replantings and regraftings and introduced French barriques to the cellar. By bringing the Falvo holdings in Cortona and Val di Chiana into the operation, the Avignonesi portfolio was also enlarged by quite a few international grape varieties, notably Chardonnay and Cabernet Sauvignon. With enough critical mass available to penetrate the international market (some 700,000 bottles a year currently), Avignonesi became the indisputed leader of the Vino Nobile di Montepulciano denomination, with their Occhio di Pernice Vin Santo [look out for my tasting notes on a range of Vin Santos next week - JR] a star in its own right, as well as the international blends Grifi and Desiderio.

The 2008 sale of the majority stake was instigated by Ettore Falvo's wish to leave the company, but already in 2007 Saverys, director of Belgian shipping company Compagnie Maritime Belge, had acquired a minority stake of 30%. The Falvo family retained 10% of Avignonesi. Although according to the initial agreement Alberto Falvo would remain responsible for the winemaking, Saverys decided to buy out the last Falvo member in 2009 and embark on her own. From one day to the next she found herself running a winery as well as Avignonesi's international wine, spirits and foods distribution company Classica, and that without any prior wine knowledge apart from drinking it.

Doubts have been expressed in recent years over the quality of the estate's wines, with the exception of the Vin Santo. This was all the more surprising because the Falvo family had always been keen on research and viticultural experiments in an ongoing effort to improve the wines, some of those research projects in conjunction with the University of Florence. Under the direction of Saverys, the estate's entire 110 ha of vineyards are being converted to biodynamic viticulture.

Before I met with Saverys, her consultant agronomist Dr Adriano Zago showed me the vineyards. Avignonesi consists of four separate estates or vineyard areas: I Poggetti in Montepulciano proper; Le Capezzine, the actual estate with the ageing cellars west of Montepulciano; and La Selva and La Lombarda in the recent Cortona denomination, a playground for international grape varieties, and sensibly demarcated without overlapping the Vino Nobile production area (unlike Montalcino's Sant'Antimo). Made DOC in 1999 to highlight its unique propensities for Syrah in particular, Cortona still has to prove itself.

The Vino Nobile di Montepulciano DOCG actually consists of two individual zones: the hills around the township of Montepulciano and, about 10 km to the west and separated by the very flat Val di Chiana, the hills around the township of Valiano. According to Zago, the original denomination was enlarged some 30 years ago by the addition of the hills of Valiano, apparently to accommodate large holdings of newcomers at that time. Although I have not found evidence to confirm this, the fact is that most of Valiano's vineyards are in the hands of large and very large estates, such as Antinori (La Braccesca), Trerose (Tenimenti Angelini), Lodola Nuova (Ruffino) and Barbanera.

While driving up to the Le Capezzine estate I had already noticed that vineyards here are planted ad alberello and trained on stakes. Lately, alberello, or gobelet, training has become the sacred cow of Italy's left field 'natural wine' movement, and considered proof of a producer's true dedication to the natural wine cause. It can, however, also be seen as the emperor's new clothes, with alberello cultivated in parts where it never was the traditional method and in places where it is completely unsuitable. Avignonesi, Zago told me, started planting ad alberello as early as 1996 and continued doing this until 2001. Although this may seem at first glance truly visionary, it turned out quite the opposite, of which more later.

I Poggetti, near the town of Montepulciano, is in comparison a conventional vineyard, planted 40 years ago with Sangiovese, Vino Nobile's main ingredient, called Prugnolo here. Although Avignonesi have always embraced the international varieties, their Vino Nobile traditionally consisted of Tuscan varieties only, complementing Sangiovese with Canaiolo and Mammolo, with the curious exception of the Riserva, to which a dollop of Cabernet Sauvignon was added.

La Selva and the La Lombarda vineyards in the aforementioned Cortona DOC are the source of the Cortona Sauvignon Blanc (which includes 15% Chardonnay), Il Marzocco Cortona Chardonnay, Avignonesi's stab at creating an ambitious burgundy-style white, including barrel fermentation, and Desiderio Cortona Merlot (which includes 15% Cabernet Sauvignon). It remains to be seen which of these wines will continue to be produced under the new ownership.

The hills of Montepulciano and Valiano are not exclusively vine territory, sharing the clay and limestone soils with sunflowers and wheat. While his four-wheel drive literally ploughed its way through heavy clay (pictured above left on Zago's boot) during my visit, Zago, who consults for a variety of estates in Chianti Classico, Carmignano and Montalcino, mentioned his surprise that he couldn't find a single stone in the Avignonesi vineyards. Montepulciano's soils consist mostly of clay with some limestone. Sandy soils are apparently much less prevalent than is frequently mentioned in the wine literature.

I met Virginie Saverys in her office at the Le Capezzine estate. She is an elegant, understatedly dressed, and attractive woman in her late forties who seems to communicate with her staff in an informal, open way. It was only when she asked if I would like tea, which she ordered by telephone and was brought in by a waiter, that I briefly realised I was sitting opposite one of the richest women in Belgium. I also could not help noticing that she probably hasn't given many interviews yet in her new role, something I deduce from her sincere and open answers. Only briefly was she distracted by the regular sound of Skype messages pouring in on her laptop, which, after a short while, she resolutely closed.

I began by asking her why she decided to buy a wine estate, considering her background in a completely different industry. Saverys wouldn't be the first wealthy person to turn a passion for wine drinking into wine producing without any prior knowledge, but her answer was much more profane than I expected. She told me she already knew the Falvo family personally and initially bought the first minor stake to 'help a friend', indicating that the estate was in financial need of some sort, but she also wanted to diversify her investment portfolio. When I remarked that one needs a large fortune to make a small one in wine, she replied that she at first saw it as a real estate investment opportunity only with the land and the buildings representing a certain value. Within less than a year, however, her share went up to 90%. The deal that came with this, was that one of the Falvo brothers would teach her the business of the trade, but when this plan didn't materialise soon enough, she managed to buy him out (the total sum of the acquisition remains undisclosed).

All of a sudden Saverys found herself in charge of a sizable estate without any prior knowledge. She admits that originally she didn't intend to get steeped in wine, but she quickly put her mind to it, deciding she had the time and the passion, 'and anyway, there was no longer a way out', she pragmatically added. This was spring 2009, and while the Falvo family was no longer in charge, the staff they had worked with for years stayed on. When I ask her what it was like she says it was a steep learning curve with mistakes, mostly by relying on the staff and their ways of working in the vineyard and cellar. But Saverys is not only passionate, she is also thorough. She started visiting estates both in France and Italy, and had the entire estate, including all work processes, completely audited.

Calling herself a curious person, she started to read widely about wine. It was thus that she came across biodynamics, and decided to go to Burgundy where she began following courses under Pierre Masson, who introduced her to the biodynamic preparations and the Maria Thun calendar, now a permanent fixture on her desk. It was Masson who suggested she should work with Zago to convert the estate's vineyards to biodymanics.

While talking to Saverys and Zago (pictured here, with more clay), I started to understand that the main issue with the fomer staff was the management of the vineyards and in particular the use of chemicals they had got so used to working with during the Falvo management. According to both Saverys and Zago, at Avignonesi staff were previously accustomed to work with a staggering amount of chemicals, some nine different chemical treatments including herbicides and insecticides, apparently applied to the vines and the vineyards according to a protocol, regardless of whether there was a need for them or not. The first decision Saverys took was to abandon all chemical products. She felt that some of the staff were unable or unwilling to follow her in this, and hence some of the workers had to go.

The cost of biodynamic viticulture must be high, thanks to the intense and mainly manual vineyard management, especially on Avignonesi's extensive vineyards, but Saverys maintains that it is in large part offset by no longer having to buy expensive chemical products. The direct consequence is that yields are bound to go down, at least in the first few years when soil and plants start to regenerate. Saverys added that biodynamics does not necessarily exclude mechanical ways of working, but the main concern is that heavy machinery will compress the soils. But while some of the work can be done mechanically, the alberello vineyards, due to their high density and their stake training, are a limiting factor, the high clay content of the soils another.

Biodynamics has already begun improving the soils, as Zago showed me in the vineyard. During my visit Zago took soil samples and showed me how compact the clay is. He also pointed out its blueish hue, a sign of reduction. It is very wet too. To improve this, herbs are planted between the rows. Zago pulled out a weed and showed that the clay around its roots is much less wet, more crumbly, less compact. Planting herbs improves soil aeration, structure and regulates water content, while stimulating the development of microorganisms working the soil. I asked him how many cow horns, the most famous of all biodynamic preparations, he will need for 110 ha. A great many, he said, smiling.

Zago has also pointed out that the Sangiovese planted ad alberello is causing viticultural and logistical issues that he and Saverys are still trying to find a solution for. Sangiovese is a naturally vigourous variety, even more so on clay, and the alberello training method with its low trunk system cannot easily accommodate the many branches the vine produces, which not only shades the fruit, but restricts ventilation and aeration causing increased humidity in the canopy, which in turn can lead to fungal infections. Neither does it allow for a large enough canopy surface to maximise photosynthesis, and hence fruit ripening, not to mention the intense manual work that bushvine training demands. Apparently, high density, even at 7,500 vines per ha, doesn't reduce vigour in proportion to the number of plants. They had to abandon the plan to pull every second albarello out, as this would have led to a density per ha below that of the official DOCG regulations. Now they are considering bringing in a trellis system, at high cost.

Saverys explained all this with an ease which almost matches that of Zago. She told me that she started following courses and lectures on viticulture at Bordeaux's ENITA, which she still does. It was ENITA she assigned to do the audit of Avignonesi's vineyards, and which unearthed a wealth of information on soil diversity, structure, and clonal selection. This, again, led to the mapping of all individual plots, something which had never been done before at Avignonesi, with each and every plot vinified separately from the 2009 vintage on, unlike in the past when such distinctions were never made.

What all this shows is that the previous owners of Avignonesi may have been undoubtedly focused on quality wine production, but despite the viticultural experiments, the focus was still very much on the cellar. Evidence of this, except for the styles of wines produced in the recent past, are the more than 1,600 barriques that the Avignonesi cellars contain. Although the actual fermentation is done in Cortona in an open-air battery-like collection of stainless-steel tanks (another thorn in Saverys side), there are also some smart Stockinger conic fermentation vats at Le Capezzine just waiting to be used for fermenting the finest plots. Until now they have been used only for ageing. At Avignonesi you get the impression that all the ingredients to create something exceptional are there, it just hasn't happened yet.

It is easy to see that from the beginning of the 1970s, with Falvo's innovative ideas, lower yields and investment in modern vinification techniques, the wines must have been perceived as enormously different from their old-fashioned peers, and easily received the recognition they so rightfully deserved. At the same time, the next page, that of in-depth terroir investigation, was never turned. Until now, that is.

Saverys is still acquainting herself with the estate's terroir, and biodynamic techniques have already helped to identify some superior plots in the vineyards which are so promising that she is considering single-vineyard bottlings in the future.

With the philosophical course of Avignonesi so radically changed, how will she deal with the fact that the wines are bound to go through a phase of variation, which undoubtedly will lead to stylistic change? Is she worried about losing customers? With an air of pragmatism she brushed this off, saying she will have to communicate intensely what it is she is trying to do at Avignonesi. At the same time she mentioned that she may well lose customers, but will win new ones in return. She has started to ferment with indigenous yeast only, and she expects this to have a huge impact on the wine and, potentially, the following. 'I owe it to my customers, to the land and to the people I work with, that at least they know they don't get any chemical stuff,' she told me.

She also indicated that there will be little change to the range. Avignonesi is a very strong brand, especially on the international market, and it seems only wise to keep the names, while going through changes. The entry level will remain the IGT red Rosso di Avignonesi, a blend of Sangiovese and mainly Merlot, a new IGT white (a blend of Sauvignon and Chardonnay), and a rosato from Pinot Noir which, as Saverys says, was previously 'dumped in the IGT Rosso', but she feels it is too good for that. And making a rosato for the sake of it, by using saignée, is something she says she is not interested in.

The first 'real', indigenous wine will be the Rosso di Montepulciano, which she plans to give less ageing to make it in a fresher style. Cortona will be the next level up, and she intends to keep the barrel-fermented Chardonnay Marzocco (with an annual production of around 8,000 bottles), as well as the apparently highly popular Desiderio Merlot (30,000 bottles), but the latter, again, will receive less oak ageing. 'Before, Desiderio was like a Swiss clock, it always got 18 months of oak, without fail, no exception.' Now she wants to vary time in barrel on the basis of the vintage and quality of the wine. Saverys wants to change and fine tune the barrel regime - not an easy task with the amount she inherited.

We briefly discuss Grifi, a wine created on the crest of the Supertuscan wave, an iconic blend of Sangiovese and Cabernet Sauvignon in equal parts. Its production was stopped by the previous owners, although she thinks it is a great wine. I sense she would like to have a go at it at some stage, but in the vineyards of Cortona, where the Cabernet is grown, there is no Sangiovese, and she is, at least for the moment, unwilling to resurrect Grifi by blending it with Montepulciano Sangiovese. I understand, it should be a proper DOC Cortona wine, while the actual top of the pyramid will all be Vino Nobile di Montepulciano, featuring Sangiovese and indigenous varieties only. She considers Sangiovese a difficult and fickle grape, but when she tasted the 2009 vintage, she started to realise the true potential of the variety. This did not deter her, however, from declassifying all the fruit to Rosso di Montepulciano, as she felt the vintage was not good enough to produce a good Vino Nobile. [This should be a wine worth seeking out - JR]

By the way, the previous consultant oenologist under Falvo management, Paolo Trappolini, was discarded too. Saverys is working now with the relatively unknown oenologist Giampaolo Chiettini, as she wanted a very good technician and felt the estate had no need for a big name. Chiettini, incidentally, makes a Sangiovese Shiraz (sic) in collaboration with the South Australian Primo Estate's Joe Grilli in Cortona. She told me Stéphane Derenoncourt visited Avignonesi, and she could have asked him to work for her, but good wine starts in the vineyard, she asserted, and there are already too many people making wines in the cellar.

2010 BARREL TASTING

To become IGT Bianco: 60% Chardonnay, 40% Sauvignon Blanc, fermented in stainless steel by indigenous and cultured yeast. Very fresh and yeasty and not too fruit driven. Salty notes. Medium length.

Sauvignon Blanc from sandy soil. Same salty impression again, with grapefruit and hints of passion fruit. A touch buttery. Restrained aromatics. Not very typical. With a spicy lemony finish.

To become Marzocco Chardonnay: hand-picked selection fermented in second-year barriques. Notes of yeast, dough, spicy apple and lemon rind. Soft vanilla touch, with lemony fruit flavour. Very good length pushed by zippy acidity.

Bushvine trained Merlot from the top of La Selva in Cortona. Soils consist mostly of clay, but with more chalk on the top. Could possibly become Desiderio or a component for 50/50 (the curious joint venture wine with Capanelle from Chianti Classico's Panzano, who brings Sangiovese to the blend). Yeasty and reductive at this stage. There is some good concentrated fruit underneath, with quite big tannins, but overall good structure.

Merlot from the La Selva vineyards in Cortona planted in 1974. A touch reductive, but quite concentrated, brooding and impressive on the nose. Only a hint of vanilla. Slight malolactic prickle and massive but ripe tannins. Very long, if initially reluctant.

Sangiovese acquired from a 40-year-old vineyard close to Poggetti on tufo soils. Fermented in stainless steel with indigenous yeast. Floral red fruit with hints of walnut skin. Bright red fruit, at this stage somewhat unsettled, with tannic spine and bright acidity. Aromatic finale with a tannic core.

Sangiovese from alberello-trained vines from I Poggetti. Fermented in stainless steel, and transferred to Stockinger 20-hl foudres. Quite reductive at first. Very fine and ongoing waves of tannins. Quite mute on the attack, but opens up slowly on the finish. Powerful, impressive.

Sangiovese blend of old vines trained on a high trellis system. Fermented in stainless steel and aged in 135-hl botte. Muted nose, but generous, sweet fruit attack and grainy tannin. Very long finish which grows on you. Precise, focused fruit. Very, very long.

Sangiovese planted in 1997 ad alberello at Le Cappezine. Fermented in stainless steel and only very recently put into third-year barriques. Red fruit and a touch of iron. Viscous mounthful at first, with ripe, sweet fruit shot through by acidity on the finish. Grainy tannins. Closes up. Less structure and depth than the Sangiovese trained on high trellis.

Cabernet Sauvignon planted in 2001 ad alberello in La Selva, Cortona. Reluctant dark fruit and hint of rhubarb. Sweet, rich and concentrated and quite tannic. Hint of fennel seed and liquorice. Very tannic finish.

TO WHOM DOES MONTEPULCIANO BELONG?

noreply@blogger.com (Blogger) — Wed, 05 Jan 2011 10:26:00 +0000

The ambitious aim of the European Union to organise all of Europe's wine regions into a single system more or less analogous to France's AOC, but called DPO, thereby simplifying wine labels, has caused increasing anxiety for the Consorzio di Vino Nobile di Montepulciano.

To clarify labels for consumers, the EU aims to phase out any duplicates in wine names in due course and allow only absolutely clear denominations of origin. This in reality means that any wine striving for a Protected Denomination of Origin needs to be named after a place. At first the regulations seemed deceptively easy to adapt. It was assumed that France's AOC, Spain's DO and Italy's DOC, to mention the most important, would simply be translated into DPOs and registered in an official list of denominations. Any irregularit ies and duplications would be dealt with over a period of five years (until 2014). As the law was introduced in August 2009 in what looked like a great rush, it caught many consortiums and producer associations by surprise, because owing to lack of clear information they were often unable to explain to their members what the new law would entail.

Traumatised by the phasing out of their traditional name for the grape Tocai Friulano due to objections from Hungarians because of confusion with their famous sweet wine, Italy is growing increasingly anxious to prevent any further such cases. The latest to pull the emergency brake is the Consorzio del Vino Nobile di Montepulciano. While this organisation has taken the better part of 10 years and more than three million euros to register and protect the name to prevent others from using it for products made outside of the region, it now fears confrontation from its neighbour the Abruzzo. Abruzzo's most renowned wine is Montepulciano d'Abruzzo. The name Montepulciano in this latter case is the name of the grape variety while the Montepulciano of Vino Nobile is a place. The Consorzio is worried that during further clarification with the register, their name may run the risk of becoming erased, while Abruzzo's will be kept.

The Consorzio has already expressed their concern to Italy's agricultural minister Giancarlo Galan, but it has gone further, and has apparently already turned to the European Tribunal to appeal against the current listing of registered and protected geographical indications, which is accessible online and is called E-Bacchus. At this stage, E-Bacchus, which is in the process of being updated, shows both Vino Nobile di Montepulciano as well as Montepulciano d'Abruzzo, so the Consorzio del Vino Nobile di Montepulciano's fears may be unfounded.

However, with further rationalisation of the registration, issues may arise over the duplicate use of the name Montepulciano to denote two completely different wines. The Consorzio wants to prevent at all costs any 'distortion' of the Vino Nobile di Montepulciano name. (The Friuli grape Tocai Friulano had to be renamed Friulano, and Tocai Rosso, a synonym for the Grenache cultivated in Veneto, had to be renamed Tai Rosso.)   But the real reason the Consorzio went straight to the Tribunal was because the latest document in the new OCM regulations, EU 410/2010, failed to mention the word Nobile. The Consorzio, and the local Siena Chamber of Commerce, want to press Brussels to explicitly clarify this matter, as without the word Nobile, the DOCG wine currently known as Vino Nobile di Montepulciano would be labelled merely Montepulciano, and there would henceforth be confusion with Montepulciano d'Abruzzo, which could potentially lead to a sort of declassification of Vino Nobile di Montepulciano into a wine with an entirely different name.

CONVITO DI ROMAGNA - THE WINES

noreply@blogger.com (Blogger) — Wed, 05 Jan 2011 10:16:00 +0000

In On the trail of Sangiovese di Romagna, I described the work of the leading group of producers, the Convito di Romagna. Its members voluntarily comply with a set of rules which are much stricter than the DOC requirements, the most crucial differences being lower yields, high-quality plant material, high-density plantings and a much later release date for the Riserva version than is normally the case. As the majority of the members have a relatively short history of producing and bottling wine, a clear profile of subregionality is still to emerge. Very promising, however, is the fact all members show restraint in their use of new oak, allowing the fruit to play the lead. Many of the members work their vineyards sustainably, while some have started experimenting with organic methods.

A comparison with Tuscany is unavoidable when talking about Sangiovese, and although there are similarities, there are also several marked differences. In general Sangiovese di Romagna seems richer, with bigger tannins which, in youth, can seem a little unpolished, even if ripe, and demand bottle ageing (a fact most Convito members honour by allowing their wines to age longer than is legally required, the current vintage on the market generally being 2006). There is usually considerable concentration on the mid palate, and acidity seems generally softer and better integrated than in many Tuscan Sangioveses.

At the moment stylistic differences within the Convito abound, perhaps partly due to the youth of several of the vineyards, but surely partly because of differences in terroir. However, as always, detection and recognition of terroir in any wine becomes easier as the taster's experience and knowledge increase. Therefore initiatives such as that of the Convito are urgently needed to get recognition for the wines on the international market. The (legal) practice of appassimento (using dried grapes) in the production of Sangiovese di Romagna seems less desirable, as it can blur terroir characteristics, although it is easy to see how it would appeal to an international audience.

Another marked difference in any comparison with Tuscany seems to be a relative absence of interest and money from outside of the region, and the accompanying phenomenon of the superstar oenologist-consultant. Romagna has proved, at least until now, to be a far less evocative name than Tuscany. The disadvantage of Romagna's relative isolation is that the process of bringing the best wines to international attention will take longer and won't be as explosive a process as it was in Tuscany until some years ago. But the advantage is that the best wines are in general a more truthful expression of their origin and the people who make them, and less the result of a standardised protocol.

CALONGA, Loc Castiglione, Forlì (Oriolo subzone)
The estate comprises 7 ha and is the smallest of the Convito members. Vineyards are at an altitude of about 120 m on the hills between Forlì and Faenza. Winemaking started as early as 1977, but only since 1996, when current owner Maurizio Baravelli started to get seriously interested in individual characteristics of the vineyards, have the wines been estate bottled. Fabrizio Moltard consults for Baravelli on the winemaking, while the estate's most important wine is the Sangiovese di Romagna Superiore Riserva Michelangiòlo.

Calonga, Michelangiòlo 2006 Sangiovese di Romagna Superiore Riserva 16.5 Drink now-2015
Fermented in stainless steel, and seven days of skin maceration after fermentation. 12 months in oak followed by 12 months in stainless steel for stabilisation and 6 months of bottle ageing, which in the future will be increased to 12 months.
Quite leafy tobacco nose, initially. Hints of sweet sour cherry and plummy notes, herbs underneath. Concentrated, spicy cherry and plum and firm but fine tannin. Slightly drying on the finish. Real Sangiovese flavours, but perhaps bolder than Tuscany. Honest, focused, with good length. 14% (WS)

Calonga, Michelangiòlo 2007 Sangiovese di Romagna Superiore 17 Drink 2012-17
Vinification similar to 2006. Shows posh new oak on a lifted nose (VA?). Clear oak impact, but there is complexity too. Almost Tuscan on the palate, with focused, succulent fruit. Firm tannins predominant on the finish. This will need time. 14.5% (WS)

DREI DONÀ TENUTA LA PALAZZA, Loc Massa di Vecchiazzano, Forlì (Predappio subzone)
The Drei Donà family has been producing Sangiovese grapes since the early 1900s, but the wines were sold off in bulk until Enrico's father, after a career as a solicitor, started a second one, this time as a quality wine producer. He embarked on an ambitious replanting scheme, but kept some of the old vines for massal selection purposes. The vineyards, at an altitude of 110–160 m, lie like an amphitheatre around the estate, and are planted with the classic Romagna Clones R23 and R24. Interestingly, R23 is also planted a lot in Tuscany. Whereas the old vineyards from the 1960s had a density of 3,300 plants per ha (which, according to Enrico, was quite high for the time), the newer ones are planted with 5,000-5,500 vines per ha. Since 1992 the vineyards have been tended sustainably, with very little intervention, while fungal diseases are rare thanks to the ventilation of the winds off the sea. Although the path was set for Sangiovese, in 1983 Cabernet, Chardonnay and Riesling (more out of curiosity than real conviction according to Enrico, pictured here) appeared in the Drei Donà vineyards. Until recently, Franco Bernabei, well known for his work in Tuscany, has been consulting at the estate, but now this role has been taken over by his son. The estate's most important wine is Pruno Sangiovese di Romagna Riserva, of which the first vintage was 1989.

Drei Donà Tenuta La Palazza, Pruno 2006 Sangiovese di Romagna Superiore Riserva 17.5 Drink 2010-20
From a single vineyard. Half of the wine is aged in barrique, of which half is American oak (new as well as old) and the other half in new and second-fill tonneaux. The wine has 18 months of cask ageing in total.
Medium deep crimson. Very posh nose of oak and concentrated red fruits. Cherry, first and foremost. Succulent fruit palate with crunchy tannins and perfectly balancing acidity. Tannins are the main theme, persistent, but finely woven, and backed up effortlessly by ongoing fruit aromas. And huge length. Has potential, but difficult to resist right now. 14% (WS)

Drei Donà Tenuta La Palazza, Pruno 1995 Sangiovese di Romagna Superiore Riserva 16.5 drink now 2010-18
Deep, developed ruby with small brickstone rim. Very impressive, fine, mature and complex. Developed with tobacco and a spur of mushroom, finely spiced. Very fine tannic waves with sweet, mature fruit and tobacco. Elevated acidity and with almost an orange note on the finish. 13% (WS)

Drei Donà Tenuta La Palazza, Pruno 1998 Sangiovese di Romagna Superiore Riserva 17.5 Drink 2010-18
Very dark, mature ruby with brickstone hints. First impression is of notes of orange skin. Savoury, meaty, with very fine red fruit perfume slowly to emerge. Rich, sweet fruit attack, with immediate grainy tannin. Acidity seems well integrated, and turns up more clearly at the finish. Concentrated, with dry finish, still seems to need some time, at least decanting. Richer than 1995. 14% (WS)

STEFANO FERRUCCI VITICULTORE, Serra di Castelbolognese, Ravenna (Serra subzone)
The vineyards of Ferruci date back to 1932 and comprise 15 ha. The estate has had only a recent history of producing and bottling wine, but the main focus has always been in the vineyards (hence the Viticultore in the estate's name). In-depth research into clonal selection from their own plant material, with very low yields, has been the main principle of grape production here, and all red wines produced are from Sangiovese only. Interestingly, for all reds the grapes are dried for a period of up to a month, giving an unmistakable appassito character to the wine. The consequence of this procedure is that terroir characteristics are perhaps less easy to detect. The most important wine of the estate is the Domus Caia Sangiovese Superiore Riserva, as well as a sweet white from the Malvasia grape, obtained from grapes left to freeze on the vine until well into the winter.

Stefano Ferrucci Viticultore, Domus Caia 2006 Sangiovese Superiore Riserva 16.5 Drink 2010-15
100% Sangiovese from a vineyard planted in the 1960s and 1970s. The grapes are hand harvested and dried for 30 days, without using temperature or humidity control. Fermented in cement tank with temperature control, and with malolactic fermentation triggered at the same time (Ilaria Ferrucci tells me that the low ambient temperature in their cement tanks tends to delay malolactic fermentation, making the wine vulnerable, which is why they inoculate the wine with malolactic bacteria immediately after the fermentation has started, so that the warmth produced by the alcoholic fermentation helps initiate it, and it therefore ends practically at the same time as the alcoholic fermentation). The wine is aged aged for 12 months in tonneaux of which one third are new.
Plummy, and dried cherry and hints of dried fruit, but with depth. Note of cacao, ever so slightly. Hint of apple from the appassimento. Lively palate with very attractive, chocolatey, coating tannin. Vegetal touch of apple pie, seems ever so slightly oxidised, but very appealing, and with very good length. 14.5% (WS)

PODERI MORINI, Faenza (Oriolo subzone)
One of the last to join the Convito, the estate started bottling in 1998, and the first wine to be produced was Nono Ricco Sangiovese di Romagna Superiore, named after the current owner's grandfather. The vineyards are planted on limestone clay, and, except for Sangiovese, play host to some pretty rare varieties, of which the red Centesimino (a variety indigenous to Faenza, and locally known as Savignon Rosso, but with no connection to Sauvignon whatsoever) has barely been saved from extinction.

Poderi Morini, Nonno Rico 2007 Sangiovese di Romagna Superiore Riserva 17 Drink 2011-15
The first vintage of this wine was produced in1998. 13 months in tonneaux, and not yet on the market as the wine undergoes a further 12 months of bottle age.
Very dark ruby, but suprisingly young and elegant on the nose, almost like Teroldego. Rich, sweet maraschino cherry followed by an austere but long aromatic palate with fine tannin. Lifting acidity, slightly stalky finish. Very good but one doesn't immediately associate the wine with Sangiovese. 14.5% (WS)

SAN PATRIGNANO, Coriano, Rimini (no subzones in the Rimini area)
San Patrignano, one of the founding members of the Convito, is a community which helps severely addicted people by offering them accommodation, work and therapy. The latter two are intertwined in that San Patrignano finances itself by its agricultural activities, including the production of wine, carried out by the community members. Sometimes the charitable nature of an enterprise eclipses the quality of products on offer, but that is certainly not the case with this estate. Consultant for years has been Riccardo Cottarello. There are about 100 ha of vines planted and, unusually for such a large area, all the vineyards lie within the San Patrignano estate, and are only 5 km from the Adriatic coast. Although the estate has embraced international varieties, the most important wine of San Patrignano is Avi, a Sangiovese di Romagna Superiore Riserva.

San Patrignano, Avi 2006 Sangiovese di Romagna Superiore Riserva 15.5 Drink 2010-14
The grapes were hand harvested followed by a triage on arrival in the cellar. At the beginning of the fermentation there is lots of pumping over to extract the tannin, while alcohol levels are still low (higher alcohol levels speed up extraction, but also tend to leach out all the bitter tannins). The wine undergoes malolactic fermentation as well as ageing in barrique, Tonneaux, and large 20-hl oak casks.The goal is to reduce more and more the amount of oak. The wine remains in oak for almost three years.
100% Sangiovese. Medium concentrated ruby. Surprising nose of saddle and plum notes, blackcurrant, I almost thought it was Bordeaux. Initially peppery too, and leather (brett?). Could do with a bit more concentration on the mid palate, but undeniably Sangiovese. Completely dry palate, with slightly bitter tannin. There is complexity, but looks like this needs more work, or earlier release onto the market. 13.5% (WS)

SAN VALENTINO, Rimini (no subzones in the Rimini area)
This Convito member can look back on only a very recent history. Acquired in 1990 by Giovanni Mascarin, it leapt in quality only in 1997, the year his son and daughter Roberto and Maria Cristina took over. The vineyards, 14 ha in total, are very close to the sea in the hilly area around Rimini. Since 2000 the brother and sister team have been assisted by consultant Fabrizio Moltard, who also consults to several other members of the Convito, and who is especially known for his work in the Tuscan Maremma. The estate's most important wine is the Sangiovese di Romagna Superiore Riserva Terra di Covignano.

San Valentino, Terra di Convignano 2007 Sangiovese di Romagna Superiore Riserva 16 Drink 2010-15
No maceration on the skins after alcoholic fermentation as the proprietor, Roberto Mascarin, wants to keep as much of the primary fruit flavour as possible: 'you extract something that diminishes the clear fruit flavour', he told me. Vinified in tronconic stainless steel tanks, with regular remontage and délestage. Malolactic fermentation also takes place in stainless steel. Ageing follows in tonneaux of 400 litres and 100% new oak. Subsequent vintages see a difference in vinification: manual destemming, while a part of the fruit is fermented in open tonneaux, with pigeage and with indigenous yeasts. The wines are extremely ambitious and alcoholic.
Herbal, with hints of sweet cherry liqueur. Inviting, hinting at rich cherry fruit, matched by bitter, ripe tannin. Acidic nerve creeps up on the finish. Quite rich and ever so slightly rustic, but carries its alcohol well. 15.5% (WS)

TREMONTI, Bergullo, Imola (Serra subzone for the Imola estate and Oriolo for the estate that they have in Petrignone)
The Navacchia family, owners of Tremonti, bought the estate in the 1960s but only at the beginning of the 1980s did they decide to focus solely on wine. From that moment on they completely changed their approach to the vineyards, with replantings, and much lower yields. Since 1996 Donato Lanati has been the consultant, but in 2004 the family decided to discontinue working with consultants to be completely in charge and 'personalise the wine', as Vitorrio Navacchi puts it. Extensive research into the soil structure of the vineyards (mostly consisting of clay and limestone) under the guidance of Professor Atillio Scienza resulted in a micro mapping of the estate, on the basis of which, clones from the estate's oldest vines will be matched with the most suitable plots. The most important wines of the estate are the Sangiovese di Romagna Superiore Riserva Thea and Sangiovese Romagna Superiore Riserva Pertignone. The estate started implementing organic methods, and additionally produces a unsulphured Sangiovese di Romagna, called 'SoNo'.

Tremonti, Petrignone 2007 Sangiovese di Romagna Superiore Riserva 16.5 Drink 2010-15
From a vineyard on sandy clay soil planted in 1968. Stainless steel and 15 days of post-fermentation maceration. Malolactic fermentation is done on the gross lees, and ageing reduced to six months and only in second-year oak.
Distinct herbal nose, roses and crushed raspberries, with a seemingly light palate of fresh cherry flavours (young vines, I thought at first, but the vineyard is quite mature). Quite firm tannins for its constitution, but with lasting cherry fruit flavours on the finish. Youthful and lively and stylistically very different from the other Sangiovese di Romagna wines of the Convito. 14.5% (WS)

FATTORIA ZERBINA, Loc Marzeno, Faenza (Marzeno subzone)
One of the founding members of the Convito, Cristina Geminiani was one of the first to put her full weight behind Sangiovese as a high-quality variety. Backed up by postgraduate courses under Denis Dubourdieu in Bordeaux, she embarked on an ambitious, high-density alberello replanting scheme. Intense scrutiny of soil structure, plant vigour and grape-ripening patterns have resulted in a range of long-lived vintages of Sangiovese di Romagna Pietramora. Her motto '100% Sangiovese only or nothing' runs contrary to the DOC's 'at least 85%' rule and has given the wines originality and a real sense of terroir. (WS)

Fattoria Zerbina, Pietramora 2006 Sangiovese di Romagna Superiore Riserva 17.5 Drink 2014-20
Very youthful crimson and rim still shows some violet. Beautiful cherry and leafy nose with hint of sweet bread dough, and herbs. Lifted nose with yet more hints of that gingerbread. Very young, still somewhat shy to open up. Needs lots of air to show sweet cherry and dark crushed fruits. Sweet, rich fruit attack, very young, with boisterous, but ripe tannin, but everything falls neatly into place on the finish. Ends warm, but will mellow with age. On the palate the wine seems quite big, but the finish is lingering and elegant. The sweet spicy pâtisserie notes are, according to Cristina, characteristics of the soil, and you can find it in all the wines, even after she changed coopers. Half of this wine has been fermented in open tonneaux. This is the current vintage, as Pietramora is kept for 18-24 months in bottle before it is put onto the market. 15% (WS)

ON THE TRAIL OF SANGIOVESE DI ROMAGNA

noreply@blogger.com (Blogger) — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 19:48:00 +0000

Sangiovese, which is almost always associated with Tuscany, is in actual fact Italy's most widespread red grape variety. With about 10% of the total Italian vineyard area, or 100,000 ha, devoted to it, Sangiovese is the main ingredient in Brunello and the most important part of the blend that is Chianti Classico and Vino Nobile di Montepulciano. Except for these internationally well known wines, Sangiovese features as an ingredient in a staggering 259 DOCs throughout the peninsula. This means that Sangiovese can be found in virtually every corner of Italy and, more and more, in other countries, albeit with rather mixed results so far.

One of the very few areas outside Tuscany where it is also the prevailing red variety is Romagna, the south-eastern part of Emilia-Romagna. It is so ubiquitous here that it was given its own DOC, Sangiovese di Romagna, as early as 1968. Although the DOC is far from a household name, with too much of the production ending up in the large Cantine Sociale fermentation vats, the area itself has been intelligently demarcated on the eastern slopes of the Apennines, which separate Romagna from Tuscany to the south west. There is no consensus, especially from the Romagnoli, on which side of the Apennines the variety originated. Recent DNA research, however, indicates a southern rather than a central Italian origin.

Sangiovese is first mentioned in Romagna in 1651 as Sanzuvesa in a document that is now kept at the Archivio del Stato in Faenza, whereas the first records in Tuscany from 1590 mention Sangioveto. This may therefore indicate that historically two different types of the variety were distinguished. In 1879 the Commissione Ampelografica della Provincia di Siena already made a distinction between Sangioveto from Chianti, Prugnolo from Montepulciano, and Brunello from Montalcino. Within the Sangioveto category, the Commissione distinguished a subvariety called Sangioveto Piccolo, which was considered identical to Sangiovese di Forlì.

The Istituto Sperimentale per la Viticultura in Conegliano, after having analysed the different biotypes of the variety on the basis of berry size, came to the conclusion that there are two main groups: Sangiovese Grosso and Sangiovese Piccolo. In this case, together with, among others, Brunello and Sangiovese Grosso di Lamole (a tiny commune in Chianti Classico at 500 m altitude and considered by locals an important cru), the Sangiovese Romagnolo (also known as Cannello Lungo) is part of the Sangiovese Grosso variety.

But things are never as easy and orderly as they seem. Whereas in the area around Rimini a type of Sangiovese Grosso is cultivated, there is also a subvariety of it with elliptical berries which can be found in old bush-vine trained vines in the commune of Predappio. This one appears to be identical to the one cultivated in Lamole. It is especially this subvariety that the Convito di Romagna (of which more later) considers Romagna's very own, high-quality variety, and which is planted in the vineyards of several of its members.

Whereas Tuscany officially recognises the many different terroirs that play a crucial role in Sangiovese's various styles, and labels them according to the various subregions (Brunello di Montalcino, Chianti Classico, Vino Nobile di Montepulciano and the very recent Sangiovese di Montecucco, to name just a few), Romagna has never accredited, at least officially, its diverse range of soils and altitudes as a dermining component in the Sangiovese wines produced here. The DOC, Sangiovese di Romagna, includes a vast area bordering the Apennines in the south west, and the ancient Via Emilia connecting Rimini, Cesena, Forlì, Faenza, Imola and Bologna in a straight line. The Adriatic is in some instances so close by that some of the vines on the hills can literally see the sea but, wisely, the DOC area excludes the plains.

While the DOC decrees that vines can be planted only on sandy, calcareous soils, in reality soil structures, as in any hilly area, can be very different from one vineyard to the next. Plant density, with 3,300 vines/ha according to DOC rules, is not very high, but goes up to 3,700 vines/ha if the producer wants to label his or her wine Sangiovese di Romagna Superiore, with the prerequisite that the final wines need to have at least 12.5% alcohol rather than the 11.5% minimum for the straight Sangiovese di Romagna. There is also a Sangiovese di Romagna Riserva, which must be at least 13%, and with the legal requirement of at least 24 months of ageing before the wine can be sold. Straight Sangiovese di Romagna, on the other hand, can be put on the market from 1 Dec in the year the grapes were harvested, whereas the Superiore cannot be sold before 1 Apr of the year following the harvest.

It seems the rules were certainly not drawn up with clarity for the consumer in mind with all of the following DOCs on the market: Sangiovese di Romagna, Sangiovese di Romagna Superiore, Sangiovese di Romagna Riserva, Sangiovese di Romagna Superiore Riserva. The suffixes fail to give a reliable indication of expected quality, while a more precise geographical indication, which may help to describe stylistic differences, is absent. However, DOC regulations do recognise style differences such as dry, medium dry (amabile), and Passito (a sweet version based on dried grapes), as well as a Novello analogous to Beaujolais Nouveau - a type of wine, one can safely say, that has never done anything for wine quality in general. Together with legally sky-high yields (11 tons/ha, ie around 77 hl/ha, are allowed) and the possibility of chaptalisation of up to one additional per cent of alcohol for all types of wine, it is easy to see that for good-quality producers to profile themselves as custodians of Sangiovese di Romagna there are many hurdles to overcome.

A group of producers who have set themselves this challenge is the Convito di Romagna. Founded in 2001 by Cristina Geminiani of Fattoria Zerbina (to be profiled here soon), Enrico Drei Donà of Tenuta La Palazza and Andrea Muccioli of San Patrignano, their main objective is to show, by means of high plant density, low yield, and mainly Romagna clones, that Sangiovese di Romagna as a wine is distinctly different from its Tuscan siblings. However, the three founding members soon realised that to promote high-quality Romagna wines, their strength would lie in numbers and therefore opened their ranks to any producer sharing their philosophy. So far, the Convito counts eight members in total (Tre Monti, Stefano Ferrucci, Poderi Morini, Calonga, San Valentino and the original three), whose estates are located all over the Romagna DOC.

As Sangiovese is seen as the expression of any particular Romagna terroir, the Convito demands that its members' wines labelled Sangiovese di Romagna are just that: 'if you want to see terroir in the wine you need to have 100% Sangiovese', says Geminiani. 'The law allows 85%, but it is all or nothing'. However, the law is set to change and will permit a maximum of 5% rather than 15% of other (read: international) grape varieties in the wine in the near future.

When it comes to density, the Convito demands from its members at least 4,000 vines per ha, and the vineyards must be located on hillsides. It expects its members to dedicate the majority of their production to Sangiovese di Romagna, and to market at least one Sangiovese di Romagna Riserva or a Sangiovese di Romagna Riserva with a geographical indication. It is especially the latter wine which has to trigger an interest in subzones and local characteristics.

This concept promoted by the Convito is analogous to Côtes du Rhône-Villages. In this case, the base would be Sangiovese di Romagna, with finer qualities being Riserva, and with a 'village', in this case a sottozona, or commune, appended as a further geographical precision. Although Italian wine law does allow for single-vineyard names to be put on the label (as long as they have been officially registered), in the past it has rarely taken regional differences or the presumed effect of terroir on wine styles into account. However, thanks to the work of the Convito, a change of law will allow for subzones to appear as a suffix to the Sangiovese di Romagna indication. And although there can be no doubt that stylistic differences are bound to emerge in such a large area, it will prove to be a considerable task for the Convito and any quality-focused producer to demonstrate this in the individual wines. And as always, local knowledge and experience form the basis for the more precise demarcation. The Convito's members seem to be the pioneers of this project as they have taken on the obligation to produce wines that try to reflect their origin.

