Just something about aged Brunello. Although not the best vintage, at 20-years of age, this is good right now. Red fruit of cherry, strawberry, and plums...but mostly secondary notes now of leather, sweet herbs, chocolate, and tobacco. Good acidity, soft tannins, and long finish. Still holding on...
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Tasted more over the hill than it looked. Nice crimson, virtually no tanning. Very thin upon opening, better after an hour gaining some weight. Light red cherry with a hint of mineral water.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Monthly Tuesday group "The Dead Sparrow" #019: Sangiovese, Italy (By PV): In the bouquet a creamy wine with sweet herbs and spices as well as a touch of barnyard and some development. On the palate some smoke, chocolate, good acidity, a touch of sweetness and soft, mature tannin. Nice wine and ready now.
1 person found this helpful, do you? Yes - No
/ Comment
Rolling into the station in a fine state. Ready now but should go another 5-8 easily enough regardless of hot vintage. My first Brunello with grilled steak. Sold.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Wine with Friends (Our house, Kennett square, PA): A modern, fruity brunello showing black cherry, a little licorice, and old world acidity. A little simple and boring compared to the 2003 Fornacina BdM that followed. This wasn't recognizable as a Brunello and showed no sense of place. Modern producer and the warm vintage shows.
1 person found this helpful, do you? Yes - No
/ Comment
I was a little disappointed by this wine. Well crafted wine with nice balance. Red fruits, tobacco, minerals and spices. Medium bodied but somehow the integration of the tannins wasnt quite right.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Occasional tasting group (@ My place Bordeaux 2002 plus some other nice wines.): Beautiful bouquet with red fruits, licorice, leather, chocolate, minerals and luxurious oak. On the palate a firm amount of acidity and some lactic impressions. Cassis. Soft and lush. Ok acidity and tannin. A bit drying in the finish. Overall; the bouquet is great, but on the palate it delivers less. Nevertheless an excellent wine. Maybe a few more years of ageing will help? 2016?
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Friday Night Double Blind Tasting $40+ (Bin 75): Dark crimson almost to rim; sweet red fruit, slight candy, berry, burnt sugar; smooth, no graininess, spice; the best '03 BdM I've had showing great balance with the ripeness; 91+.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Bright cherry and some spice on the nose, soft cherry, earth and leather n the palate. Medium finish. Better after an hour in the decanter. Decent wine but falls far short of the 2004.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Showing so much better than my last bottle. This is soft, well integrated and supple. Not too tannic or heavy, but still reasonably good concentration. One of the best producers in Moltalcino, and this shows, especially in this challenging vintage.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Moderately decent in all areas. Just failing to ignite the brilliant category. There's a waft of dried cranberry and redcurrant, a lowish sense of acidity. Not the powerhouse it once was, but not a demure elegant, complex mature wine either.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
The nose is wonderful, and exotic - gentle cocoa and sweet cherry which deepens with hints of mint, damson, and the oak over time. Palate is not quite right for the first couple of hours. Slightly out of balance - too bitter and strangely lacking in concentration for such a hot vintage. But no doubt this is wonderfully made and, like others, I love the Burgundian elegance and the velvet silkiness. 92+
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
This needed a lot to open it up. Drinking it young, but needed at least a couple of hours of decanting. Deep cherry and tar on the nose. Lot of oak in the mouth (too much for me), but great integrated Brunello flavors kicking in. Long finish
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Amazing complex brunello. Weak at the nose but opened up after four hours. Fruity, plummy,silky, great brunello that need à couple of More years in the cellar.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
2003 Siro Pacenti Brunello di Montalcino (Italië, Toscane, Montalcino, Brunello di Montalcino) Kleur: Opvallend diep robijnrood Aroma / bouquet: Op dit moment halfgesloten. Donker fruit maar vooral rijpe tonen als hout, vanille en kruidnagelen. Smaak / Afdronk: Krachtige en friszure aanzet, veel donker fruit, krachtige maar boterzachte tannines. Indrukken van tabak, Lange afdronk met een aangename bittertoon. Algemeen / potentieel: Mooie wijn, maar op de één of andere manier nu niet maximaal interessant. 50 + Kleur: 5 + Aroma / bouquet: 10 + Smaak / Afdronk: 15 + Algemeen / potentieel: 7 = 87/100
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Not too bad, but since it was tasted head to head with the 1997 version, that may have skewed the results. It was decanted for about 3 hours. The nose was pretty tame and you had to work to get an impression Hints of fruit on the nose with tobacco, spice and dark ripe fruit on the palate. fair finish.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Wonderfully vivid, fruity character, with plum, raspberry and floral aromas and flavors. Full body, with silky tannins. Finish is long and silky. Outstanding finesse in this wine. (Best from 2010) - JD93
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Ann and I had Elle pick a bottle for us (out of eight different varietals we had previously picked) and our notes were taken blind. Definitely old world. The initial nose was tar, earth, cherry, strawberry, floral notes, and peppermint/eucyliptus. We both thought it was a Barolo before we even tasted it. On the palate it is dry, with sour cherries, mushroom, strawberry and licorice. Medium bodied with fine tannins. Very long on the finish and nicely balanced. This went well with the eggplant parm. Ann was underwelmed which was dissappointing as we thought the eight bottles that we had pre-selected for the night were all going to be very solid choices. Ann said it lacked intensity and complexity and scored it 84. She didn't enjoy the sourness. I scored it an 88. We guessed Barolo. When we took the bottle out of the bag, we were both shocked to see that it was the Siro Pacenti brunello. This wine has much more finesse and elegance than the 99 vintage. Unfortunately we prefer the more muscular styled 1999. We will wait a while on the remaining bottles.