According to Geminiani, the main point is that Sangiovese di Romagna is very different in style from Sangiovese cultivated in Tuscany. First and foremost there is a marked difference in soil composition, which is generally richer in Romagna, especially compared with Chianti Classico, Romagna's nearest neigbour and point of reference. Romagna vineyards tend to be lower, which Geminiani claims helps grapes to ripen earlier, sometimes even weeks before the harvest starts in the higher parts of Tuscany. She compares the Romagna climate to that of Brunello di Montalcino, with the marked difference of the proximity of the sea, which has a temperate influence on the climate, and provides ventilation. This holds true for most of the vineyards within a range of about 30 km from the Adriatic, whereas further inland the hills are higher and temperature differences between day and night start to play a more dominant role.

According to Enrico Drei Donà, one of the main characteristics of Romagna is that in general phenolic ripeness is more easily achieved than in Tuscany, and it is really rare, even in cooler years, for the grapes not to achieve ripe tannins. The downside, so Drei Dona points out, is that alcohol levels can be quite high at times. He also argues that Sangiovese is a difficult variety to get right, and hence he considers it only logical that it was and still is often blended with the easy to grow, and easy to appreciate, international varieties.

From the 2010 vintage onwards, there will be DOC Romagna with subzones Marzeno, Brisighella, Modigliana, Torre di Oriolo, Predappio and Bertinoro. According to Geminiani and Drei Donà there are some clear differences between the communes, which they independently described to me as follows:

Predappio is considered the origin of the best Romagna Sangiovese clones. Historically, its wines are considered to have high levels of polyphenols, which require and deserve long ageing. The sandy clay soils tend to give wines with more depth and high alcohol levels. Owing to the proximity of the sea there is enough difference between day and night temperature, as well as ventilation, which keeps fungal diseases at bay.

Marzeno, located further from the coast with the influence of the sea much less noticeable, a meso climate Cristina describes as 'more continental'. The soil structure on the slopes is predominantly limestone and clay, giving wines that are perhaps less rustic and with more elegant tannins.

Modigliana is very similar to Marzeno although its highest vineyards (up to 350 m) tend to give a more austere style of Sangiovese.

Oriolo commune lies between Marzeno and Predappio, with more sandy soils and a somewhat cooler meso climate and the wines tend to be lighter and more elegant in style.

Imola has richer soils and is flatter; the commune is historically known more for whites (especially from the Albana grape) than for reds, which tend not to have a lot of structure, and for earlier consumption, but with some notable exceptions (see tasting notes).

Castel Bolognese, a commune known more for its whites made from Albana than for its reds.

Forlì soils are considered poor and have a high rock content, giving wines with persistent tannins and hence ageing potential. The proximity of the sea seems to guarantee a low level of fungal pressure.

As Sangiovese di Romagna is yet to make its mark on the international wine map, initiatives such as the Convito, which incidentally is wholly privately financed, really are needed. As Drei Donà summarises, in the past Romagna, unlike Tuscany, has had very little influx of outsiders. Oenologists, which are bountiful in Tuscany, are rarely seen in Romagna, and if they do play a role, they are seen more as temporary tutors rather than as a marketing tool. The research in Romagna's terroir has officially been sanctioned, but regulations could go further. If it is the combinaton of Sangiovese with the different communes that is the determining factor in the different wine styles, the law should reflect that by omitting the grape's name from the label. In this case, Romagna (at least the red version) would stand for Sangiovese only, and marketing could concentrate on establishing this.

DOLCETTO – PIEMONTE'S NEXT STAR?

noreply@blogger.com (Blogger) — Thu, 25 Nov 2010 00:01:00 +0000

Dolcetto, Piemonte's workhorse grape, has until now provided the region with early-ripening, easy-drinking reds. These characteristics have kept it firmly in the shadow of Nebbiolo, the grape of Barolo and Barbaresco.   

Dolcetto is universally known as producing deep violet-coloured wines, with abundant aromas of red crushed fruit, violets and with a distinct drying spur of tannin, and it is, most importantly, very modestly priced. The variety is considered much less demanding than Nebbiolo, which needs, and gets, the very best exposure in the vineyard, while Dolcetto happily retreats to the sites where Nebbiolo's famous tannins would never fully ripen. As it ripens much earlier than Piemonte's signature grape, it is not only a very accommodating variety in the vineyard, but also in the cellar. By the time Nebbiolo is ready to to be harvested, Dolcetto's fermentation has long finished, leaving the tanks available for the most important harvest of the year, which starts in late October.   

Although the grape's name indicates sweetness, this in reality is no reflection of the characteristics of the final wine, which is completely dry, and, very Piemontese, with a clear tannic structure. The name apparently refers to the actual taste of the berries, which are much sweeter than Nebbiolo, at least to the Piemontese palate. Easy to grow and quick to vinify, it allows growers a speedy return, and the rest of us something to savour while Nebbiolo is still maturing.   

The story so far is very similar to that of Barbera, a grape variety, which, until recently, shared Dolcetto's Cinderella status. However, Barbera's fortunes and reputation changed for the better when producers discovered that with a better site and lower yields it resulted in far more complex wines, with riper acidity, and, at least as important, showed affinity with barriques. The new wave Barberas appealed to an international public, and the use of the small oak casks conveniently allowed for a considerable price increase that wine lovers were willing to pay.   

Dolcetto is nowhere near such an upgrade, but this may have less to do with its intrinsic qualities than its perceived reputation as a simple variety. Within Piemonte itself the picture is more diverse, and several DOCs provide it with its own designation. Except for the catch-all DOC of Langhe Dolcetto, there is Dolcetto d'Alba, by far the largest zone; Dolcetto di Diano d'Alba, or Diano d'Alba, in between the Barolo communes and the city of the same name; Dolcetto delle Langhe Monregalesi, in the very south of the region bordering the mountain range that separates Liguria from Piemonte; the very obscure Dolcetto di Ovada (which nevertheless was recently upgraded to Ovada DOCG) around the town of the same name near Gavi; and, perhaps the most important of these, Dolcetto di Dogliani, immediately south of Monforte d'Alba. Whereas Dolcetto d'Alba by law must have a minimum of 11.5% alcohol, and an extract of 22 g/l, Dogliani needs to come up with 13% alcohol and a minimum of 24 g/l of extract. Also yields with 56 hl/h are considerably lower than the 63 hl/ha for Dolcetto d'Alba. All these are indications that Dogliani as a region must possess something special.   

Dogliani seems to be in ferment, with a recent elevation to DOCG, Italy's highest quality designation. The DOCG can either appear on the label as Dolcetto di Dogliani Superiore, or straight Dogliani, analogous to France's tradition of naming wine after its origin rather than the grape. Confusingly, there is also a straight DOC, Dolcetto di Dogliani. Adding further to the confusion is the fact that the DOCG also provides for a Dogliani Classico designation, as in this case Classico does not signify, as in Soave or Chianti for example, a historic subregion, but merely designates a lower yield. It is a thorn in the side of Nicoletta Bocca (pictured - just), of the San Fereolo estate in Dogliani.   

Nicoletta Bocca, a relative newcomer to the region, started to acquire a patch of Dolcetto vineyards in 1993, after studying fashion design and history. Frustrated in her ambition to create a museum that would document the history of Italian fashion, she turned to the countryside she had been introduced to by her father who had been a second-world-war partisan in the Dogliani region. When asked how one turns the focus from fashion to viticulture, she explained that she likes things that take time, which she says mirrors her character more than the ever-changing world of fashion.   

One wouldn't immediately think of Dolcetto as a variety that embodies stately ageing, but this is exactly what her Dogliani wines demand. I was presented the proof of this in a vertical of six vintages (see notes below) going back to 1998 from the 2006, a wine that will need considerable time to develop. What the flight seemed to indicate is that Dogliani must have a very special terroir, allowing Dolcetto to turn into something so much more serious than the run-of-the-mill, but very pleasant, Dolcettos that are on the market.   

Keen to crack the serious Dolcetto code, I asked Bocca if terroir is the crucial factor in the equation. According to her, the limestone clay soils of Dogliani result in grapes with lots of tannins, which need prolonged ageing. Dolcetto's skin has a high concentration of pigments, while most of its tannins are in the pips. The conventional way of vinifying the grape aims at getting as much colour out of the grapes without leeching tannins out of the pips. Therefore most producers minimise the maceration time in tank and ferment at lowish temperatures to preserve fruitiness.   

Bocca, however, doesn't use any temperature control, no sulphur and only indigenous yeast. The grapes are vinified in open oak casks to prevent the risk of the reduction that Dolcetto is prone to. She uses cap plunging, with regular remontage employed only to aerate the wine. She also lets the temperature go up to around 33ºC. The unusually high fermentation temperature causes the primary fruit flavours to 'boil off', but she isn't bothered by that in the least, as she is much more interested in complexity as a result of long ageing. And ageing is what her Dogliani gets. After a total maceration time of up to 20 days, the wine remains in cask for a year, followed by several years of bottle ageing at the estate, with the current vintage on the market being 2006. She acknowledges that it is too young, but she cannot entirely ignore economic factors in running her estate.   

As always, quality starts in the vineyards, and Bocca tends hers biodynamically, with the main aim to get the ripest grapes. Unsurprisingly, the best vineyard sites with south-east and south-west exposures reserved for Dolcetto. According to Bocca, a lot of Dolcetto is picked too early, with unripe, green tannins in the pips. But as the grape so swiftly and easily releases its anthocyanins, the wines are often pressed before the alcoholic fermentation has ended, and the tannin extracted from the pips. This results in an upfront, fruit driven and fairly simple wine, unlike hers. She has no formal qualification in either vinification nor viticulture, but relies on her neighbours, people who have made serious Dolcetto for as long as they can think. She mentioned as an example that she never does any shoot trimming during the growing season, as she noticed that her neighbours wouldn't do this either. While shoot trimming may force the plant to concentrate on the fruit, she says she claims to see the vine as a unity, and believes that the vine should not invest all its energy in the fruit, but also in its vegetative parts. This results initially in less concentrated fruit, but stronger and longer-lived vines, hers being between 40 and 70 years old.   

While Bocca is one of Dolcetto's main proponents in Dogliani, she says she is certainly not the one who first noticed its potential. The region, at least locally, has several producers who have always taken Dolcetto seriously. That's why she is not convinced by the Dogliani Classico designation, as for her, Dogliani Classico still signifies the 'conventional style', a wine for immediate consumption without any ambition or complexity, resulting in low prices. True Dogliani, even in Italy, is little known and remains a hand sell, which wine professionals and sommeliers alike will need to explain to the customer.   

My tasting notes on this fascinating vertical are below. Note the evolving name and status of the appellation.   

San Fereolo 1998 Dolcetto di Dogliani 17.5 Drink 2010-15  Poured from magnum. Deep ruby, with broader, lighter rim. Bordeaux lookalike. Ethereal and fragrant with intense cherry compote notes. Elegant and sweet and light of touch on the palate, with fine but at the same time pronounced tannic structure. Somewhat reminiscent of Pinot Noir. Certainly no workhorse grape. 13.5% (WS)   

San Fereolo 1999 Dolcetto di Dogliani 17 Drink 2010-17  Poured from magnum. Medium-deep ruby with broad, watery rim. Powerful, complex, hints of nuts, marsilia (a type of green soap originally from Marseilles), cherry, shoe polish. Earthy, almost musty note too. Very fine, powdery tannin framing dark fruit, with tarry notes, and slightly nutty touch, but the wine comes out clean, fragrant and long on the finish. Mature, but still can go on. Needs decanting! 13.5% (WS)   

San Fereolo 2001 Dolcetto di Dogliani Superiore 17.5 Drink 2010-20  This wine was served before the 2000 in the flight. Very youthful nose, with cherry fruit and cherry pie notes and, again, a touch of marsilia. Rich, sweet and concentrated attack with tannin adding delicious bitter note. Fruit closes up on the finish, indicating prolonged future. 13.5% (WS)   

San Fereolo 2000 Dolcetto di Dogliani Superiore 16.5 Drink 2010-18  Poured from magnum. Very deep, almost impenetrable ruby. Seems almost younger than the 2001, at least on the nose, with cherry and strawberry jam notes. Compact fruit palate with succulent, and well-balanced acidity. Perhaps a touch less generous on the finish than 2001, and coating tannins with bitter note at this stage, becoming slightly stalky. Needs more time. 13.5% (WS)   

San Fereolo 2003 Dolcetto di Dogliani Superiore 17 Drink 2010-18  Poured from magnum. Deep ruby. Perfumed, but restraint pomegranate and cherry, notes of flour. Sweet, but youthful and concentrated attack, with tannins wrapped up in sweet, ripe fruit, becoming more and more dominant on the finish. Very long, warm fruit finish with contrasting bitter tannin. Will develop further. 13.5% (WS)   

San Fereolo 2004 Dolcetto di Dogliani Superiore 17.5 Drink 2010-18  Poured from magnum. Very deep, opaque ruby. Quite open nose, very Italian, bitter cherry and spice, hints of tobacco leaf and hay. Surprisingly backward on the palate, with rich, coating, bitter tannin, and bitter laurel finish. Wait. 14.5% (WS)   

San Fereolo 2005 Dogliani DOCG 17 Drink 2010-17  Poured from magnum. Only Dogliani, without prefix Dolcetto due to new DOCG. Impenetrable, dark ruby. Finely perfumed, opens up to heady liqueur and floor polish. Elegant acidity sustains rich fruit palate, slightly astringent tannins at this stage, but wil melt. Warm, lengthy, concentrated fruit finish. 14% (WS)   

San Fereolo 2006 Dogliani DOCG 17 Drink 2012-20  Deep violet ruby. Pure cherry jam on the nose and the now familiar marsilia. Rich fruit captured by bitter tannin and very lively acidity. Very elegant and fragrant finish, despite the tannic muscle. 14.5% (WS)

NEBBIOLO PRIMA - BAROLO 2006S AND 2004 RISERVA

noreply@blogger.com (Blogger) — Thu, 11 Nov 2010 07:54:00 +0000

Nebbiolo - Barolo 2006s and 2004 Riservas
24 Jun 2010 by Walter Speller
The second part of Nebbiolo Prima, the Nebbiolo blind-tasting marathon, was devoted solidly to Barolo. Armed only with a sheet denoting the vintage and communes, we, the assembled press, worked our way through 206 samples of the 2006 vintage and 2004 Riservas. The first wines to be poured were the straight Barolos, mostly a blend of several vineyards, and sometimes from different communes. Although the finest Barolos are now considered to be those from a single vineyard, as in Burgundy, blending of different sites is by no means uncommon. And although my initial impression of the straight Barolos was one of 'declassified' or 'second best' wines, there were exceptions such as that of the high-profile Bartolo Mascarello, whose premium Barolo has always been a blend of wines from several prime sites.

The analogy with Burgundy is often used to describe and explain the intricacies of Barolo. Like its French counterpart, the region consists of several villages, or communes, 11 in total, with myriad individual vineyards, often divided between many producers, which results in the same parcellated structure as in Burgundy. Based on soil type, exposure and altitude, the wines produced can be distinctly different, but historically certain broad, stylistic characteristics have been applied to each commune. For example, the wine of Barolo proper is often described as 'elegant and harmonious', while Serralunga's wines are considered more 'firm' and 'slow to develop', but the labyrinth of vineyard patches makes true generalisations much more difficult than these historic descriptors would have us believe. Hence, a sound knowledge of vineyards and producers is a prerequisite, and as complicated as in Burgundy. And although producers have an intimate knowledge of the characteristics and quality of every single patch of vineyard in the region, there is fierce resistance to an official classification that would rank the vineyards in a transparent cru system. The middle road is that there is broad common knowledge of which vineyards are superior (but disappointments can abound), and the vineyard name, called sottozona, may appear on the label, so long as the piece of land has officially been registered under that name.

Very different from Burgundy, however, is the fact that, although the undisputed leader is the Nebbiolo grape, the Barolo region is by no means restricted to this variety. Dolcetto, Barbera and Moscato are at least as common in its vineyards, with the resulting varietals sold as, for example, Dolcetto or Barbera d'Alba. The fact that the Barolo region lies within several different designated regions is the direct consequence of the very hilly landscape almost completely devoted to vineyards, except for the hilltops, on which towns tend to be perched, and the bottom of the valleys, which may be to cool to ripen grapes properly. The hills provide many different exposures, and the very best are reserved for the late-ripening and fickle Nebbiolo, whereas the more accommodating Dolcetto and Barbera are planted where Nebbiolo cannot be ripened. The regulations for Barolo restrict plantings of Nebbiolo destined for the production of Barolo to between 170 and 540 metres altitude. Any proposed new vineyard site is checked in so much detail that at least one producer didn't bother to plant a potential prime site for Nebbiolo, so much did he fear the time-consuming and bureaucratic process this would entail.

With every patch of soil devoted to vineyards, the Barolo region is one of the most densely planted vineyard areas in the world, which must have a huge impact on the health of the soil. Although several of its top producers have been practising sustainable viticultural practices, in general I didn't encounter a great enthusiasm for organic methods in the region, as the general sentiment seems to be that even if one wanted to farm organically, the fact that vineyards are often shared by many producers means that contamination could not be excluded. Most producers are committed to sustainable viticulture, however. The supposed battle between 'traditionalists' and 'modernists', a description used ad nauseam in the recent past to distinguish producers using modern vinification methods (short maceration times, use of French oak) from the traditional, 'old fashioned' winemakers, could flare up again, this time fuelled by supporters of the so-called 'natural wine' camp.

In the past, controversy mostly centred on the use of new barriques, thought by many to suppress Nebbiolo's perfume. However, winemakers in favour argued that they help to soften wines with Nebbiolo's characteristic high tannins and acidity, wines that need long ageing, and make them more appealing to an international market. They introduced much shorter maceration times, sometimes even only days, often with the help of rotofermenters, a type of fermentation vessel that promotes extraction, all in an effort to prevent too much or, rather, what they considered too much, tannin ending up in the wine. Nowadays most producers have come full circle and use oak much more judiciously, without returning to the past. Interestingly, a tendency towards old-school winemaking, if it was ever out of favour, seems to be returning, with a reorientation towards 'ancient methods' such as extended maceration times, indigenous yeast, fermentation in large oak casks, and longer ageing than is minimally required by law (three years, of which one in oak, and more than four years for Riserva). But the proponents of this are not always the younger generation, as Giuseppe Rinaldo and Bartolo Mascarello have shown for example, and with Giacomo Fennocchio keeping some of his wines for more than 90 days on the skins, while eschewing barriques for further ageing.

A recurrent theme, which at times was a bit wearing, was the producers' perception of the UK as a stagnant market. Although it is understandable that producers put their marketing budget where sales can be expected, it doesn't wholly explain why there is such willingness to invest in potential export markets that have neither a real wine culture nor a friendly tax system. Additionally, one can hardly be surprised that wines such as Barolo are not selling under current economic circumstances if they are not supported by any generic promotion. I cannot remember the last time Barolo producers presented their wine in a comprehensive trade tasting in the UK [I cannot remember such a tasting ever - JR]. To make wine professionals and wine comsumers aware of the endless complexity of Barolo and Barbaresco, they need ambassadors. And who could better play this role than their makers?

The 2006 and 2004 vintages
I got the impression on the basis of what I tasted that the 2006 vintage is certainly a very good one, although with some irregularities, as some of the wines could not entirely escape betraying the somewhat uneven growing season.

January 2006 saw some very cold weather, with temperatures sinking as low as -10 ºC and heavy snowfall at the end of the month, followed by heavy rains. This pattern of rain continued well into February, while temperatures remained low. Spring started relatively late in April. High temperatures occurred from mid May on, with a cold snap in June, followed by a heatwave, with mercury rising to 35 ºC, lasting well until the end of July.

August showed the reverse, with cool weather and very little rain, but high temperatures returned in the last 10 days of that month. Autumn rains came mid September and, depending on the area, three to four times more rain fell than is normal for that time of year. According to the official vintage report, the rain did little damage as most of the water was immediately absorbed by water-starved soils.

I found several wines showing raisined and dried fruit aromas on the nose. As mentioned earlier, when Barolo ages a certain sweet richness develops and aromas of dried fruit, and tertiary aromas become more evident. This can give a wonderful viscous and concentrated mouthfeel framed by persistent but fine tannins given a crunchy bite by acidity. However, when dried-fruit notes become the dominant element on the nose and palate, it makes the young wines at the very beginning of their development look less elegant and slightly tired. One cannot really imagine that this will develop into something more complex. But the very best wines have a firm structure, good acidity, with real fruit intensity, and freshness.

2004 Riservas, on the other hand, showed more richness, paired regularly with complexity, length and savoury tannins, so much so that I got hooked on the crunchy bite that lingered on the palate, sustained by concentrated fruit flavours. The wines seemed more open, too, but this impression may have been caused by the fact that this vintage was served at the end of the tasting after the embryonic 2006s. That is not to say that they do not possess staying power, as the best undoubtedly will prove to have.

BAROLO FROM MORE THAN ONE COMMUNE (or from vineyards overlapping commune borders)

Famiglia Anselma 2006 Barolo 16.5? Drink 2012-2020
Monforte d’Alba, Serralunga d’Alba. Developed ruby with broad orange rim. Ethereal, balsamic and hints of oatmeal, touch of bacon too. Subdued. Sweet, ripe fruit impression but backward. Drying tannin dominates the finish. Potentially huge wine. (WS)

Deltetto, Sistaglia 2006 Barolo 15.5 Drink 2012-2016
La Morra, Monforte d’Alba. Deep ruby just about to show some orange. Sweet, ripe and ever so slightly reductive. Rich attack too. Doesn’t show a lot of complexity at this stage. Tannins slightly unsettled, but not rough. Opens up only very slowly on the finish. Stalky finish. (WS)

Gianni Gagliardo, Serre 2006 Barolo 16 Drink 2014-2020
La Morra, Barolo, Monforte d'Alba, Serralunga d'Alba. Deep, developing ruby with broad garnet rim. Liqueur-like and somewhat alcoholic, but with air opens up to more complex fruit. Grippy fruit palate, but lovely juicy acidity. Very young. (WS)

Pio Cesare 2006 Barolo 16.5 Drink 2012-2018
Serralunga d'Alba, Grinzane, La Morra, Castiglione Falletto, Novello. Medium-deep ruby, pale-ish rim. Popular sweet oak nose, with hints of vanilla pod. Balsamic notes too. Internationally styled, but very fine tannin structure. Slow aromatic development on the finish keeps up the attention span. (WS)

Prunotto 2006 Barolo 16 Drink 2014-2018
Barolo, Monforte d'Alba, Castiglione Falletto. Deep centred ruby and orange tinge rim. Dusty sawdust opening dominates the nose. Very backward palate and dry finish, but with ongoing fruit sensation. (WS)

Francesco Rinaldi & Figli, Brunate 2006 Barolo 15 Drink 2011-2016
Barolo and La Morra. Brilliant medium-concentrated ruby, mature looking. Sweet, ever so slightly raisiny and savoury too. Similar palate without great fascination, but seems decent. (WS)

Rivetto, Leon 2006 Barolo 16.5 Drink 2014-2018
La Morra, Serralunga d'Alba. Deep ruby just showing first signs of age. Soft fruitcake aromas. Similar palate with edgy tannins. Finish shows more concentrated and perfumed. Youthful, and promising. (WS)

Terre da Vino, Essenze 2006 Barolo 15.5 Drink 2011-2015
La Morra, Barolo, Novello, Serralunga d’Alba, Monforte d’Alba, Castiglione Falletto. Deep ruby with only a tinge of orange. Heady liqueur-like nose, but multilayered. Alcoholic too. Some very nice red fruit flavours with real depth, but austere and dry finish. This can’t hinder the very good length though, but finish remains austere and somewhat hard. (WS)

Terre da Vino, Paesi Tuoi 2006 Barolo 15.5 Drink 2012-2016
Grinzane Cavour, Castiglione Falletto. Medium-deep ruby with broader orange rim. Powerful nose of concentrated fruit and layers of sweet cherry and orange peel. Austere attack, and quite forceful tannin, but backed up by fruit. Needs more time. (WS)

Terre del Barolo 2006 Barolo 15 Drink 2012-2015
Various communes. Mature-looking ruby with orange-tinged rim. Dusty new oak nose. This covers up the fruit on the palate too. Drying (oak) tannins and quite bitter finish. Difficult to see the fruit behind all this at this stage. (WS)

COMUNE DI BAROLO

Cascina Adelaide, Cannubi 2006 Barolo 15.5 Drink 2012-2016
Barolo. Medium ruby with the beginning of orange. Vegetal notes. Palate much better with lifted fruit, and orange-peel finish. Benefit of the doubt. (WS)

Cascina Adelaide, Preda 2006 Barolo 14.5 Drink 2011-2013
Barolo. Deep ruby with small orange rim. Oak and hints of nuts and fruitcake. Sweet oaked palate too. Forced. (WS)

Famiglia Anselma 2006 Barolo 15 Drink 2011-2015
Barolo. Light orange-tinged ruby. Warm, peppery and inviting dried-fruit nose. Sweet fruit attack, porty style finish. Big, and slightly clumsy. (WS)

Barale, Castellero 2006 Barolo 14.5 Drink 2011-2013
Barolo. Medium-concentrated ruby with small orange-tinged rim. Herbal, perhaps even vegetal as well as a touch stewed. Highish acidity lifts slightly tired fruit. (WS)

Virna Borgogno, Preda Sarmassa 2006 Barolo 14.5 Drink 2011-2014
Barolo. Medium ruby, broad orange rim. Developed nose of tobacco leaves, touch of leather. Unripe? Very dry on the finish. (WS)

Virna Borgogno, Cannubi Boschis 2006 Barolo 15 Drink 2012-2015
Barolo. Concentrated ruby with bright orange-tinged rim. Immediate oak impact on the nose. It looks pretty and at the same time developed. Oak has an even bigger impact on the palate burying the Nebbiolo fruit. (WS)

Silvano ed Elena Boroli, Cerequio 2006 Barolo 15 Drink 2011-2014
Barolo. Mature looking medium-concentrated ruby. Slightly stewed and alcoholic nose. Very sweet and slightly tired-looking palate with lots of tannin. Not entirely convincing on the finish. (WS)

Brezza, Bricco Sarmassa 2006 Barolo 15 Drink 2011-2014
Barolo. Medium ruby with orange tinge. Somewhat nutty and vegetal, with contrasting sweet palate. Astringent finish. Ever so slightly dull? (WS)

Brezza, Cannubi 2006 Barolo 16 Drink 2012-2018
Barolo. Medium ruby with broad orange-tinged rim. Notes of leather but with some intriguing lurking fruit underneath. On the palate lashes of sweet fruit, and at the same time compact. Brooding. (WS)

Bric Cenciurio, Coste di Rose 2006 Barolo 14.5 Drink 2011
Barolo. Very deep ruby with lighter rim. Marmite and some VA. Confected and sweet. (WS)

Bric Cenciurio 2006 Barolo 15 Drink 2010-2015
Barolo. Medium-concentrated ruby, broad rim just starting to open up. Sweet and shy in complexity. Slightly port-like palate. Tannin looks sharp due to highish alcohol. (WS)

Vittorio Camerano, Cannubi San Lorenzo 2006 Barolo 14 Drink 2011-2013
Barolo. Concentrated ruby and well-developed orange rim. Oatmeal and browning apple. Slightly stale too? Somewhat stewed fruit character. Slightly dull. (WS)

Cavalier Bartolomeo, Cannubi San Lorenzo 2006 Barolo 14.5 Drink 2011-2014
Barolo. Ruby with deep centre and fading into orange on the rim. Sweet and oxidative, hinting at tawny port. Sweet and rather inexpressive palate. Doesn’t seem a lot of expansion possible here. (WS)

Fratelli Cavallotto, Bricco Boschis 2006 Barolo 15.5 Drink 2012-2018
Castiglione Falletto. Deep, youthful-looking ruby. Dry tea leaves and Mon Cherie, orange note. Quite rich attack and somewhat in the dried-fruit spectrum but shows good length on the finish. (WS)

Michele Chiarlo, Cannubi 2006 Barolo 14.5 Drink 2011-2014
Barolo. Deep ruby with light orange rim. Slightly musty and definitely very sweet. Sweet and somewhat one dimensional. (WS)

Comm GB Burlotto, Vigneto Cannubi 2006 Barolo 15 Drink 2011-2015
Barolo. Medium ruby getting lighter on the rim. Balsamic, with hints of spice and the merest suggestion of cacao. Palate is slightly let done by rich, sweet monolithic fruit. Quite soft acidity. (WS)

Damilano, Cannubi 2006 Barolo 15 Drink 2011-2015
Barolo. Deep ruby with paler, orange rim. Dried fruit opening. On the palate perhaps the first sign of browning apple? Sweet fruit and somewhat rustic tannins. (WS)

Luigi Einaudi, Nei Cannubi 2006 Barolo 17 Drink 2012-2018
Barolo. Youthful looking ruby, just beginning to show some orange on the rim. Shy nose with oatmeal and lingering sweet cherry. Succulent real fruit, energetic and youthful, with powerful, but grainy tannins. Classy. (WS)

Luigi Einaudi, Costa Grimaldi 2006 Barolo 15 Drink 2011-2014
Barolo. Deep ruby with rim just starting to show some orange. Sweet and bashfully popular. Touch alcoholic too. Lifted sweet fruit palate with acidic vein, but cannot fascinate long. (WS)

Gianni Gagliardo, Cannubi 2006 Barolo 14.5 Drink 2011-2014
Barolo. Medium deep, developed ruby with orange rim. Vegetal opening, tobacco leaves, touch of Oxo-cubes. Vanilla fruit palate making the wine formulaic. Ends on sweet pâtisserie notes. (WS)

Angelo Germano, Vigna Rue 2006 Barolo 14.5 Drink 2010-2014
Barolo. Deep ruby with orange rim. Very sweet, raisiny nose, and one-dimensional palate. (WS)

Giacomo Grimaldi, Le Coste 2006 Barolo 15 Drink 2012-2016
Barolo. Dark, medium concentrated, broader orange-tinged rim. Herbal and subdued, hinting at candied peel. Somewhat sharp on the palate, but has length, low-key dried fruit hints. (WS)

Marchesi di Barolo, Coste di Rose 2006 Barolo 17 Drink 2012-2019
Barolo. Pale-ish youthful ruby. Compact, fine, peppery. Succulent fruit with stalky tannins. Elegant mouthfeel. Embryonic, but with lots of freshness. (WS)

Marchesi di Barolo, Sarmassa 2006 Barolo 16.5 Drink 2012-2018
Barolo. Deep ruby, with dark centre. Nose only slow to open. Quite weighty and rich on the palate and very backward. Alcoholic, but has potential. Modern richness on the finish. (WS)

Bartolo Mascarello 2006 Barolo 16.5 Drink 2012-2019
Barolo, La Morra. Ruby with just the beginning of orange on the rim. Very sweet creaminess and baking spice nose. Touch VA? Very sweet on the palate too. Rich fruit impression. Very ripe. Old school, but lingering. (WS)

Giuseppe Nada 2006 Barolo 17 Drink 2012-2020
Barolo. Deep ruby, just starting to show orange. Brooding and heady. Full, concentrated and slow to open up. Very long finish. Pretty impressive. (WS)

E Pira di Chiara Boschis, Cannubi 2006 Barolo 16 Drink 2012-2018
Barolo. Dark ruby. Dried fruit and orange sorbet opening. Violets. Very sweet, almost jammy. Lots of concentration, but perhaps lacking in tension. (WS)

La Querciola, Coste di Rose 2006 Barolo 15 Drink 2012-2015
Barolo. Deep ruby with brick-stone reflexes. A whiff of vegetal, leathery notes. Lacks generosity in fruit on the mid palate. Quite drying too, but sweet finish. Unbalanced. (WS)

Giuseppe Rinaldi, Cannubi San Lorenzo Ravera 2006 Barolo 16 Drink 2012-2019
Barolo. Pale-ish ruby with the beginning of age. Reductive with sweet sour fruit notes. Needs lots of air. Sweet and must have seen some oak. But there is complexity too, and acidity pushing the palate forward. Very slow. (WS)

Giuseppe Rinaldi, Brunate Le Coste 2006 Barolo 16.5 Drink 2012-2019
Barolo. Light ruby with orange tinge. Herbal opening. Massive palate of sweet fruit and tannin, but much more complex finish. Slightly rough tannin will edge out. (WS)

Francesco Rinaldi & Figli, Cannubbio 2006 Barolo 14 Drink 2011
Barolo. Deep ruby, pale orange rim. Oxidative tawny port-like nose. Fading fruit. (WS)

Luciano Sandrone, Cannubi Boschis 2006 Barolo 15 Drink 2012-2016
Barolo. Concentrated ruby with orange rim. Sweet cream and cherry and herb liqueur. Straightforward sweet fruitcake impression. Not enormously complex, but may develop. (WS)

Luciano Sandrone, Le Vigne 2006 Barolo 15 Drink 2010-2016
Barolo, Monforte d’Alba, Novello. Concentrated ruby. Pale orange rim. Stewed and sweet. Slightly monotonous palate at this stage. (WS)

Giorgio Scarzello e Figli 2006 Barolo 13 Drink 2011
Barolo. Medium-concentrated ruby with orange rim. Nose shows oyster shells. Brett? Stale fruit palate. (WS)

Giorgio Scarzello e Figli, Vigna Merenda 2006 Barolo 15 Drink 2012-2017
Barolo. Palish, orange ruby. Very earthy, almost stale at first, like fist in a tight oak glove, but opens up with air. Same compactness on the palate. Reluctant to show anything. (WS)

Le Strette, Bergeisa 2006 Barolo 14.5 Drink 2011-2014
Barolo. Deep ruby with broad rim. Tea, orange peel and cherry, and all of a sudden lots of vanilla. Definitely overoaked, which is a shame. (WS)

G D Vajra, Bricco delle Viole 2006 Barolo 17 Drink 2012-2018
Barolo. Concentrated youthful ruby. Herbal and tea leaf notes. Cherry liqueur. Concentrated fruit attack. Quite rich, matched by crunchy tannins. Long and dense. (WS)

COMUNE DI BAROLO RISERVA

Barale, Castellero Riserva 2004 Barolo 15 Drink 2012-2016
Barolo. Maturing ruby with broad rim. Ever so slightly raisiny. Repeats itself on the palate. Concentrated but somewhat monotonous. (WS)

Giacomo Borgogno, Riserva 2004 Barolo 17 Drink 2012-2020
Barolo. Maturing ruby. Cherries steeped in alcohol, and the beginning of tertiary aromas. Elegant fresh palate underlined by austere tannins. Tannins dominate the finish too, but the fragrant finish shows genuine fruit and complexity. (WS)

Giacomo Borgogno, Liste Riserva 2004 Barolo 15 Drink 2010-2014
Pale ruby just starting to develop. Herbal opening, might be the oak, but improves with air. Lots of acidity dragging the herb liqueur fruit along. Seems tired? (WS)

Serio e Battista Borgogno, Cannubi Riserva 2004 Barolo 14.5 Drink 2010-2013
Barolo. Medium-deep ruby with broad orange rim. Sweet caramel and nutty nose. Oxidative attack, and tired fruit on the palate. (WS)

Virna Borgogno, Preda Sarmassa Riserva 2004 Barolo 17 Drink 2012-2020
Barolo. Mature ruby. Round, heady nose, but palate is tight and with lots of acidity. Lots of life here, if at the very beginning of its development. (WS)

COMUNE DI NOVELLO

Marziano Abbona, Terlo Ravera 2006 Barolo 15 Drink 2011-2016
Novello. Deep ruby just starting to open up on the rim. Oaked and international nose, repeated on the palate with very sweet, candied fruit. (WS)

Elvio Cogno, Cascina Nuova 2006 Barolo 15.5 Drink 2012-2018
Novello. Bright, deep ruby with orange tinge. Opens slightly leathery with hint of marmite. Not a lot of expression on the palate at this stage. Dried fruit and marzipan impression on the finish. (WS)

Elvio Cogno, Ravera 2006 Barolo 15 Drink 2011-2015
Novello. Deep ruby, border, orange-tinged rim. Marmite and herbal opening. Herb liqueur palate and slightly burning finish.(WS)

Le Ginestre, Sottocastello 2006 Barolo 17 Drink 2012-2018
Novello. Ruby with deep centre and broader rim with beginning of orange. Subdued but with class. Complex palate too, but at the beginning of its development. Persistent tannins and lovely acidity and long and fragrant. Evidently aged in (some) new oak. (WS)

Armando Piazzo 2006 Barolo 16 Drink 2010-2017
Novello. Pale-ish ruby with broad orange-tinged rim. Sweet and ever so slightly stewed. Sweet fruit palate without enormous complexity. Accessible. Oxidative style. (WS)

Le Strette, Bergera-Pezzole 2006 Barolo 15.5 Drink 2011-2016
Novello. Medium ruby gradually developing on the rim. Heady, seductive and sweet. Very ripe and very sweet on the palate too, with much needed contrasting stalky tannin. (WS)

COMUNE DI NOVELLO RISERVA

Armando Piazzo, Sotto Castello di Novello Riserva 2004 Barolo 16 Drink 2012-2018
Novello. Deep-centred ruby. Tea, orange peel, dried cherry, and the merest earthy, herbal note. Perhaps ever so slightly musty? Cherry and orange-peel palate. Old school, rustic, but with complex length. Grows on you. (WS)

COMUNE DI GRINZANE CAVOUR

Bruna Grimaldi, Camilla 2006 Barolo 15 Drink 2011-2014
Grinzane Cavour. Maturing ruby with broad orange-tinged rim. Dusty sawn-oak nose and sweet candied fruit. Palate is rather simple at this stage and high acidity makes tannin look dry. (WS)

COMUNE DI RODDI

Eredi Lodali, Lorens 2006 Barolo 15.5 Drink 2011-2016
Roddi. Very concentrated maturing ruby. Soft sweet fruitcake opening, somewhat candied too. Oak peaks through sweet fruit. Quite dry tannin. Not very sophisticated, but all parts could come together. Medium cellaring. (WS)

COMUNE DI VERDUNO

Claudio Alario, Riva 2006 Barolo 15.5 Drink 2011-2015
Verduno. Developed ruby with broad orange rim. Herb and black tea leaves, with well integrated oak note. A touch stewed, which is confirmed on the palate. Ends very sweet and raisiny and quite commercial. (WS)

Fratelli Alessandria, Monvigliero 2006 Barolo 15 Drink 2012-2018
Verduno. Medium-deep concentrated ruby. Opulent nose, but a very tannic sweet fruit palate. (WS)

Bel Colle 2006 Barolo 15.5 Drink 2012-2018
Verduno. Deep, quite youthful looking ruby. Shy but complex, with more generosity on the attack. Rich finish too, but with depth. Fiercely tannic. (WS)

Bosco Agostino, Neirane 2006 Barolo 16.5 Drink 2012-2020
Verduno. Deep, serious-looking ruby. Shy at first, and somewhat subdued on the palate too. Very embryonic, well balanced, but tight. Forceful tannins supporting sweet, warm fruit finish. (WS)

Castello di Verduno, Massara 2006 Barolo 15 Drink 2012-2017
Verduno. Medium-concentrated ruby just starting to show some orange on the rim. Muted nose paired with a monolithic palate. Rich but somewhat restraint fruit finish. (WS)

Comm GB Burlotto, Acclivi 2006 Barolo 15 Drink 2011-2014
Verduno. Medium ruby with even orange rim. Restrained at first, but with some depth. Cherry and herb liqueur and richness on the palate. Quite astringent, balanced out by all that sweet fruit, but not enormously complex. (WS)

COMUNE DI VERDUNO RISERVA

Bel Colle, Monvigliero Riserva 2004 Barolo 15 Drink 2011-2016
Verduno. Ruby with deep centre and pale rim. Herbal and with a whiff of saddle. Concentrated but inexpressive on the palate. (WS)

Castello di Verduno, Monvigliero Riserva 2004 Barolo 15.5 Drink 2011-2015
Verduno. Medium-concentrated ruby with the beginning of orange on the rim. Sweet candied peel nose, and popular sweet palate, without great complexity. Still, long. (WS)

COMUNE DI LA MORRA

Ballarin, Bricco Rocca 2006 Barolo 15 Drink 2011-2014
La Morra. Medium-deep ruby with watery orange rim. Mellow and sweet fruit but without any real focus? Sweet oak and slightly alcoholic. (WS)

Eugenio Bocchino, La Serra 2006 Barolo 15 Drink 2011-2015
La Morra. Medium deep, maturing ruby. Upfront fruitcake nose and liqueur. Sweet and accessible palate, held together by just enough acidity. Ends on fruitcake. (WS)

Enzo Boglietti, Case Nere 2006 Barolo 15.5 Drink 2011-2016
La Morra. Very deep ruby, small orange-tinged rim. Dark, brooding nose with tobacco notes. Sweet and ripe and perhaps a tad stewed? (WS)

Enzo Boglietti, Fossati 2006 Barolo 15 Drink 2010-2015
La Morra. Deep ruby just starting to show orange on the rim. Posh oak and fruit nose. Lots of sweet dried fruit, but nothing that keeps the attention span for long. (WS)

Bosco Agostino, La Serra 2006 Barolo 15 Drink 2011-2015
La Morra. Deep ruby with broad orange rim. Earthy, minerally and hint of horse saddle. Caramel fruit impression, and almost mellow palate. Can’t really fault it but doesn’t make you jump out of your seat. (WS)

Gianfranco Bovio, Rocchettevino 2006 Barolo 16.5 Drink 2012-2018
La Morra. Deep, medium-concentrated ruby with broad rim. Classic nose of dried cherry, herbs, ever so slightly sweet, port like. Lots of concentration and sweet fruit balanced by acidity and persistent powdery coating tannins. Not yet knit together. (WS)

Gianfranco Bovio, Gattera 2006 Barolo 15 Drink 2011-2014
La Morra. Medium ruby with very broad brick rim. Ever so slightly stewed fruit nose, repeated on the palate. Ripe tannin, but not a lot of tension. (WS)

Gianfranco Bovio, Arborina 2006 Barolo 16 Drink 2011-2016
La Morra. Medium-deep ruby with orange tinge. Shy nose and palate, but well balanced. Easy going almost. (WS)

Casetta, Case Nere 2006 Barolo 14.5 Drink 2011-2014
La Morra. Deep ruby with small orange rim. Immediate oak and cream impression. Slightly dull palate and sharp tannin. (WS)

Michele Chiarlo, Cerequio 2006 Barolo 15 Drink 2010-2014
La Morra. Deep, maturing ruby. Seems oaky and oxidative. Browning apple notes. Starts to look tired. (WS)

Ciabot Berton 2006 Barolo 15 Drink 2011-2015
La Morra. Medium-deep concentrated ruby, small orange rim. Sweet, popular and ever so slightly stewed. Sweet fruit palate with grainy tannins. Quite well balanced, but the fruit seems already maturing fast? (WS)

Ciabot Berton, Roggeri 2006 Barolo 15 Drink 2011-2015
La Morra. Mature-looking concentrated ruby. Sweet dried fruit and vanilla. Overripe fruit impression. Looks like really modern style with bashful sweet oak, and slightly stewed fruit finish. (WS)

Cordero di Montezemolo, Bricco Gattera 2006 Barolo 14.5 Drink 2011-2014
La Morra. Deep, almost dark ruby, youthful. International treatment, it seems with oak and ever so slightly oxidative and raisiny. (WS)

Damilano, Brunate 2006 Barolo 15 Drink 2011-2014
La Morra. Deep, concentrated ruby. Very soft and ripe with caramel and mocha notes on the finish, pulled together by grainy tannin. (WS)

Francone 2006 Barolo 15 Drink 2011-2014
La Morra. Light ruby with broad brilliant orange rim. Fruitcake, Moroccan leather and liquorice. ‘Fast forward’ style. Quite similar on the palate, high acidity on a fairly low-key fruit finish. (WS)

Gagliasso, Rocche dell’Annuziata 2006 Barolo 14.5 Drink 2011-2014
La Morra. Pale-ish orange ruby. Herbal, perhaps even a tad vegetal. Same uneven message on the palate. (WS)

Gagliasso, Torriglione 2006 Barolo 14.5 Drink 2011-2014
La Morra. Medium ruby with lighter orange-tinged rim. Oak impression and earthy sweet fruit. Not entirely clean? Oxidative. Very sweet and herbal, and raisiny. (WS)

Silvio Grasso, Bricco Luciani 2006 Barolo 16 Drink 2011-2015
La Morra. Deep almost dark ruby with small orange rim. Soft, sweet perfumed with a round and mellow palate. Slightly tame but long and with lots of tannin on the finish. (WS)

Silvio Grasso, Ciabot Manzoni 2006 Barolo 16.5 Drink 2012-2017
La Morra. Deep ruby just starting to open up. Very subdued nose. Closed on the palate too. Lacks perhaps a little bit of stuffing on the finish for the structure, but aromatic length is there. (WS)

Grimaldi, Vigna San Biagio 2006 Barolo 14.5 Drink 2011-2014
La Morra. Pale ruby with orange reflexes. Subdued nose, and very mellow palate. Not a lot of depth nor tension, almost simple. (WS)

L'Illuminata, Tebavio 2006 Barolo 14 Drink 2011-2013
La Morra. Medium-concentrated ruby with orange reflex. Very candied and sweet, stewed and vanilla cream, trying hard not to look like Barolo. (WS)

Marcarini, La Serra 2006 Barolo 14.5 Drink 2011-2014
La Morra. Evenly maturing ruby. Low key and sweet, and overripe. Astringent too. (WS)

Marcarini, Brunate 2006 Barolo 14 Drink 2011-2013
La Morra. Concentrated ruby with orange rim. Quite earthy, perhaps even metallic? Seems oxidised. Two samples tasted, without improvement. (WS)

Marco Marengo, Brunate 2006 Barolo 15.5 Drink 2011-2016
La Morra. Deep ruby with small orange rim. Soft ripe and without a lot of depth, perhaps just very young. Stalky tannin, but with good length. Ends warm. (WS)

Gian Piero Marrone, Pichermej 2006 Barolo 16.5 Drink 2012-2018
La Morra. Medium ruby with broad orange rim. Very sweet and candied. Compact and tight on the palate, but some very nice tannin here, and soft but ongoing finish of dark cherry and tea leaves. (WS)

Mauro Molino, Vigna Gancia 2006 Barolo 15 Drink 2011-2015
La Morra. Pale ruby with orange-tinged rim. Stewed and sweet, giving rich impression on the palate, but not a lot of depth. (WS)

Mauro Molino, Vigna Gancia 2006 Barolo 14 Drink 2011-2013
La Morra. Medium-concentrated ruby with orange reflex. Very candied and sweet, stewed and vanilla cream, trying hard not to look like Barolo. (WS)

Cascina del Monastero 2006 Barolo 15 Drink 2011-2014
La Morra. Orange ruby, fairly pale. Subdued with a pinch of very posh oak, followed by a one dimensional dried-fruit palate. (WS)

Cascina del Monastero, Bricco Luciani 2006 Barolo 14.5 Drink 2011-2014
La Morra. Pale-ish ruby with broad orange rim. Liquorice and herbs. Fruit seems suppressed by stalky tannins. (WS)

Monchiero, Roere 2006 Barolo 16 Drink 2012-2016
La Morra. Medium-deep ruby with brick-stone tinges. New oak and the merest hint of horse saddle but quite attractive fruit too. Compact but aromatic fruit develops and holds. Very tannic, but pleasant and savoury. (WS)

Andrea Oberto, Vigneto Rocche 2006 Barolo 15 Drink 2011-2015
La Morra. Medium-deep ruby with orange rim. Somewhat predictable nose of sweet oak, cherry cake. Somewhat similar palate. Tries hard to please, but doesn’t really fascinate. Very good length though, just not complex. (WS)

Renato Ratti, Marcenasco 2006 Barolo 15 Drink 2011-2015
La Morra. Deep, youthful-looking ruby. Quite mature and developed nose. Seems a contrast with its appearance. Herbal liqueur palate. Good length, but lacks depth to turn into something more complex. (WS)

Rocche Costamagna, Rocche dell’Annuziata 2006 Barolo 15 Drink 2011-2015
La Morra. Pale ruby with orange rim. Opens up leathery. Sweet and leathery too the palate, lacking in complexity. (WS)

Rocche Costamagna, Rocche dell'Annunziata Bricco Francesco 2006 Barolo 16 Drink 2011-2016
La Morra. Medium ruby with the beginning of orange. Pretty and sweet, quite accessible palate, certainly not a high flyer but with a certain pleasant lightness. (WS)

Aurelio Settimo 2006 Barolo 14.5 Drink 2012-2014
La Morra. Mature orange ruby. Cedary dried-fruit opening, hints of bacon too. Bacon fruit palate. Perhaps not entirely ripe fruit and rough-looking tannins. Somewhat of a chore to taste. (WS)

Aurelio Settimo, Rocche 2006 Barolo 15 Drink 2011-2015
La Morra. Pale-ish ruby with soft, shiny broad orange rim. Hints of oak, there is some depth and ripeness on the nose. Seems already quite mature on the palate and fruit seems to have been really ripe. Fierce tannin on a smoky, sweet dried-fruit finish. (WS)

Stroppiana, Vigna San Giacomo 2006 Barolo 16 Drink 2012-2018
La Morra. Medium-deep maturing ruby. Brooding, with only hints of leather. Austere and closed on the palate, but balanced. Warm finish. Fruit holds up with the tannin. Very good length. (WS)

Mauro Veglio, Rocche dell’Annuziata 2006 Barolo 17 Drink 2012-2018
La Morra. Light ruby with orange tinge. Restrained herbal nose, tealeaves, and notes of orange peel. Very young and youthful, taut, lingering, with massive tannin but well balanced. (WS)

Eraldo Viberti, Rocchettevino 2006 Barolo 15 Drink 2011-2015
La Morra. Deep, concentrated ruby with small orange-tinged rim. Catchy and sweet and very ripe, herb liqueur and Christmas pudding. Sweet fruit and crunchy tannins. Crowd pleaser, but not very demanding or complex. (WS)

Vietti, Brunate 2006 Barolo 16.5 Drink 2012-2018
La Morra. Deep and still youthful-looking ruby, beginning of orange. Softly perfumed with hints of spice. Generous palate, which strikes a good balance between soft ripe fruit and the persistent tannin. (WS)

Gianni Voerzio, La Serra 2006 Barolo 15 Drink 2011-2015
La Morra. Unusually dark ruby. Dusty, earthy, a whiff of leather. Full bodied and big without a lot of expression, but ends sweet. (WS)

COMUNE DI LA MORRA RISERVA

Ballarin, Bricco Rocca Tistot Riserva 2004 Barolo 15 Drink 2011-2016
La Morra. Deep maturing ruby with small orange rim. Fruitcake and walnut hints. Seems somewhat stewed too, with notes of caramel and browning apple turning up, but ends lively. (WS)

Casetta, Riserva 2004 Barolo 15.5 Drink 2013-2018
La Morra. Deep ruby, still youthful looking. Ripe, soft open-knit nose. Ripe and concentrated palate, which needs more time to develop. Lowish acidity. (WS)

Ciabot Berton, Riserva 2004 Barolo 16 Drink 2014-2018
La Morra. Deep ruby and orange-tinged rim. Nose shows notes of bacon and the beginning of tobacco leaf, dried cherry. Initially soft and quite rich on the palate, with a sweet, concentrated finish but still very compact. Closes up. (WS)

Giacomo Fenocchio, Villero 2006 Barolo 17.5 Drink 2014-2020
Castiglione Falletto. Pale-ish ruby with the beginning or orange in a watery rim. Reluctant to open up, and slow on the palate. Very backward, but there is a sweet richness to the finish without being stewed. (WS)

Gagliasso, Riserva 2004 Barolo 14.5 Drink 2012-2014
La Morra. Mature-looking ruby with bright orange rim. Jaegermeister and vanilla nose. Stewed fruit and evident oak. Looks a tad tired. (WS)

Cascina del Monastero, Bricco Riund Riserva 2004 Barolo 15 Drink 2011-2018
La Morra. Watery ruby with orange rim. Round, sweet attack without great complex impact, but has length. Lowish acidity. (WS)

COMUNE DI CASTIGLIONE FALLETTO

Silvano ed Elena Boroli, Villero 2006 Barolo 16 Drink 2012-2018
Castiglione Falletto. Bright ruby with broad orange rim. Heady, sweet, multilayered dried fruit nose. Compact and sweet fruit palate. Obvious dried-fruit character but juicy too, and with ripe but powerful tannin. (WS)

Brovia, Rocche 2006 Barolo 17 Drink 2012-2020
Castiglione Falletto. Pale ruby with the beginning of orange. Very backward on the nose. Fruit is harnessed by tight, fine oak, but finish is all fruit. Minerally too. (WS)

Cavalier Bartolomeo, Solanotto Altenasso 2006 Barolo 16 Drink 2012-2018
Castiglione Falletto. Concentrated ruby with small orange rim. Lifted sweet fruit almost jumping out of the glass. Probably a bit of VA but not unpleasantly so. Sweet palate but with some energy. (WS)

Franco Conterno, Vigna Pugnane 2006 Barolo 14.5 Drink 2011-2015
Castiglione Falletto. Deep ruby with pale orange rim. Lingering and not immediate nose, but the contrary on the palate: full-blown sweet dried fruit and cream and very soft acidity making it almost like a liqueur. Needs more tension. (WS)

Cordero di Montezemolo, Enrico VI 2006 Barolo 15 Drink 2012-2016
Castiglione Falletto. Pale-ish, brilliant ruby with broad orange rim. Spicy, sweet and very appealing. Slightly stewed on the palate which will affect its life span, but acidity keeps the tension on the palate. (WS)

Livia Fontana 2004 Barolo 15 Drink 2012-2016
Castiglione Falletto. Medium-deep maturing ruby with broad orange rim. Ripe, savoury, with uncomplicated, soft round fruit palate. Very soft acidity makes the wine look slightly flabby. Creamy note on stalky finish. (WS)

Livia Fontana, Villero 2006 Barolo 16 Drink 2014-2020
Castiglione Falletto. Pale-ish ruby with broad orange rim. Very stubborn on the nose as well as the palate. Very closed and tight, but with brooding concentration. Wait. (WS)

Fratelli Giacosa, Vigna Mandorlo 2006 Barolo 14.5 Drink 2011-2015
Castiglione Falletto. Medium-concentrated ruby. Sweet oak and a hint of browning apple. Soft palate without a lot of depth. (WS)

Monchiero, Rocche 2006 Barolo 17 Drink 2012-2020
Castiglione Falletto. Pale and youthful ruby just opening up on the rim. Perfumed nose with hint of leather, and crunchy red fruit on the palate. Lovely balance and real freshness on the finish with lasting tannic core. Austere and young. (WS)

Montanello 2006 Barolo 14.5 Drink 2011-2014
Castiglione Falletto. Medium-deep ruby with orange reflexes on the rim. Immediate new oak impression, and not just on the nose. Very commercial with sharp tannic impression on the finish. (WS)

Oddero, Rocche di Castiglione 2006 Barolo 14.5 Drink 2012-2015
Castiglione Falletto. Deep developing ruby with bright orange rim. Subdued fruit makes the oak stand out. Mocha fruit and vanilla finish. Very tannic, which saves it from looking too forced. (WS)

Oddero, Villero 2006 Barolo 14.5 Drink 2012-2014
Castiglione Falletto. Deep maturing ruby with bright small orange rim. Very ripe, very forward and ever so slightly vegetal and oxidative even. Sweet and nondescript palate. (WS)

Roccheviberti, Rocche di Castiglione 2006 Barolo 15.5 Drink 2012-2016
Castiglione Falletto. Medium-concentrated ruby with watery orange rim. Slightly dusty and sweet fruit nose. Generous palate if not overtly complex. Restrained fruit on the finish emphasises the oak. (WS)

Francesco Sobrero, Ciabot Tanasio 2006 Barolo 14.5 Drink 2011-2015
Castiglione Falletto. Medium-concentrated ruby with watery broad orange rim. Quite oaky, and with more than a hint of horse saddle, suppressing the aromatics of the fruit. Leather notes and sweet fruit impression on the palate, but ends astringent. (WS)

Vietti, Rocche 2006 Barolo 17 Drink 2012-2020
Castiglione Falletto. Deep ruby with broader orange rim. Balsamic, ands somewhat old school, but with real bite and weight. Soft oak hint on a long finish. (WS)

COMUNE DI CASTIGLIONE FALLETTO RISERVA

Fratelli Cavallotto, Vignolo Riserva 2004 Barolo 17 Drink 2014-2022
Castiglione Falletto. Concentrated and youthful-looking ruby. Almost intense nose of strawberry compote and cherry. Palate just starting to shake off the red fruit and cherry. Well-balanced acidity with a pinch of oak on a powerfully tannic finish. (WS)

Fratelli Cavallotto, Bricco Boschis Vigna San Giuseppe Riserva 2004 Barolo 17.5 Drink 2013-2020
Castiglione Falletto. Dark ruby with almost no sign of maturation. Impressive amarene cherry and spice. Palate still backward, but very concentrated without being sweet. Chewy, rich tannin. (WS)

Francesco Sobrero, Pernanno Riserva 2004 Barolo 14.5 Drink 2011-2014
Castiglione Falletto. Medium-deep ruby with small orange rim. Very herbal and a whiff of farmyard dominating the fruit. (WS)

COMUNE DI MONFORTE D'ALBA

Marziano Abbona, Pressenda 2006 Barolo 15.5 Drink 2014-2018
Monforte d'Alba. Youthful-looking medium-concentrated ruby. Slightly alcoholic, herbal and dark. Astringent and seems to lack a tad of concentration on the mid palate. Forceful tannins on the finish, but fruit sweetness shines through. (WS)

Fratelli Alessandria, Gramolere 2006 Barolo 15.5 Drink 2012-2016
Monforte d'Alba. Deep ruby just starting to open up on the rim. Serious and pronounced chocolate. Sweet attack, with energetic acidity, but finish seems slightly monotonous. (WS)

Gianfranco Alessandria, San Giovanni 2006 Barolo 15.5 Drink 2013-2018
Monforte d'Alba. Deep, concentrated ruby with the beginning of orange reflexes. Mere hints of caramel, molasses and fruitcake, cedar, pinch of leather. Palate shows much the same, perhaps lacking somewhat in complexity and depth. Warm finish, dominated by fierce tannin. (WS)

Gianfranco Alessandria 2006 Barolo 16 Drink 2012-2018
Monforte d'Alba. Deep, concentrated ruby. Very pretty optic. Ripe and open knit, peppery dried-fruit nose with hint of cinnamon bark. Sweet, rich attack. Not the most complex of wines, but ripe and balanced with lovely acidic twist on the finish. (WS)

Ballarin 2006 Barolo 15.5 Drink 2012-2017
Monforte d'Alba. Medium-deep glossy ruby with broader rim. Open knit, sweet and seductive. Hint of cough syrup. Not the most complex of wines as dried-fruit character and herb liqueur flavours dominate. Alcohol makes tannins look slightly sharp at this stage. (WS)

Barale, Bussia 2006 Barolo 16.5 Drink 2014-2020
Monforte d'Alba. Pale, medium ruby with very broad garnet rim. Marmite and herbs and hint of cacao powder. Well balanced if embryonic sweet fruit stage. Massive but fine-grained tannin. Brooding. (WS)

Silvano Bolmida, Bussia 2006 Barolo 15 Drink 2012-2017
Monforte d'Alba. Medium-concentrated ruby with broad garnet rim. Ever so slightly medicinal and oaky. Drying tannins dominate a light fruit palate. Gentle, with fragrant fruit palate. Tannins seem a burden. (WS)

Silvano Bolmida, Vigne dei Fantini 2006 Barolo 16.5 Drink 2014-2020
Monforte d'Alba. Deep, attractive ruby with broad rim. Cedar notes and Moroccan leather. Perhaps just a touch of horse saddle. Very young, tight compact palate, with very good balance and length. Ugly duckling stage. (WS)

Colla, Bussia Dardi le Rose 2006 Barolo 14.5 Drink 2012-2014
Monforte d'Alba. Developed ruby. Immediately alcoholic impression on the nose. Slightly hollow on the palate with a big, rustic finish. (WS)

Aldo Conterno, Colonnello 2006 Barolo 15.5 Drink 2012-2015
Monforte d'Alba. Medium-deep ruby with broad rim with just the beginning of orange tinges. Ripe, rustic opulent, and so is the palate with bags of sweet fruit but slightly one dimensional at this stage, due to the oak, it seems. Not without merits though, with an intriguing lingering finish and ongoing tannin. (WS)

Franco Conterno, Bussia Munie 2006 Barolo 16.5 Drink 2012-2020
Monforte d'Alba. Dark, developing ruby. Kitchen spice, dried cherry, alcoholic prickle, and there is some dried fruit/late harvest character, but at the same time shows lots of depth. Garden herbs. Sweet, concentrated attack. Dried fruit notes taking the upper hand, but on a long finish. (WS)

Costa di Bussia, Tenuta Arnulfo 2006 Barolo 15 Drink 2012-2018
Monforte d'Alba. Deep centred ruby and just beginning to show orange. Very herbal, hint of pumpernickel. Sweetly extracted, but stubborn. Massively tannic with dark, aromatic length. (WS)

Duecorti 2006 Barolo 16.5 Drink 2014-2020
Monforte d'Alba. Lively garnet with orange tinge. Faintly sweet fruitcake and dried fruit and touch of new leather. Compact, and lingering with grainy tannins. (WS)

Giacomo Fenocchio, Bussia 2006 Barolo 17.5 Drink 2014-2022
Monforte d'Alba. Medium ruby with broad orange rim. Subdued. Very young, tight palate, very backward. Almost port-like richness on the finish, while keeping the balance. Rose-petal hint. (WS)

Fratelli Giacosa, Bussia 2006 Barolo 14.5 Drink 2012-2014
Monforte d'Alba. Maturing shiny ruby, with small, orange rim. Ever so slightly vegetal and sweet. Cough-syrup impressions on the palate and ever so slightly oxidative. (WS)

Elio Grasso, Gavarini Chiniera 2006 Barolo 15 Drink 2012-2018
Monforte d'Alba. Bright ruby with orange reflexes. Sweet and ripe, lacking excitement on the finish. Might gain complexity with ageing? (WS)

Pier Paolo Monti, Bussia 2006 Barolo 14.5 Drink 2012-2015
Monforte d'Alba. Pale-ish ruby with watery rim. Immediate, sweet oak nose. Sweet oak dominates the palate too. Lively acidity but it can’t manage the oak-dominated candied sweet fruit. (WS)

Pier Paolo Monti 2006 Barolo 16 Drink 2012-2018
Monforte d'Alba. Pale-ish ruby with watery rim. Quite herbal, but with a lingering flowery, perfumed note too. Intriguing. Very closed and shy on the palate. Good balance, and ripe, coating tannin. Medium acidity. Very good length, without too many layers. (WS)

Parusso, Le Coste Mosconi 2006 Barolo 17.5 Drink 2014-2022
Monforte d'Alba. Medium-concentrated with broad brick rim. Very savoury, salty almost, Oxo cube. Much finer on the palate. Port-like richness, and persistent tannins, which it needs. Very long. (WS)

Parusso, Bussia 2006 Barolo 17 Drink 2012-2018
Monforte d'Alba. Deep ruby, small orange-tinged rim. Roast aromas, notes of cassis liqueur, walnut - very unusual, intriguing. Drying oak tannins at this stage, finish comes in waves. (WS)

Pecchenino, San Giuseppe 2006 Barolo 15.5 Drink 2012-2016
Monforte d'Alba. Deep ruby with orange rim. Very attractive appealing herb and cherry-liqueur nose. Immediate almost. Seems already quite developed on the palate, with sweet dried fruit and slightly astringent tannin. (WS)

Pecchenino, Le Coste 2006 Barolo 16 Drink 2012-2018
Monforte d'Alba. Dark and mature looking ruby. Posh dry oak and garden herb opening, savoury with prune notes. Fairly straightforward style, big on tannins, and ripeness, perhaps lacking in elegance. (WS)

Prunotto, Bussia 2006 Barolo 15.5 Drink 2012-2020
Monforte d'Alba. Deep-centred ruby with broad garnet rim. Very sexy, almost nutty notes. Initial rich, sweet fruit impression swiftly followed by drying tannin. Finish shows good concentration and length without being multilayered at this stage. (WS)

Rocca 2006 Barolo 15.5 Drink 2012-2018
Monforte d'Alba. Medium concentrated, maturing ruby. Crushed cherry and a whiff of saddle, but very appealing. Very closed on the palate. Acidity seems a bit high tuned for the concentration on the mid palate, but grippy tannin and sweet dried-fruit finish give hope. (WS)

Rocca 2006 Barolo 15.5 Drink 2012-2018
Monforte d'Alba. Deep ruby with garnet rim. Compact liquorice fruit. Quite rich, almost preserve-like fruit, but grippy tannins keep it all neatly together. (WS)

Rocche dei Manzoni, Vigna Cappella di Santo Stefano 2006 Barolo 14 Drink 2011-2013
Monforte d'Alba. Deep ruby with small orange-tinged rim. Tar notes and ever so slightly medicinal. Tarry fruit palate, with biting acidity and stalky tannins. Oxidative, and this seems to have robbed it of its charm. (WS)

Rocche dei Manzoni, Big d' Big 2006 Barolo 16.5 Drink 2014-2020
Monforte d'Alba. Deep ruby, with some orange reflexes on the rim. Impressive savoury-sweet nose with a pinch of spice. Lifted. Intense concentration will need lots of time to develop. Rich Mon Cherie finish with fruitcake notes. (WS)

Ruggeri Corsini 2006 Barolo 16.5 Drink 2014-2020
Monforte d'Alba. Very deep, almost dark ruby. Very slow to open up in the glass. Seems almost impenetrable on the palate. Persistent, stalky but well built, ends warm. Doesn’t say a lot now, but very long finish. Tea leaves and savoury notes and fruit sweetness. (WS)

Josetta Saffirio 2006 Barolo 15 Drink 2012-2016
Monforte d'Alba. Medium-deep ruby with almost no signs of development on the rim. Dusty oak impression hiding sweet dried-cherry layer. Ripe palate, quite developed, perhaps oxidative, making the finish not overtly complex. Mid-term cellaring? (WS)

Josetta Saffirio, Persiera 2006 Barolo 16 Drink 2014-2020
Monforte d'Alba. Deep ruby and virtually no signs of development on the rim. Subdued, sweet and touch reductive. Sweet but not yet defined or open fruit. A slow burner. (WS)

Simone Scaletta, Chirlet 2006 Barolo 15 Drink 2012-2014
Monforte d'Alba. Pale-ish ruby with garnet tinges. Balsamic and herbal, perhaps even slightly vegetal. Caramel-like fruit. Seems tired. (WS)

Seghesio, Vigneto La Villa 2006 Barolo 16.5 Drink 2014-2020
Monforte d'Alba. Dark ruby starting to mature. Very elegant, but at the same time tight on the nose. Lots of concentration and surprisingly soft acidity. Very ripe and mature fruit. Lots of fruit concentration but not alcoholic. (WS)

Stroppiana, Gabutti Bussia 2006 Barolo 15.5 Drink 2013-2018
Monforte d'Alba. Deep, maturing ruby with the beginning of orange. Slightly unfocused leather nose with notes of nutmeg. Needs lots of air. Lingering sweet ripe dried fruit. Tannic! (WS)

Mauro Veglio, Castelletto 2006 Barolo 15 Drink 2012-2017
Monforte d'Alba. Deep ruby, small orange rim. Enticing lifted dried cherry, merest hint of cardamom pod. Somewhat less diverse on the palate. Caramel notes on the finish, with big tannins. Slightly rustic. (WS)

COMUNE DI MONFORTE D'ALBA RISERVA

Franco Conterno, Bussia Munie Riserva 2004 Barolo 15 Drink 2011-2018
Monforte d'Alba. Bright orange-tinged ruby with deep centre. Looks quite mature with lots of dried fruit and fruitcake and the first signs of tar. Contrasting high acidity on a sweet fruit palate making the finish somewhat hard. (WS)

Giacomo Fenocchio, Bussia Riserva 2004 Barolo 16.5 Drink 2011-2020
Monforte d'Alba. Bright orange ruby. Very slow to open up. Peppery and subdued. Much more developed and open on the palate with generous red fruits. Less complex on the finish, but very long, nonetheless. (WS)

Gianni Gagliardo, Preve Riserva 2004 Barolo 15 Drink 2012-2016
Monforte d'Alba, Serralunga d'Alba. Very deep ruby with tiny orange rim. Warm, heady and slightly oxidative nose. Old fashioned on the palate too. But acidity pulls it up. Premature maturation, so it seems. (WS)

Josetta Saffirio, Persiera Riserva 2004 Barolo 14.5 Drink 2011-2015
Monforte d'Alba. Deep ruby with only the firsts signs of orange. Pure liquorice and browning apple. Slightly stale fruit palate without a lot of tension. Looks tired. (WS)

COMUNE DI SERRALUNGA D'ALBA

Claudio Alario, Sorano 2006 Barolo 15 Drink 2012-2015
Serralunga d'Alba. Concentrated but developed garnet ruby. Firmly presses the very ripe, dried-fruit button, and that’s what you get on the palate too. Rustic and very developed looking. (WS)

Ascheri, Sorano 2006 Barolo 16.5 Drink 2014-2020
Serralunga d'Alba. Medium ruby with broader orange rim. Very fine leather and spice nose and laurel leaf. Extremely embryonic, and unsettled, spiky tannin. Brooding finish promises for the future. (WS)

Ascheri, Sorano Coste e Bricco 2006 Barolo 15.5 Drink 2014-2020
Serralunga d'Alba. Medium-concentrated ruby with watery rim. Quite closed on the nose, and tight on the palate too with lifted acidity and drying tannin. Seems very caught up in itself. Needs lots of air (and cellar time?). (WS)

Azelia, San Rocco 2006 Barolo 15.5 Drink 2012-2018
Serralunga d'Alba. Deep, maturing ruby with very small garnet rim. Cherry pie. Heady, and slightly alcoholic and nutty. Developed palate with nutty fruit, but with very good length, if a touch jammy. (WS)

Brovia, Ca' Mia 2006 Barolo 14.5 Drink 2011-2014
Serralunga d'Alba. Bright ruby, just beginning to show some orange. Very vegetal opening. Very rustic and developed, and slightly rough tannin. (WS)

Cucco, Cerrati Vigna Cucco 2006 Barolo 14.5 Drink 2011-2014
Serralunga d'Alba. Deep centred ruby with bright orange reflexes. Balsamic and raisiny, making the palate look dull. (WS)

Cucco, Cerrati 2006 Barolo 15 Drink 2012-2016
Serralunga d'Alba. Very bright, orange ruby. Old school, warm and spicy. Quite sweet too without tremendous depth. High acidity makes the finish somewhat austere. (WS)

Gemma, Colarej 2006 Barolo 15 Drink 2012-2015
Serralunga d'Alba. Concentrated ruby with broad garnet hue. Very immediate and sweet and oxidative. Oxidative too on the palate, making the fruit look subdued. (WS)

Ettore Germano, Cerretta 2006 Barolo 15.5 Drink 2012-2019
Serralunga d’alba. Deep ruby with broad brick-stone rim. Slightly stewed, savoury, meaty nose. Quite mature on the palate too, with high acidity unsettling the balance at this stage. (WS)

Ettore Germano, Prapò 2006 Barolo 17.5 Drink 2014-2022
Serralunga d'Alba. Pale-ish ruby with watery garnet rim. Leather notes and kitchen spice at first glance. Subdued but very well balanced palate. Sweet, rich and balanced on the finish too. Old school in its (dried) fruit focus, but impressive in its length and structure. (WS)

Bruna Grimaldi, Badarina 2006 Barolo 16 Drink 2013-2019
Serralunga d'Alba. Deep, maturing ruby with orange rim. Hay, hints of liquorice and lurking, hidden fruit. Seems old school in its dried-fruit spectrum, with massive but very impressive grainy tannin. (WS)

Luisin, Leon 2006 Barolo 15.5 Drink 2012-2016
Serralunga d'Alba. Deep ruby with orange tinges. Opulent candied fruit and tea-leaf nose with shy cherry fruit. Cherry cake palate and ever so slightly tawny port like finish. (WS)

Paolo Manzone, Meriame 2006 Barolo 15.5 Drink 2012-2016
Serralunga d'Alba. Medium-deep garnet ruby. Lifted orange peel and a whiff of tar. Lifted acidity on a sweet dried-fruit palate. Crunchy persistent tannins. Lengthy finish but not the most elaborate of wines. (WS)

Paolo Manzone, Serralunga 2006 Barolo 14.5 Drink 2012-2015
Serralunga d'Alba. Deep, mature-looking ruby. Nutty sweet fruit and rustic tannins. Liqueur-like. Slightly dull? (WS)

Massolino, Parafada 2006 Barolo 15 Drink 2012-2018
Serralunga d'Alba. Very deep ruby. Well-balanced oak nose, but not very typical. Very sweet, and at the same time reluctant fruit. Seems to struggle with its split personality. (WS)

Massolino, Margheria 2006 Barolo 16 Drink 2013-2019
Serralunga d'Alba. Deep, almost violet-looking ruby - odd. Fine but international. Whiff of bacon. Concentrated cherry fruit, and tobacco hints. Complex, very young still, very fine drying tannin. (WS)

Palladino, Serralunga 2006 Barolo 17 Drink 2014-2020
Serralunga d'Alba. Medium-concentrated ruby with broad garnet rim. Lively, almost juicy great grip, balance and sweetness. Elegance and power. (WS)

Pio Cesare, Ornato 2006 Barolo 14.5 Drink 2012-2016
Serralunga d'Alba. Deep centred ruby with very small rim showing some orange. Lashes of vanilla and roasted notes, which Nebbiolo fruit doesn’t hold up to. (WS)

Luigi Pira, Marenca 2006 Barolo 16 Drink 2012-2018
Serralunga d'Alba. Deep, concentrated and youthful-looking ruby despite small orange rim. Heady perfumed and with a firm kiss of oak. International on the palate too, but high-tuned acidity turns up on the finish. Invigorating despite oak and sweet fruit. (WS)

Guido Porro, Vigna S Caterina 2006 Barolo 15 Drink 2012-2017
Serralunga d'Alba. Pale-ish garnet ruby. Sweet fruit and pastry opening and walnut skin. Mouthful of ripe, dried fruit and edgy tannins. (WS)

Guido Porro, Vigna Lazzairasco 2006 Barolo 16 Drink 2014-2020
Serralunga d'Alba. Very pale ruby, watery orange rim. Slightly medicinal and very closed. Lovely lightness of touch and sweet crunchiness on the finish. (WS)

Rivetto, Serralunga 2006 Barolo 16 Drink 2012-2018
Serralunga d'Alba. Very deep dark ruby. Brooding, savoury, meaty. In a way polished and concentrated, if not very complex. (WS)

Gigi Rosso, Arione 2006 Barolo 13 Drink 2011-2012
Serralunga d'Alba. Deep ruby, small garnet rim. Oxidized, and so is the second sample. Slightly dull fruit palate. (WS)

Giovanni Rosso, Serralunga 2006 Barolo 17 Drink 2014-2022
Serralunga d'Alba. Deep ruby with orange tinges. Very slow to open up. Hints of tawny port. Very compact and powerful, powdery tannins. Very good length and freshness and at the same time bold. (WS)

Giovanni Rosso, Cerretta 2006 Barolo 14.5 Drink 2011-2015
Serralunga d'Alba. Medium-concentrated ruby. Cough syrup and fruitcake. Not the most complex of palates and really sweet on the finish. (WS)

San Biagio, Sorano 2006 Barolo 15 Drink 2012-2018
Serralunga d'Alba. Deep medium-concentrated ruby. Ever so slightly dusty, with sweet dried cherry and herb liqueur. Good mouthful of fruit but not the most complex. (WS)

Schiavenza, Broglio 2006 Barolo 15 Drink 2012-2016
Serralunga d'Alba. Bright, maturing ruby with brick-stone rim. Subdued, ever so slightly dusty but not without interest. Less so on the palate, a tad simple. (WS)

Schiavenza, Prapò 2006 Barolo 14 Drink 2011-2015
Serralunga d'Alba. Medium deep ruby and brick-stone rim. Pastry and cream nose. Very sweet, very ‘truccato’ – wearing lots of makeup. (WS)

G D Vajra, Cerretta Luigi Baudana 2006 Barolo 15.5 Drink 2014-2018
Serralunga d'Alba. Deep and still youthful-looking ruby. Savoury, minerally but subdued. Very rich, porty attack, very backward and a touch alcoholic. (WS)

COMUNE DI SERRALUNGA D'ALBA RISERVA

Ettore Germano, Lazzarito Riserva 2004 Barolo 17.5 Drink 2014-2022
Serralunga d'Alba. Deep maturing ruby with brick-stone rim. Developed but multilayered. Much less developed on the palate, but rich finish, complex finish. A baby, really. (WS)

Massolino, Vigna Rionda Riserva 2004 Barolo 15 Drink 2012-2018
Serralunga d'Alba. Deep ruby, broad garnet rim. Very mature, with whiff of leather, perhaps even farmyard. Intense sweet attack, but no real depth nor complexity. Ever so slightly oxidative. (WS)

Rivetto, Arione Riserva 2004 Barolo 15 Drink 2011-2018
Serralunga d'Alba. Deep concentrated ruby. Ever so slightly stewed. Cherry fruit on the finish. Very good length and despite formidable tannic structure quite approachable. (WS)

Gigi Rosso, Arione dell'Ulivo Riserva 2004 Barolo 15.5 Drink 2011-2018
Serralunga d'Alba. Concentrated orange-tinged ruby. Opens up quite vegetal and ever so slightly oxidative. Very mellow fruitcake palate with orange peel notes. Very long and accessible. (WS)

Schiavenza, Broglio Riserva 2004 Barolo 16 Drink 2011-2018
Serralunga d'Alba. Very deep concentrated ruby. Liquorice, and dried-fruit palate, held together by succulent acidity. Good length, straightforward. (WS)

Schiavenza, Prapò Riserva 2004 Barolo 15 Drink 2012-2018
Serralunga d'Alba. Deep ruby with small brick-stone rim. Backward, with a touch of leather, walnut skin, tea leaves. Tarry fruit impression paired with a massive structure. Seems built for eternity but not very complex (yet). (WS)

NEBBIOLO PRIMA - BARBARESCO 2007S AND 2005 RISERVA

noreply@blogger.com (Blogger) — Thu, 11 Nov 2010 07:50:00 +0000

The commune of Barbaresco, which was the focus of day one and much of the morning of day two of the four-day Nebbiolo Prima tastings in Piemonte has traditionally been described as more feminine and lighter than its more famous neighbour, Barolo. This is reflected by its regulations, which are less restrictive than those for Barolo, demanding a lower alcoholic content of 12.5% compared with the minimum of 13% for Barolo and, tellingly, slightly less extract (22 g/l compared with 23 g/l). In reality, the wines are rarely under 13.5% and more often than not easily reach 14% without jeopardising the balance. But the most eye-catching difference between these two famous wines is in the age requirements: Barbaresco can be put onto the market in January of the third year after the vintage, with only one mandatory year in oak cask, whereas Barolo has to be kept for an additional year, with a minimum of two years in total spent in oak. All this seems to support the contention that Barbaresco needs lighter handling, but it seems more likely that this impression is the result of its history and the vinification techniques used rather than of Barbaresco's inherent qualities.

Barbaresco's name did not appear on labels until 1894 when Domizio Cavazza, at that time professor at the Oenological School of Alba, founded the Cantina Sociale di Barbaresco (now the much admired Cantina di Produttori di Barbaresco), and the same year in which the first Barbaresco wine appeared under its own name. Apparently, before this date the wines from the town of Barbaresco were often blended with Barolo, as the latter had previously refused to incorporate the vineyards of the town into the Barolo demarcation. Therefore, Barolo became, perhaps unwillingly, instrumental in the creation of Barbaresco.

As Barbaresco had become a designation its own right, Cavazza aimed at producing a style of wine that would set it stylistically somewhat apart from its direct neighbour. Allegedly, this idea lies at the root of the perception of Barbaresco being 'lighter'. Except for the fact that Barbaresco's history is much more recent than Barolo, the actual area of Barbaresco devoted to Nebbiolo is also much smaller than that in Barolo (684 ha compared with 1,826 ha, all data from Camera di Commercio Industria Artigianato ed agricuoltura di Cuneo Albo Vigneti 2009). Land within Barbaresco also produces Barbera d'Alba, Dolcetto d'Alba and Asti respectively from its 364 ha of Barbera vines, 425 ha of Dolcetto and 556ha of Moscato. All this leads to the image of Barbaresco as 'Barolo's smaller neighbour'.

Although soil differences between Barolo and Barbaresco are regularly advanced as another major factor in the style difference, broadly speaking there are more similarities than differences. Barbaresco's soils consist of calcareous clay of the Tortonion epoch, a soil type also found in La Morra and Barolo, and considered to produce a softer, more fruit-driven style, whereas soils in Monforte d'Alba and Serralunga d'Alba (both within the Barolo zone) have a higher content of sandstone, yielding more tannic wines. And although these stylistic difference are real, and more or less a given, some communes in Barolo are considered to produce wines more akin to Barbaresco, and vice versa. Therefore vinification techniques can have enormous impact on the final wines, not least the length of time the wine remains on the skins. The longer this period is, the more tannins and polyphenols will be leached out, resulting in much more structured wines, wines that invariably need longer time in cask to soften.

Although the image of a lighter, faster-maturing wine style clings to Barbaresco to this day, it did not entirely reflect my impressions after I had tasted the 2007 straight Barbarescos and the 2005 Riservas. Or, rather, I got the impression that it was more owing to the character of the 2007 vintage that the wines seemed quite straightforward and sometimes even evolved and somewhat alcoholic on the finish. What was often in evidence was the dreaded dried fruit character which I associate with hot vintage conditions, in which part of the fruit gets sunburnt, or with an unbalanced vintage in which sugar levels soar while tannic ripeness lacks behind. In order to achieve softer, rounder tannins, the vintage is postponed to reach that all-important ripeness level, but on the way the freshness of the fruit can be sacrificed. The 2007 vintage, although not comparable with 2003, did not entirely escape irregular heat. If anything, the 2007s may prove to be a perfect introduction to Nebbiolo for novices.

Disliking dried fruit aromas in Nebbiolo wines may initially seem rather controversial, especially as they feature so frequently in tasting notes and descriptions of Barolo and Barbaresco, particularly after extended cellaring. A touch of dried-fruit character can add a layer of complexity, but if the nose is dominated by these aromas, it makes the wines look tired, while potentially impairing the wine's ageability. Although Nebbiolo's famous tannic structure and naturally high acidity seems to render the wines virtually indestructible, such aromas may not necessarily add to complexity during extended cellaring, especially if in relatively young samples one notices the telltale whiff of browning apple, the first signs of oxidation. That oxidative note, by the way, I often encounter in combination with generous oak treatment. Although it can make the wine look more open and charming, especially when young, it also makes them more one-dimensional.

Having said that, most Barbaresco producers are extremely talented in using oak in a fashion that becomes the wine, rather than smothering it. In cases where oak is used over-zealously, the wines invariably seem to be designed to appeal to the international palate, and are slightly formulaic. However, Nebbiolo is almost always is capable of adding freshness and tannic impact to a wine, preventing it from becoming too pastiche-like.

Vintage 2007
The 2007 vintage was determined by a very irregular weather pattern. After a very mild winter, flowering began more than 20 days earlier than in the previous year. A cool period during the growing cycle slowed things down. July was hot with several very hot spells, and virtually no rain, affecting some of the bunches with sunburn and partially arresting the ripening process in the berries. August proved more benign with cooler, below-average temperatures, but the growing cycle did not significantly slow down, although a hail storm in Barbaresco on 3 Aug reduced the crop by 10-20%. As temperatures stayed cool during the rest of the month, fungal disease pressure was very limited. The harvest started mid September under perfect conditions, with high sugar levels in the berries and less acidity than usual. Although the vintage is not comparable to 2003 since August was much cooler in 2007, the wines are expected to mature relatively early, and are considered to have only medium cellaring potential. I found many wines of which this was true but there were also some true gems which showed real ageing potential and great stature.

Vintage 2005
The samples shown of Barbaresco Riserva 2005 were much less numerous and so generalisations are more difficult. The season started regularly, but temperatures crept up fast in June, which was warmer than average. But the first half of July was much cooler, and only during the second half did it become intensely hot. In August things literally cooled off. September was relatively even, although night time temperatures did not fall sufficiently to give usefully cool mornings. Grape skins were thinner than average, with less concentration of polyphenols. Harvest started at the end of September.

BARBARESCO 2007

Orlando Abrigo, Montersino 2007 Barbaresco 15 Drink 2010-2014
Treiso. Youthful crimson. Baking spice and peppery dark fruit. Juicy palate but tannins take over. May be for the long haul. Touch bitter too. Food! (WS)

Orlando Abrigo, Vigna Rongalio Meruzzano 2007 Barbaresco 17 Drink 2010-2017
Treiso. Deep, almost crimson-like ruby. Garden herbs and candied peel, almost meaty. Powerful but compact palate with lovely acidity. Closed and youthful, this deserves time. Touch of vanilla on the finish? (WS)

Marco e Vittorio Adriano 2007 Barbaresco 15 Drink 2010-2013
Alba. Pale but youthful rim. Bread-dough-like nose. Inexpressive on the palate. No real excitement, and astringent. (WS)

Marco e Vittorio Adriano, Basarin 2007 Barbaresco 14 Drink 2010-2013
Neive. Paleish, deep ruby. Vegetal, sweet-sour nose. Brett? Very sweet but sharp palate and strange creamy malolactic finish. (WS)

Albino Rocca 2007 Barbaresco 17 Drink 2011-2017
Alba. Pale, mature ruby. Brooding and quite backward on the palate. Shows great balance and very fine, ongoing waves of tannin. Will need at least some years to open up. (WS)

Albino Rocca, Vigneto Brich Ronchi 2007 Barbaresco 17.5 Drink 2012-2020
Barbaresco. Pale, youthful ruby. Backward, but with focused red fruit and ripeness. Has lots of class, despite the slightly astringent tannins and will need much more time. (WS)

Antichi Poderi dei Gallina, L Ciaciaret 2007 Barbaresco 16.5 Drink 2010-2017
Neive. Medium ruby with broad rim. Very sweet with expensive oaky edge. Some oxidative notes as well. Dumb on the palate, but concentration is there. (WS)

Barale, Serraboella 2007 Barbaresco 14.5 Drink 2010-2013
Neive. Paleish youthful ruby. Slightly reductive sweet fruit-cake nose. Very sweet, dried-fruit palate. Drying finish. Seems unbalanced. (WS)

Cantina Sociale dei Produttori del Barbaresco 2007 Barbaresco 14.5 Drink 2010-2013
Barbaresco. Pale but youthful-looking ruby. Liquorice fruit. Rustic, perhaps even coarse, on the finish. (WS)

Battaglio 2007 Barbaresco 15? Drink 2012-2016
Neive. Medium-concentrated ruby, with deeper centre. Upfront, sweet fruit nose with a faint hint of horse saddle? Stubborn palate, determined at this stage by stalky tannins. Asleep? (WS)

Bel Colle, Roncaglie 2007 Barbaresco 17 Drink 2012-2018
Barbaresco. Medium-deep ruby with broad rim. Elegant if somewhat closed, it pulls you into the glass. Palate has the same kind of restrained appeal. Balance, and freshness. Not ostentatious. Quite tannic, looks old school, but lots of potential here. (WS)

Bricco Grilli, Serragrilli 2007 Barbaresco 14 Drink 2010-2013
Neive. Mature-looking concentrated ruby. Browning-apple nose and Christmas pudding. Very sweet, very confected. (WS)

Ca` del Baio, Valgrande 2007 Barbaresco 15 Drink 2010-2014
Treiso. Concentrated ruby with orange tinge on a broad rim. The nose opens up slowly, but the palate seems not to offer anything more in complexity. (WS)

Ca` del Baio, Assili 2007 Barbaresco 16 Drink 2011-2017
Barbaresco. Pale, youthful-looking ruby. Reluctant, backward nose. And very closed on the palate, very compact, but with very good balance, with fine-grained but persistent tannins. Some oak impact on the finish, but well made. (WS)

Ca` du Rabajà, Rabajà 2007 Barbaresco 16.5 Drink 2010-2017
Barbaresco. Medium-concentrated ruby with broad rim showing orange tinge. Savoury dried fruit opening up. Lots of concentration on the palate and lots of tannins too, but fruit stands up effortlessly. Perhaps ever so slightly jammy on the finish, but very long. (WS)

Ca` du Rabajà 2007 Barbaresco 15 Drink 2010-2014
Neive-Barbaresco. Mature-looking medium concentrated ruby. Quite oaky, vanilla nose with lots of dried fruit and aniseed notes. Fruit doesn’t really make a big impression on the palate either. (WS)

La Ca` Nova, Montestefano 2007 Barbaresco 15.5 Drink 2010-2015
Barbaresco. Brilliant, palish ruby with broad rim. Quite big nose, developed too, with caramel and tar notes. Same developed fruit on the palate with what looks like the impact of oak. Modernist but lacks depth, perhaps? (WS)

Ca` Rome`, Sori Rio Sordo 2007 Barbaresco 14.5 Drink 2010-2013
Barbaresco. Medium-deep ruby with orange reflexes. At first dried-fruit impressions, but with air becomes more complex. Perhaps ever so slightly oxidative, which is confirmed on the palate. (WS)

Castello di Neive, Santo Stefano 2007 Barbaresco 15 Drink 2010-2016
Neive. Paleish ruby. Open knit and ever so slightly stewed. Sweet, jammy fruit attack. Very popular. Crunchy tannins add much-needed bite. (WS)

Castello di Neive 2007 Barbaresco 15.5 Drink 2010-2016
Neive. Paleish ruby, more concentrated in the centre. Well-developed nose of dried fruit and baking spice and hints of vanilla. Sweet fruit attack, with good persistence and aromatics. Uncomplicated. (WS)

Castello di Verduno 2007 Barbaresco 16.5 Drink 2010-2017
Barbaresco. Pale ruby starting to open up. Very slow to show rich cherry fruit. Very concentrated and sweet attack, and same richness on the palate. Genuinely fruit driven with gripping tannin, but elegant finish. (WS)

Michele Chiarlo, Asili 2007 Barbaresco 15 Drink 2010-2014
Barbaresco. Deep concentrated ruby. Cherry and herb liqueur and hints of browning apple. Second sample is identical. Makes the fruit look ever so slightly stale. (WS)

Cigliuti, Vigne Erte 2007 Barbaresco 15 Drink 2010-2014
Neive. Very dark and deep ruby. Raisiny and hints of cut apple. Tired? (WS)

Cisa Asinari dei Marchesi di Gresy 2007 Barbaresco 17.5 Drink 2010-2018
Barbaresco. Very pale orange ruby. Seems already quite developed, but hugely seductive nose. Palate much less evolved but finish is aromatic and comes in waves. (WS)

Colla, Roncaglie 2007 Barbaresco 15.5 Drink 2010-2015
Barbaresco. Concentrated ruby only just starting to open up on the rim. Vanilla pod and sweet sour cherry. Sweet oak and cherry fruit palate. Modern school but shows freshness too. On the finish the oak impact restraints the fruit, though. (WS)

Giuseppe Cortese, Rabajà 2007 Barbaresco 16.5 Drink 2012-2018
Barbaresco. Very pale ruby. Herbal, perhaps a touch of farmyard and hints of strawberry jam. Very closed palate, with compact cherry and strawberry fruit. Shows great promise. Grainy and slightly restless tannin at the moment. (WS)

Elia, Serracapelli 2007 Barbaresco 15 Drink 2010-2015
Neive. Very dark and purplish ruby. Very flirty, very international and even jammy. International palate, but will be hard to sell as such as tannins kick in. Vanilla finish. (WS)

Feyles 2007 Barbaresco 13 Drink up
Neive. Concentrated ruby with orange beginnings. Very heavily browning apple. Second sample is not much better. Also some VA? Tired palate robbed of fruit. (WS)

Elio Filippino, San Cristoforo 2007 Barbaresco 16.5 Drink 2010-2018
Neive. Deep almost dark ruby. Posh dark fruit and oak nose. Enticing and quite international in a way. Fruit has depth and even complexity but struggles with the drying tannins at this stage. Should have a good future. (WS)

Fontanabianca, Sori Burdin 2007 Barbaresco 16.5 Drink 2012-2018
Neive. Developed ruby with orange tinge. Leathery oak nose. Round fruit impression, but closes up quickly. Elegant finish with lots of grainy tannins. Will need more time. (WS)

Francone, I Patriarchi 2007 Barbaresco 15.5 Drink 2010-2015
Neive. Paleish orange ruby. Earth and ever so slightly raisiny, but not unappealing. Astringent and slightly bitter. Not very complex, and crying out for food. Alcoholic too. (WS)

La Ganghija 2007 Barbaresco 15.5 Drink 2010-2015
Treiso. Medium deep, youthful ruby. Intense dried fruit and incense, also resonating on the palate. Good balance, slightly rustic tannins. (WS)

Carlo Giacosa, Montefico 2007 Barbaresco 17 Drink 2013-2018
Barbaresco. Quite youthful, medium-deep ruby. Oatmeal and faintly cherry like. Very youthful and compact on the palate. Will need quite a lot of time to develop but balance is there and length, as well as focused cherry fruit. Very backward. (WS)

Fratelli Giacosa, Basarin 2007 Barbaresco 16 Drink 2010
Neive. Paleish ruby with broad rim. Subdued, dusty nose. Fruit tries hard to absorb the oak. Sweet finish, with good length, but no great finesse. Appealing in an idiosyncratic way. (WS)

Fratelli Giacosa, Basarin Vigna Gianmate 2007 Barbaresco 14.5 Drink 2010-2015
Neive. Pale ruby. Lashes of sweet oak. Sweet oak has smothered the fruit too. Candy finish. (WS)

Fratelli Grasso, Vallegrande 2007 Barbaresco 17 Drink 2010-2017
Treiso. Medium-concentrated ruby. Intoxicating, opulent cherry and herbs, but at the same time not without elegance. Concentration on the palate too and very good balance. Ends quite sweet and closes up quickly. (WS)

Ugo Lequio, Gallina 2007 Barbaresco 16.5 Drink 2011-2017
Neive. Medium-concentrated ruby. Perfumed and sweet and already quite accessible judging from the nose, but certainly not on the palate. Very nice acidic structure and fierce tannin hiding the fruit. Fragrant finish indicates there is more to come. (WS)

Eredi Lodali, Lorens 2007 Barbaresco 17 Drink 2010-2017
Treiso. Deep ruby. Pretty, if popular, peppery new-oak nose. Very tight and young, but good freshness and length. A baby, really. (WS)

Luisin, Sori Paolin 2007 Barbaresco 16 Drink 2010-2017
Neive. Very deep, dark ruby. Mature, full on, with tobacco-leaf notes – quick development? Dried-fruit palate and slightly astringent, but with length. Warm finish. (WS)

Luisin, Rabajà 2007 Barbaresco 16.5 Drink 2012-2018
Barbaresco. Savoury with marmite notes, and very ripe fruit, tea leaves, and some browning apple. Very compact and taut on the palate, and at the same time slightly oxidative. Old school, it seems, but not without merit and very good length. (WS)

Marchesi di Barolo, Serragrilli 2007 Barbaresco 17 Drink 2011-2018
Neive. Very deep, youthful-looking ruby. Classic, austere nose of tea leaves, candied peel. Touch alcoholic too. Very closed and tight on the palate, with sweet oak edge, but genuine fruit too. Well made. (WS)

Massimo Penna, Sori Sartu 2007 Barbaresco 15 Drink 2010-2014
Alba. Pale developed ruby with broad rim. Minty cherry and mincemeat nose. Very sweet, very developed palate. Accessible, but it seems without great potential. Drink earlier rather than later. (WS)

Moccagatta, Bric Balin 2007 Barbaresco 15 Drink 2010-2014
Barbaresco. Mature medium ruby. Savoury, meaty and candy-like nose. Similar palate without great tension or depth, but with length. Perhaps a touch too stewed for my liking though, and oak impact makes it look commercial. (WS)

Moccagatta, Basarin 2007 Barbaresco 15 Drink 2010-2015
Neive. Deep concentrated ruby with orange tinge. Slightly forced, with sweet fruit and vanilla, developed too. Sweet and popular, ends sweet. Designed for the international market? (WS)

Molino, Teorema 2007 Barbaresco 15 Drink 2010-2015
Alba. Medium deep, youthful ruby. Meaty, almost savoury nose. Very reluctant, shy to open up. Palate somewhat defined by creamy malolactic impression. Sweet but closed finish. Tad bitter too. (WS)

Molino, Ausario 2007 Barbaresco 17 Drink 2010-2017
Treiso. Youthful ruby. Although firmly in the dried-fruit spectrum, this is quite complex. Very closed palate though. Spicy oak somewhat takes the upper hand on the drying finish, but fruit has the last word. (WS)

Montaribaldi, Soeri Montaribaldi 2007 Barbaresco 15 Drink 2010-2014
Barbaresco. Concentrated ruby with some sign of age. Slightly tired-looking nose with tarry, savoury notes. Seems not entirely ripe. Palate much more lively, if tannic. (WS)

Montaribaldi, Palazzina 2007 Barbaresco 16 Drink 2012-2017
Neive. Very deep concentrated ruby, with narrow orange rim. Oak driven, oatmeal. Palate shows very compact and tight fruit with orange peel. Drying oak tannins at this stage, but concentration is there. (WS)

Morassino 2007 Barbaresco 15.5 Drink 2010-2015
Barbaresco. Pale ruby. Herb garden, strawberry jam, and ever so slightly metallic? Tea leaves and sweet fruit on the palate. Quite attractive if a tad simple, but there is length. (WS)

Morassino, Ovello 2007 Barbaresco 16 Drink 2011-2015
Barbaresco. Medium-concentrated ruby with orange-tinged rim. Herbal at first. Liqueur-like nose. Ever so slightly rough tannins, but fruit holds up. Not the most refined, and certainly wants food, but length is impressive. (WS)

Cantina del Nebbiolo 2007 Barbaresco 14.5 Drink 2010-2014
Neive-Treiso. Medium-deep ruby and rim just starting to show. Earthy, sweet and with sweet-sour fruit notes. Unsettled sweet-sour fruit, with bitter tannin. (WS)

Giuseppe Negro, Pian Cavallo 2007 Barbaresco 15 Drink 2010-2014
Neive. Medium-concentrated ruby. Complex and sweet, firmly pushing the dried-fruit button. Sweet fruit palate, appealing but not very complex. A tad astringent. (WS)

Angelo Negro e Figli, Cascinotta 2007 Barbaresco 17 Drink 2012-2019
Neive. Medium-deep glowing ruby, with orange tinge. Immediate Moroccan-leather nose. Very good mouthfeel, but very closed. Stalky, grainy tannin. Seems to have all the stuffing, now it needs age. (WS)

Pelissero, Nubiola 2007 Barbaresco 15.5 Drink 2010-2015
Treiso. Medium-concentrated crimson. Flirtatious nose with lots of cherry liqueur but there is a herbal note underneath it all. Same accessible fruit on the palate, but tannins kick in making it less generous. Fragrant finish, though. (WS)

Pelissero, Bricco San Giuliano 2007 Barbaresco 14.5 Drink 2010-2013
Neive. Pale ruby with orange glow. Pâtisserie, and lots of it, followed by dried fruit. Will dry out pretty soon? (WS)

Pertinace, Vigneto Nervo 2007 Barbaresco 14.5 Drink 2010-2012
Treiso. Concentrated ruby with first signs of development on the rim. Somewhat monotonous with dried fruit and horse-saddle hints. Palate seems dominated by malolactic creaminess. Ends bitter. (WS)

Pertinace, Marcarini 2007 Barbaresco 16 Drink 2010-2015
Treiso. Pale ruby with broad orange-tinged rim. Lots of sweet fruit here and hints of oak treatment. Definitely modern. Tries to be generous on the palate too, but lacks depth to really pull it off. Crowd pleaser, nonetheless. (WS)

Armando Piazzo, Fratin 2007 Barbaresco 15.5 Drink 2010-2016
Alba. Light orange ruby. Subdued, but with lurking cherry and a touch of raisins. Lifted acidity, but without the fruit concentration to hit a balance. But good fragrant length. (WS)

Cantina del Pino 2007 Barbaresco 15 Drink 2010-2014
Neive-Barbaresco. Very pale ruby with very broad rim. Elegant, sweet soft spice nose. More fruit impressions on the palate. Caramel finish making it look rather commercial, and somewhat lacking in personality. (WS)

Prunotto 2007 Barbaresco 15 Drink 2010-2014
Neive-Treiso-Barbaresco. Very pale, orange tinged. Vegetal sweet nose, horse saddle as well. Herbal fruit palate. Doubtful this will develop from the ugly-duckling stage it is in. (WS)

Punset, Basarin 2007 Barbaresco 15 Drink 2010-2016
Neive. Medium-deep ruby, developing, with broad orange-tinged rim. Perfumed and brooding. Sweet fruit palate. No great complexity here, with rough-edged tannins. Slightly alcoholic too, but fruit sweetness on the finish proves very seductive. (WS)

Punset, Camp Quadro 2007 Barbaresco 16 Drink 2010-2016
Neive. Dark, developing ruby. Complex, with oak component. The first signs of tobacco and tar might indicate quick development. Very accessible palate with juicy fruit impressions. Oxidative winemaking rendering it more open? (WS)

Rattalino, Quarantadue 42 2007 Barbaresco 15 Drink 2010-2015
Barbaresco. Pale but youthful-looking ruby. Slow to open up, and somewhat alcoholic on the nose too. Very slow to open up on the palate. Lacks fruit concentration to match the tannic structure. (WS)

Ressia, Canova 2007 Barbaresco 15.5? Drink 2010-2015
Neive. Dark, medium-concentrated ruby with narrow orange rim. Sweet, balsamic, fruitcake nose. Dried-fruit palate but with quite attractive tannins. Oxidative style on purpose? (WS)

Pietro Rinaldi, San Cristoforo 2007 Barbaresco 15.5 Drink 2010-2015
Neive. Dark ruby with lighter broader rim. Soft sweet pâtisserie nose. Somewhat linear sweet, fruit cake and pâtisserie palate. What the Italians call truccato – with make up on. But crunchy tannic structure saving the day. (WS)

Rivetti Massimo, Froi 2007 Barbaresco 17 Drink 2012-2018
Neive. Light ruby, with broad orange rim. Peppery but multilayered with perfumed dried cherry and a touch of leather. Very young and tight, but it’s got the stuffing, and the length. Stormy tannin, but good structure and potential. Quite dry finish. (WS)

Rizzi, Pajore 2007 Barbaresco 16.5 Drink 2010-2016
Treiso. Very pale ruby. Quite powerful cherry fruit nose. Not shy on the palate either. Great fruit length with grainy tannins adding a pleasant bitterness to the finish. Very good. (WS)

Rizzi, Nervo Fondetta 2007 Barbaresco 16 Drink 2010-2015
Treiso. Very pale orange ruby. Fragrant sweet perfumed cherry nose. Talcum powder and liquorice notes too. Tight and compact, and with soft strawberry notes. Bitter but ripe tannins. (WS)

Bruno Rocca, Rabaja 2007 Barbaresco 16.5 Drink 2012-2017
Barbaresco. Medium deep ruby with brick tinges. Meaty, savoury, with lots of sweet, almost jammy, fruit on the palate. Very modern, crowd-pleasing, sweet and with some oak impact on the finish but tannins prevent it from going over the top. (WS)

Bruno Rocca 2007 Barbaresco 15 Drink 2010-2014
Barbaresco. Pale orange ruby. Savoury and somewhat tired on the nose. Astringent tannins. (WS)

Cascina della Rose, Rio Sordo 2007 Barbaresco 14.5 Drink 2010-2013
Barbaresco. Very pale orange. Looks tired and alcoholic. Fading fruit on the palate seems to struggle with the structure and high acidity. (WS)

Cascina della Rose, Tre Stelle 2007 Barbaresco 15 Drink 2010-2013
Barbaresco. Very mature-looking pale orange ruby. Leathery stewed-fruit nose. Somewhat tired on the palate too, with acidity shooting through the light fruit. (WS)

Cascina Saria 2007 Barbaresco 13 Drink 2010-2013
Neive. Shiny, medium-concentrated ruby with broader rim, orange tinges. Browning-apple nose. Oxidation has stripped the fruit from this wine. (WS)

Antica Casa Vinicola Scarpa, Tettineive 2007 Barbaresco 17 Drink 2012-2018
Neive. Pale ruby with broad orange-tinged rim. Classic, fragrant and taut at the same time. Initially sweet, with thunderous tannin. Closes up, but concentration is there. Just reluctant at this stage. (WS)

Sottimano, Cotta 2007 Barbaresco 17 Drink 2012-2018
Neive. Deep ruby. Sexy sweet dried-fruit nose, but more complex than it sounds. Full, sweet fruit attack. Lots of extract and length. Very tannic but integrates on the finish. (WS)

Sottimano, Pajore 2007 Barbaresco 15.5 Drink 2010-2014
Treiso. Medium-deep ruby, with lighter rim. Very sweet, open-knit nose, peppery. Much the same on the palate. Pleasant but not very complex. Tannins somewhat rough and astringent. (WS)

La Spinona di Berutti Pietro, Bricco Faset 2007 Barbaresco 14.5 Drink 2010-2012
Barbaresco. Medium-concentrated ruby with the first beginning of orange on the rim. Vegetal, Brett? Looks like that is also the reason why there is not a lot of fruit. (WS)

Michele Taliano, Ad Altiora 2007 Barbaresco 15.5 Drink 2010-2016
Alba. Very deep, concentrated youthful ruby. Big if vegetal nose of fruit cake and baking spice. Sweet, but slightly nondescript palate. Seems to open up more on the finish. Rustic tannin. (WS)

Terre da Vino, La Casa in Collina 2007 Barbaresco 16 Drink 2010-2015
Treiso. Light ruby with broad orange-tinged rim. Firmly closed on the nose, only a hint of spice. Very backward on the palate too. Slow to open up, but ongoing aromatic echoes. Should develop well. (WS)

Vigin, Noemy 2007 Barbaresco 14.5 Drink 2010-2014
Treiso. Very pale ruby. Nose is dominated by caramel and mocha notes. Popular style on the palate too. (WS)

BARBARESCO RISERVA 2005

Marco e Vittorio Adriano, Basarin Riserva 2005 Barbaresco 15 Drink 2011-2015
Neive. Deep ruby with narrow orange-tinged rim. Nose slow to open up. Peppery, reductive. Lots of drying tannins, and very little coming from the fruit at this stage. (WS)

Cantina Sociale dei Produttori del Barbaresco, Rio Sordo Riserva 2005 Barbaresco 17.5 Drink 2010-2018
Barbaresco. Medium concentration and developing ruby. Very subdued, sweet and lurking. Lots of development on the palate with succulence and gripping tannins. Perhaps a tad drying, but bags of concentration and finesse in the fruit. (WS)

Cantina Sociale dei Produttori del Barbaresco, Pora Riserva 2005 Barbaresco 17 Drink 2012-2018
Barbaresco. Medium-deep ruby with rim just starting to show some orange. Sweet fruit and sweet pastry. Very backward palate, very slow to open up. Astringent tannin, but fruit concentration matches this. (WS)

Casetta, Riserva 2005 Barbaresco 16.5? Drink 2012-2019
Treiso. Concentrated, deep ruby, with narrow, orange-tinged rim. Impressive nose, which unfortunately is plagued by a touch of earthiness (old wood?). Very backward, but with long-lasting flavours and intense but fine tannic impression. (WS)

Giuseppe Nada, Casot Riserva 2005 Barbaresco 14.5 Drink 2010-2014
Treiso. Pale, orange-tinged ruby. Farmyardy opening almost completely covering up the nose. The same is happing on the palate, suppressing fruit character. (WS)

Armando Piazzo, Nervi Vigna Giaia Riserva 2005 Barbaresco 16.5 Drink 2010-2017
Treiso. Mature orange ruby. Mature sweet fruitcake nose, appealing but not overtly complex. Not overtly complex on the palate either, but long lasting and with some very good cherry fruit coming to the fore. (WS)

Dante Rivetti, Bricco Riserva 2005 Barbaresco 15 Drink 2010-2017
Neive. Paleish and developed ruby. Sweet, dried fruit and vanilla-cream hints. Somewhat formulaic on the palate too. Low pitched, trying to be a softy, until drying tannins kick in. (WS)

Rivetti Massimo, Serraboella Riserva 2005 Barbaresco 14.5 Drink 2010-2014
Neive. Concentrated ruby with broad orange rim. Very sweet, with lots of vanilla. Tries hard to please. Overoaked? (WS)

NEBBIOLO PRIMA - ROERO 2007S AND 2006 RISERVA

noreply@blogger.com (Blogger) — Thu, 11 Nov 2010 07:42:00 +0000

The Roero zone, crowned with the highest quality designation, DOCG, as recently as 2004, may be better known for its white wine made from Arneis than for its red. It is situated on the left bank of the Tanaro river north east of Alba, its sandy soils producing a rounder, earlier accessible style of red wine than those from the calcareous clay of Barolo and Barbaresco. Hopes are that Roero will one day be mentioned in the same breath as Barolo and Barbaresco, not least because it is made from the same grape as them, Nebbiolo.

With 198 ha of Nebbiolo, Roero is tiny, even by Piemontese standards, compared with Barolo, no giant itself, with 1,826 ha, and Barbaresco's 684 ha (all data from 2009, Camera di Commercio Industriale Artigianato ed Agricoltura di Cuneo). Roero must comprise at least 95% Nebbiolo, which, at first sight, makes it less serious than the more generic Nebbiolo d'Alba, whose regulations stipulate 100% Nebbiolo. However, the latter DOC seems to function as a home for declassified Nebbiolo which may be deemed not up to scratch by Barolo and Barbaresco producers, or for fruit from outside of these two most important designations. Because Nebbiolo d'Alba comprises a much larger area than Roero proper, including communes outside Barolo and Barbaresco, it cannot entirely escape the impression of being a Nebbiolo-catch-all-appellation. There is also some overlap with communes lying in both the Roero and Nebbiolo d'Alba designations, which does not make things any clearer. Nevertheless, it looks as though Roero is set to be a very promising satelite to Barolo and Barbaresco.

Yields for Roero may not be higher than a sensible 56 hl/ha compared with 63 hl/ha for Nebbiolo d'Alba, and the wine therefore shows, at least in theory, more concentration. Any serious producer would do well to eschew the 5% of 'other grape varieties' permitted, and most do. Ageing requirements stipulate that the wine may be released only 24 months after 1 Nov of the harvest year, with a minimum of six months of that period spent in oak. Intriguingly, although the wines must be vinified and aged within the DOCG demarcated region, exceptions are made for all the communes of Barolo and Barbaresco.

The very best Roero, at least in theory, is Roero Riserva with the same permitted yields but 12 months' longer minimum ageing period. The fact that Riserva involves only prolonged ageing was often evident in the wines tasted during Nebbiolo Prima. Few Riservas seemed to have any additional extract and complexity over regular Roero. Although Roero can deliver a genuine expression of Nebbiolo, its ability to age seems less than that of its great siblings on the basis of the examples tasted and noted below - admittedly a snapshot only. The logical consequence is that Roero cannot command the kind of prices its more famous neighbours on the right bank of the Tanaro river can, but this may prove to be an advantage, as it can offer true value for money.

Each tasting note below is preceded by the name of the commune where the wine was grown. Notes are presented in alphabetical order by producer (sur)name.

2007 ROERO

Giovanni Almondo, Bric Valdiana 2007 Roero 16 Drink 2010-2015
Montà. Deep ruby of medium concentration, rim just starting to show some development. Intense Christmas pudding nose, seductive, inviting, with cherry edge. First signs of oxidation? Refreshing, if very tight palate. Fiercely tannic, seems old school, but not without charm. (WS)

Fabrizio Battaglino, Sergentin 2007 Roero 15 Drink 2010-2013
Vezza d’Alba. Medium-deep Bordeaux ruby with orange tinges. Intense and somewhat confected nose, Truccato – with makeup. Generous mouthfeel with fruitcake impression. Pastry-like, malolactic finish. Popular. (WS)

Bel Colle, Monvije 2007 Roero 16 Drink 2010-2016
Canale-Cornelino. Medium ruby with orange tinge. Sweet fruitcake with alcoholic prickle. Notes of tea leaves. Austere palate but with good cherry fruit flavours. Quite tannic, without being astringent. Has potential. (WS)

Bricco del Prete, Betlemme 2007 Roero 15 Drink 2010-2013
Priocca. Medium deep, still youthful crimson. Seems very closed, herbal. Same impression on the palate, with good acidic structure and astringent and somewhat bitter tannins. Fruit doesn’t want to show up, at least at this stage. (WS)

Ca` Rosa, Audinaggio 2007 Roero 14 Drink up
Vezza d’Alba. Deep youthful-looking ruby. Oxidised nose, also the second sample. Could it have been the oak? Very drying tannins. (WS)

Careglio 2007 Roero 15 Drink 2010-2013
Balissero d’Alba. Very pale, slightest sign of maturation. Appealing sweet nose, with dried fruit character but not without depth. Accessible, but with same dried fruit impression, and seems just a touch flabby. Bitter tannins, somewhat alcoholic too. (WS)

Chicco, Montespinato 2007 Roero 15.5 Drink 2010-2013
Castagnito. Pale crimson. Sweet dried fruit, and cherry liqueur, vegetal streak underneath? Modern fruit palate, quite upfront cherry and cherry jam. Astringent tannins, but the length makes up for that. Sweet fruit finish, ever so slightly confected. (WS)

Cornarea 2007 Roero 17 Drink 2010-2017
Canale. Medium-concentrated ruby, with beginning of orange. Classic nose of dried cherry and orange skin. Youthful too, and ever so slightly medicinal. Impressive on the palate with good acidity, and quite round fruit. Grainy, but persistent and somewhat drying tannins. Very good. (WS)

Emilio Marsaglia, Brich d'America 2007 Roero 16 Drink 2010-2016
Castellinaldo. Deep ruby, with broad rim. Very ripe, herbal, almost blackcurrant nose. Seems quite developed too, with the beginning of tar. Much more closed and restrained on the palate. Compact, drying, persistent tannins, but the initial balance is there, and restrained fragrant finish. Wait, could be interesting. (WS)

Monchiero Carbone, Sru 2007 Roero 16.5 Drink 2010-2015
Canale. Deep crimson, quite unusually so. Very attractive, sweet peppery concentrated dark fruit nose. Flirtatious, earthy, perfumed too. Sweet fruit with good depth, and just about enough acidity. Very good Nebbiolo character. Accessible now, but fierce tannins on the finish suggests further ageing, and food! (WS)

Cantina del Nebbiolo 2007 Roero 16.5 Drink 2011-2017
Monteu Roero-Vezza d’Alba. Very pale ruby. Distinct Moroccan leather and reluctantly showing candied peel. Opens up with air. Intriguing. Earthy too. Backward palate, but with good balance. Persistent but coating marzipan-like tannins. Classic. Wait. (WS)

Angelo Negro e Figli, Prachiosso 2007 Roero 15.5 Drink 2010-2014
Monteu Roero. Pale, developed ruby with orange tinge. Lifted cherry and crushed blueberry nose. Genuine but much more on the dried fruit and candied-peel side on the palate. Good balance, with clear creaminess on the finish. Tries too hard? (WS)

Maurizio Ponchione, Monfrini 2007 Roero 15 Drink 2010-2014
Govone. Medium-deep crimson with violet tinge. Sweet fruit cake and spicy oak nose. Quite soft palate, until high-tuned acidity creeps up. Seems to lack stuffing on the mid palate. (WS)

Marco Porello, Toretta 2007 Roero 16 Drink 2010-2015
Canale. Pale ruby with first signs of development. Opens with crème vanille and hints of dry oak. Much more genuine on the palate but a tad unbalanced by drying (oak?) tannins. Very young, and very good length. Popular, but has a future. (WS)

Fratelli Rabino 2007 Roero 15 Drink 2010-2013
Santa Vittoria d’Alba. Very pale, mature ruby. Dried fruit and fennel-seed nose. Much more interesting on the palate, but closes up on the drying finish. Fierce tannins. (WS)

Val del Prete, Bricco Medica 2007 Roero 15.5 Drink 2010-2014
Priocca. Concentrated, developed ruby with the beginning of orange on the rim. Sweet, heady patisserie and fruitcake, ever so slightly peppery. Mellow, sweet fruit palate. Good balance, honest, without enormous excitement. (WS)

2006 ROERO RISERVA

Giovanni Almondo, Riserva 2006 Roero 17 Drink 2010-2016
Montà. Concentrated crimson. Moroccan leather with quite pure cherry notes underneath. Seems much more closed on the palate, but strikes a good balance, and with a fragrant finish. Will open up with age. (WS)

Ca` Rossa, Riserva 2006 Roero 15 Drink 2010-2014
Canale. Pale ruby with broad orange rim. Very sweet, vanilla, pastiche like almost. Needs lots of air to show some genuine nose. Quite backward with big, quite dry tannins.

Casetta, Riserva 2006 Roero 16 Drink 2010-2014
Canale. Pale ruby with broad orange-tinged rim. Contrasting signals from the glass: vegetal and sweet dried fruit. With air develops more harmoniously, with liquorice notes. Palate is at this stage quite one dimensional, with herbal and almost herb-liqueur like notes, but very long. Probably won’t get more complex with age but should be great with food. (WS)

Chicco, Valmaggiore Riserva 2006 Roero 14.5 Drink 2010-2013
Vezza. Deep ruby with very small, orange-tinged rim. Seems quite raw and vegetal at first. Palate is reluctant, but does show cherry fruit. Unripe tannins giving bitterness to the finish. (WS)

Matteo Correggia, Ròche d'Ampsej Riserva 2006 Roero 16 Drink 2010-2014
Canale. Medium deep, developed ruby. Fruitcake and dried cherry, alcoholic but appealing. Very tight and youthful palate, with lots of tannin, giving a slightly bitter impression on the finish. Rustic but with good length. (WS)

Deltetto, Braja Riserva 2006 Roero 16.5 Drink 2010-2017
Santo Stefano. Medium-deep ruby, with some orange reflexes. Aromas rise up from the glass like a cloud. Hard to pinpoint at the beginning, some lead-pencil hints. Subdued, but quite multilayered palate, with almost orange-like acidity. Interesting on the finish, with fierce, but grainy tannins. Very good length. (WS)

Malabaila di Canale, Castelletto Riserva 2006 Roero 13 Drink up
Canale. Brilliant mature medium-concentrated ruby with orange tinge. Very vegetal, dull even. Musty? Not cork. Peppery. Seems to lack fruit. (WS)

Malvirá, Trinità Riserva 2006 Roero 14.5 Drink up
Canale. Medium-deep ruby with first signs of orange. Herb liqueur, faintly recalling Jaegermeister. Palate seems muted, and acidity drops off on the finish, leaving a sense that the acidity wasn’t quite ripe. (WS)

Malvirá, Renesio Riserva 2006 Roero 14 Drink up
Canale. Very pale, Pinot Noir lookalike. Oxidative, and somewhat tired looking nose. Same impression on the palate, quite flat. Second sample shows incense, but palate remains quite flat and inexpressive. (WS)

Monchiero Carbone, Printi Riserva 2006 Roero 16 Drink 2010-2015
Canale. Concentrated ruby with orange rim. Quite complex nose of herbs, dried cherry, candied peel and leather. Minerally too. Firmly Nebbiolo with fierce tannins and somewhat closed on the finish, but it all adds up to good balance. (WS)

Lorenzo Negro, San Lorenzo Riserva 2006 Roero 15.5 Drink 2010-2013
Monteu Roero. Medium-concentrated ruby with broad orange rim. Ever so slightly vegetal dried-fruit impression. Tannins overpower the fruit on the mid palate, but aromas conquer on the finish. Ever so slightly clumsy, but likeable. (WS)

Angelo Negro e Figli, Riserva 2006 Roero 15.5 Drink 2010-2012
Monteu Roero. Quite light, orange-tinged ruby. Raisiny fruit nose, with liquorice hints. Quite full bodied and quite an open-knit palate. Drink now. (WS)

Pace, Riserva 2006 Roero 14 Drink 2010-2012
Canale. Concentrated ruby, with some signs of age on the rim. Very vegetal and looks like Brett. Palate more fruit focused. Astringent tannins. (WS)

Michele Taliano, Roche da Bossora Riserva 2006 Roero 17 Drink 2010-2016
Monta. Medium deep maturing ruby. Licorice, orange peel, laurel, and the merest suggestion of leather. Genuine stuff, with ongoing tannin core. Long finish, somewhat monolithic but will develop. (WS)

BAROLO FOR BREAKFAST

noreply@blogger.com (Blogger) — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 10:54:00 +0000

Nebbiolo Prima is a four-day immersion in what is arguably Italy's most enigmatic red wine grape, staged in pretty Alba, the vinous centre of the region, and gateway to the famous vineyards of Barolo, Barbaresco and Roero, this last a relative newcomer trying to join their ranks, of which more later.

Nebbiolo Prima was the last in a series of presentations of great Italian wines. My tasting notes on hundreds of wines from Roero, Barbaresco and Barolo, tasted blind, will be published subsequently here in the next couple of days. These tastings differ distinctly from the classic Bordeaux en primeur tastings in that the wines have been bottled and are ready to go onto the market without any of the price release game that characterises the Bordeaux primeurs season.

Alba, with its pink-brick cathedral and elegant shops, incidentally, seems to have fallen under a spell of postmodernism and its grand Cafe Savona has fallen victim to a cold, hard Milanese design facelift. Unfortunately, many establishments seem to have followed this example. The city is also the home town of Ferrero (of Nutella fame), with its factory just across from the hotel where I was staying. It meant waking up to whiffs of chocolate coming through the window, having fallen asleep to the sound of the local fairground, which had set up camp just in front of it.

Alba has become shorthand for culinary treasures, including the revered white truffle, hazelnuts - which compete for land with Chardonnay now that hazelnut growers have figured out that this variety also thrives on their cooler plots - and, of course, wine. The newly created Alba DOC seems the logical consequence of capitalising on the town's fame with foodies and wine lovers alike, and has been created to accommodate the allegedly classic blend of Nebbiolo (min 70% - max 85%) and Barbera (max 30% - min 15%).

Nebbiolo Prima is the annual presentation of the latest vintages of Barolo, Barbaresco and Roero under the auspice of Albeisa, the Unione di Produttori Vini Albesi, a group of producers loosely grouped together under the banner of a single bottle shape, the Albeisa, and presided over by Enzo Brezza as well as the Consorzio di Tutela Barolo, Barbaresco, Alba, Langhe e Roero guided by Pietro Ratti, son of the late Renato. In shape somewhat reminiscent of the Châteauneuf-du-Pape bottle, the Albeisa was allegedly produced as early as the 18th century, but with the invasion of Napoleon, according to its website, the Bordelais and Burgundy shape became the norm as their perfect cylindrical shape was easier, and hence more cost effective, to mass produce.
In 1973 16 producers decided to come together to reintroduce the Albeisa to heighten the exposure and recognition of Alba wines. It is a non-profit organisation whose primary mission is the development and promotion of the wine production of the region by means of events, the most important being to showcase Nebbiolo Prima.

And so I found myself on the first morning in the Palazzo Mostre e Congressi in Alba, a functional building with white, airy rooms, looking for a socket for my laptop. It was thus that I had the great good fortune to sit for the following four mornings next to fellow socket sharer and Australian wine critic Huon Hooke. Each morning under blind conditions we were served 80 mostly embryonic Nebbiolo wines. Being under such time constraints and with such a large number of samples, even the most experienced tasters found it a tough exercise.

Under these circumstances I always consider the taster as much as the wines to be on test, and I did exchange thoughts with Huon on several of the samples, especially in the case of wines showing poorly. Surprises, good and bad, are inevitable. To paraphrase Huon, blind tastings can be a very sobering exercise, and I must say I have great respect for the producers who had the courage to put their wines in to such fierce test. After the second morning of our 'tour de force', I could not help but envy the buyers who, in a separate room, were served the same wines, but uncovered. The lingering doubt remains that, hard as we tasters may try, the last wine may not get the same attention as the first. The build up of tannins and relatively high level of alcohol take their toll on the taster's concentration, which is why I think it is so important to reduce the risk of overlooking or underscoring particular wines by discussing wines with fellow tasters.

The origin of Nebbiolo
 Before we started our second morning's tasting of another 80 Nebbiolos, Anna Schneider, professor in ampelography at the Institute of Plant Virology at the University of Turin, gave us a concise and crystal-clear overview of Nebbiolo, dubbing it a 'tough, complicated, but fascinating grape variety'. It is an ancient grape, which remains much less understood than, say, Cabernet Sauvignon. Already mentioned in 1266, it does not seem to have travelled far from the original regions in which it was found: Piemonte, Valle d'Aosta and Lombardy's Valtellina.

The grape variety is a reluctant traveller, even within Italy. What until recently was considered 52 ha of Nebbiolo on Sardinia, proved to be Dolcetto, and practically all of Italy's total 6,300 ha of the variety is in the north west, with 5,000 ha in Piemonte, 900 ha in Valtellina and a meagre 26 ha in Aosta. Therefore, and unsurprisingly, Nebbiolo is not a global force. Schneider noted only 627 ha outside its natural shelter in the lee of the alps: 260 ha in Argentina, 160 ha in the United States, 120 ha in Australia and 100 ha in Mexico.

What little is known about its origins has only recently been discovered. DNA analysis has shed some light on Nebbiolo's parentage, and it appears that there are 12 varieties in the frame, almost all of which are either Piemontese or from nearby Valtellina. From those 12 only three could have been one of the parents: Nebbiolo Rosé, Freisa and Vespolina. But it could also be the other way around, with Nebbiolo being a tentative parent of any of the three. Schneider's conclusion is that so far we do not know how and where Nebbiolo originated. Although the grape is genetically close to quite a few varieties from Italy's north west, it may well be that its origins will never be fully revealed, if one of the parents is now extinct.

She also dealt a blow to another favourite myth, the one that claims that the disease-ridden Michet produces the superior wine. Although Nebbiolo is prone to mutation, there are only two genotypes: Lampia and Rosé, whereas Michet is more or less identical to Lampia. Schneider explained that Michet is the least vigorous of the types with low fertility, but this is primarily caused by the fact that all Michet is virus infected. According to Schneider, this virus results in low yields and, more importantly, low sugar and phenolic accumulation in the berries and lower general bunch weight. As this affects the overall quality of the wine, she considers healthy plant material of the utmost importance, and favours the security offered by clonal selection over mass selection. Pictures of healthy Nebbiolo vines next to virus-infected Michet showed us dramatically how very little colour material the latter has in the skins, and seemed to prove her point. Schneider concluded, however, that diversity is the key to complexity and therefore recommended planting several different clones.

SICILIA EN PRIMEUR

noreply@blogger.com (Blogger) — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 12:09:00 +0000

While the dust of Bordeaux 2009 en primeur has yet to settle, Italy seems to have taken a great liking to the same format in recent years. Traditionally the en primeur season is triggered by the Consorzio of Valpolicella with the launch of the new Amarone release in January, followed by the big three from Tuscany (Chianti Classico, Vino Nobile and Brunello di Montalcino). Not new but until now without the same exposure is the Sicilia en primeur in March and subsequently the new en primeur version of Piemonte, Nebbiolo Prima.

In actual fact, these en primeur tastings have little in common with those in Bordeaux. Although the tastings are meant to give a first glimpse of the wines to be released on the market, they are held much later in the wines' pre-release development - soon after or shortly before bottling - and the events seem to centre only on getting as much exposure as possible for the regions and their wines, and attracting the attention of journalists and professionals to assess the general quality of the wines and the current vintage. And as buying decisions don't have to be made on the basis of a snapshot impression, the atmosphere is much more relaxed and focused on the exchange of opinions, impressions and ideas.

Assovini Sicilia, an association of 60-odd producers from Silicy founded in 1998, has been organising its en primeur presentation for the last seven years. Their objective is the exchange of ideas and collaboration among wine-producing estates on the island. It is a non-profit organisation whose mission is to drive forward the quality of Sicilian wine while representing this in closed ranks to a national and international public. Alongside the necessity of operating as an econmic force, they see education and information as fundamental to understanding the Sicilian winescape. Perhaps you could call them a kind of über-consorzio, which refreshingly believes in marketing and communication. The en primeur tasting showed the wines of the members, and was intelligently set up in three ways: you could taste the true en primeur wines blind, or taste the wines in the presence of the winemakers and estate owners, or taste all wines which are currently available in the market in a separate room, sighted, with samples being poured by sommeliers.

I went against the en primeur sentiment and decided to taste only the wines that are currently on the market, as I wanted to get an idea where Sicily finds itself today from a quality point of view. Brand Sicily seems to work well on a generic level, but at the same time seems to be driven by price point. In the recent past it more or less copied the New World concept of the production of varietal wines, aiming at a wide audience. Sicily tried to transform itself into Italy's version of Australia, especially when large producers and bottlers from the north of Italy started to invest heavily in the island, turning out sun-kissed reds, and fresh but simple whites, much helped by the introduction of new technology in its vineyards and cellars.

Throughout its history, Sicily has always been a bulk-wine-producing region, and therefore regional diversity was not as developed, or cared about, as in other parts of Italy. A direct consequence of this was that when the island slowly started to focus on bottled rather than bulk wine, the simple concept of classification by grape variety was adopted, instead of a more intricate (but at that time little known) system of designated origin. Under the IGT banner, Italy's lowest quality designation, the wines could all be marketed as Sicilia, which didn't seem to need any further explanation, and the name proved to be very evocative and appealing. 'Brand Sicily' was born. As so often in the recent past, most upcoming and 'new' wine regions gained international attention more easily with modern versions of international grape varieties such as Chardonnay, Cabernet Sauvignon and Syrah than with indigenous ones. This strategy worked splendidly for Sicily but the success was due to only a handful of estates. This success attracted the attention of big national players, all of which bought vineyards and invested in new winery technology, aiming to produce more of the same.

However, although planted in a frenzy, the international varieties never managed to overtake the indigenous ones. The white Catarratto, Sicily's most planted variety with some 39,000 ha (96,371 acres), is followed in second place by the red Nero d'Avola with 18,000 ha (44,479 acres). It's not until you get to place number 6 that you find the first international variety, Syrah, with 5,179 ha (12,798 acres). And although the bulk of Sicilian wines still produced is exactly that, most producers willing to switch to bottled wines had no alternative than to come up with blends of indigenous varieties in combination with international ones to reach a marketable volume at an attractive price. Although the strategy did help to put Sicilian indigenous varieties on the map, it did little for the individuality of the wines, neither did it add anything unique to the individual wines. The 22 DOCs, the majority created in the 1990s and later, did very little to stimulate interest in, or scrutiny of, the individual terroirs, as many of them where neither historic nor relevant but simply put into place to comply with the European community laws. That is not to say that Sicily hasn't got any historic wine styles (Marsala, Passito di Noto, Cerasuolo di Vittoria, Passito di Pantelleria, to name just a few), but they were of local importance and consumed locally, and only very recently have they been given the attention they need to restore them to their former glory.

It is at this stage that Sicily may be judged from the en primeur tasting. The island still can't resist taking the varietal route but this time the focus is firmly on its indigenous grape varieties, adding a much needed point of difference in the international market. In reality, however, the wine styles produced from these grapes are very much geared towards the so-called international style: deeply coloured reds with lots of extraction and noticeable oak; the whites clean, but predominanlty showing recipe-like cool-fermentation tropical-fruit aromas. At this moment a sense of regionality is achieved only by grapes that even for Sicilian standards are firmly local, such as Nerello Mascalese, Nocera, and Carricante, to name a few, or by headstrong producers, deeply curious about their terroir and how to get this into the glass.

It is striking that while the New World desperately tries to reposition itself in the market to fight off competition by focusing more on the origin and hence the originality of wines and educating the public about regionality, Sicily is busy trying to upgrade brand Sicily from IGT to DOC, covering the whole island, and with little regard for regional diversity. The Brand Sicily message is clear enough but it is doubtful if it will do justice to its diversity, which, in the end, still seems to be the main reason wine lovers are prepared to trade up on the cost of a bottle of wine.

noreply@blogger.com (Blogger) — Fri, 24 Sep 2010 22:48:00 +0000

CERASUOLO DI VITTORIA - SICILY'S ONLY DOCG (SO FAR)

Cerasuolo di Vittoria, Sicily's first (and so far only) DOCG in a sea of vino da tavola and a handful of osbcure, but potentially very interesting DOCs, showed itself with an easy-going confidence during my trip to the island last month.

The DOCG is at the southern tip of the island around the town of Vittoria in the province of Ragusa. As is often the case with Italian wine regions, Cerasuolo di Vittoria is actually two regions. The first, generic one, is broadly the triangle between the towns of Vittoria, Caltagirone and Gela. Within this area lies Cerasuolo di Vittoria Classico, the original heart of the region. Curiously, a snippet of Classico also lies as an island around the town of Santa Croce Camarina outsite the main Classico region.

The difference between the generic and the Classico areas, however, is not immediately apparent, and this is mirrored by the Cerasuolo di Vittoria production regulations. Except for a mandatory ageing of 18 months for the Classico compared with the nine months prescribed for the normal Cerasuolo, there is no distinction between the two in terms of yield limits or grape varieties. As so often, the enlargement in 1995 of the original Classico region, which received its DOC as early as 1976, was nothing more than a quirk of politics. The 1976 denomination made intelligent use of the region's typical red sandy soils with a limestone substrata as the main demarcation criterion. This has subsequently been watered down by the 1995 extension to encompass whole stretches of land on different soil types as well as the aforementioned DOCG island outside the Classico zone, where apparently there isn't any real viticultural activity worth mentioning anyway.

Although the province of Ragusa has not been immume to the charm (and the prospect of a good financial return) of international varieties, the region has always shown a healthy interest in its own local grape varieties, and with good reason. First in line is the red Nero d'Avola, originating from the town of Avola. It is also known as Calabrese, albeit without any credible link to Calabria in the far south of mainland Italy, where it is virtually unknown. Apparently, the name comes from the word Calavrisi, local dialect and heavily influenced by Greek, with cala meaning 'grape' and vrisi 'from Avola', the town 70 km from Vittoria on Sicily's southeast coast in the province of Siracusa. In actual fact the vines are much more densely planted around Noto and Pacchino, the latter considered a cru by insiders, but perhaps nowadays better known for its very tasty cherry tomatoes.

With 19,304 ha (47,701) Nero d'Avola has become Sicily's most planted variety, followed, surprisingly, by Syrah (5,357 ha, according to 2008 data from the Istituto Regionale della Vite e del Vino), with which it is regularly blended. Nero d'Avola's success is nevertheless not a recent phenomenon.

In the past, Nero d'Avola was almost exclusively produced as a blending wine to beef up the wines of Piemonte and Tuscany, and known in France as le vin médicine, apparently for exactly the same reason. Nero d'Avola has colour in abundance and only a very short maceration time of a couple of days is needed to obtain a very dark, almost black juice. In additiion to its richness in colour pigments, it is high in acidity and, combined with high sugar levels, gives full-bodied wines with freshness. It is a fairly early ripening variety too, and unsurprisingly lends itself easily as a blending partner, especially with Merlot, Cabernet Sauvignon and, more and more, with Syrah. Nero d'Avola has gone from being a workhorse grape to everybody's darling and is now a 'recommended variety', which means it can be planted freely throughout the whole of Sicily. So far, only the Etna region has resisted its obvious charms.

Much less is known of Frappato, which must comprise at least 40% of the blend of Cerasuolo di Vittoria, the balance being Nero d'Avola, and most producers stick exactly to that. It has hardly travelled anywhere outside of the boundaries of Ragusa since the first records of the grape in the 17th century, although apparently there is a connection with Tuscany's Sangiovese. Compared with Nero d'Avola's omnipresence in hectares, there is only a tiny amount of Frappato planted (846 ha at the latest count, 2008) , and although it plays such important role in the Cerasuolo blend, intriguingly, the majority (454 ha) is planted in the province of Trapani, the far west of Sicily.

Unlike Nero d'Avola, Frappato has little to add in terms of colour to the blending vat. It is mostly praised for its perfume, with cherry and strawberry often mentioned. Although it is often considered as lacking in structure, I found that varietal bottlings of Frappato showed high acidity, fine tannic structure, succulent bright red fruits and fine perfumed aromas on the finish. When asked, Giusto Occhipinti told me that Frappato is actually praised for its acidity, and according to him, the misconception that Frappato is low in acid comes from grapes grown on heavy soils, and in hotter macroclimates.

If I have one tiny criticism it is that perhaps Frappato hasn't got entirely the interest or complexity to fascinate for long beyond its freshness, but in the blend it delivers something that is far greater than the sum of the parts. It has been suggested that Frappato was mainly used to lighten and soften the Nero d'Avola wines, but samples tasted during my stay gave a different picture. While Nero d'Avola on its own can be very impressive, it can suffer from overzealous extraction and new oak. The wines can often be very rich, and in some cases somewhat plump, while I found Cerasuolo much more refreshing and often lighter in alcohol too. Frappato is taken very seriously on its home turf, and has its own DOC, Frappato di Vittoria. More significantly, the producers that I had a chance to visit produce a pure version of it, allegedly designed for the local market, but Frappato shows such an enormous compatibility with food, from vegetables to meat and even fish dishes, it may well be the sommelier's next secret weapon.

And it is Frappato that gives Cerasuolo its cherry colour (cerasuolo means 'cherry-like'), although according to Alessio Planeta from the eponymous Planeta estate, which has a recently moved in to the Cerasuolo DOCG, the name actually stems from the very short vatting times the wines were allowed in the past. According to him, before the outbreak of phylloxera, the whole region of Ragusa was a sea of vines, literally up to the ocean, to produce the kind of blending material demanded in the north. Apparently the volume of grapes was so large, that the wineries could produce enough wine only if the vinification was speeded up, hence a much shorter maceration time in the area around Vittoria, and therefore less deeply colouredl wines.

As Sicily has always been used predominantly to mass-produce bulk wines, it is perhaps not wholly suprising that the history of Cerasuolo di Vittoria, at least as a bottled wine, is as recent as 1933, the year it was introduced for the first time to the public at an exhibition in Siena, Tuscany. This doesn't imply that Sicily doesn't have a tradition of local wine styles, but that remarkably few ever reached the international market in bottled, unadulterated form, except for Marsala perhaps.
This explains the willingness of many Sicilan wine producers, eager to bottle their own produce, to cultivate the international varieties untainted by a bulk wine past, and able to attract the attention of an international market. However, contrary to popular belief, the island is certainly still firmly in indigenous hands. For example: total plantings of Chardonnay are just 4,960 ha (12,256 acres) compared with 38,070 ha (94,073 acres) of the Sicilian white Catarratto. Producers therefore have no choice but to blend the prized international grapes with indigenous ones if they want to reach a certain number of bottles. But on the back of this necessity, the indigenous grape varieties have become internationally recognised, and this has increased wine producers' confidence in grapes that can better express their origin.

Does Cerasuolo di Vittoria deserve its elevated status as DOCG? On the basis of the samples I tasted, there seems to be little doubt that the handful of producers I met are extremely serious. Interestingly, the region is characterised by a colourful bunch of producers ranging from conventional to left field in their viticulture and vinifciation, from stainless-steel fermentation vessels to ancient clay amphorae. Organic and biodynamic viticulture are on the rise and wholly unstoppable. Therefore one can find a whole range of styles, from bold, dark wines flirting with the international market to medum-bodied, pale, perfumed reds. Whereas the whole of Sicily has fallen under the Nero d'Avola spell, it seems that Cerasuolo di Vittoria DOCG has a uniqueness that can only add to the variety's distinct profile in the sea of new-wave red currently coming from the Island.

COS
One of the undisputed leaders of the DOCG, they were the first to draw international attention to Cerasuolo di Vittoria, and all this by sheer coincidence, or rather a scherzo, a joke, according to Giusto Occhipinti. A trained architect, Occhipinti used to help his grandfather with the harvest of the grapes, inviting his friends. These friends eventually became the founding members of COS and their initials (Giambattista Cilia, Giusto Occhipinti, Pinuccia Strano) formed the acronym for their new estate. This was all triggered by one day of foot-treading grapes, but it proved infectious enough. Their first real vintage was 1980 and, after a couple of years juggling jobs and wine-making, they decided in 1983 to truly invest time as well as money in COS. They can now show more than 30 vintages of Cerasuolo di Vittoria.
Unhindered by formal training or preconceived ideas, their route pretty much followed what gave the best results in the vineyard, which very soon appeared to be to interfere as little as possible. This approach logically preceded a growing interest in organics, and biodynamics, which triggered a similar curiosity in the cellar.

At first COS aged its wines in barrique, and was not averse to international varieties either. However, 30 years down the line, the barriques have all but disappeared. Occhipinti explains that they became tired of endless, and, as he puts it, 'pointless' experimentations with assessing each vineyard and trying to understand the impact of oak and how to modify it: Allier or Tronçais? A different grain? Less toast? More toast? Larger percentage of second year oak? Third year oak? etc, etc. Their cooper would come up with endless advice, but in the end they gave up and now use only amphorae, and concrete fermentation vats which have been constructed 12 metres under the earth. With the barriques, stainless steel also went out of the door, as Giusto felt that steel didn't permit sufficiently gradual temperature control. Although the amphorae are without any temperature control, they do not want to rely entirely on ambient temperatures, hence the concrete vats have an ingenious system of water tubes running through the inside of the walls. This allows for very gentle temperature variation.

In addition to Cerasuolo, they produce a Frappato and a white, one entry level and one top wine, fermented on the skins for a seriously long five-week period. Come to think of it, the amphora reds also remain on the skins for literally months. When I visited the winery in early March, the 2009 vintage was still on the skins. According to Giusto, this allows them to work without any sulphur as the proteins in the skins absorb the oxygen and hence play the same role as sulphur would.

COS follows a strict biodynamic policy, and this is also where the amphorae come into play. According to Occhipinti, they try to do as little as possible to ensure their soils are healthy and alive. Only this, so Occhipinti believes, delivers healthy grapes and therefore fermentation is triggered by indigenous yeast. Barriques would only blur the terroir message, while stainless steel would render the wine industrial. The amphorae came in as a consequence of the biodynamic methods employed in their vineyards, because, like oak, they allow some transpiration, but without having an impact on taste and aroma. Occhipinti sees the non-interventionist method as COS's main tool to counteract a sea of similar-tasting wines which lack a sense of place and hence soul.

COS Frappato 2008 IGT Sicilia16.5 Drink 2010-11
Pale ruby, very light colour. Quite fresh and intense strawberry and strawberry preserve. Herbal. Quite enticing. High drinkability paired with freshness and zing. 12.5% (WS)
COS Frappato 2009 IGT Sicilia 17 Drink 2011-12 Cask sample. Pale, violet ruby. Young, very sweet nose, still somewhat unsettled, but very fragrant. The fruit on the palate is propelled by high acidity and grainy tannin. Will need another year in bottle to truly open up. (WS)

COS, Pithos 2008 Cerasuolo di Vittoria 16.5 Drink 2010-13
Fermented in amphorae, this shows an intense ruby. Complex and undeniably spicy, especially hints of nutmeg. Multilayered. The high acidity gives the red and dark fruit a crunchy quality. (WS)

COS 2007 Cerasuolo di Vittoria 17 Drink 2010-14
Medium concentrated ruby. Brooding and somewhat closed plum fruit nose. Compact palate with fne, powdery tannins. Delicious, lively acidity. Seems still quite young. 13% (WS)

COS, Nero di Lupo 2008 IGT Sicilia 17 Drink 2010-2014
Pale, Pinot Noir look-alike ruby. The nose pairs ripe strawberry fruit with plum and just a touch of dried fig and tamarind. Very gentle initial mouthfeel until acidity kicks in. Well balanced with chalky tannins, closes up on the finish. Very light alcohol level for its intensity. COS's Pinot Noir equivalent. 12.5% (WS)

FEUDO DI SANTA TRESA
Feudo di Santa Tresa is a joint venture between Massimo Maggio and Stefano Girelli of Casa Girelli from Trento, which in 2005 was acquired by La-Vis, the Trentino based co-op, which also owns Villa Cafaggio in Chanti Classico. The driving force behind the estate is doubtless Massimo Maggio, Sicilian by birth and the proud and somewhat curt custodian of the estate. The estate's history goes back to the 17th century, its main agricultural activity having been the production of oranges and olives. Although oranges are still cultivated here, many of the orange groves are now vineyards. The soils are a striking red sandy loam wich covers a layer of porous limestone, which has a very good water-retaining capacity. Nonetheless, the vineyards need additional irrigation, and an undeerground system has been installed to limit evaporation.

The estate has been lavishly endowed with investments and new plantings are very much the norm here. Although Nero d'Avola is the main protagonist, Cabernet Sauvignon is considered essential to create wines that appeal to an international market. Signor Maggio leaves no doubt about his unshakeable opinion that the Anglo-Saxon market demands deeply coloured, fruit-driven wines. It is something that Nero d'Avola can achieve on its own, but Frappato certainly not. Maggio laments that Frappato doesn't ripen evenly every year. They have tried to overcome this lack of colour by clonal selection, as well as by cold soaking the fruit before vinification and long maceration times. Still, the 100% Frappato is produced for the local market only.

Both Cerasuolo and the 100% Frappato play very much second fiddle to the international orchestra that makes the core of Santa Tresa's range. Maggio clearly doesn't believe that Anglo-Saxon taste might be shifting from deeply coloured and super-extracted wines with a recognisable dollop of Cabernet to a more refreshing, elegant style. This is perhaps a logical point of view for someone who has just invested in replanting vineyards that are just about to come of age. But it is not all brand new: a 1964 vineyard with Nero d'Avola was kept because it was not planted with one single clone, and hence is a source of different genotypes now used for their own clonal selection.

One doesn't get the impression that the eggs are laid in one basket only. During the visit it became clear that the estate is still trying to find its way, and expriments are part and parcel of the process to discover what may work best. Although 80% of the vineyards are planted with Nero d'Avola, there are apparently a further 60 experimental varieties and/or clones planted (Viognier being one of them), invariably on trellis systems. However, several older tendone vineyards have been 'tolerated' and not grubbed up. They were left intact to observe the growing behaviour of the vines versus modern trellis systems. And even Frappato is under close scrutinty, as their objective is to isolate a clone with deep colour as, according to Maggio, Frappato's tell-tale pale-coloured skin may well be the result of the poor clones planted in the 1960s and 1970s.

Feudo Santa Tresa Frappato 2008 IGT Sicilia 16 Drink 2010-11
6,000 bottles produced only for domestic market. I got the impression that the wine was only reluctantly shown. Medium concentrated crimson. Herbal, leafy blueberry and raspberry, cherry nose. Lively raspberry palate with just a touch of stalky tannin. Beaujolais style, but not without merit. 13% (WS)

Feudo Santa Tresa 2007 Cerasuolo di Vittoria Classico 16 Drink 2010-12
60% Nero d'Avola, 40% Frappato. Still very youthful, violet ruby. Youthful too its nose, only hinting at sweet, concentrated fruit with the leafy, blueberry notes from Frappato framed by the more plum-like Nero d'Avola with soft, stalky and pleasantly bitter tannin. Slightly disappointing medium length 13.5% (WS)

Feudo Santa Tresa, Nivuro 2007 IGT Sicilia 16.5 Drink 2012-15
70% Nero d'Avola, 30% Cabernet Sauvignon. The estate's 'battle horse', according to Signor Maggio, for all the obvious reasons. Very dark, purplish crimson. Very international profile with bags of sweet, upfront fruit and loads of caramel and spice from the oak (60% new). Seductive, despite the drying oak tannins, but impressively long plummy, cassis finish. However, this wine could come from anywhere.13.5% (WS)

Feudo Santa Tresa, Avulis 2007 IGT Sicilia 16 Drink 2010-14
100% Nero d'Avola. Very dark ruby. Immediate, and upfront oak with lots of concentrated sweet fruit. Really impressive, but again lacks a sense of place, and hence the wine seems formulaic, rather than an expression of the region. Despite the thunderous new oak impact, the palate is much more elegant, but hindered by drying oak tannins. Signor Maggio remarks the wine was made to appeal to an Anglo-Saxon market - we have a lot to answer for. 13.5% (WS)

CANTINE TERRE DI GIURFO
Refreshingly different is the Cantine Terre di Giurfo, at first sight an unassuming operation but turning out some pretty classy wines. It is run by the amiable Achille Alessi, with Giuseppe Romano as consultant oenologist at his side. Terre di Giurfo has been in the Alessi family for more than 100 years, but wines have been bottled only since 2002.

The estate's vineyards are remarkably high, some 550 m, with calcareous soils high in rock content, and which seems to translate into altogether fresher, more elegant wines. But at least as important seems to be Achille's philosophy of restraint. Terre di Giurfo has not been able to resist Syrah either, but in their defence it must be said that the Syrah is neither blended with any other grape, nor does it see any oak. The Syrah vineyard was planted about 10 years ago, and Achille prefers the stainless-steel-only approach, because he likes the fruit flavour and according to him it is easier to understand the grape without it being blurred by oak.

The cellar is an undramatic collection of stainless-steel tanks, and the way of working is without great secrets. Giuseppe Romano explains that using cultured yeast is part of their philosophy, and the result of experimentation. In his own words, he feels that he can much more carefully determine the outcome of the vinification, while working out what he thinks are the characteristics of each variety. His explanation may sound plausible, but hardly convincing for purists, who consider natural yeast part of terroir, and hence a wine's personality. The introduction of refrigeration technology instigated modern Sicilian wines, and using natural yeast only seems to be the next logical step. Nevertheless, all Terre di Giurfo wines have a certain elegance and are extremely drinkable.

Terre di Giurfo, Suliccenti Insolia 2009 IGT Sicilia 16 Drink 2010-12
Concentrated straw yellow. Quite pure white fruit and lemon skin. The palate is still somewhat unsettled, but the finish shows perfectly balancing acidity in Satsuma fruit. 13.5% (WS)

Terre di Giurfo, Belsito Frappato 2009 IGT Sicilia 16 Drink 2010-12
Medium deep violet ruy. Bright, red, uplifting red fruit with spicy notes that suggests oak ageing, but this wine only sees stainless steel. Succulent and lifted palate. You can even serve this chilled, the perfect summer red. 13% (WS)

Terre di Giurfo, Kudyah Nero d'Avola 2008 IGT Sicilia 17 Drink 2010-13
100% Nero d'Avola fermented and aged in stainless steel. Subdued and earthy, incredibly seductive pomegranate and blueberry jam and cherry. Perfumed and concentrated. Very long, aromatic finish underlined by soft, rustic tannins. 13.5% (WS)

Terre di Giurfo, Maskaria 2008 Cerasuolo di Vittoria 16.5 Drink 2010-13
Medium concentrated violet, but very light in colour. The nose itself is concentrated with plummy notes in sweet, crushed fruit and raspberry jam. It has me wondering for a minute if all this upfront red fruit scent come from the cultured yeasts. Lip-smacking acidity and great balance, but finish derails slightly due to earthy note. This wine is fermented in stainless steel only. 13.5% (WS)

Terre di Giurfo, Ronna Syrah 2007 iGT Sicilia 16.5 Drink 2011-15
Violet ruby, with depth. Wine opens slightly leathery, and quite Syrah-like. Layers of sweet cherry and strawberry. Well made, with pleasant stalky bitter note. Seems ageworthy too, but the Frappato and the Cerasuolo are much more intriguing wines than this 13.5% (WS)

Terre di Giurfo, Kuntari Nero d'Avola 2006 IGT Sicilia 16.5 Drink 2010-14
The wine was aged in second and third year barrique. Deep, dark, violet ruby, no sign of age at all. Upfront, full-throttle dark fruit and vanilla, which actually can't be that pronounced if old oak is used. International, almost generic palate. Has plenty of freshness, but tries to hard to appeal perhaps. Sound winemaking, though. 14% (WS)

Terre di Giurfo, Uniku Frappato Dolce 2009 IGT Sicilia 16 Drink 2010-14
An intriguing sweet wine (with residual sweetness of 100 g/l) from sun-dried Frappato. Interestingly, it displays Frappato's signature freshness despite the sweetness. Quite versatile and with dark and red fruit flavours. 12% (WS)

VALLE DELL'ACATE
The Valle dell'Acate estate lies within the Classico demarcation on the slopes of the valley of the Dirillo river. Exceptionally, the soils here are almost blazing white and chock full of fossils. This particular soil type is called milaro, and consists of calcareous sandstone with patches of clay, which provides moisture to the vines throughout the growing cycle. Perhaps unsurprisingly, part of the estate's vineyards has been planted with the apparently ubiquitous Chardonnay, but the results are impressive.

Gaetana Jacono, representing the sixth generation of a family whose vinous activities started at the beginning of the 19th century, had a little surprise for us: before pouring her Cerasuolo wine, she served us a flight of Bidis, the Chardonnay-Insolia (sic) blend, going back to 1997. These wines, even the ones that seem to have passed their peak, have something unique. And although Inzolia in my opinion is seldom interesting enough as a varietal wine, in this case the partnership adds something that makes the sum more than the total of the parts.
Since 1997 Gaetana has undertaken a range of experiments, trying to figure out what percentage of new oak to use, with a tendency to employ less and less each subsequent year. She seems very interested in Bidis, but is highly critical in its evaluation. She is also the one that blatantly states that the current revolution in Sicilian wine started with the introduction of refrigeration technology.

The blend is almost always 60% Chardonnay, 40% Inzolia. The varieties are fermented separately in stainless steel, while the Chardonnay undergoes malolactic fermentation in oak barrel and malo is suppressed for the Inzolia. The Bidis vineyard was planted in 1989 at fairly high density of 5,000 vines per ha. The first vintage was 1994.

Valle dell'Acate, Bidis 1997 IGT Sicilia 15 Drink up
Apparently 1997 was the 'vintage of the century' in this part of Sicily. Golden honey colour with amber tinge. Breadcrumbs, hint of tinned sardines, caramel and caramelised nuts. First signs of oxidation. Mature, mushroom like notes initially with honeyed, nutty tones. Sprightly acidity has kept the wine alive, with some creaminess on the finish. 13% (WS)

Valle dell'Acate, Bidis 2002 IGT Sicilia 16 Drink 2010-2012?
Sunflower yellow. Fresher, altogether more complex than the 1997 with first notes of pâtisserie, custard and hazelnuts. Honeyed too. Viscous and concentrated, with very good balance. Good length and very enjoyable, still. 13.5% (WS)

Valle dell'Acate, Bidis 2003 IGT Sicilia 17 Drink 2010-2013
Very deep, golden yellow. Exotic spice and walnut with hints of quince jelly, candied pineapple and oatmeal. Almost sweet, nutty, honeyed palate spreading out into apricot flavours on the finish. Acidity structures and melts in the finish. Very long, soft almond pudding with lemon rind. Cleary, but not obtrusively oaked. 13.5% (WS)

Valle dell'Acate, Bidis 2004 IGT Sicilia 16.5 Drink 2010-2013
Deep, brilliant yellow. Subdued and minerally with the noticeable impact of oak. Hazelnuts. Creamy fruit palate with candied white fruit and honeycomb. Attractive bitter liquorice finish. Very long, almost rich. 14% (WS)

Valle dell'Acate, Bidis 2005 IGT Sicilia 17 Drink 2010-2015
Deep, honey-like yellow. Exotic fruit cocktail, but not overtly sweet. With aeration notes of grapefruit and only a touch of saffron. Very fine, nervy acidity. Viscous palate with delicious phenolic bite. Sweet oak and lemon tart notes on the finish without becoming pastiche-like. Only ever so slightly alcoholic. Could still open up further. 14% (WS)

Valle dell'Acate Frappato 2008 Vittoria 16 Drink 2010-2012
Frappato is fermented at a low 18C as it is not considered a red wine here. Molto delicato is how the estate's oenologist Francesco Ferreri describes the grape as, due to few polyphenols in its skin, it has a tendency to oxidise quickly.
Very pale ruby (as if to prove their point about considering Frappato more a white than a red wine), with first signs of age. Soft, peppery strawberry nose, followed by sweet, soft fruit with just enough acidity to keep the balance. Could very well benefit from chilling. Very good length. 13% (WS)

Valle dell'Acate 2007 Cerasuolo di Vittoria 16.5 Drink 2010-2013
Medium concentrated, youthful crimson. It is clearly the Nero d'Avola that delivers the pigments here. Intoxicating nose of dark fruit and cinnamon bark, white pepper. Rich, concentrated, ending on an attractive bitter note contrasting the fruit sweetness. Very good length. 13.5% (WS)

Valle dell'Acate, Il Moro Nero d'Avola 2007 IGT Sicilia 16.5 Drink 2010-2014
Deep ruby. A single-minded and highly individual wine, with leafy, spicy dark fruit. Wonderful richness with appealing acidity, and bitter note. Good length. 13.5% (WS)

Valle dell'Acate, Rusciano 2006 IGT Sicilia 15 Drink 2010-2013?
Syrah 85%, Nero d'Avola 15%. After fermentation in stainless steel the wine is kept a further 18 months after bottling before release.
Quite genuine Syrah nose with hints of leather and olive tartare. A slight stewed fruit nose too. Sweet, almost monolithic. Quite bitter finish. 14% (WS)

Valle dell'Acate, Tanè 2004 IGT Sicilia 16.5 Drink 2012-2016
Nero d'Avola 70%, with 30% Syrah harvested overripe.
Very deep, almost brilliant ruby. Opulent, port-like big nose, with layers of spice. Baroque palate but balanced and carries its alcohol effortlessly. Valle dell'Acate's answer to Amarone. 15% (WS)

PLANETA
The last station on the Cerasuolo discovery tour is Planeta, the collectors of Sicilian terroirs. In addition to their base in Menfi, which is dedicated to international varieties, the Planeta family now has five estates scattered throughout Sicily, totalling roughly 400 ha (988 acres) in every important region, from Cerasuolo di Vittoria to Etna and Noto, where they revived the rare Moscato di Noto Passito. They are about to add another pearl to their string by reviving the ancient but more or less extinct Mamertino DOC. According to historical sources, Mamertino was the flagship wine of Sicily during the Roman period, but the DOC now exists only on paper, according to Alessio Planeta. The first results of the project, which is overseen by Professor Attilio Scienza, are expected in 2015, with the main protagonist being Nerello Nocera.

The Planeta family has come quite a long way since 1985 when they built the Menfi estate, turning out high-quality single-varietal Chardonnnay and Merlot wines, which took the world by storm and put Sicily on the international map. But even then the family was experimenting with blending the international suspects with indigenous Sicilian varieties.

Planeta's Cerasuolo di Vittoria outpost is situated near the town of Dorilli on the coast. The vineyards are planted on the typical red sandy Vittoria soils over tufa, which functions as a moisture retainer. One of the difficulties they faced when planting the vineyards was the limited availability of plant material, and hence the need to set up their own propagation and clonal selection programme.

The cellar, which was constructed in the 19th century, is yet another witness to the region's prosperous past which lasted until the arrival of phylloxera and the decline of the bulk-wine market. The Planeta family has lovingly restored the buildings, and replanted the vineyards with Nero d'Avola and Frappato only. The cellar's main fermentation vessels are concrete vats dating from the last century but Alessio is concerned that they may be tool old and hence the wines are made in stainless steel only. Alessio believes that Cerasuolo di Vittoria is all about perfume and the use of oak would only cloud this aspect. Tellingly, he suggests the wine is served in Burgundy glasses.

Planeta 2008 Cerasuolo di Vittoria 16 Drink 2010-2013
The only wine so far produced is the Cerasuolo di Vittoria, while they wait for the vineyards to mature before producing a Classico version. Alessio Planeta sees Classico as a Riserva category, and expects a deeper-coloured wine from mature vines.
Medium deep ruby. The nose is marked by strawberry and pomegranate (Alessio mentions that the wine's aroma often reminds him of a Quality Street sweet, but it is not a flavour I seem to find in the wine), followed by an upfront fruit palate and soft, rustic tannins. Popular and appealing with class. 13% (WS)

BRUNELLO - 2005 V 2004

noreply@blogger.com (Blogger) — Sat, 18 Sep 2010 14:27:00 +0000

The Consorzio of Brunello di Montalcino seems very pleased with the 2005 vintage of its most important wine: it bestowed no less than four out of a total of five stars on this vintage, although the growing season proved perhaps a tad too challenging to completely deserve this high accolade. Characterised by a cool beginning, affecting fruit set, it saw a hot and sunny July and August that accelerated the sugar accumulation in the berries. A wet and cool September, however, reversed the trend. While sugar levels were quite high, tannins struggled to ripen. Longer hang time on the vine to compensate for this tended to result in cooked and stewed fruit flavours in many of the final wines.

As a direct result, the colour of many a Brunello on this year's en primeur tasting in Montalcino looked dangerously mature, with several samples already showing brownish tinges. Combined with apparently high or unbalanced alcohol levels, giving the wines a burning sensation on the finish, this vintage, with some notable exceptions, seems to be for mid-term drinking.

It immediately raises the question as to whether the wines in general will prove to be worth their traditionally fairly high price tags. In several cases, it also got me wondering why producers had persevered in producing a Brunello at all, instead of opting out and producing Rosso di Montalcino, a category that serves as a 'second wine'. Rosso has the advantage that the regulations require a much shorter ageing period and it can be put on the market from 1 Sep in the year following the harvest, whereas Brunello may not be released until at least four years after the 1 Jan following the harvest. One can only guess that in 2005 neither recession nor Brunellogate was on the horizon, and hence there seemed no reason not to capitalise on the Brunello reputation. But even so, this seems an unsuitable philosophy in the long term if Brunello is to maintain its status as one of Italy's most important reds. And this reputation is, among other factors, based on the wines' supposed capacity for extended ageing, something that the 2005 vintage clearly hasn't got. Many wines will have reached their plateau of maturity within the next five years.

I got a completely different impression of the 2004, which, on the whole, is a vintage with real class and complexity, combined with freshness. In general, the colour of the wines showed signs of development, but looked much healthier with less browning. They also looked less opaque and impenetrable, which made me wonder, cheekily, and only for a split second, whether these wines are much more faithful, at least in colour and freshness, to the Brunello (Sangiovese) grape. Certainly, many of them will have a very good lifespan, although in some instances I can imagine it will prove hard to resist them right now. Prices will be invariably high, but I feel this vintage is far more interesting to invest in for cellaring and pleasurable drinking.

Although the Consorzio groups all 250 producers under its umbrella (and in its own words is the only consorzio in Italy to achieve this), the en primeur tasting did not reflect this fact, with several famous wines not available for tasting. This in itself is not surprising since these wines fetch prices on a cru classé level, and hence may have little stock and no real need to be present. But the most sorely missed, at least by me, was the 'next generation', ie the estates that only recently started to make a mark on the scene, those that are deeply involved with organic and biodynamic methods and demonstrate the quest for a clear sense of terroir in their wines. Not only would it have been very interesting to compare their wines with the more established names, it would also have shown that Montalcino is a dynamic region which has moved on after Brunellogate.

BRUNELLO DI MONTALCINO 2005

Angelini, Val di Suga 2005 Brunello di Montalcino 16 Drink 2012-2016
Medium brownish ruby. Heady, attractive, fruit is a touch stewed, but complex aromas at the same time. Peppery too, and the first hints of tobacco. Closed palate, but a good balance is struck between extract, acidity and stalky coating tannins. Approachable now – with food, that is. (WS)

Poggio Antico 2005 Brunello di Montalcino 17.5 Drink 2012-2018
Deep ruby, only just beginning to show some brownish tinges. Very enticing, inviting modern nose, with hints of vanilla. With aeration more balsamic. Palate is more austere, with high acidity, and coating tannins. Marzipan and maraschino-cherry finish with hint of oak. Unsettled tannins at this stage but with very good length to compensate. Lay down. (WS)

Argiano 2005 Brunello di Montalcino 15.5 Drink 2012-2016
Very deep, evolved brownish ruby with orange rim. Sweet fruitcake with sexy oak and horse saddle, firmly pressing the populist button, shoe wax too. Contrasting astringency on the palate. Horse-saddle note creeps up, drying out the finish somewhat. (WS)

Banfi 2005 Brunello di Montalcino 15.5 Drink 2012-2015
Almost opaque dark brownish ruby. Quite subdued, fresh cherries steeped in chocolate. Quite mellow, round dark fruit and red fruit jam palate. Amazingly accessible and open already. (WS)

Banfi, Poggio alle Mura 2005 Brunello di Montalcino 17 Drink 2012-2018
The surprise of the en primeur. Even one of the sternest critics of Banfi, Franco Ziliani, expressed his amazement. Very dark developed ruby with orange brown tinges. Elegant and very appealing with quite soft, round, ripe fruit and hints of vanilla. Very good acid structure and stalky tannins complementing the whole. Charming, one with great mass appeal. (WS)

Barbi 2005 Brunello di Montalcino 17 Drink 2012-2018
Very dark and opaque, brownish hue. Oak and spice seems to take the upper hand at least at this stage. Touch stewed but also rich jam fruit and boisterous tannin. Fruit closes up, but a reprise on the finish with complex strawberry and cherry flavours. Very long, tannins will need time to settle. (WS)

Barbi, Vigna del Fiore 2005 Brunello di Montalcino 17.5 Drink 2012-2018
Herbal and tobacco-leaf nose. Quite pure and focused fruit palate and firm coating tannins. Impressive for the vintage. (WS)

Baricci 2005 Brunello di Montalcino 14.5 Drink 2012-2014
Already quite mature-looking orange brown. Orange peel and ironlike note on a compact, very tight nose. Hints of candied fruit. Stubborn palate showing very little. Perhaps this is yet to come? (WS)

Gianni Brunelli 2005 Brunello di Montalcino 17 Drink 2012-2018
Very deep ruby with brown tinges and a narrow rim with orange brown tinges. Serious and quite complex, if subdued and peppery. Same compactness on the palate, with crunchy tannins. Acidity seems to emphasise the tannins at the moment, but it will settle. Complex finish. Slight doubt about its lifespan when the colour seems so developed already. (WS)

Camigliano 2005 Brunello di Montalcino 16.5 Drink 2012-2017
Deep, medium-concentrated almost youthful ruby. Concentrated and truly fruit focused, no stewed impression here. Quite austere and compact at the moment with a big tannic spine but enough extract and aromatic development on the finish. Sinewy. (WS)

La Campana 2005 Brunello di Montalcino 14 Drink 2010-2010
Impenetrable, almost black-brownish ruby. Popular, sweet nose. Volatile. Very sweet, almost jammy on the palate. (WS)

Canalino 2005 Brunello di Montalcino 16 Drink 2012-2015
Deep maturing ruby, with a narrow rim showing some development. Cherry pie and spice with a herbal note and a touch of vanilla. Quite popular palate with vanilla hints and coffee bean and a touch of tar on a cherry layer, and looks like it will mature fairly quickly. Crowd pleaser, but to be enjoyed with food. (WS)

La Carlina, La Togata 2005 Brunello di Montalcino 16.5 Drink 2012-2015
Medium deep, mature, orange-tinged ruby. Christmas cake and cherry jam with cinnamon bark and touch of graphite. Quite elegant, almost light, perhaps lacking a touch in concentration on the mid palate, but refreshingly gentle and focused. (WS)

La Carlina, La Togata dei Togati 2005 Brunello di Montalcino 17 Drink 2012-2018
Deep developing ruby. Maraschino cherry nose. Very good persistent cherry fruit palate with good extract. Crunchy tannins too. Warm finish. Very good for the vintage. (WS)

Capanna 2005 Brunello di Montalcino 16.5 Drink 2012-2016
Deep, concentrated dark ruby. Orange brown tinges on the rim. Almost Mon Chéri-like opening, but develops more dark fruit aromas. Palate is much more restrained, and the structure indicates more time is needed to settle and for the fruit to open up, but there is quite impressive length here. Will the fruit hold up? (WS)

Caparzo 2005 Brunello di Montalcino 16.5 Drink 2012-2017
Medium-deep ruby, developed look. Very subdued cherry liqueur nose and oatmeal. Just the right amount of oak. Quite peppery. Youthful, and elegant palate with almost crisp acidity. Looks pretty well balanced. (WS)

Caprili 2005 Brunello di Montalcino 14.5 Drink 2012-2014
Very dark medium-concentrated ruby and a lighter, brownish ruby rim. Dried cherry and oak. Very austere tannic structure. All bones and not a lot of flesh, it seems. (WS)

Casanuova delle Cerbaie 2005 Brunello di Montalcino 15.5 Drink 2012-2016
Medium concentrated, evolved ruby. Telltale hot vintage nose with dried fruit notes and a touch volatile. Quite elegant fruit palate with good length. Perhaps the dried fruit character makes it a bit one dimensional. (WS)

Castelgiocondo 2005 Brunello di Montalcino 16 Drink 2012-2016
Almost opaque dark ruby with black brownish tinges. Plum and dried fruit nose, almost international with hints of sweet oak. Succulent palate, not heavy at all, with grainy tannins kicking in on the finish and hints of dried fruit. Firmly pushing the popular button. (WS)

Castiglion del Bosco 2005 Brunello di Montalcino 14.5 Drink 2012-2014
Very dark, almost black-tinged ruby and orange tinges on small rim. Port-like and stewed. Less fiery, almost sweet on the palate, but fruit doesn’t hold up well to the high acidity and rustic tannins. (WS)

Le Chiuse 2005 Brunello di Montalcino 16.5 Drink 2012-2018
Deep ruby with orange-brown tinge. Shoe polish and minerals. Backward on the palate but there is some genuine fruit lurking underneath. Crunchy sweet-sour impression and interesting, almost complex finish. Big structure. Wait. (WS)

Ciacci Piccolomini d'Aragona 2005 Brunello di Montalcino 17.5 Drink 2010-2018
Medium-concentrated dark ruby with a broad orange rim and brown tinge. Liquorice, marzipan, cherry liqueur and dark chocolate, touch of bacon. Heady, perfumed. Amazingly pure on the palate. Stalky, marzipan-like tannin. (WS)

Col d'Orcia 2005 Brunello di Montalcino 16 Drink 2012-2016
Deep, dark ruby. Immediate stewed fruit impression followed by smoky, savoury notes. Somewhat one dimensional at this stage, but good length. (WS)

Collelceto 2005 Brunello di Montalcino 14.5 Drink 2012-2014
Deep, developed orange ruby, bordeaux look-a-like. Pronounced, mature with hint of stable. Touch vegetal. Has not escaped the troubled vintage, but is more hindered by that vegetal character. (WS)

Corte Pavone 2005 Brunello di Montalcino 16.5 Drink 2012-2016
Very dark, opaque with black tinge. Closed nose with hints of black olive and sweet cherry. Succulent crunchy sweet-sour fruit impression. Lovely long-lasting flavours. Quite good for the vintage. (WS)

Cupano 2005 Brunello di Montalcino 13.5 Drink 2010-2010
Impenetrable ruby with black tinge. Big nose of sweet oak and coconut cream. Coconut and lashes of vanilla cream on the palate. Is this a dessert or wine? (WS)

Donatella Cinelli Colombini 2005 Brunello di Montalcino 17 Drink 2012-2018
Very deep, dark ruby. Multilayered if a touch peppery and hints of oak and touch of tar. Nose and palate show restrained dark fruits, with hardly any hint of stewed fruit. Backward at this stage and quite tannic, but the fruit has a juicy quality to it. This will need some time to open up, but worth the wait. (WS)

Donatella Cinelli Colombini, Prime Donne 2005 Brunello di Montalcino 16.5 Drink 2012-2017
Very dark, impenetrable ruby. Sweet and quite intense, and youthful palate. Very compact but with great extract and good balance between sweet fruit, acidity and firm tannins. Warm finish. (WS)

Fanti 2005 Brunello di Montalcino 16.5 Drink 2012-2016
Impenetrable dark ruby with black tinge. Very accessible and flirty nose, but also developed with dark sweet fruit, Black Forest gateau, tobacco leaf and the merest hint of tar. Cinnamon bark too. Same flirty, popular, almost rich sweet appeal on the palate. International and lacking somewhat in identity. But doubtless appealing. Seems set for immediate consumption. (WS)

Fattoi 2005 Brunello di Montalcino 15.5 Drink 2012-2016
Very dark, already developed ruby, broad orange rim with brown tinge. Popular leather and candied fruit nose and perhaps a hint of horse saddle. Sweet, opulent fruit too on the palate, only to be tempered by acidity. Mass appeal? (WS)

La Fiorita 2005 Brunello di Montalcino 15 Drink 2012-2015
Very dark, almost impenetrable. Quite international chocolatey dark-fruit nose with hint of leather, almost horse saddle. Palate shows little generosity in fruit and quite stalky tannins, but more fragrant on the finish. (WS)

Fornacina 2005 Brunello di Montalcino 14 Drink 2012-2014
Developed orange ruby. Forest floor and leather. A touch of horse saddle. Quite rustic and hollow on the palate. (WS)

La Fortuna 2005 Brunello di Montalcino 14 Drink 2012-2014
Deep concentrated ruby, orange tinge. Almost youthful compared with many other samples of this vintage. Sweet, heady and with hints of candied peel. The structure has not a lot of fruit to hold on to. (WS)

La Fuga 2005 Brunello di Montalcino 15.5 Drink 2012-2015
Very dark, almost impenetrable. Open knit with red and dark fruit, baking spice and cherry-pie nose, with the beginnings of tertiary aromas. Compact and stalky. (WS)

Fossacolle 2005 Brunello di Montalcino 15 Drink 2012-2015
Deep ruby with brownish orange tinges. Vegetal and shoe polish opening. Elegant body, but seems to struggle between overripeness and underripeness at the same time. (WS)

Fuligni 2005 Brunello di Montalcino 15.5 Drink 2012-2015
Medium-concentrated very mature-looking orange ruby, but with concentrated centre. Cherry cake and tiramisu, hints of vanilla. More fruit driven with aeration. Except for the grainy, dominant tannins, it cannot shake off the somewhat sweet impression it leaves behind. (WS)

Fuligni, Le Chiuse di Sotto 2005 Brunello di Montalcino 16 Drink 2012-2016
Dark, and well-developed ruby, with broad orange rim. Also here the first hints are of dried fruit, but with very sexy oak handling. Quite skilled winemaking, but palate sways between austerity and sweetness. Will improve. (WS)

La Gerla 2005 Brunello di Montalcino 17 Drink 2012-2017
Quite lovely Bordeaux-like maturing ruby with orange tinges. Backward and closed, sweet, almost oriental spice. Lovely freshness and sweetness on the palate with medium-bodied feel. Quite understated and appealing. (WS)

Innocenti 2005 Brunello di Montalcino 15.5 Drink 2012-2015
Medium-concentrated orange ruby with brown tinge. Earthy, balsamic, hints of bacon. Touch vegetal. Very sweet fruit impression on the palate reinforced by the low acidity. Astringent stalky tannins. (WS)

Lisini 2005 Brunello di Montalcino 15.5 Drink 2012-2015
Maturing ruby tending towards brownish tinges. Warm, peppery, quite complex, but firmly in the dried fruit spectrum. As heady as the nose is, the more austere the palate. High acidity dominates the dried fruit finish. (WS)

Leonardo da Vinci, Da Vinci Collezione Speciale 2005 Brunello di Montalcino 15 Drink 2012-2014
Evolved orange ruby. Attractive at first, but much more restrained on the palate, lacking concentration. Does not live up to its 'Speciale' tag. (WS)

Le Macioche 2005 Brunello di Montalcino 14.5 Drink 2012-2015
Deep, brown-tinged ruby with brown-orange rim. Ever so slightly farmyardy. Firmly closed and astringent, and hard to detect fruit underneath, which pops up on the finish. Will the fruit ever come out? (WS)

La Magia 2005 Brunello di Montalcino 14.5 Drink 2012-2015
Opaque dark ruby with brownish-red tinges. Powerful nose with dried fruit notes, meaty notes too, and parmesan. Underneath it all lingering cherry. Livelier on the palate, with good length, but there doesn’t seem to be sufficient extract to balance out the astringency. (WS)

Mastrojanni 2005 Brunello di Montalcino 16.5 Drink 2012-2018
Medium ruby with brownish tinges. Balsamic nose and taut, compact palate. Tannic but not astringent. High acidity melts away on the finish. Ends warm with subdued aromatic development. Wait. (WS)

Cantina di Montalcino 2005 Brunello di Montalcino 15 Drink 2012-2014
This Cantina was acquired by the Cantina Leonardi Da Vinci from Vinci, near Florence. Medium-deep ruby with brown tinge and orange rim. Almost Amarone-like nose with hints of cinnamon. Quite attractive fruit, but very big, stalky tannic structure. (WS)

Silvio Nardi 2005 Brunello di Montalcino 15.5 Drink 2012-2016
Very dark with orange/brown rim. Intensely sweet fruitcake and dried fruit nose. Palate much less forward with astringent tannins. Seems very unsettled at this stage. Wait. (WS)

Silvio Nardi, Manachiara 2005 Brunello di Montalcino 15.5 Drink 2012-2016
Very dark with a broad orange rim. Backward, slightly alcoholic opening. Same backward palate, with what looks like an elevated level of alcohol. Fruit just about to shine through. Needs more time. (WS)

Il Palazzone 2005 Brunello di Montalcino 14 Drink 2012-2014
Deep, mature orange ruby. Distinctly vegetal underneath fruit cake. Vegetal notes too underneath sweet fruit. (WS)

Il Paradiso di Manfredi 2005 Brunello di Montalcino 13.5 Drink 2010-2010
Brownish red ruby. Opens with Sunmaid raisins aroma and the merest suggestion of Marsala. The palate resembles a skeleton with cloth wrapped around it. Oxidative finale. (WS)

Pian delle Vigne (Antinori) 2005 Brunello di Montalcino 16 Drink 2012-2015
Medium deep, with orange/brown rim of medium concentration. Fine nose, sweet and with hints of cinnamon and incense. Good balance between fruit and acidity. The palate seems quite mellow and soft with fairly low acidity. Slightly rustic, drying tannins and a warm finish. Already quite approachable. (WS)

Agostina Pieri 2005 Brunello di Montalcino 16.5 Drink 2012-2018
Medium deep and quite youthful looking for the vintage. Inviting sweet complex peppery nose with maraschino cherry with a pinch of spicy oak. Herbal notes too. Impressive, rich sweet fruit, kept in check by lifting acidity. Bitter tannins, which complement the wine. Slightly burning finish. (WS)

La Poderina 2005 Brunello di Montalcino 15 Drink 2012-2014
Opaque, deep ruby with black tinge. Somewhat vegetal and spicy and reluctant. Quite interesting on the palate, though, but it remains to be seen if this turns into something more complex. (WS)

Il Poggione 2005 Brunello di Montalcino 15 Drink 2012-2015
Deep developed ruby. Chocolate fruitcake and cherry. Alcoholic. Similar aromatics on palate but struggles with the big structure. Astringent. (WS)

Le Ragnaie 2005 Brunello di Montalcino 14.5 Drink 2012-2014
Medium-concentrated with broad orange-tinged rim. Stewed nose, fruitcake. Sweet stewed fruit and high acidity. Unbalanced. (WS)

Castello Romitorio 2005 Brunello di Montalcino 16.5 Drink 2012-2016
Evolved dark ruby. Opens up slowly to fine, subdued strawberry and spice. Restrained cherry and black tea leaf. Drying but finely structured tannin. Elegant, not unlike a very slim supermodel. (WS)

Villa Poggio Salvi 2005 Brunello di Montalcino 15.5 Drink 2012-2015
Deep mature-looking ruby with an orange-brown tinge. Savoury, earthy, tobacco-leaf fruit nose with the merest suggestion of leather. Palate marked by acidity, but fragrant fruitcake and liquorice finish of medium length. (WS)

San Filippo 2005 Brunello di Montalcino 14.5 Drink 2012-2014
Very deep ruby with black tinge. Subdued with hints of farmyard. Palate is all spine and little flesh. (WS)

San Polino 2005 Brunello di Montalcino 16 Drink 2012-2016
Medium-concentrated maturing ruby with a broad orange rim. Dried fruit and cherry. Quite sinewy and a touch austere. Slightly rustic persistent tannic structure, but finish shows multilayered and complex if in the fruitcake and spice spectrum. (WS)

San Polino, Helichrysum 2005 Brunello di Montalcino 17 Drink 2012-2018
Deep, almost impenetrable. Sweet, multilayered, almost powerful nose. Dried fruit spectrum but lots happening here. Palate shows great freshness and compactness of fruit, very well balanced with crunchy tannins. Very long and satisfying. (WS)

Poggio San Polo 2005 Brunello di Montalcino 14.5 Drink 2012-2014
Deep, if somewhat lacklustre ruby with orange tinges. Sweet and a touch jammy. Sweet-sour fruit, quite refreshing if not overtly complex or long. For mid-term drinking. (WS)

Livio Sassetti (Pertimali) 2005 Brunello di Montalcino 16 Drink 2012-2015
Very deep, concentrated brown ruby with concentrated orange-brown rim. Opulent, sweet and somewhat stewed. Hints of kitchen spice. Lengthy sweet fruit on the palate. Not the most complex, and the hot vintage shows itself clearly in the fruit character. (WS)

Sesti 2005 Brunello di Montalcino 17 Drink 2012-2017
Evolved medium-concentrated ruby with orange tinges in broad rim. Garden herbs and forest-floor nose with hints of tar. Elegant lively fruit palate. Elegant too, the long finish. Tannic core. (WS)

Talenti 2005 Brunello di Montalcino 16.5 Drink 2012-2016
Developed reddish-brown ruby, concentrated rim. Balsamic, herbal. Herb liqueur and dried fruit. More complex flavours on the palate, with sweet fruitcake notes balanced by succulent acidity. Tannins frame a long, almost sweet finish. (WS)

Terre Nere 2005 Brunello di Montalcino 15.5 Drink 2012-2015
Deep dark evolved Bordeaux look-a-like ruby. Very appealing, posh well-balanced oak nose. Mellow sweet fruit with a layer of stalky tannins and acidity only making its mark on the finish. (WS)

Uccelliera 2005 Brunello di Montalcino 16 Drink 2012-2017
Almost opaque, dark brownish ruby, with a narrow orange rim. Sweet herb liqueur and Black Forest gateau. Same generosity on the palate cut by high acidity, but overall balance is there. (WS)

BRUNELLO DI MONTALCINO RISERVA 2004

Angelini, Vigna Spuntali Riserva 2004 Brunello di Montalcino 16.5 Drink 2010-2017
Deep, dark ruby with slight orange-brown tinge. Ripe, multilayered and very appealing. Full-bodied sweet-sour fruit palate and generous long finish with pleasant grainy tannins. Popular style. (WS) 14.5%

Poggio Antico, Riserva 2004 Brunello di Montalcino 17.5 Drink 2012-2018
Very dark, impenetrable. Opens with nutmeg, hints of black pepper becoming increasingly more complex with aeration, followed by wonderful intense but not overtly sweet fruit. Long and persistent finish with flattering crunchy tannins. Distinctly international apppearance, but very well made. (WS) 13.5%

Banfi, Poggio all'Oro Riserva 2004 Brunello di Montalcino 16 Drink 2010-2016
Deep, dark ruby of medium concentration. Soft, warm nose with hints of tobacco, new oak, and the beginning of tar. Not overtly complex on the palate but concentrated nevertheless, with a warm finish. (WS) 14%

Barbi, Riserva 2004 Brunello di Montalcino 17 Drink 2012-2018
Well evolved, very dark ruby with orange rim. Fine backward nose of sweet black fruits and hints of undergrowth. Concentrated, and quite youthful on the palate with grainy tannins. Just beginning to open up. (WS) 14%

Gianni Brunelli, Riserva 2004 Brunello di Montalcino 18 Drink 2012-2019
Very deep, almost opaque. Sweet, dried cherry and tea leaves. Lip-smacking red and dark fruit and fine powdery but persistent tannins. Refreshing and elegant. (WS) 13.5%

Gianni Brunelli, Le Chiuse di Sotto Riserva 2004 Brunello di Montalcino 17 Drink 2012-2018
Deep, maturing ruby with broad orange-ruby rim. Shy to open up, red fruits and hints of graphite. Youthful. Crunchy sweet-sour fruit impression. Ripe tannic structure. Fragrant, sweet and long. Ends a touch warm. (WS) 14%

Camigliano, Gualto Riserva 2004 Brunello di Montalcino 16.5 Drink 2012-2017
Almost impenetrably dark with a light orange rim. Seriously concentrated and a touch alcoholic. Juicy red and dark fruits and an edge of candied peel/dried fruit. Persistent but finely structured tannins. Long, generous finish. (WS) 14%

Canalicchio di Franco Pacenti, Riserva 2004 Brunello di Montalcino 17.5 Drink 2012-2018
Deep, evolved and quite mature-looking orange ruby. Sweet and earthy, but a lively bright concentrated cherry. Lots of juiciness here and firm tannic layer. Endlessly long. (WS) 14%

Capanna, Riserva 2004 Brunello di Montalcino 16 Drink 2012-2016
Deep, dark ruby with an almost black tinge. Oatmeal, cherry liqueur, hints of vanilla and the beginning of tertiary notes. Good persistence on the palate, but slightly rustic structure. (WS) 14.5%

Caparzo, Riserva 2004 Brunello di Montalcino 15.5 Drink 2012-2015
Dark and slightly lacklustre ruby. Very backward, closed nose. Concentrated, intense dark fruit, with astringent and slightly bitter tannins. (WS) 14%

Caprili, Riserva 2004 Brunello di Montalcino 15 Drink 2010-2014
Opaque deep ruby, with almost black tinges. Opulent and popular dried fruit and cherries in alcohol with spicy oak note. Contrasting sweet, dried fruit and high acidity. Lacks stuffing? (WS) 14.5%

Castelgiocondo, Riserva 2004 Brunello di Montalcino 15 Drink 2012-2016
Deep dark ruby with a black tinge. Interesting but very subdued nose. Same restrained palate opening up to sweet, jammy fruit, but astringent tannins are fiercely dominating at this stage. (WS) 13.5%

Castiglion del Bosco, Riserva 2004 Brunello di Montalcino 16 Drink 2010-2017
Very dark ruby with black tinge. Opulent forest-fruit nose. Big mouthful of dark sweet fruit and cherry and cassis notes. Very long and alcoholic and rich, quite a balancing act. (WS) 14.5%

Ciacci Piccolomini d'Aragona, Riserva 2004 Brunello di Montalcino 16.5 Drink 2012-2018
Evolved dark and mature-looking ruby. Nose not yet opening up, but hints of liqorice, oatmeal and candied cherry. Intensely sweet fruit attack with bitter, coating tannin. Long and big. (WS) 14.5%

Donatella Cinelli Colombini, Riserva 2004 Brunello di Montalcino 17 Drink 2012-2018
Dark, somewhat lacklustre ruby. Developed leathery fruit at first, with aeration more depth. Concentrated sweet fruit with acidic play giving tension to the palate. Slightly rustic, but not coarse, tannins. Very nice, multilayered length. (WS) 13.5%

Le Chiuse, Riserva 2004 Brunello di Montalcino 15 Drink 2012-2015
Dark with brownish-orange tinges. Sweet vanilla and leather, and a vegetal streak. Slight vegetalness or earthiness seems at odd with the sweet, dark fruit. (WS) 14%

Col d'Orcia, Poggio al Vento Riserva 2004 Brunello di Montalcino 16 Drink 2012-2016
Deep medium-concentrated ruby with a broad orange rim. Herbal, almost vegetal and savoury nose. Length indicates more is to come. (WS) 14%

Fattoi, Riserva 2004 Brunello di Montalcino 15 Drink 2010-2015
Very dark, opaque. Sweet caramelised dark fruit and horse saddle and nutmeg. Acidity gives the palate a juicy quality, but the finish ever so slightly dries out. (WS)

La Fiorita, Riserva 2004 Brunello di Montalcino 16 Drink 2012-2017
Dark ruby. Slightly sweaty nose with hints of oak and touch of band aid. Lots of dark, ripe fruit on the palate, only tempered by drying tannins. (WS) 14%

Fornacina, Riserva 2004 Brunello di Montalcino 16.5 Drink 2010-2018
Deep concentrated ruby, with an orange tinge on the concentrated rim. Heady, ever so slightly port-like with hints of rose petals. Concentrated, succulent fruit, and compact, drying tannins, great frame. (WS) 14%

La Fuga, Riserva 2004 Brunello di Montalcino 16 Drink 2010-2016
Cask sample. Very dark, impenetrable. Openly international with plummy fruit and the beginning of tertiary tobacco notes. Vanilla hint on long extracted finish. Slightly drying finish. (WS)

La Gerla, Riserva 2004 Brunello di Montalcino 15.5 Drink 2012-2017
Quite youthful, dark ruby, small rim just starting to lighten up. Balsamic and slightly vegetal nose. Intense sweet-sour contrast with a port-like, slighly stewed sweet fruit finish. (WS) 14%

Innocenti, Riserva 2004 Brunello di Montalcino 14.5 Drink 2012-2014
Quite mature orange ruby. Sweet, rich, a touch alcoholic. Quite sweet attack too, but lacks lasting power on the finish. Bitter note. Already tired? (WS) 14%

Lisini, Ugolaia Riserva 2004 Brunello di Montalcino 18 Drink 2012-2020
Deep, almost impenetrable ruby with a tiny rim beginning to lighten up. Dark brooding fruit with hint of moroccan leather. Herb liqueur hint. Well balanced palate, fruit keeps on opening up into the finish. Classy with potential. (WS) 14%

La Magia, Riserva 2004 Brunello di Montalcino 15.5 Drink 2012-2016
Very deep, almost opaque with black tinge. Balsamic, savoury nose with hint of black olive. Richly fruity with somewhat rustic tannins. Popular. (WS) 14%

Siro Pacenti, Riserva 2004 Brunello di Montalcino 15 Drink 2012-2015
Deep, almost opaque but more youthful looking than most wines of this vintage. Touch leathery and not entirely focused. Lacks concentration. Somewhat coarse finish too. (WS)

Il Palazzone, Riserva 2004 Brunello di Montalcino 17 Drink 2012-2019
Deep, mature ruby with orange-brown tinges in rim. Closed nose, hints of liquorice. Slow to open up on the palate, but lots of ripe dark fruit on the finish, with balancing acidity. (WS) 13.5%

Il Paradiso di Manfredi, Riserva 2004 Brunello di Montalcino 14.5 Drink 2012-2015
Dark ruby. Quite vegetal nose. Sweet fruit with unripe highish acidity and slightly astringent too. (WS) 13.5%

Pian delle Vigne (Antinori), Vigna Ferrovia Riserva 2004 Brunello di Montalcino 16 Drink 2012-2016
Cask sample. Dark ruby with broad orange-tinged rim. Very sweet fruit nose. Richly fruity and long but with distinct dried fruit character. (WS)

La Poderina, Poggio Banale Riserva 2004 Brunello di Montalcino 16 Drink 2012-2018
Very dark, imprenetrable. Posh oak and forest fruit. Jam, stalky tannins. Deserves cellaring. (WS) 13.5%

Il Poggione, Riserva 2004 Brunello di Montalcino 16 Drink 2012-2016
Evolved dark ruby. First impression is of fruit steeped in alcohol, port-like, almost. Same rich sweet fruit on the palate, shot through by jumpy acidity. Ends warm. A big drink. (WS) 14.5%

Castello Romitorio, Riserva 2004 Brunello di Montalcino 16.5 Drink 2012-2019
Very deep, dark, opaque ruby with a black tinge. Beautiful mature fruit and oak nose. Restrained but succulent fruit palate with juicy acidity. Closes slightly up on a complex, fragrant finish. Very young still. (WS) 14%

San Filippo, Le Lucere Riserva 2004 Brunello di Montalcino 16.5 Drink 2010-2016
Very dark and starting to look mature with small brickstone rim. Savoury with hints of white pepper. Palate shows much more open. Well balanced with good extracts and length. (WS) 14%

San Polino, Riserva 2004 Brunello di Montalcino 17 Drink 2010-2017
Deep ruby with the beginning of orange on a narrow rim. Quite sweet initially with notes of vanilla, and hint of cardamon. Great balance and richness of fruit, with depth and hint of vanilla pod on the finish. Accessible and with depth. (WS) 14.5%

San Polo, Riserva 2004 Brunello di Montalcino 15.5 Drink 2010-2016
Cask sample. Deep, almost opaque ruby. Hints of new oak and leather. Concentrated and sweet on the attack, the leather note dominates the stalky, warm finish at this stage. (WS)

Livio Sassetti (Pertimali), Riserva 2004 Brunello di Montalcino 15.5 Drink 2010-2015
Cask sample. Dark and dangerously mature looking. Savoury, white pepper and dark chocolate. Just enough acidity to keep this big, plummy mouthful going. (WS)

Sesti, Phenomena Riserva 2004 Brunello di Montalcino 15 Drink 2010-2015
Cask sample. Very mature, deep ruby with brown tinge and orange tinges. Balsamic, herbal opening and very round and accessible, quite un-Sangiovese-like. Seems to mature quickly. (WS)

Talenti, Pian del Conte Riserva 2004 Brunello di Montalcino 16 Drink 2012-2017
Mature-looking ruby with orange-tinged rim. Black tea, dark chocolate and cherry compote. Subdued. Intense fruit lifted by acidity. More mellow finish. (WS) 14%

Uccelliera, Riserva 2004 Brunello di Montalcino 17 Drink 2012-2018
Opaque, deep ruby. Quite plummy, cherry, herb liqueur and orange peel. Perhaps only a touch oxidative. Surprisingly lean, tight palate, but very long. Will need more time. (WS) 14.5%

VINO NOBILE 2007 v 2006

noreply@blogger.com (Blogger) — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 16:51:00 +0000

The 2007 vintage in Montepulciano, less clement than for Chianti Classico in general, showed wines that seemed to struggle with less-than-ripe tannins combined with a slight stewed fruit character. Increased temperatures during March and April meant that budbreak took place 15 days earlier than normal. Rainfall in May and June prevented water stress, with relatively low temperatures in June followed by above-average temperatures in July. High temperatures and virtually no rainfall in August delayed grape ripening. But the extreme heat affected the grapes, leading in some cases to overripeness and loss of aroma.

Certainly, there seems to be no shortage of sweet fruit in the 2007 vintage, but in many cases there is not enough acidity to counteract this, making the wines look rather too 'populist' and sweet, lacking in freshness. Quite a few samples showed stewed fruit character, and several wines seemed somewhat oxidative. Tannins seemed in quite a few cases not entirely ripe, and although the wines cannot be released onto the market until they have been aged for two years after the harvest (three years for Riserva wines), this additional ageing did not entirely compensate for this. Conversely, the 2006 Riservas stole the show. With near-perfect balance, they were an absolute joy to taste.

The en primeur tasting itself, held in stunningly beautiful Montepulciano, proved to be a modest affair with only about 50 wines on show from no more than 29 of the 70 producers the Consorzio counts as members (20 further Vino Nobile producers do not belong to the Consorzio). This leaves a slight doubt as to how representative these en primeur tastings are for a genuine assessment of how this denomination stands today within the Tuscan landscape, and as to the will of its producers to close ranks and co-operate in promoting Vino Nobile on the international market.

VINO NOBILE 2007

Angelini, Tre Rose 2007 Vino Nobile di Montepulciano 15 Drink 2010-2013
Prugnolo Gentile 90%, Canaiolo 5%, Cabernet Sauvignon 5%. Cask sample. Oenologist: Fabrizio Ciufoli. Concentrated, maturing ruby with orange reflexes. Touch reductive and closed on the palate. Fruitcake impression on the palate, and warm, rustic finish. (WS) 14.5%

Avignonesi 2007 Vino Nobile di Montepulciano 15 Drink 2010-2013
Prugnolo Gentile 85%, Canaiolo 10%, Mammolo 5%. Cask sample. Oenologist Paolo Trappolini. Medium concentrated ruby, with broad rim. Serious and seriously sweet, jammy nose. Very sweet and popular too, jammy, a touch unfocused. Should have been much more interesting. (WS) 13.8%

Le Bèrne 2007 Vino Nobile di Montepulciano 15.5 Drink 2010-2013
Prugnolo Gentile 97%, Colorino 3%. Cask sample. Oenologist: Paolo Vagaggini. Deep ruby, rim already shows orange reflexes. Sweet nose with dried fruit notes. Dried fruit character repeats itself on the palate contrasted by some nice acidity. Fiercely tannic at this stage. Will the fruit get through? (WS) 15.22%

Bindella 2007 Vino Nobile di Montepulciano 16 Drink 2010-2015
Sangiovese 85%, Colorino, Canaiolo, Mammolo 15%. Cask sample. Crimson, youthful optic. Sweet forest fruit nose with earthy hints. Quite opulent sweet fruit on the palate too. One dimensional at this stage, but lots of extract. Promising. (WS) 14.64%

Boscarelli 2007 Vino Nobile di Montepulciano 17 Drink 2010-2014
Prugnolo Gentile 90%, Canaiolo, Merlot 5%, Colorino 5%. Cask sample. Oenologists: Maurizio Castelli, Luca de Ferrari, Mary Ferrara. Medium ruby, already starting to get lighter. Subdued at first. Very attractive dark berry and tobacco leaf. Sweet fruit attack, followed by a very compact, tight palate. Drying tannins dominate at this stage but fruit returns on a long and understated finish. Well balanced. (WS) 14.34%

La Braccesca 2007 Vino Nobile di Montepulciano 15.5 Drink 2010-2013
Prugnolo Gentile 90%, Merlot 10%. Cask sample. Oenologist: Lorenzo Dongarrà. Estate owned by Antinori. Crimson. Hazelnut and muesli opening, brooding cherry fruit. Iron note. Quite reluctant on the palate, the wine shyly shows some cherry fruit, underpinned by persistent, grainy tannin. Perhaps it hasn't quite enough extract to deal with the big structure. (WS) 13.5%

Fattoria del Cerro 2007 Vino Nobile di Montepulciano 16 Drink 2010-2015
Prugnolo Gentile 90%, Colorino 5%, Mammolo 5%. Cask sample. Oenologist: Lorenzo Landi. Deep crimson, but rims starts to lighten up. Reductive opening, subdued but interesting; concentrated but not sweet. Same interesting, fragrant fruit starting to get more depth. Struggles with the tannic frame at this stage, but will get out fine at the other side. (WS) 13.8%

La Ciarliana 2007 Vino Nobile di Montepulciano 16 Drink 2010-2014
Prugnolo Gentile 95%, Mammolo 5%. Cask sample. Oenologist: Paolo Vagaggini. Evolved ruby with orange rim. Somewhat mature nose too, with cherry pie, dark fruit, orange peel/iron note and tar. Austere and savoury and subdued, but fragrant finish. Crunchy tannins. (WS) 14.7%

Contucci 2007 Vino Nobile di Montepulciano 13 Drink 2010-2012
Prugnolo Gentile 80%, Canaiolo 10%, Colorino 10%. Cask sample. Oenologist: Contucci Alamanno. Crimson with lighter rim. First sample showed distinct browning apple, the second has more (stewed) fruit, dark chocolate notes, and still signs of oxidation. (WS) 13.9%

Croce di Febo 2007 Vino Nobile di Montepulciano 15 Drink 2010-2013
Prugnolo Gentile 85%, Mammolo 3%, Colorino 2%, Merlot 5%, Syrah 5%. Cask sample. Oenologist: Andrea Mazzoni. Very dark crimson and youthful looking. Slightly clichéd nose of oak, spice, and sweet compote-like fruit. Stewed and jammy fruit palate framed by powdery but fierce tannins. Ready to drink. (WS) 13.85%

Dei 2007 Vino Nobile di Montepulciano 14.5 Drink 2010-2012
Sangiovese 90%, Canaiolo Nero 10%. Cask sample. Oenologist: Niccolo D’Afflitto. Deep crimson. Sweet, and somewhat alcoholic Christmas cake nose. Fairly simple, stewed fruit palate, pulled up by acidity. (WS) 13.5%

Il Faggeto, Pietra del Diavolo 2007 Vino Nobile di Montepulciano 16 Drink 2010-2014
Prugnolo Gentile 90%, Canaiolo 5%, Mammolo 5%. Cask sample. Oenologist: Andrea Mazzoni. Very dark ruby with orange rim. Attractive herbal and tarry red fruit nose and hint of graphite. Complex. Well-balanced elegant fruit cloaked in grainy tannin. Will improve despite its mature look. (WS) 13.9%

Fassati, Pasiteo 2007 Vino Nobile di Montepulciano 16 Drink 2010-2013
Sangiovese 95%, Colorino 3%, Mammolo 2%. Cask sample. Oenologist: Riccardo Periccioli. Deep ruby with rim just starting to develop. Quite an international nose of French oak, sweet dark fruit, cinnamon and fruit cake. Contrasting high acidity on the palate making the wine look much more austere. With hints of vanilla on the finish. (WS) 13.5%

Gattavecchi 2007 Vino Nobile di Montepulciano 16.5 Drink 2010-2014
Sangiovese 95%, Canaiolo%, Colorino 5%. Cask sample. Oenologist: Federico Ricci. Bright, light ruby, with some signs of development. Seems oak driven as well as austere. Interesting, succulent palate of red fruit and orange peel. Gentle but long finish. Astringency is evident, but length convinces. (WS) 13.8%

Gracciano della Seta 2007 Vino Nobile di Montepulciano 16.5 Drink 2010-2015
Prugnolo Gentile 90%, Merlot 10%. Cask sample. Oenologist: Giuseppe Rigoli. Quite light ruby with broader rim showing some orange reflexes. Nose shows stewed fruit and a layer of strawberry jam. Sweet strawberry jam immediately counteracted by drying tannins. Mouthfilling aromatic finish. Very popular. (WS) 14.2%

Godiolo 2007 Vino Nobile di Montepulciano 15 Drink 2010-2013
Prugnolo Gentile 96%, Canaiolo 2%, Colorino 2%. Cask sample. Oenologist: Franco Fiorini. Medium ruby with broad rim. Reductive, almost sweaty nose. Talcum powder. Hard to see the fruit through all this. Mellow and somewhat nondescript attack. Quite light fruit finish, touch alcoholic too. (WS) 14.1%

Icario 2007 Vino Nobile di Montepulciano 15.5 Drink 2010-2013
Sangiovese 80%, Canaiolo 5%, Merlot 10%, Colorino 5%. Cask sample. Oenologist Paolo Vagaggini. Dark, medium-concentrated ruby, with broader orange rim. Dry French oak and sweet pastry opening. Palate shows much more in favour of the fruit, which is very compact and backward but handles the oak treatment well. Drying tannins at this stage but with sweet fruit finish. Oak a bit too upfront for Sangiovese? (WS) 14.7%

Lodola Nuova 2007 Vino Nobile di Montepulciano 16 Drink 2010-2015
Predominantly Prugnolo Gentile. Cask sample. Oenologist: Alessandro Chinello. Estate belongs to the Ruffino company. Deep ruby with broad orange rim. A sweet cherry jam and fruitcake nose with a medicinal note. Very intense cherry fruit palate, rustic tannins, and alcoholic finish, but in a way genuine and begs for food. (WS) 14.45%

Nottola 2007 Vino Nobile di Montepulciano 13 Drink 2010
Prugnolo Gentile 80%, Canaiolo 10%, Merlot 10%. Cask sample. Oenologist: Riccardo Cotarella. Medium-concentrated dark ruby, almost black tinge. Very stewed nose – oxidised. Second sample is the same. Is it the cork? (WS) 14.5%

I Poderi di Poggialgallo 2007 Vino Nobile di Montepulciano 17 Drink 2010-2015
Prugnolo Gentile 85%, Canaiolo, Colorino, Ciliegiolo 15%. Cask sample. Oenologist: Paolo Vagaggini. Medium-deep evolving ruby with broad rim. Seriously multilayered with perfectly integrated oak. Perfumed sweet cherry. Same multilayered palate too. Interesting complex fragrant finish too. Perhaps a touch more acidity would have lifted it. (WS) 13.5%

Poliziano 2007 Vino Nobile di Montepulciano 16.5 Drink 2010-2014
Prugnolo Gentile 85%, Colorino, Canaiolo, Merlot 15%. Cask sample. Oenologists: Carlo Ferrini and Fabio Marchi. Deep ruby, small rim showing the beginning of orange. Appealing, sweet and even multilayered with orange peel and touch of lead pencil. Mellow, round palate, lots of sweet fruit here. Good balance too and very good length. Popular, but well made. (WS) 14.6%

Salcheto 2007 Vino Nobile di Montepulciano 15.5 Drink 2010-2013
Prugnolo Gentile 100%. Cask sample. Oenologists: Michele Manelli and Paolo Vagaggini. Very dark ruby, youthful rim. Fruit cake and savoury, meaty notes, kitchen spice too. Slightly stewed fruit character. Ends on a sweet fruit impression, but good length. (WS) 13.5%

Terra Antica 2007 Vino Nobile di Montepulciano 15.5 Drink 2010-2013
Prugnolo Gentile 90%, Merlot 5%, Cabernet Sauvignon 5%. Cask sample. Oenologist: Paolo Vagaggini. Medium-concentrated maturing ruby. Open knit and very approachable. Jammy fruit, Morroccan leather. Soft round and fruity, seems to be an early-developing wine. Savoury finish begs for food. Good length, though. (WS) 14.43%

Triacca 2007 Vino Nobile di Montepulciano 15.5 Drink 2010-2015
Sangiovese 90%, Colorino 5%, Merlot 5%. Cask sample. Oenologist: Luca Triacca. Medium-deep ruby with broad orange rim. Compact brooding nose of dark fruit and only hints of fruitcake. Sweet fruit impression on the palate, but backward nevertheless. (WS) 13.5%

Valdipiatta 2007 Vino Nobile di Montepulciano 16.5 Drink 2010-2015
Prugnolo Gentile 85%, Canaiolo 15%. Cask sample. Oenologist: Mauro Monicchi. Deep crimson and rim just starting to get lighter. Tight and compact nose. Same compactness on the palate, but finish shows some pretty interesting aromatic echoes. Fierce tannins - designed for eternity? (WS) 14.3%

Vecchia Cantina, Poggio Stella 2007 Vino Nobile di Montepulciano 14 Drink 2010-2012
Prugnolo Gentile 90%, Canaiolo 10%. Cask sample. Oenologist: Ugo Pagliai. Very dark ruby, almost black-brown tinge. Horse saddle – perhaps a touch too much? Touch flabby on the palate as well. No great extract either. (WS) 13.5%

VINO NOBILE SELEZIONE 2007
'Selezione' has no legal meaning but was used at the tasting to denote single-vineyard wines or special cuvées.

Bindella, I Quadri 2007 Vino Nobile di Montepulciano 15.5 Drink 2010-2013
Sangiovese 85%, Colorino, Canaiolo, Mammolo 15%. Cask sample. Deep ruby with orange-tinged rim. Candied fruit and pastry opening. Similar, somewhat confected cream-pie fruit aromas. Finish however shows more complex with graphite notes. Alcohol makes tannins look a touch rough. (WS) 13.5%

Fassati, Gersemi 2007 Vino Nobile di Montepulciano 15 Drink 2010-2012
Dark ruby, still quite youthful looking. Crowd-pleasing cherry pie and cinnamon nose. Same intense sensations on the palate. Cream vanilla finish. Lacks a bit of acidity to lift it and give tension. (WS) 13%

Gattavecchi, Parceto 2007 Vino Nobile di Montepulciano 14.5 Drink 2010-2012
Sangiovese 95%, Canaiolo%, Colorino 5%. Cask sample. Oenologist: Federico Ricci. Dark, medium-concentrated ruby. First sample showed dangerously oxidative, second sample less so, but still there is a distinct note of browning apple. Sweet dried fruit palate offset by acidity. Lacks finesse and freshness of fruit. (WS) 14%

Valdipiatta, Vigna d'Alfiero 2007 Vino Nobile di Montepulciano 16 Drink 2010-2014
Prugnolo Gentile 85%, Canaiolo 15%. Cask sample. Oenologist: Mauro Monicchi. Medium-deep bright ruby. The nose seems a tad dominated by fruit cake, but underneath is some pretty cherry. Balsamic and incense-like hints. Somewhat dried fruit character on the palate but finish shows more multifaceted. Could do with more acidity. (WS)

Vecchia Cantina, Cantina del Redi 2007 Vino Nobile di Montepulciano 15.5 Drink 2010-2013
Prugnolo Gentile 90%, Canaiolo 10%. Cask sample. Oenologist: Ugo Pagliai. Dark, medium-concentrated ruby with broad orange rim. The nose looks quite forced with hints of horse saddle and fruit cake. Compact and tight fruit on the stewed side. Lifting acidity gives focus and freshness, but quite nice coating tannins. (WS) 13.5%

VINO NOBILE SELEZIONE 2006
'Selezione' has no legal meaning but was used at the tasting to denote single-vineyard wines or special cuvées.

Angelini, Simposio 2006 Vino Nobile di Montepulciano 16 Drink 2010-2015
Prugnolo Gentile 90%, Canaiolo 5%, Cabernet Sauvignon 5%. Cask sample. Oenologist: Fabrizio Ciufoli. Medium-concentrated mature-looking ruby with brickstone reflexes. Unashamedly leathery, dominating the nose. Sweet and concentrated on the palate, with fine but fierce tannins. Seems to have all the stuffing to turn into something more complex. (WS) 14.5%

Boscarelli, Nocio 2006 Vino Nobile di Montepulciano 17 Drink 2010-2015
Prugnolo Gentile 90%, Canaiolo, Merlot 5%, Colorino 5%. Cask sample. Oenologists: Maurizio Castelli, Luca de Ferrari, Mary Ferrara. Deep rub. Herbal, liquorice and hint of dried cherry. Complex if a bit closed at this stage. Also the palate is somewhat backward, but on the finish quite complex flavours. Elegant and long. (WS) 14.5%

Fattoria del Cerro, Antica Chiusina 2006 Vino Nobile di Montepulciano 15 Drink 2011-2015
Very dark ruby with orange-tinged narrow rim. Touch of horse saddle and graphite and herbal notes. Palate shows somewhat mute, but aromatic development on the finish. (WS) 14%

La Ciarliana, Vigna Scianello 2006 Vino Nobile di Montepulciano 15.5 Drink 2011-2015
Very dark, medium-concentrated ruby with beginning of orange on the rim. Spicy and a touch of leather. Fruit is just opening up on the palate. Seems to have good overall balance. Slow developer, and finish dominated by leather. (WS) 15%

Villa Sant'Anna, Poldo 2006 Vino Nobile di Montepulciano 14.5? Drink 2010-2014
Prugnolo Gentile 90%, Canaiolo 2%, Mammolo 1%, Colorino 1%, Merlot 6%. Cask sample. Oenologist: Carlo Ferrini. Deep ruby and broad rim with orange reflexes. Herbal and kitchen spice, with the fruit playing hide and seek. Slightly musty feel to the otherwise concentrated fruit, which is a shame as the wine displays some pretty sweet-sour crunchiness. Bitter note on the finish seems to confirm the problem. (WS)

VINO NOBILE RISERVA 2006

Avignonesi, Riserva 2006 Vino Nobile di Montepulciano 14.5 Drink 2010-2014
Prugnolo Gentile 85%, Canaiolo 10%, Mammolo 5%. Cask sample. Oenologist Paolo Trappolini. Very dark with orange reflexes on the rim. Very exotic, even strange nose of orange, rose water, cherry liqueur. Is this wine or perfume? Same potpourri of exotic aromas and cherry. Artificial. (WS) 14%

Le Bèrne, Riserva 2006 Vino Nobile di Montepulciano 16 Drink 2010-2014
Prugnolo Gentile 97%, Colorino 3%. Cask sample. Oenologist: Paolo Vagaggini. Dark ruby, with rim just starting to show some age. Spicy sweet fruitcake nose with notes of dark chocolate. Palate seems fresher compared with the nose, with sweet strawberry fruit impressions. Tannins dry out the finish slightly. (WS) 14.5%

La Braccesca, Vigneto Santa Pia Riserva 2006 Vino Nobile di Montepulciano 16.5 Drink 2010-2015
Prugnolo Gentile 90%, Merlot 10%. Cask sample. Oenologist: Lorenzo Dongarrà. Very deep, almost impenetrable ruby. Still very youthful. Impressive and elegant with pronounced but fine sweet red fruit perfectly balanced by oak. Wonderful concentration and length. Structure is not entirely knit together yet, and tannins seem a touch drying, still very good. (WS)

Canneto, Riserva 2006 Vino Nobile di Montepulciano 16.5 Drink 2010-2016
Prugnolo Gentile 95%, Merlot 5%. Cask sample. Oenologist: Carlo Ferrini. Youthful medium-deep ruby. Very closed on the nose and youthful on the palate too, but fruit is focused and fresh. Boisterous tannins at this phase but should age gracefully. (WS) 14.5%

Carpineto, Riserva 2006 Vino Nobile di Montepulciano 15 Drink 2010-2014
70% Prugnolo Gentile, with Canaiolo and Merlot. Cask sample. Oenologists: Giovanni Sacchet and Gabriele Ianett. Very deep crimson. Very attractively restrained dark fruit with hints of lead pencil. Soft sweet fruit that becomes more concentrated on the finish showing an abundance of cherry and strawberry jam. Perhaps a tad over the top. Seems completely ready for release. (WS) 13%

Contucci, Riserva 2006 Vino Nobile di Montepulciano 16 Drink 2010-2015
Prugnolo Gentile 80%, Canaiolo 10%, Colorino 10%. Cask sample. Oenologist: Contucci Alamanno. Deep ruby starting to evolve. Broad rim. Maturing nose with telltale tobacco leaf and sweet, spicy fruit. Good concentration of red and dark fruits with well-integrated acidity. Everything seems to fall into place here. Fragrant finish. Not enormously complex, but satisfying. (WS) 13.5%

Croce di Febo, Riserva 2006 Vino Nobile di Montepulciano 17 Drink 2010-2016
Prugnolo Gentile 85%, Mammolo 3%, Colorino 2%, Merlot 5%, Syrah 5%. Cask sample. Oenologist: Andrea Mazzoni. Deep medium ruby, just beginning to age. Nose only very reluctantly shows hint of cherry and merest suggestion of leather. Great aromatic development on the palate. Tannins are persistent and stalky, but not overpowering. Very long. (WS) 13.5%

Dei, Bossona Riserva 2006 Vino Nobile di Montepulciano 16 Drink 2010-2014
Sangiovese 90%, Canaiolo Nero 10%. Cask sample. Oenologist: Niccolo D’Afflitto. Very deep ruby with orange reflexes. Posh if subdued nose. Quite subdued on the palate too, but with richness of fruit on the finish, almost jammy even. Attractive but seems a tad untypical and somewhat alcoholic. (WS) 14%

Gracciano della Seta, Riserva 2006 Vino Nobile di Montepulciano 16 Drink 2010-2013
Prugnolo Gentile 90%, Merlot 10%. Oenologist: Giuseppe Rigoli. Medium-deep ruby with broader, orange-tinged rim. Pomegranate syrup and cherry. On the palate cherries steeped in alcohol. Very attractive if not entirely well balanced. May improve with age? (WS) 14%

Icario, Vitaroccia Riserva 2006 Vino Nobile di Montepulciano 17.5 Drink 2010-2016
Sangiovese 80%, Canaiolo 5%, Merlot 10%, Colorino 5%. Cask sample. Oenologist Paolo Vagaggini. Deep, dark medium-concentrated ruby, with the beginning of orange in small rim. Quite pure, fruit-driven nose. Same purity of fruit on the palate. This has sweetness of fruit as well as savoury tannins balanced by acidity. Very long and aromatic, this goes on and on. (WS) 15%

Lodola Nuova, Riserva 2006 Vino Nobile di Montepulciano 15 Drink 2010-2015
Predominantly Prugnolo Gentile. Cask sample. Oenologist: Alessandro Chinello. Very dark ruby with orange reflexes in very small rim. Heady nose, cherries on alcohol and a band-aid note. Concentrated fruit with grainy tannins. Finish displays hints of dried fruit. Massive structure. (WS)

Terra Antica, Riserva 2006 Vino Nobile di Montepulciano 16.5 Drink 2010-2016
Prugnolo Gentile 90%, Merlot 5%, Cabernet Sauvignon 5%. Cask sample. Oenologist: Paolo Vagaggini. Deep bordeaux-look-a-like ruby with the beginning of orange reflexes. Herbal and kitchen spice at first. Palate shows more promising with succulence and concentrated and lasting fruit flavours. Very good length too. The opulence matches the structure.(WS) 14.43%

MOISTURISERS FROM MONTEPULCIANO

noreply@blogger.com (Blogger) — Sat, 03 Apr 2010 09:37:00 +0000

The next stop on February's en primeur tastings in Tuscany, beginning with Chianti Classico, was Vino Nobile di Montepulciano. This series of en primeur tastings, concluding with the wines of Brunello di Montalcino, on which I will report later, saw Italian and international journalists, buyers and restaurateurs flock to the region to assess the latest vintages that come onto the market this spring.

This year the Consorzio of Vino Nobile seemed to be particularly concerned with our dermatological health, to judge from the series of bath products and moisturising creams made with the 'essence of red grapes', which all tasters found in their hotel rooms. Although the list of their ingredients dutifully states 'Vitis vinifera', it doesn't specify whether this is the revered Prugnolo Gentile, as Sangiovese, the principal grape of Vino Nobile, is known here.

On a more serious note, the Consorzio announced that with around eight million bottles on the market, their sales volume had remained stable since last year, although they did admit that the average price of their wine had decreased. This must have had a considerable impact on the region that exports about two-thirds of its total production, its most important markets being Germany (28%), Switzerland (26%), and the USA (18%), with the UK representing a modest 5%.

Some important changes took place in 2009, of which the most relevant was the modification of Vino Nobile di Montepulciano production regulations, just before the introduction of last year's CMO/OCM. The modification has not been without controversy, as it increased the percentage of 'authorised grape varieties' other than Prugnolo Gentile, including the non-indigenous Cabernet Sauvignon and Merlot, raising eyebrows as well as the question as to why the proportion of Prugnolo Gentile should be reduced in a wine that has been considered so Nobile all these centuries.

The formulation of the amended regulations is slightly cryptic, too, in that they state that the proportion allowed of 'additional grape varieties' (ie the aforementioned foreign intruders) is increased from the original 20% to 30%, while the firmly local Canaiolo can be included only to a maximum 20%. This still gives conscientious producers the chance to produce a Vino Nobile consisting of Tuscan varieties only, but the modification cannot shake off the impression that the Consorzio doesn't think very highly of Canaiolo. It's intriguing too that the (legal) addition of white grapes to the fermentation tank will be reduced from the current 10% of the blend to 5% over the next five years. This is a step in the right direction that is too late and too timid in the eyes of purists.

All this has not led to a clearer image of this wine, which finds itself stylistically between Chianti Classico and Brunello di Montalcino. Author Nicolas Belfrage MW has aptly described Vino Nobile as combining the elegance of Chianti Classico with the firm structure of Brunello di Montalcino, seeing this firm structure as a guarantee for ageworthiness of the wines. But it seems that some producers are only too happy to use the new, increased proportion of Merlot to make wines in an earlier-maturing, more international style. And it is true that one is well advised to drink the tannic, more classical examples of Vino Nobile with food.

CHIANTI CLASSICO 2008 AND RISERVA 2007

noreply@blogger.com (Blogger) — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 22:15:00 +0000

The Consorzio of Chianti Classico showed mild optimism during last month's en primeur presentation of 2008 Chianti Classico and the 2007 Riserva wines in Florence. At the same time last year the Consorzio spoke of Chianti Classico as a 'fortress' that would well withstand the stormy economic weather, while this year Marco Pallanti, proprietor of Castello di Ama and current president of the Consorzio, spoke of a positive trend reversal in sales. Not known for lingering in the spotlight, Pallanti kept his speech very short to allow us, press and trade, to get on with the tasting of some 400 wines on show.  

Discussing the wines with international colleagues during the Collezione Chianti Classico, I discovered quite a few who admitted to struggling with the en primeur/anteprima concept. This was mostly based on the fact that they found it hard to assess wines at such an early stage, characterised as they are by upfront acidity and unsettled tannins. I must confess that I was quite suprised by some of these reactions, not least as most of the professional tasters present wouldn’t blink an eye at the prospect of tasting young bordeaux en primeur, taking exactly these factors into account.

Not only that, 2008 Chianti Classico normale showed wonderful freshness and savouriness, and I could easily imagine many of these wines going very well with a range of dishes.   Provided the balance of these wines is right, it is relatively easy to see how they will develop. I felt that the normale had gained, if anything, in value, showing wines with good ageing potential and depth of flavour. In general the wines showed a clarity of fruit unblurred by stewed fruit character, which would turn up, unfortunately, later that same week in Brunellos from the less clement 2005 vintage. The 2007 Chianti Classico Riservas showed even better, with concentration and that all-important Spiel or play between an intense, sweet red fruit sensation cut through by lifting acidity and crunchy, stalky tannins. This vintage, at least on this quality level, should prove to be a real vin de garde.   

That is not to say that quite a few samples didn’t show astringency and big bold dark fruit flavours, which I personally do not readily associate with the best Sangiovese can bring. More often than not in these cases, additions of Cabernet Sauvignon and Merlot to the blend of indigenous varieties are to blame, and I can’t help but suspect that these two non-Tuscan varieties in particular are often employed to compensate for vineyards which, due to poor exposure or clones, won’t allow Sangiovese to shine on its own. This, in turn, means almost by definition a reduced focus on terroir, which the region has in spades, and a greater focus on results in the cellar. This may unfortunately only help to perpetuate the erroneous view that Sangiovese is a good, rather than a great, grape variety.   

Wines are listed in the following groups, and then alphabetically by producer (sur)name within each group: Chianti Classico 2008, Chianti Classico 2007, Chianti Classico Riserva 2007, Chianti Classico Riserva 2006.
Alcohol levels given in brackets with a question mark were taken from the back label of cask samples, so they may not be totally accurate but they are a good estimate.    

CHIANTI CLASSICO 2008  

Badia a Coltibuono 2008 Chianti Classico 17 Drink 2011-2015
90% Sangiovese, 10% Canaiolo. Cask sample (14%?). Oenologist Maurizio Castelli. Medium, almost light crimson (Pinot Noir optic). Restrained, appealing, sweet cherry confiture and liquorice nose. Touch warm. Beautiful balanced by only a pinch of oak. Closed, brooding fruit. Soft finely grained tannin. Needs at least another year to open up, but very promising. (WS)

Barone Ricasoli, Brolio 2008 Chianti Classico 16.5 Drink 2010-2014
Mainly Sangiovese. Cask sample (13.5%?). Oenologists Carlo Ferrini and Marco Cerqua. Deep violet glass-staining crimson. Opulent, popular, almost jammy but undeniably Tuscan nose. Generous dark fruit lifted by acidity, making the tannins look a tad rustic at this stage. (WS)

Bibbiano 2008 Chianti Classico 16 Drink 2011-2013
95% Sangiovese, 5% Colorino. Cask sample. Oenologist Stefano Porcinai. Formerly advised by the legendary Giulio Gambello, Sangiovese’s oldest protagonist (and history seems to prove him right). Medium deep ruby, seems surprisingly mature for a cask sample, at least colour-wise. Dense sweet cherry and cherry cake nose. Sweet cherry-fruit palate balanced by stalky tannins. Very good length but tannins need time to integrate. (WS)

Bibbiano, Montornello 2008 Chianti Classico 16.5 Drink 2010-2015
100% Sangiovese. Cask sample. Oenologist Stefano Porcinai. Deeper than the Bibbiano, but similar mature optic. Generous, quite big, sweet red fruits and hints of fruit cake. More extract and power than previous, with persistent tannins but backed up by more substance. Seems already accessible. (WS)

Borgo Scopeto 2008 Chianti Classico 16 Drink 2011-2015
100% Sangiovese. Cask sample (13.5%?). Oenologist Simone Giunti. Deep crimson, with rim showing some development. Very sweet, round, open dark-fruit nose. Touch of oak only. Soft round fruit attack, which closes up on the finish. Fruit at this stage harnessed by perceptible and touch drying tannins, perhaps enhanced at this stage by the acidity. Ends a touch warm. Wants food. (WS)

Brancaia 2008 Chianti Classico 16.5 Drink 2010-2013
85% Sangiovese, 15% Merlot. Cask sample. Oenologists Barbara Kronenberg-Widmer and Carlo Ferrini. Medium deep crimson. Classic nose of dark fruit, cherry, spicy oak and a touch of tar. Stylish and well balanced, succulent dark fruit, with hints of vanilla and soft, bitter tannins. The hint of tar might indicate this is for relativly early enjoyment. (WS)

Carpineto 2008 Chianti Classico 15 Drink 2010-2013
80% Sangiovese, 20% Canaiolo. Cask sample. Giovanni C. Sacchet and Gabriele Lanett. Medium deep ruby with small rim which shows quick evolution Nose seems slightly medicinal and earthy. Quite shy on the fruit front. This is confirmed on the palate, which seems quite light and fruit seems a touch short to keep up with the slightly astringent tannins. (WS)

Casa al Vento, Aria 2008 Chianti Classico 14.5 Drink 2010-2013
Cask sample. Oenologist Stefano Chioccioli. Medium deep, youthful ruby. Meaty, savoury and sweet, almost touch farmyardy. Quite tight and compact, somewhat unapproachable and quite austere on the finish. Will this improve with bottle age? (WS)

Casa Emma 2008 Chianti Classico 15 Drink 2010-2014
100% Sangiovese. Cask sample (13.5%?). Oenologist Carlo Ferrini. Medium deep ruby with small but evolved rim. Subdued but spicy fruitcake nose. With air the nose shows soy sauce. Somewhat closed at this stage and certainly restrained on the palate. Bit of a chore to taste at this stage, with dominating, rustic tannins. Ends warm. Begs for food. (WS)

Casale dello Sparviero 2008 Chianti Classico 16.5 Drink 2011-2015
95% Sangiovese, 5% Canaiolo. Cask sample. Oenologist Attilio Pagli. Medium deep ruby, this already shows some ageing at the rim. Sweet, perfumed strawberry jam with underlying soft kitchen spice. Savoury, but somewhat closed palate with youthful, almost boisterous tannins. Old school but honest, deserves more age. (WS)

Castellare di Castellina 2008 Chianti Classico 16 Drink 2010-2014
95% Sangiovese, 5% Canaiolo. Cask sample (13.5%?). Oenologist Alessandro Cellai and Maurizio Castelli. Medium crimson with lighter rim. Sweet, savoury cherry nose with a hint of oriental spice. Earthy too. Round, almost fleshy fruit palate (the fruit seems to be subdued, or toned down by something that is round and shows some MLF notes ie creaminess) and rustic stalky tannins. But retains good overall balance. Good length too. (WS)

Castelli dei Grevepesa 2008 Chianti Classico 16 Drink 2011-2014
100% Sangiovese. Cask sample. Oenologists Stefano Mosele and Gabriela Tani. Deep ruby. Open knit, generous sweet strawberry jam. Catchy almost. Palate is much more focused, with structuring acidity and grainy tannins, promising some development over the next year or so. (WS)

Castellinuzza e Piuca 2008 Chianti Classico 16.5 Drink 2011-2015
90% Sangiovese, 10% Canaiolo. Cask sample (13%?). Oenologist Marco Chellini. From the 'Frazzione' of Lamole, a higher site within the commune of Greve, which is, among insiders, considered a true cru because of its higher altitude, resulting, at least in theory, in more elegant and longer lived wines. Medium deep, youthful ruby. Sweet nose, which at this stage seems a bit suppressed by farmyardy notes, but improves with air. High acidity seems to betray its high altitude, with there is real interest underneath with lurking fruit and savoury tannins. Opens up on the finish. Could be more polished to attract a larger public. (WS)

Castello delle Stinche, Antico Lamole Vigna Grospoli 2008 Chianti Classico 17 Drink 2011-2015
100% Sangiovese. Cask sample. Oenologist Federico Staderi. From Lamole. Medium deep crimson. Sweet, popular and almost jammy. A touch of spicy oak pulls it back in. The same with the high acidity, resulting in an attractive sweet-sour fruit sensation. No high flyer, but very attractive and genuine. (WS)

Castello di Bossi 2008 Chianti Classico 15.5 Drink 2010-2013
100% Sangiovese. Cask sample (13.5%?). Oenologist Alberto Antonini. Deep, and evolving ruby. Open, dense, sweet and almost international. Fruit struggles between being dense and compact, tied back by acidity and stalky tannins. Good length, but at this stage it looks like the fruit will probably mature faster than the structure. (WS)

Castello di Fonterutoli 2008 Chianti Classico 16.5? Drink 2010-2014
90% Sangiovese, 5% Merlot, 3% Colorino, 2% Malavsia Nera (one wonders why bother at all with 5% Merlot?). Cask sample (13.5%?). Oenologists Luca Biffi and Carlo Ferrini. Very dark crimson with violet rim. Herbal, almost medicinal, backward nose. With aeration sweet and concentrated with a hint of leather. There seems a touch of browning apple on the palate, suppressing the fruit, which is a shame as the wine shows great concentration and balance. Two different samples tasted, it could be be the cork batch, so the verdict is out on this one. (WS)

Castello di Monsanto 2008 Chianti Classico 15 Drink 2011-2014
90% Sangiovese, 5% Canaiolo, 5% Colorino. Cask sample (13.5%?). Oenologist Andrea Giovannini. Medium concentrated ruby. Sweet, rich cherry with earthy, almost farmyardy undertone, but attractive. Closed fruit palate, unwilling to show a lot. Persistent, stalky tannins. Has the real generosity been saved up for the Riserva? (WS)

Castello di Querceto 2008 Chianti Classico 16 Drink 2010-2014
92% Sangiovese, 8% Canaiolo. Cask sample (13%?). Oenologist Giovanni Cappeli. Very dark ruby, youthful. Lovely dark fruit, garden herbs and earth nose. Quite round fruit with balancing acidity. Finish is dominated by tannins, but fruit is quite persistent. Unsettled, so wait. (WS)

Castello di Verrazzano 2008 Chianti Classico 14.5 Drink 2010-2012
95% Sangiovese, 5% Canaiolo. Cask sample (13.5%?). Marco Chellini. Deep ruby, with orange reflexes in the rim. The nose seems also evolved, with herbal, almost liquorice-like fruit. The soft fruit palate seems to lack expression and lift, due to very soft acidity. Touch bitter on the finish. Inoffensive. (WS)

Castello di Volpaia 2008 Chianti Classico 16.5 Drink 2011-2015
90% Sangiovese, 5% Merlot, 5% Syrah. Cask sample. Oenologists Lorenzo Regoli and Riccardo Cotarella. Medium deep crimson. Sweet red fruit, spice and baked rhubarb pie. Attractive sweet sour red fruit and cherry palate with crunchy tannins. Very good length too. Fun to drink, will make a good dinner companion, but does it need the international suspect, really? (WS)

Vicchiomaggio, San Jacopo da Vicchiomaggio 2008 Chianti Classico 14.5 Drink 2010-2012
90% Sangiovese, 5% Canaiolo, 5% Colorino. Cask sample (13.5%?). Oenologists John Matta and staff. Medium concentrated ruby, with lighter rim. Earthy fruitcake nose, not overtly expressive. Same impression on the palate with quite light fruit, which could be a touch more concentrated to deal with the tannic structure. (WS)

Cecchi, Teuzzo 2008 Chianti Classico 14.5 Drink 2010-2012
90% Sangiovese, 10% Cabernet Sauvignon. Cask sample (13.5%?). Oenologist Miria Bracali. Very dark, impenetrable ruby. Somewhat numb nose, with a touch of farmyard. Palate seems closed, but the balance seems struck with the acidity if less so with the persistent tannins. Will open up with an additional year. (WS)

Concadoro 2008 Chianti Classico 14.5 Drink 2010-2010
90% Sangiovese, 10% Canaiolo. Cask sample (14.5%?). Oenologist Marco Chellini. Evolved ruby. Herbal nose with sweet fruit hints and mustard. The palate only reluctantly shows some fruit, even more so on the mid palate. Ends on bitter tannins. (WS)

Le Fonti 2008 Chianti Classico 14.5 Drink 2010-2013
100% Sangiovese. Cask sample. Oenologist Paolo Caciorgna. From Poggibonsi. Medium deep, evolved ruby. Attractive sweet-sour cherry pie nose. On the palate the initial succulent fruit ends in quite soft, round and slightly inexpressive dark fruit with touch of creaminess from MLF. Medium length dominated by tannins. But there seems some potential for the wine to open up. (WS)

San Giusto a Rentennano 2008 Chianti Classico 15.5 Drink 2011-2013
95% Sangiovese, 5% Canaiolo. Cask sample (14%?). Oenologists Francesco Martini di Cigala and Attilio Pagli. Medium crimson showing some evolution on the rim. Open knit, popular, sweet and lifted nose. The palate seems somewhat less straightforward at this stage. Rustic tannins enforced by alcohol on the finish. But should make for a hearty wine. (WS)

Felsina Berardenga 2008 Chianti Classico 16 Drink 2010-2014
100% Sangiovese. Cask sample (13%?). Oenologist Franco Bernabei. Concentrated crimson, with the beginning of age on the rim. Medicinal opening, and reluctant to show fruit at this stage. But generous red fruit and cherry palate with lovely structuring acidity, which melts on the finish. Good balance and length. A somewhat rounder style of Chianti Classico. (WS)

Fietri 2008 Chianti Classico 14 Drink 2010-2013
85% Sangiovese, 15% Merlot. Cask sample. Oenologist Stefano Chioccioli. Medium-concentrated crimson. Very unusual, almost artificial sweet fruit pie and fruitcake, and cinnamon. Definitely the commercial model. Palate shows much more tension with uplifting acidity and rustic tannins. But fruit lacks a touch of concentration to stand up to the structure. Touch bitter on the finish. (WS)

Roberto Grassi, Montericcioli 2008 Chianti Classico 15 Drink 2011-2013
95% Sangiovese, 5% Merlot. Cask sample. Very deep crimson with violet reflexes. Quite pure cherry and cherry compote with notes of laurel. Closed compact palate, but finish shows good concentration. Touch bitter tannins on an alcoholic finish, and fairly moderate in acidity for the variety. Will open up. (WS)

I Fabbri, Terra di Lamole 2008 Chianti Classico 14.5 Drink 2012-2016
100% Sangiovese. Cask sample (13.5%?). Oenologist Marco Chellini. From Lamole from vineyards at 630 m. Medium concentrated crimson. Opens farmyardy. Practically closed on the nose. And completely closed on the palate too. Acidity doesn’t seem elevated for such high altitude, but tannins are persistent. Numb on the finish too. Wait. (WS)

Il Palagio 2008 Chianti Classico 15 Drink 2010-2013
95% Sangiovese, 5% Merlot. Cask sample (14%?). Oenologist Marco Chellini. Deep ruby with some development on the rim. Sweet-sour cherry nose, with a distinct herbal/vegetal note. Sweet lifted fruit palate seems to struggle at the finish to make its mark. Touch bitter tannins. (WS)

Isole e Olena 2008 Chianti Classico 17.5 Drink 2011-2015
80% Sangiovese, 15% Canaiolo, 5% Syrah. Cask sample. Oenologist Paolo de Marchias. Medium-deep ruby. Forthright, open and fruit driven nose with immediate appeal. Quite pure red fruit palate too, pushed further by juice acidity, well balanced with persistent but fine tannins. Closes up on the finish, but shows great potential. Being one of the undisputed leaders, one can only wonder why do they persist in adding Syrah to the blend, especially when Sangiovese seems to be in such knowledgeable hands? (WS)

Le Fonti 2008 Chianti Classico 14.5 Drink 2010-2013
95% Sangiovese, 5% Merlot. Cask sample. Oenologist Stefano Chioccioli. Panzano. Deep crimson. Red fruit and earthy iron notes. Fairly simple but honest fruit on the palate, with medium length. Unproblematic and probably what the average Chianti drinker expects. (WS)

Monte Bernardi, Retromarcia 2008 Chianti Classico 16.5 Drink 2010-2014
95% Sangiovese, 5% Merlot. Cask sample (13.5%?). Oenologist Michael Schmelzer. The second wine of Monte Bernardi. Medium deep, youthful ruby. Balsamic, spicy and savoury nose, somewhat closed on fruit at this stage. The palate makes more than up for this with lifted, succulent cherry fruit and crunchy tannins. Refreshing and elegant. New School, which should not suffer from giving up on the Merlot content. (WS)

Monteraponi 2008 Chianti Classico 16.5 Drink 2010-2013
95% Sangiovese, 5% Canaiolo. Cask sample. Oenologist Maurizio Castelli. Medium concentrated ruby with signs of development in the rim. Earthy, herbal with savoury notes with brooding dark fruit. Strikes very good balance between fruit sweetness and acidity ands crunchy tannins. Closes up on the finish. Old school but with class. (WS)

La Capella 2008 Chianti Classico 16 Drink 2010-2013
90% Sangiovese, 10% Merlot. Cask sample. Consultant Luca d’Atoma. Medium concentrated crimson, violet reflexes. Opulent fruitcake and cherry, and dried fruit impressions (is this the Merlot?), almost baked apple. But refreshing acidity on a red and dark fruit palate. Good balance too. Tight finish, needs time. (WS)

Terreno 2008 Chianti Classico 14.5 Drink 2010-2012
90% Sangiovese, 10% Canaiolo. Cask sample. Oenologist Paolo Vagaggini and Francesco Rapisarta-Haniez. Deep ruby with first signs of development on the rim. Very unusual. Initially sauerkraut, evolving into cherry. Cherry fruit palate with nutty notes. quite astringent. (WS)

Poggio Bonelli 2008 Chianti Classico 15 Drink 2010-2013
90% Sangiovese, 5% Merlot, 5% Colorino. Cask sample (14%?). Oenologist Leonardo Pini and Carlo Ferrini. Medium-deep ruby showing some signs of development on the rim. Soft sweet-sour red fruit nose with vegetal undertones. Spicy fruit of medium length. Touch nondescript. Certainly not overachieving. (WS)

Poggiopiano 2008 Chianti Classico 14.5 Drink 2010-2013
100% Sangiovese. Cask sample (14.5%?). Oenologists Attilio Pagli and Valentino Ciarla. Medium concentrated ruby. Seems a bit musty and alcoholic. Lively fruit underlined with stalky tannins, and soft bitter finish. (WS)

Querciabella 2008 Chianti Classico 16 Drink 2010-2013
95% Sangiovese, 5% Cabernet Sauvignon. Cask sample. Oenologist Guido de Santi. Medium deep crimson. Softly perfumed, spicy fruitcake and cherry nose. Generous, sweet, almost jammy fruit, but crunchy tannins and lifting acidity kick in at the finish. Good length. Popular. (WS)

Renzo Marinai 2008 Chianti Classico 15.5 Drink 2010-2013
90% Sangiovese, 10% Cabernet Sauvignon. Cask sample (13%?). Oenologist Giovanni Cappelli. Deep, youthful ruby. Horse saddle and sweet-sour fruit compote with savoury notes. The style seems to have evolved to a more refreshing, lifting, and less rich palate, although this still includes 10% Cabernet Sauvignon. (WS)

Rignana 2008 Chianti Classico 15.5 Drink 2010-2013
85% Sangiovese, 15% Canaiolo. Cask sample (14.5%?). Oenologists Giulio Gambelli and Paoli Salvi. Deep ruby with the first signs of development on the rim. Restrained nose showing kitchen spice, cumin. It has a lurking perfumed quality that doesn’t come to the fore yet. Same reluctance on the palate showing soft creamy MLF notes, and shy cherry on a rustic, tannic finish. Genuine. (WS)

Rocca delle Macie 2008 Chianti Classico 15.5 Drink 2010-2012
95% Sangiovese, 5% Merlot. Cask sample. Oenologist Giuseppe Caviola. Concentrated, medium ruby. Sweet, compote-like fruit with an earthy, dried-fruit undertone. The palate is completely the opposite with high acidity underpinning red fruit, and somewhat unsettled tannins at this stage. Should make an attractive, short-term drink. (WS)

Rocca di Montegrossi 2008 Chianti Classico 16 Drink 2010-2013
90% Sangiovese, 5% Canaiolo, 5% Colorino. Cask sample (13.5%). Oenologist Attilio Pagli. Youthful ruby. Very sweet, almost jammy nose. With aeration, more fruit definition. Definitely popular. Sweet, generous, almost confected fruit palate, but with sour bite on the finish. Should be appealing to most. (WS)

Ruffino, Santedame 2008 Chianti Classico 15 Drink 2010-2012
80% Sangiovese, 15% Merlot, 5% Cabernet Sauvignon. Cask sample. Oenologists Gabriele Tacconi and Alessandro Chinello. Deep ruby. Dark fruit and hints of baked apple. The palate is more invigorating. Not amazingly long. (WS)

Arceno 2008 Chianti Classico 14.5 Drink 2010-2012
80% Sangiovese, 20% Cabernet Sauvignon. Cask sample. Oenologists Lawrence Cronin and Pierre Seillan. Medium crimson. Not entirely clean on the nose (musty), a touch alcoholic, with cassis and cherry notes. High acidity counteracts sweet fruit, which at this stage is subdued. Will develop, unless astringent tannins take over. (WS)

Villa Trasqua 2008 Chianti Classico 14.5 Drink 2010-2013
95% Sangiovese, 2% Colorino, 2% Malvasia Nera, 1% Canaiolo. Cask sample. Oenologist Stefano Chioccioli. Medium ruby with the first signs of development on the rim. Cherry compote and herb liqueur. Sweet, round, rich with herb liqueur finish. Slightly biting alcohol on the finish and big tannins. Lacks elegance. (WS)

Terrabianca 2008 Chianti Classico 15.5 Drink 2010-2012
97% Sangiovese, 3% Canaiolo. Oenologist Vittorio Fiore. Attractive deep ruby with some maturation. Cassis and cherry liqueur nose with hints of blackcurrant leaves. Distinct cassis palate. Should appeal to the masses, also because of its refreshing acidity. (WS) 13.5%

Val delle Corti 2008 Chianti Classico 16.5 Drink 2010-2013
95% Sangiovese, 5% Canaiolo. Cask sample. Oenologist Sean O’Callaghan. Light ruby with violet reflexes. Heady dark fruit and earth nose. Earthy impression lingers on the high acidity palate. Angular. Difficult to forecast its development, but lingering finish seems to bode well for the future. (WS)

Vallone di Cecione 2008 Chianti Classico 16 Drink 2010-2012
90% Sangiovese, 5% Canaiolo, 5% Cabernet Sauvignon. Cask sample. Oenologist Alessandro Fusi. Deep crimson. Very young nose with MLF notes. Seems so unsettled, it is almost unfair to review it. Very sweet, very rich fruit. Rustic, stalky but not unripe tannins giving good contrast to the fruit sweetness. Seems to have lots of extract, but with relatively modest acidity, making it quite a big wine. Good persistence on the finish. For an international market? (WS)

Vignavecchia 2008 Chianti Classico 15.5 Drink 2010-2013
90% Sangiovese, 10% Merlot. Cask sample. Oenologist Federico Staderini. Dark ruby. Appealing cherry nose with a mineral note. Well balanced, but ends quite compact and restrained. Wait. (WS)

Villa Cafaggio 2008 Chianti Classico 16 Drink 2010-2014
100% Sangiovese. Cask sample. Oenologist Stefano Chioccioli. Very deep and dark crimson. Subdued but hints of sweet dark fruits. Hallmark persistent tannins, but seem less massive, more refined than in the past. Fairly modest acidity, this wine seems to aim for a wide audience. Quite compact still, but will open up. (WS)

Villa Calcinaia 2008 Chianti Classico 16 Drink 2010-2013
90% Sangiovese, 10% Canaiolo. Cask sample. Oenologist Federico Staderini. Medium deep crimson. A reluctant, closed nose, and equally reluctant palate. On the finish the wine wakes up, and shows good concentration and integrated acidity. Surprisingly lingering after taste, despite persistent tannic frame. (WS)

CHIANTI CLASSICO 2007
This category at the Collezione Chianti Classico consisted mostly of single-vineyard wines (which are actually of Riserva quality) as well as en primeur releases from estates that prefer to hold on to their wines longer than is the norm.

Barone Ricasoli, Castello di Brolio 2007 Chianti Classico 16.5 Drink 2010-2014
Sangiovese with (unspecified) portions of Cabernet Sauvignon and Merlot in the blend. Oenologists Carlo Ferriniand Marco Cerqua. Very deep dark crimson. At first herbal, but opens up with aeration. This definitely needs decanting. Lovely dense fruit palate with sweet sour impression and crunchy tannins. Fruit seems a touch muted on the finish. well made, and should be very popular.(WS) 14%

Salcetino 2007 Chianti Classico 15.5 Drink 2010-2012
95% Sangiovese, 5% Canaiolo. Oenologist Andrea Dominutti. Medium-deep ruby with orange reflexes. Sweet opulent, and hints of candied fruit. Much gentler on the palate with a rash development on the finish. (WS) 13%

Candialle 2007 Chianti Classico 16 Drink 2010-2013
97% Sangiovese, 3% Petit Verdot. Oenologist Vittorio Fiore. Deep ruby, with first signs of age. Quite sweet with fruitcake notes and hints of spicy oak. Lots of sweet-sour interplay on the palate, to only disappoint slightly in length. Young vines? (WS) 14%

Casale dello Sparviero, Vigna Paronza 2007 Chianti Classico 17 Drink 2010-2015
100% Sangiovese. Cask sample. Oenologist Attilio Pagli. Very deep ruby, Bordeaux-lookalike. Very unusual, very pure forest-strawberry nose. Concentrated strawberry and cherry with crunch and lift. Definitely old school, but with potential. (WS)

Casaloste 2007 Chianti Classico 15.5 Drink 2010-2012
85% Sangiovese, 15% Merlot. Oenologists Giovanni Battista d’Orsi and Gabriela Tani. Concentrated ruby with some orange reflexes. Meaty, savoury opening. Quite soft fruit palate. Easy going, without highs or lows. (WS) 13.5%

Rocca di Castagnoli 2007 Chianti Classico 16.5 Drink 2010-2013
90% Sangiovese, 5% Merlot, 5% Syrah. Oenologist Martin Froelich. From Castellina. Organic. Medium deep ruby starting to light up. Earthy, sweet with distinct minerally notes, and hints of Morrocan leather. Lots of concentration and succulence here, but the finish seems a touch oak dominated. Very lively, though. (WS) 14%

Castellinuzza e Piuca 2007 Chianti Classico 15.5 Drink 2010-2012
100% Sangiovese. Oenologist Marco Chellini. Medium-concentrated ruby with some development on the rim. Very sweet, this is all fruit on the nose. No sign of oak. Lively palate, but not very concentrated, hence alcohol shows up. Lacks a bit of stuffing. (WS) 13.5%

Castello della Paneretta 2007 Chianti Classico 17 Drink 2010-2013
90% Sangiovese, 10% Canaiolo. Oenologist Nicola Berti. Medium-deep ruby with the first signs of age. Serious and brooding dark fruit and spice nose. On the palate lovely bite as well as strawberry and juicy cherryfruit. Carries its alcohol effortlessly. (WS) 14.5%

Castello delle Stinche, Vigna Grospoli 2007 Chianti Classico 16 Drink 2010-2013
100% Sangiovese. Cask sample. Oenologist Federico Staderini. Quite mature-looking medium-concentrated ruby. Very sweet strawberry jam and nutmeg. With depth. At this stage subdued on the finish, but lots of extract. One wishes only for a little lift of acidity. (WS)

Castello di Bossi 2007 Chianti Classico 16 Drink 2010-2013
100% Sangiovese. Oenologist Alberto Antonini. Mature-looking ruby. International nose of concentrated fruit and hints of oak and fruit cake. But there is something undeniably Tuscan about it as well. International appeal on the palate as well, with lots of sweet fruit contrasted by stalky tannins and long finish. A crowd pleaser. (WS) 13.5%

Castello di Meleto 2007 Chianti Classico 15.5 Drink 2010-2012
90% Sangiovese, 10% Merlot. Oenologist Federico Cerelli and Stefano Chioccioli. Deep, concentrated ruby. Sweet but subdued nose. Very mellow fruit palate, revived by acidity shot through the red fruit. Persistent tannins but enough fruit to withstand. (WS) 13.5%

Concadoro, Vigna di Gaversa 2007 Chianti Classico 15.5 Drink 2010-2012
85% Sangiovese, 15% Cabernet Sauvignon. Oenologist Marco Chellini. Dark, youthful looking ruby. Sweet jammy fruit and hints of baked apple, indicating overly fast development? There is some succulent fruit on the palate with crunchy tannins and just enough lift. Quite nice, without blowing one away. (WS) 14%

Dievole, La Vendemmia 2007 Chianti Classico 14.5 Drink 2010-2012
90% Sangiovese, 5% Colorino, 5% Canaiolo. Oenologists Santo Gozzo and Simone Anselmi. Medium-concentrated ruby starting to show some age. Very closed. Herbal nose. The wine doesn’t open up on the palate either. Strangely nondescript on the finish. Touch bitter. Perhaps this needs time? (WS) 13.5%

Montemaggio 2007 Chianti Classico 16 Drink 2010-2013
95% Sangiovese, 5% Merlot. Oenologist Andrea Paoletti. Medium-concentrated ruby. Sweet jammy nose with hints of spice and touch of bacon. Quite sweet and rich palate, with mellow, dense fruit. Lots of extract, but seems to lack a bit of personality? (WS) 14.5%

Nittardi, Casanuova di Nittardi 2007 Chianti Classico 17 Drink 2010-2014
97% Sangiovese, 3% Canaiolo. Oenologist Carlo Ferrini. Concentrated ruby with orange reflexes in the rim. Hugely attractive nose of sour cherry and nutmeg. Enticing sweet-sour fruit palate with lots of interest. Very long. (WS) 13%

Fontodi 2007 Chianti Classico 17 Drink 2011-2014
100% Sangiovese. Oenologist Giovanni Manetti. Medium-deep ruby. Subdued and understated. Same on the palate, seems still very youthful. Extremely well balanced with invigorating acidity, coating tannins and subdued but long finish. This needs more time. (WS) 14.5%

Isole e Olena 2007 Chianti Classico 16.5 Drink 2010-2015
80% Sangiovese, 15% Canaiolo, 5% Syrah. Oenologist Paolo De Marchi. Medium-deep ruby with orange reflexes. Somewhat closed with herbal notes. Lively acidity pushes forth a sweet fruit palate. Seems a tad closed at this stage. (WS) 14%

Lamole di Lamole, Blu 2007 Chianti Classico 15.5 Drink 2010-2012
80% Sangiovese, 10% Merlot, 10% Cabernet Sauvignon. Oenologist Loris Vazzoler. Bordeaux lookalike ruby with orange reflexes. Soft red fruit notes with hint of vanilla. Quite full bodied and sweet. Crowd pleaser but lacks a touch of lift.(WS) 13.5%

Le Cinciole 2007 Chianti Classico 16.5 Drink 2010-2013
98% Sangiovese, 2% Canaiolo. Oenologist Stefano Chioccioli. Crimson with the beginning of orange reflexes. Closed on the nose, showing some incense-like notes. Somewhat subdued on the palate too. Full-bodied sensation. Very nice coating tannins. Will need more time but has the stuffing. (WS) 13.5%

Monte Bernardi 2007 Chianti Classico 17.5 Drink 2010-2015
95% Sangiovese, 5% Canaiolo. Oenologist Michael Schmelzer. Deep ruby with just the beginning of age on the rim. Very refined, perfumed nose, with amazing depth. Very poised. Very fine, gentle softly fruity palate too, framed by grainy tannins. Impressive in its elegance and with lots of potential. Sangiovese at its best. (WS) 13.5%

CHIANTI CLASSICO RISERVA 2007

Agricoltori del Chianti Geografico, Montegiachi Riserva 2007 Chianti Classico 14 Drink 2010-2010
95% Sangiovese, 5% Colorino and Merlot. Oenologist Lorenzo Landi. Deep, medium-concentrated ruby. Popular and slightly stewed fruit nose. Sweet palate too, with dried fruit notes. Quite soft, with rustic tannins. Drink now. (WS) 14%

Badia a Coltibuono, Riserva 2007 Chianti Classico 16.5 Drink 2010-2016
90% Sangiovese, 10% Canaiolo. Cask sample (14.5%?). Oenologist Maurizio Castelli. Medium-concentrated ruby with broad rim showing the beginning of orange reflexes. Elegant nose of dark fruit, hints of earth and cigar box. More austere on the palate, with grainy tannins, but very good overall balance. Not amazingly complex, but may gain in time. (WS) 14.5%

Barone Ricasoli, Rocca Guicciardi Riserva 2007 Chianti Classico 16.5 Drink 2010-2014
Sangiovese with 'complementing' (sic) grape varieties. Oenologists Carlo Ferrini and Marco Cerqua. Dark ruby, still youthful looking. Ripe, plummy fruit and kitchen spice, and perhaps a hint of undergrowth and saddle. Ripe and fragrant fruit contrasted by grainy, persistent tannins. Length indicates potential. (WS) 13.5%

Bibbiano, Vigna del Capannino Riserva 2007 Chianti Classico 15.5 Drink 2010-2013
100% Sangiovese. Cask sample. Oenologist Stefano Porcinai. Youthful dark ruby. Open and accessible nose of dark fruits and fruitcake. Similar impressions on the palate, without being overtly complex. Warm finish enforces tannic impression. (WS)

Capannelle, Riserva 2007 Chianti Classico 16.5 Drink 2010-2013
90% Sangiovese, 5% Canaiolo, 5% Colorino. Cask sample. Oenologist Simone Monciati. Very deep, concentrated ruby. Dark evolving ruby with orange reflexes. Quite complex sweet nose with well integrated oak, and quite restraint for this flamboyant estate. Compact fruit palate with succulent lift, and crunchy tannins, which at this stage determine the finish. More to come. (WS)

Casa al Vento, Foho Riserva 2007 Chianti Classico 15 Drink 2010-2013
90% Sangiovese, 10% Merlot. Cask sample. Oenologist Stefano Chioccioli. Deep ruby showing the beginning of age. Earthy, spicy fruitcake and hint of leather. Fairly simple, uncomplicated. (WS)

Casa Emma, Riserva 2007 Chianti Classico 16 Drink 2010-2014
95% Sangiovese, 5% Malvasia Nera. Oenologist Carlo Ferrini. Very dark, almost opaque ruby. Very open, round, mature, with plummy, spicy fruit, notes of liquorice and spice. Very appealing on the palate too, with sweet dark fruits offset by austere grainy tannins. ends warm. A crowd pleaser, no doubt. (WS) 14%

Casale dello Sparviero, Riserva 2007 Chianti Classico 16.5 Drink 2010-2015
100% Sangiovese. Cask sample. Oenologist Attilio Pagli. Deep ruby, small rim with the beginning or orange. Generous, soft round fruit nose with just a hint of dark chocolate, tar and cherry. Similar round, gentle fruit spiked with stalky tannins. Great length. Well made old-school style. (WS)

Castellinuzza e Piuca, Riserva 2007 Chianti Classico 16 Drink 2010-2014
100% Sangiovese. Oenologist Marco Chellini. Medium-deep ruby with orange reflexes in broad rim. Dark fruit and herbs opening. Lovely strawberry fruit followed by stalky tannins. Acidity kicks in on the finish. Elegant fruit closes up on the finish, but it looks like there is more to come. (WS) 13.5%

Castello di Meleto, Vigna Poggiarso Riserva 2007 Chianti Classico 16 Drink 2010-2015
100% Sangiovese. Oenologist Federico Cerelli and Stefano Chioccioli. Beautiful deep ruby with tiny orange rim. Bags of red and dark fruit compote here. Looks international, also on the palate. Good length with a persistent layer of grainy tannins. Keep. (WS)

Castello di Monsanto, Riserva 2007 Chianti Classico 16 Drink 2011-2014
90% Sangiovese, 5% Colorino, 5% Canaiolo. Oenologist Andrea Giovannini. Deep and still quite youthful ruby. Evolved nose with ripe dark fruits and a touch of tar. Compact if appealing. Quite elegant palate, but the compact red fruit struggles with astringent tannins on the finish at this stage. However, there seems potential for the fruit to open up more. (WS)

Castello di Volpaia, Riserva 2007 Chianti Classico 15.5 Drink 2010-2013
100% Sangiovese. Cask sample. Oenologists Lorenzo Regoli and Riccardo Cotarella. Very deep, almost impenetrable ruby. Very small rim only just starting to evolve. Very attractive with sweet red fruits perfectly balanced by oak. Definitely appealing and modern. On the palate the oak treatment seems to have compromised the fruit as the wine ends astringent. This astringency dominates the entire finish. Food would do wonders. (WS)

Castello di Volpaia, Coltassala Riserva 2007 Chianti Classico 16.5 Drink 2012-2016
95% Sangiovese, 5% Mammolo. Cask sample. Oenologists Lorenzo Regoli and Riccardo Cotarella. Deep dark ruby, with very small, lighter rim. Seductive cherry nose with sweet spice and oak notes. By contrast the palate shows good extract, but tannins are all over the place. Still, genuine. (WS)

Casuccio Tarletti, Campoalto Riserva 2007 Chianti Classico 15? Drink 2011-2010
100% Sangiovese. Oenologist Fabrizio Thomas. Medium-concentrated ruby with broad rim showing first signs of age. Firmly closed at first. Earthy cherry and strawberry hints and a touch of bacon. Extremely compact and backward on the palate too. Firm tannins and hints of liquorice on a closed finish. Difficult to assess. (WS) 13.5%

Cecchi, Riserva della Famiglia Riserva 2007 Chianti Classico 14.5 Drink 2010-2012
90% Sangiovese, 10% Colorino. Oenologist Miria Bracali. Medium crimson. Closed on the nose and closed on the palate. Inert and somewhat charmless. (WS) 13.5%

San Giusto a Rentennano, Le Baroncole Riserva 2007 Chianti Classico 17 Drink 2011-2016
97% Sangiovese, 3% Canaiolo. Cask sample (14.5%?). Oenologists Francesco Martini di Cigala and Attilio Pagli. Medium-deep ruby with small orange tinged rim. The nose strikes a very good balance between oak, ripe cherry and plummy fruit. Also hints of undergrowth and tar. There is austerity on the palate, promising more for the future. Very long with lasting fruit as well structure. Wait. (WS) 14.5%

Felsina, Riserva 2007 Chianti Classico 16 Drink 2010-2013
100% Sangiovese. Oenologist Franco Bernabei. Concentrated ruby starting to mature. Quite catchy, if at first somewhat dusty oak fruit nose. Round fruit rolls over the tongue interrupted by elevated acidity. Good length, though, but no overachiever. (WS) 13.5%

La Madonnina, Riserva 2007 Chianti Classico 14.5 Drink 2010-2012
90% Sangiovese, 5% Cabernet Sauvignon, 5% Merlot. Oenologists Luca Triacca and Vittorio Fiore. Medium deep ruby, rim showing some beginning of orange reflexes. Understated but sweet nose. Palate is slightly less exciting with soft, somewhat nondescript fruit and bitter tannins, this impression is augmented by the alcoholic finish. (WS) 13.5%

La Sala, Riserva 2007 Chianti Classico 16.5 Drink 2010-2015
100% Sangiovese. Oenologist Gabriella Tani. Very dark ruby. Marked by posh oak and mint, cherry and fruitcake. Attractive, nevertheless. Succulent, almost rich cherry and plum fruit, supported by crunchy tannins. Very good length. Generous. (WS) 14%

Monteraponi, Il Campitello Riserva 2007 Chianti Classico 17 Drink 2010-2015
90% Sangiovese, 5% Canaiolo, 5% Colorino. Cask sample. Oenologist Maurizio Castelli. Medium deep ruby with broader rim showing signs of age. At first reluctant nose, shyly opening up to strawberry jam. Minerally, almost iron-like note. Very young and taut on the palate, with sweet strawberry and candied fruit, and coating, persistent tannins on a long finish. This should age very well. (WS)

Poggio al Sole, Casasilia Riserva 2007 Chianti Classico 15 Drink 2010-2013
100% Sangiovese. Cask sample. Oenologist Johannez Davaz. Deep ruby, quite impressive colour. Almost formulaic nose with maraschino cherry, fruitcake, the merest hint of cassis and notes of oak and tobacco. Quite lively dark and cherry fruits and stewed notes. Quite pleasant, with stalky rustic tannins. (WS) 14.5%

Poggio Torselli, Riserva 2007 Chianti Classico Faulty Drink 2010-2010
100% Sangiovese. Cask sample. Oenologists Vittorio Fiore and Massimo Cresti. Deep ruby with orange reflexes on the rim. Vegetal and what looks like oxidised (two different samples tasted). Vegetal and browning apple too. Bottling problem? (WS)

CHIANTI CLASSICO RISERVA 2006

Casaloste, Don Vincenzo Riserva 2006 Chianti Classico 15.5 Drink 2011-2014
95% Sangiovese, 5% Merlot. Oenologists Giovanni Battista d’Orsi and Gabriella Tani. Crimson, just starting to evolve at the rim. Restraint and a touch medicinal. Brooding fruit and a hint of oatmeal. Great reluctance of fruit on the palate and, at this stage, lots of tannins dominating the finish. May need more time, but will never be the most generous of wines. (WS) 13.5%

Castellare di Castellina, Riserva 2006 Chianti Classico 14.5 Drink 2010-2012
95% Sangiovese, 5% Canaiolo. Oenologists Alessandro Cellai and Maurizio Castelli. Deep crimson, with only just the beginning of age. Dried-fruit nose with the merest suggestion of baked apple. Linear fruit, not an enormous lot of charm here. (WS) 13.5%

Castello della Paneretta, Riserva 2006 Chianti Classico 16.5 Drink 2010-2015
90% Sangiovese, 10% Canaiolo. Oenologist Fabio Albisetti. Attractive medium ruby. Intriguing nose of herbs, cherry and black currant leaves. Sweet fruit attack, followed by lovely succulent fruit harnessed by powdery, grippy tannins. Good length, will certainly benefit from additional cellaring. (WS) 13.5%

Castello di Bossi, Bernardo Riserva 2006 Chianti Classico 16 Drink 2010-2014
100% Sangiovese. Oenologist Alberto Antonini. Very dark ruby with orange reflexes in very small rim. Subdued nose of earthy, plummy fruit and cherry, and a hint of tobacco. Viscous mouthful of fruit followed by stalky tannins. Will mellow out with age. Good complexity and balance. Good food partner. (WS) 14%

Castello di Meleto, Vigna Casi Riserva 2006 Chianti Classico 16.5 Drink 2010-2014
85% Sangiovese, 15% Merlot. Oenologists Federico Cerelli and Stefano Chioccioli. Deep crimson. Popular , rich dark fruit, fruitcake and spicy oak nose. Concentrated and dense on the attack, pulled in by stalky tannin and lifting acidity. Very good length. (WS) 14%

Castello di Monsanto, Il Poggio Riserva 2006 Chianti Classico 16.5 Drink 2011-2015
90% Sangiovese, 5% Canaiolo, 5% Colorino. Cask sample. Andrea Giovannini. Deep, medium concentrated ruby, with orange reflexes. Maturing, if somewhat backward nose with dark and dried fruit character and tarry notes. Initally very sweet on the attack, this evolves quickly into fragrant cherry fruit with fierce but not overpowering tannins. Very good length, which starts to become complex. Inspite of the hefty tannins, it still seemd balanced, if not integrated yet. Traditionalist style. Wait. (WS) 14%

Vicchiomaggio, La Prima Riserva 2006 Chianti Classico 15 Drink 2010-2013
100% Sangiovese. Oenologists John Matta and staff. Deep Bordeaux-like ruby. Stewed fruit, fruitcake, and strawberry jam. Sweet and concentrated, a bit one dimensional. Stalky tannins on the finish perk it up. Ends warm. (WS) 14%

Vicchiomaggio, Gustavo Petri Riserva 2006 Chianti Classico 15 Drink 2010-2013
80% Sangiovese, 20% Merlot. Cask sample. Oenologists John Matta and staff. Very dark crimson, almost opaque. Tiny rim with orange reflexes. Dense, maturing nose, with dark fruit and note of candied orange peel, this wine will look already mature upon release, but perhaps this is the style the estate aims for. The palate confirms this impression with soft, ripe, and very approachable. Drinking well now, so it is intriguing why it hasn’t been bottled earlier? (WS)

Dievole, Novecento Riserva 2006 Chianti Classico 14.5 Drink 2010-2012
90% Sangiovese, 5% Canaiolo, 5% Colorino. Oenologists Santo Gozzo and Simone Anselmi. Very dark ruby with orange reflexes in tiny rim. Old-fashioned nose of fruitcake and fruit steeped in alcohol. Livelier palate, but without greast interest. Depending on the price this looks like it is aiming at masses. (WS) 14%

Dievole, Dieulele Riserva 2006 Chianti Classico 14 Drink 2010-2012
95% Sangiovese, 3% Colorino, 2% Canaiolo. Oenologists Santo Gozzi and Simone Anselmi. Even darker, with orange-tinged rim. Stewed, raisiny fruit with round fruitcake style palate. Ends quite dry and sudden. (WS)

Montemaggio, Riserva 2006 Chianti Classico 15 Drink 2010-2013
100% Sangiovese. Oenologist Andrea Paoletti. Maturing, medium-deep ruby. Earthy, with tobacco notes, tar and mineral and lurking plum fruit. Sweet, concentrated fruit with lifting acidity, and stalky tannins. Looks slightly tired? (WS) 14%

Nittardi, Riserva 2006 Chianti Classico 16.5 Drink 2010-2014
95% Sangiovese, 5% Merlot. Oenologist Carlo Ferrini. Deep, youthful ruby. Opens with oriental spice and dried cherry. Intense, almost jammy fruit with only the merest suggestion of oak on the finish. Well balanced, hugely popular style. (WS) 13.5%

Fontodi, Vigna del Sorbo Riserva 2006 Chianti Classico 16.5 Drink 2010-2014
90% Sangiovese, 10% Cabernet Sauvignon. Oenologist Franco Bernabei. Deep crimson, rim just starting to lighten. Heady, sweet cherry-liqueur nose. Ripe, concentrated, almost intense sweet fruit lifted by juicy acidity. Coating tannins. Well balanced. A bigger, international style of Chianti Classico. (WS) 14.5%

Lamole di Lamole, Riserva 2006 Chianti Classico 15 Drink 2010-2012
100% Sangiovese. Oenologist Loris Vazzoler. Medium-concentrated ruby, with rim just beginning to show some orange. Canned cherries and strawberries. Quite sweet initially on the palate. No real highs or lows here. (WS) 13.5%

Lamole di Lamole, Vigneto Campolungo Riserva 2006 Chianti Classico 15 Drink 2010-2012
85% Sangiovese, 15% Cabernet Sauvignon. Oenologist Loris Vazzoler. Deep crimson. Intense strawberry jam and cherry pie with earthy notes. Rich and sweet on the attack, long and concentrated, grainy tannins giving much needed contrast, but without great depth and seemed to lack a bit of focus. (WS) 14%

Le Cinciole, Petresco Riserva 2006 Chianti Classico 16.5 Drink 2010-2014
100% Sangiovese. Oenologist Stefano Chioccioli. Medium-concentrated ruby. Lovely maturing nose of fruit and oak. Some tarry notes pop up, adding to the multilayered impression. Palate seems quite young and subdued, but there is lots of concentration here as well as balance. This is structured more by acidity than by tannin. (WS) 13.5%

Monteraponi, Baron'Ugo Riserva 2006 Chianti Classico 17 Drink 2010-2015
90% Sangiovese, 5% Canaiolo, 5% Colorino. Cask sample. Oenologist Maurizio Castelli. Medium-deep ruby, with broad rim displaying orange reflexes. Old-school nose with cherry liqueur notes, tobacco and a hint of cinnamon bark. Sweet sour interplay of fruit and acidity and well-handled tannins, giving it a savoury feel. Very long and enjoyable. (WS)

Principe Corsini, Le Corti Cortevecchia Riserva 2006 Chianti Classico 15 Drink 2010-2013
95% Sangiovese, 3% Colorino, 2% Canaiolo. Oenologists Carlo Ferrini and Giuseppe Lucido. Concentrated ruby with orange reflexes. Appealing sweet, dark fruit compote and a touch of nutmeg and liquorice. Rich and sweet attack, but fades away on the middle to return at the end with hints of dried fruit. (WS) 13%

Renzo Marinai, Riserva 2006 Chianti Classico 15 Drink 2010-2013
85% Sangiovese, 15% Cabernet Sauvignon. Oenologist Giovanni Cappelli. Impenetrable, almost black, immediately suggesting addition of Merlot and/or Cabernet Sauvignon to the blend. Already quite developed, with tobacco and tarry notes and intense sweet dark fruit. Same international approach on the palate with bags of sweet fruit and low acidity. Could be anything, if anything rich and concentrated. (WS) 13.5%

Riecine, Riserva 2006 Chianti Classico 16.5 Drink 2010-2014
100% Sangiovese. Oenologist Sean O’Gallaghan. Deep ruby with broader rim showing orange reflexes. Posh, refined dried cherry nose with cigar box hints. Animating, sour-cherry palate with ripe, crunchy tannins. Well balanced and accessible without being one dimensional. (WS) 14%

Rignana, Riserva 2006 Chianti Classico 15.5 Drink 2010-2014
85% Sangiovese, 15% Merlot. Oenologists Giulio Gambelli and Paolo Salvi. Very dark ruby. Subdued, tarry fruit and liquorice opening. The wine seems quite mature already. On the palate round, loosely knotted dark fruit. Could perhaps do with a little bit more freshness. (WS) 14.5%

Villa Cafaggio, Riserva 2006 Chianti Classico 16.5 Drink 2010-2014
100% Sangiovese. Oenologist Stefano Chioccioli. Medium-concentrated dark ruby, with small orange rim. Appealing if very sweet, and ripe, with hints of earth and tar. Palate shows more age with tobacco and almost confected cherry. Bouncing acidity gets to grips with the fruit sweetness, but end completely dry. Impressive, if monolithic. (WS) 14%

CENTOPASSI - WINES FROM CONFISCATED VINEYARDS

noreply@blogger.com (Blogger) — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 12:04:00 +0000

Charities which focus on the production of wines can expect to elicit the same reaction most organic wines have provoked: it is laudable but is the product any good? I must admit I had similar thoughts when I first heard of Centopassi, a Sicilian co-operative located in the heartland of the Cosa Nostra, Corleone. For most people, just hearing the village's name will conjure up all kinds of romantic if violent clichés, fed mostly by endless reruns of The Godfather, but from my own experience I remember Corleone as a sinister place. Sheltered, or hidden, depending on the point of view, by the rock mass of the Alto Belice Corleonese, it firmly turns its back on strangers attracted by its infamous reputation, as home of one of the Mafia's most feared bosses, Toto Riina.

Italy has several projects and/or co-operatives which try either to fight wrongdoing or to rehabilitate people gone off the tracks. That it can work is evidenced by San Patrignano in Emilia Romagna, a project helping severe addicts give up hard drugs while integrating them into work in the vineyard and cellar. Some pretty classy wines are turned out by the estate, which has Riccardo Cotarella, no less, as a consulting oenologist.

Centopassi is the viticultural and winemaking merger of two Co-operative Sociale, la Cooperativa Sociale Placido Rizzotto-Libera Terra and la Cooperativa Sociale Pio La Torre-Libera Terra in Sicily. Both co-operatives manage agricultural lands confiscated from Cosa Nostra bosses Brusca and Riina. Libera Terra, the association which runs the co-ops, is itself part of a much larger organisation, whose sole objective is to fight the mafia in all areas of Italian society, and is called Libera. Libera Terra came into being as the result of the so-called Rognoni-La Torre law, also known as law 109/96, which was drawn up in 1996 after more than a million farmers had signed a petition to allow for the confiscated land to be used for its original purpose. The law was the brainchild and dream of Pio La Torre, a fierce opponent of organised crime, who in the 1980s started to prepare the grounds for confiscation of mafia properties, and who, in 1982, literally paid for this with his life.

Libera Terra manages confiscated properties throughout southern Italy, with the majority (47%) in Sicily, as well as several properties in Calabria, Campania, Lazio, and, surprisingly, Lombardia. The co-ops produce all kinds of agricultural produce but Centopassi's wines have actually found the recognition of italy's leading wine guides, L'Espresso and Gambero Rosso. Or, to quote the journalist Luciano Pignataro, the worst thing you could do would be to regard Centopassi as a charity or some kind of reserve. The only way to make the mission successful is to produce something exceptional. And in order to do this, and get the attention of the market, you must simply have to keep up the morale and do things better than others.

And keeping up the morale may have been the single most important ingredient for Centopassi's success so far, judging by the experiences of Antonio Castro, Centopassi's agronomist. In a chilling account, he explains that there is a general fear of working the confiscated lands because one constantly meets members of the Mafia families in the streets. Either you stop caring, as Ascione has done, or you leave, unable to withstand the psychological pressure.

If that were not enough to make you buy the wines, it so happens that these are some of the most exciting wines currently coming from Sicily. The three wines described below are all crus, from single vineyards, and from some of Sicily's most promising grape varieties. The grapes are organically grown, as Centopassi believes that organic viticulture is part of the resistance against organised crime, which it wants literally to clear the soils. Or, to quote Don Luigi Ciotti, Libera Terra's founder: 'In Sicily a culture against Mafia has unfortunately grown on blood'.

THE WINES

Libera Terra manages some 400 ha (988 acres), of which 42 ha are vineyards. The land and the vineyards are managed organically and produce pasta, honey, dried vegetables and wine. A stone's throw away from the mafia stronghold Corleone, it also has several buildings formerly owned by the mafia, which have been turned into an agriturismo, Italy's answer to bed & breakfast.

The wines were presented during a seminar at Parlano I Vignaioli, the very first organic wine fair held in Ercolano, Naples, in November.

Centopassi, Terre Rosse di Giabbascio Catarratto 2008 IGT Sicilia 16 Drink 2010-13
Produced from 100% Catarratto, one of Sicily's most planted varieties, from a vineyard of about 20 years old, at 400 m. The name terre rosse stems for the fact that the 4 hectares of vineyard have been planted on reddish brown sand, a very rare soil type in this part of Sicily. Late harvested - for Sicily - in the second half of September, and without any irrigation. Owing to the elevation, there is a considerable difference between day and night temperatures.

The wine is dedicated to Pio La Torre, and his incessant fight for peace and justice, and whom Italy has to thank for the existence of the so called Rognoni-La Torre law in 1996, which regulated the confiscation of Mafia assets. La Torre was killed in 1982 by two masked men who openend fire at him while he was getting into his car. In 1992, a 'Mafioso pentito', a Mafioso turned informant, revealed that La Torre was killed on the order of Totò Riina, the boss of the Corleonesi branch, because of his proposed law regarding confiscation of mafia possessions.

Deep yellow. Beautiful ripe white fruit and orange marmelade and honeyed notes with a mineral streak, and camomile. Completely dry palate as a contrast, with a touch of malolactic creaminess. Fine acidity integrated in viscous mouthfeel. Lots of potential and could certainly do with another year in bottle. 13% (WS)

Centopassi, Rocce di Pietra Longa Grillo 2008 IGT Sicilia 17.5 Drink 2009-13
From a recently planted vineyard in the Contrada Pietra Longa in Monreale near Palermo at about 500 m above sea level. Because of the elevation, the vineyard is characterised by high diurnal temperature variations, with a general cooling effect. The soil is extremely rocky and poor, resulting in low yields (35 hl/ha) and accelerated fruit ripening (the rock content stores the heat). Harvest normally starts at the beginning of September.

This wine is dedicated to Nicolò Azoti, who was killed by the mafia in 1947. Azoti was the secretary of the chamber of commerce, and engaged in the foundation of an agricultural co-operative. His concept and design for a share-cropping law that would give 60% of agricultural produce to the farmers and 40% to the owner, clashed with the mafia interests, and he paid with his life. The case never made it to court, and the perpetrators remained unpunished.

Even deeper yellow than the Catarratto. Wild, opulent nose of flowers and honeycomb, minerally notes of stone, and almost metallic herbal hints, melon and apple, quince jelly and pear. Elegant and fragrant and at the same time restrained palate, leaving a beautiful taste of lemon and lemon peel and satsuma. Very fine, very unusual with lots of energy, the wine is characterised by an almost metallic minerality. Taut and impressive at the same time. 14% (WS)

Centopassi, Argille di Tagghia Via Nero d'Avola 2008 IGT Sicilia 17 Drink 2010-15
From a vineyard near Corleone, on calcareous, porous clay at 600 m above sea level. Low yields of around 40 hl/ha.

The wine is dedicated to Peppino Impastato. Descended from a mafia family himself, he broke with his father at an early stage in his life to become active in politics and the fight against the mafia. He led the resistance of the farmers whose land was to be confiscated in order to build a third runway for the airport of Palermo. In 1978 he ran as a candidate for the Democrazia Proletaria, the same year he was murdered. The cantina is named after the film portraying the life of Impastato, I Cento Passi (the hundred steps).

Very young looking, bluish violet garnet. Opens wild, with strawberry, pure cherry, raspberry and hints of spice. Very seductive. What has now become for me the Centopassi hallmark fragrant nose, without a trace of sweetness. On the palate, bitter, coating tannins and notes of tamarind and salted capers, with high acidity. Energetic. Strikes a very good balance, but unsettled tannins suggest further ageing required. This certainly has the 'wow' factor. Opens up further and becomes more perfumed with aeration. 14% (WS)

OBSERVATIONS ON ITALY'S "REAL WINE" MOVEMENT

noreply@blogger.com (Blogger) — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 10:10:00 +0000

Italy’s national values may be staunchly conservative and traditional, but the reaction to the reactionary is never far away, and never fails to find enough support to become a voice, even if it is initially underground. Curiously, Italy is also the country, which performs the miracle act of converging the reactionary with the progressive. In this case, its seemingly innate sense of tradition and conservatism is the basis of one of Italy’s, and possibly the world’s, most innovative trends: that of the production of “natural wine”.

Natural wine, of course, doesn’t exist. To paraphrase the late Maynard A. Amerine, America’s most famous oenologist and teacher, wine without the intervention of man or woman is nothing more than grape juice in the process of turning into vinegar. Nevertheless, the movement, or rather a large range of associations, wine fairs and producer groups that have sprung up in the last 10 years or so in Italy, is almost always referred to as “Vini Naturali”, natural wine, or “Vini Veri”, real wine. The latter is also the name of the most influential association of wine producers, who has defiantly turned its back on Italy’s largest winefair, Vinitaly, by staging its own gathering of a select group of likeminded wine producers at exactly the same time. Presided by the late Teobaldo Cappellano, the association soon faced a split off by several producers, headed by Angiolino Maule, calling itself “VinNatur”. These two groups only represent the top of the iceberg, with many other permanently or loosely organised groups, such as Triple “A” (Agricoltori Artigiani Artisti), La Sorgente del Vino, Vini di Vignaioli, and the brandnew Parlano i Vignaioli, an initiative from Italy’s most promising and yet most inert region, Campania coming to the fore.

Although most of Italy’s quality conscious producers are acutely aware of organic and biodynamic grape growing and wine making practices, the “natural wine” movement has not been ignited by worries concerning sustainability or consumer health in the first place. It is much more the result of a genuine longing back to traditional agricultural practices and times when agrochemicals were not known and international grape varieties and barriques had yet to appear in Italy’s vineyards and cellars. This heartfelt sentiment can be traced back as far as the 1960s and the beginning of the 1970s, and finds its main inspiration in Mario Soldati.

Soldati, one of Italy’s most respected writers and film directors until his death in 1999, was fascinated by the country’s food and wine culture. Between 1968 and 1975 he travelled extensively throughout Italy to record its ancient viticultural and winemaking practices. Considering himself a chronicler of this history, he wanted to witness it firsthand before it would inevitably disappear behind stainless steel and clonal selection. He published his observations in what was to become one of the Italian “real wine” movement’s handbooks, Vino al Vino. The work does not primarily documents wines of the highest quality, but is in search of the genuine, the “real”, embodied by wines that were the result of ancient agricultural practices. Wine not primarily representing nature but culture, and one Soldati feared was in danger of disappearing forever.

Soldati’s ideas may seem sentimental, but his book, recording historic and traditional methods, summarises the very way Italy experiences wine. Contrary to France’s terroir concept, which tends to explain wine’s identity as the result of plant, soil and climate more or less exclusive of human input, Italy sees wine’s identity as the result of history, culture and traditional practices, including vinification. It is the same concept that became the very basis of Italy’s DOC and DOCG’s.

Over the years Soldati’s enthusiasm for traditional practices as well as his concern for their disappearance, has gained a steady following and echoes of his ideas can still be heard, most notably last year May in an appeal, called “In difesa dell'identità del Vino Italiano” (In defense of the identity of Italian Wine). The appeal appeared online at the height of the Brunello scandal and was formulated by Porthos, a group of wine journalists, whose motto is “Ribelle Nobile Disperato” (desperate noble rebels). Named after Porthos, one of Alexandre Dumas’ Three Muscateers with an insatiable appetite for good wine and food, the group tried to mobilise public opinion against what they describe as an attack on the history of Italian wine.

Brunellogate, as the scandal also came to be known by, divided the Italian wine landscape into diametrically opposed camps. On the one side, a high profile group of consultant oenologists and wine makers argued the impossibility of following the word of the law in producing a 100% Brunello wine only, arguing that even if it would be possible, it would result in a wine that consumers would not appreciate.

The other camp, represented by the likes of Porthos, see the very suggestion of the problem not being fraud but the Italian law itself, which fails to accommodate market demands and preferences to render Italian wines more competitive, as an unacceptable attempt to bend the rules. According to Porthos, the other camp uses Italy’s highest denominations without any respect for its history and traditions, which were originally designed to safeguard and guarantee the identity and integrity of Italian wines. To restore some of the credibility of the DOC and DOCG disciplinaries, Porthos demands from the authorities a stricter implementation of rules and tighter controls.
It also demands stricter legislation concerning the use of chemicals and systemic products, and condemns cultured yeasts, enzymes and biotechnology in general, which are used to produce better wine, but in reality “make vain the concept of territoriality (sic)”. Porthos emotional appeal in defence of the identity of Italian wines was followed by an online petition, which the very first to sign were Teobaldo Cappellano for Vini Veri and Angiolino Maule for VinNatur.

Porthos voices the growing concern of many Italian wine producers who see Italian wine becoming more and more standardised in an effort to appeal to international markets. According to them not only the introduction of international grape varieties in Italy’s vineyards are to blame but also the omnipresence of technology in its cellars, introduced and endorsed by oenologists. These consultants regularly advise multiple wineries, while often lacking the time or the experience to understand each single terroir. Pressed for time many consultant oenologists will rely on the execution of their protocols or instructions, to be executed by staff in vineyard and cellar. Any risk is arguably undesirable, if the final wine is to bear the trademark of the consultant, in order to secure international attention and sales.

Aside from these protocol-like oenological practices, there is general concern of the use of chemicals in the vineyard and cultured yeast in the cellar. Great wines that reflect their origin should be the fruit of agricultural methods which now have almost disappeared, and which need very little or no intervention in vineyard or the cellar. Wines that practically “make themselves”. This adage has lead to a sense and urgency in experimentation not seen since the 1980s when Italy’s wine production took an enormous leap in quality forward, not in the least instigated by modernisation of its cellars and the introduction of stainless steel and temperature control. This new scene characterises itself by a relentless desire for experimentation to the point of total anarchy. Current trends are borne out of a reaction against the modernisations introduced in the recent past, and are often their complete antithesis.

The clearest leitmotiv between all associations and all wines is a growing commitment to indigenous grape varieties. Italy’s infatuation with international grape varieties, which in the past were glorified as an “amelioration”, may well have come to and end, now that it realises that a certain “sameness” in the wines can be counteracted most effectively by using indigenous ones. And lower yields and better vineyard site selection will heighten this even more.

But variety and site are not the only determining factors in the character of wine. Central to all these concepts is the idea that the way the grapes are processed and the juice fermented is all part of wine’s identity. Fermentations are generally without the use of cultured yeast, and temperature control is more often than not rejected. An enormous curiosity in any fermentation vessel other than stainless steel, be it amphora, large oak casks, cement vats or glass ballons, has led to a very strong laissez-faire policy during all phases of the vinification. As wine, now more than ever, has come to stand for something “natural”, “pure” and “genuine”, new oak barriques are avoided. Many producers opt for large old oak casks for fermentation as well as ageing, and the initial hints of vanilla in the wine is the sole compromise producers who threw out their stainless steel to start working with wood are willing to put up with during the first two years of their use.

The idea of wine “making itself” sees numerous different interpretations, from hardliners, who fearlessly reject any use of sulphur, as well as more moderate approaches, using as little sulphur as possible, and at the bottling stage only. Both views have resulted in an increased tolerance of winefaults in the resulting wines, the most common being oxidation, and high levels of volatile acidity. Although the organic movement seems to attract many untrained newcomers, this can only partially explains this tolerance, as even skilled and experienced wine makers show a forgivingness to winefaults unheard of before, while pushing the limits as far as they can.

While sulphur has become the new bête noire, the use of indigenous or ambient yeast is on the rise. Many of the aforementioned associations decline the use of cultured yeast altogether, arguing that natural yeast, which normally is present in the cellar as well as the vineyard, is part of the terroir. Although this being a very strong argument, it regularly leads to higher levels of residual sugars in the wines. In combination with a general rejection of stabilisation, filtration and sulphuring, a refermentation in the bottle can occur, which, again, is not seen as something faulty and undesirable, but the consequence of wine being a “living thing”, which also reflects itself in bottle variation.

Since “control” has become a dirty word for many producers, vatting times are greatly prolonged, with fermentation curves often going up and down depending on the ambient temperature of the season. Malolactic fermentation may occur or not (unsurprisingly, inoculation with lactic bacteria is out of the question) and the wines remain on skins and, more and more, stalks for as long as possible, as grapes regularly end up into the fermentation vessel without being destemmed. Vatting times are also greatly extended by long ageing on the lees. Especially “Triple A” considers a long lees contact fundamental to the wine’s health. Often, frequent batonnage is not considered essential, and there is surprisingly little fear for reduction on the part of many winemakers. Racking can be as little as once a year, and the resulting wines often seem to support the impression that this practice is executed more often out of routine than necessity in more conventional winemaking. After the wines have been bottled many producers think nothing of holding off their release for another 12 to 24 months, and regularly even longer. As the release date of the wines are often postponed for years, their elevated price tag comes as no surprise.

The most obvious trend, and one wholly unstoppable, is the fermentation of white wines on the grape skins during part or the entire period of the alcoholic fermentation. Gravner may have been one of the first to experiment with this, ending up with wines no longer white but distinctly orange in colour, but many producers have adopted this ancient practice, arguing that all the goodness is in the skin, whereas the pulp of the berries mostly contain water. Frequently these whites have a distinct aroma of apricots, and for the unaccustomed consumer many of them may smell the same, implying that distinct terroir characteristics have been sacrificed. But producers who use this technique are quick to point out that no one would ever say that about red wines, which are all fermented in this way. According to them it is just a question of experience and regular exposure to these wines that will make wine lovers become aware of a diversity of aromas and tastes never experienced before. They also argue that the method greatly increases the ageability of these wines, as the style is often oxidative and the maceration of the skin will have added some tannins to the wine, an indication that they may prove to be robust, if not everyone’s cup of tea.

Many of these “old new wave wines” are so unorthodox and without any precedent that hardly any of them manage to pass the official controls, and are regularly rejected as “untypical” and, ironically, “untraditional”. As in the past, some of the very best wines with a real heightened sense of place have no choice but to take refuge under the lowly IGT designation, as did the Super Tuscans in the past. This fact will invariably weaken the higher DOC and DOCG category further, as it is incapable of either honouring experiments nor recognising quality and therefore loses more and more any credibility or stimulus for high quality wine production.

Although the category of “natural” or “true wine” may seem niche, several of its unorthodox approaches and techniques are resonating in the wider vinous landscape. Notably Bisol started producing in tiny quantities a Prosecco called NoSo2, without any added sulphur. And more and more Prosecco producers are adding a line of bottle fermented Prosecco to their range, after examples from the completely organic CostadiLa estate appeared to be a much greater success than was initially expected from a niche product like this. Even something simple as Lambrusco can be had as a “metodo ancestrale” vintage wine as Bellei shows. The use of amphora for fermentation as well as ageing will become much more wide spread than is now the case, with especially COS showing the undiscovered potential with its Pithos Nero d’Avola, and Castello di Lispida in Veneto’s Colli Euganei using it to ferment Friulano and Merlot. And while conventional producers tend to shun any kind of collaboration out of fear of teaming up with the competition, the many “natural wine” associations and winefairs have created platforms for lively discussions and exchange of ideas and experiences, which are set to become a growing force in Italy’s winescape, and widen the horizon for producers and consumers alike.

NEW SCANDAL HITS ITALY

noreply@blogger.com (Blogger) — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 08:13:00 +0000

12 December
Italian media reported yesterday that scores of Chianti wineries/oenologists (some of which are said to be 'renowned') are going to have to answer questions relating to fraudulent blending/invoicing of 'Chianti' wines from the NAS (Italy's fraud squad).

News emerged yesterday that the Guardia Finanza of Siena in Tuscany is investigating what appears to be a sequel to the recent Brunello scandal.

This time it apparently concerns as much as 10 million litres of blended inferior wines labelled with some of Tuscany's most prestigious denominations, including Rosso di Montepulciano and, again, Brunello di Montalcino. (At a presentation in London on Monday to celebrate Gaja's 150th anniversary, Gaia Gaja, while presenting a couple of vintages of their Pieve di Santa Restituta Brunello, observed about the earlier Brunello scandal that while it was the fault of the producers involved, perhaps the Consorzio was too lax in allowing the extraordinary growth of this denomination from 150,000 to 7 million bottles in the last 40 years - JR.)
No fewer than 17 people and 42 companies are reportedly under investigation. Although the enquiry is currently focused primarily on Tuscany, the scandal seems to implicate some as far north as Trentino.

The news comes just after some Montalcino producers, under investigation in the original Brunello affair, had their wines sequestered and were forced to declassify questionable wines to the lowly IGT designation in order to have them released and avoid further prosecution.

16 DECEMBER
According to one report, a total of five hectares in Castellina in Chianti has been sequestered by the authorities. This is prime Chianti Classico land, but the five hectares are not necessarily denominated as such. Allegedly the land belongs to an operation that had been in the news recently because it was discovered that it was blending wines from Puglia into its Chianti. The police apparently followed a truck transporting bulk wine from Puglia to its final destination, confiscated the wine, and the whole batch was made IGT.

My own interpretation is that to produce the volumes of Chianti or Chianti Classico at the lowest possible price in order to service the large supermarkets, especially Germany and the UK, companies are willing to venture outside the law. I am not saying that supermarkets force them to do, but the fact remains that large retailers can put such pressure on price points, that this is one of the inevitable outcomes, especially when contracts on volumes and prices have been drawn up long before any fruit has appeared on the vines...

ASSOENOLOGI DECLARES 2009 VINTAGE AS "VERY GOOD"

noreply@blogger.com (Blogger) — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 09:22:00 +0000

The Assoenologi, Italy’s Association of enologists has declared the 2009 vintage as “very good”, a positive assessment in an otherwise less than glorious overall looking picture. Volume is down by 4% in comparison to 2008 (44,5 mio hl against 46,3 mio in the previous year), which surely is a good thing for a wine producing country that still favours quantity over quality, but prices for some wines have fallen by a staggering 40%. Rumours of cellars full of unsold wine, notably in Piemonte, seem to win in credibility against these figures.

Italy has seen its total vineyard plantings fall from 1,230000 ha in 1980 to 684,000 ha in 2008, an enormous decline by anyone’s standard. Assoenologi interprets these figures as a consequence of an ongoing specialisation and monoculture in a country that traditionally treated wine as a part of a mixed agricultural activity, with uproot premiums from the EU doing the rest. However, a factor that puts at least as much weight in the scales is the fact that over the last 20 years or so Italians are drinking less and less wine (45 litres per capita today compared to 100 in the 1970s). Or, as Assoenologi’s director, Giuseppe Martelli explains: “Italian wine has changed from being a foodstuff and part of the diet to something non-essential (“Il vino italiano in vent’anni è passato da “alimento” a “genere voluttuario”).

At this moment Italy’s entire viticultural sector is worth more than13 billion euros annually, with export responsible for 3.6 billion Euros. Currently 55% of the total production is red wine, with the balance being white. Cantine Sociale or Co-operatives are still responsible for 50% of the total national wine production. With the declining consumption at home it comes as no surprise that Italy is relying more and more on exports. But it is especially in its main export market, the United states, that Italy has come to feel the pinch of the recession, with consumer demand shifting towards less expensive wines.

Assoenologi explains this year’s reduced yields as the consequence of a very irregular weather pattern during the 2009 growing cycle. Winter brought lots of rain and unusual heavy snowfall in the North and Northwest, replenishing the water tables for the 2009 season, but also delaying the start of the growing cycle. A very warm spring with temperatures regularly hitting 30 C benefited a quick and regular flower set. Until July the general weather pattern was extremely benign with very warm and dry weather and the occasional precipitation, which budded expectations of an early harvest.

The first week of July brought rain increasing fungal pressure throughout the country. However, August saw intense heat and virtually no rain at all, a situation that remained until mid September. The heat and lack of water forced many vines to shut down, retarding grape ripening and resulting in the rare occurrence of low sugar levels combined with low acidity, respired by the plants in the heat. With the continuous August heat in some vineyards signs of sun burn and dried fruit became apparent. The situation protracted harvests in large parts of the country as producers were waiting for much needed rain to increase volume in the berries, and to set the plant’s cycle in motion again to trigger ripening, which until then had been arrested. But large temperature differences between day and night prevented 2009 of becoming a 2003, a vintage equally characterised by high temperatures, but with little cooling down during the night. Large parts of the North and Centre were blessed with a sunny September, although with many producers hoping for rain instead, whereas the South and the Islands faced torrential rains.

2009 will be the year of old vines and high altitudes. In general, the older vineyards suffered far less from the weather pattern, as rootstocks are well developed to reach water reserves filled up by the exceptionally wet winter, and with less fruit to support. Young vines, as a consequence suffered more. While irrigation can be a potential aid, and permits in extreme weather conditions can be applied for, the majority of Italian vineyards are not equipped with water systems.
High altitude vineyards, which win in importance not least due to increased temperatures due to climate change, generally experienced the greatest difference in day and night temperatures, allowing the vines much needed rest and alleviating the heat stress.

Because of the heterogeneous character of the year, generalisations are hazardous. Piemonte can look back on early harvested, healthy whites with good acidity levels, and a fairly regular growing season for the late ripening Nebbiolo, especially on the higher sites, while Franciacorta experienced a very early harvest for its Pinots and Chardonnay.

Alto Adige also experience an earlier vintage than usual, and although the grapes were general healthy, the white Burgundian varieties seem to have fared best, as well as the red indigenous Teroldego and Lagrein. The average high altitude vineyards of the region proved a natural advantage this year.
Although Trentino started harvesting more than 15 days earlier compared to last year, hopes are high for both whites and reds.

Veneto’s most important white variety, Garganega was more affected by the unusual large bunches causing potential dilution in the final wines, than the prolonged ripening season. Some parts of Conegliano-Valdobbiadene have been struggling with the long and intense period of heat. Its main protagonist Prosecco had difficulty retaining acidity levels, while sugar levels remained low due to the vines slowing down due to stress.

Also Friuli Venezia Giulia started harvesting a full week earlier compared to last year. Rains fell mid September, which may have been a fraction too late for most aromatic whites, but welcomed for the late ripening Friulano, Ribolla and the red varieties.

Central Italy shows a much more diverse image with some producers, notably in Chianti Classico, showing great enthusiasm for the quality of Sangiovese. Although the fruit was very healthy, some producers struggled with high sugar levels in the berries, caused by a delayed harvest in the hope for rain. Again, higher altitude and old vine vineyards have generally fared best, and some very good wines can be expected.

Campania experienced the same sped up growing cycle, which came to a halt during a very cool September. In some parts this came as a blessing, especially for late ripening varieties. Campania’s most important red, Aglianico, normally not harvested before the end of October, may have fared best, especially on higher altitudes.
The same kickstart in the growing cycle was experienced in Sicily. An advanced harvest of Merlot in the first week of August was followed by Syrah and Nero d’Avola before the arrival of torrential rains interrupted the harvest and delayed further ripening of the grapes.

Although it is much too early to come to final conclusions due to the large viticultural area Italy represents, with many different meso and micro climates, 2009, for the time being, has triggered less enthusiasm and media exposure than Bordeaux. Contrary to popular belief Italy’s vintages rarely reflect France’s and vice versa. Often generalisations on vintage quality of Italian wines by professionals and wine lovers alike are based on France’s and especially Bordeaux’ overall performance. But comparisons between, 1999 (very good to outstanding in Central Italy and the North, less favourable for France) and 2000 (exactly the opposite) as well as 2001 (again, very good for Italy, and less so or France), to name a few, show no linked pattern.