March 25th: I have been thinking about this wine quite a bit since we tried it last month. We tend to like big wines and I think we were somewhat dissappointed in that it was more medium bodied and more elegant. This wine has a very long finish, subtle complexities and a lot of potential to improve. I look forward to trying the next one.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Opened at 2:30. Almost nothing on the nose. Is it corked? Grippy. I do think its corked. We shall see.
These Brunellos were drunk together in this order: flight one, 2001 Conti Costanti Riserva, 2003 Casanova di Neri, 2003 Siro Pacenti; flight two, 2003 Poggio Antico, 2001 Poggio Antico Altero, 2005 Poggio Antico Madre; flight three, 2001 Fuligni Riserva, 2002 Caparzo, 2001 Uccelliera, 2002 Argiano, 2003 Lisini. Served in Riedel’s Restaurant Series Sangiovese / Riesling I opened them at 2:30 and slowly drank them down. The bulk of the imbibing happened between 7 and 9 pm.
Conti Costanti seemed to be an excellent example of powerfully aromatic cherry, chocolate-y palate with dusty dry tannins. “Classic” Brunello. Or, to paraphrase Victor Hazan, “few can challenge Biondi-Santi in prestige but foremost among them is Costanti.” And hell, he’s married to Marcela.
Costanti yearns to be more classical than it is. Can an inanimate liquid long for the days of being dried to parching? Can it pine for the yesteryears of grouchy-old-farm-wife acidity? This is what Costanti seemed destined to be; but is falling short. Nicolas Belfrage comments that “[Costanti] has shed what toughness it once had.” Maybe old farm wives just can’t hawk their biscuits anymore. Also, whence Riserva? After having had several other Costanti’s I would rather have the normale than the Riserva simply based on price ($77 and $124 respectively). Call me Scrooge.
Once we drank the 2003 Casanova di Neri my worries about Costanti became irrelevant. Casanova is currently the greatest exemplar of anygrape-anywhere-98point wine. Is it Syrah? Cabernet? Sangiovese? Or maybe some funky Pecornio / Abruzzo blend (oh yeah, how do you know it isn’t?) At $70 it hits the habitual 98 point nail hard. If you taste in points you should go looking for this bargain of a wine but I hate to think what your sex life is like. Furthermore, Casanova does what it does so much better than the shameful Siro Pacenti ($24 more than Casanova and frankly tastes like $30 Grenache). After drinking these two I yearned for my Costanti back. By the way, Costanti was at its best 6-1/2 hours open while Casanova was jumpy right from the get go.
Poggio Antico was quite a mess, but a distinctive mess. The Brunello was corked (alas). The Altero was ferociously oaked on the nose but still distinctively Brunello. Six hours in it started resolving into something dramatic. Rest this for a couple of years and try again. Madre is the best example I have had of its type but that doesn’t mean it’s worth the same price as Tignello. On the other hand Tignello is so restricted these days I can’t seem to get it.
Next we began fooling around. The back half ran through Montalcino’s as yet undrawn crus as suggested by Franco Biondi Santi in the Decanter article Brunello on the Brink (August 2008 issue, page 52).
Fuligni took the cake with its densely layered, dramatically expressive aromatics. The big man says that wines from Fuligni’s region, Montalcino, are complex and balanced with beautifully rich bouquets. Read into this that they don’t have the palate weight of others in the zone. One disgruntled taster who hates Italian wine in general commented with a veiled undertone “Fuligni disguised the blending well.” This argument is a little bit like saying 30% of the population is gay and in the closet. Half of all Brunello producers are under indictment for blending in illegal wine, we just haven’t developed our Grosso-radar enough to be able to spot them (or them us!). Times do change, in this world and that. To get back to the point, was there a greater joy to go back and forth between the Costanti and the Fuligni? You can tell which ones were my favorites. My only regret is that I have not tried a non-reserve Fuligni and so cannot speak to the Reserva’s price.
Caparzo, the little green label that could, fell a touch flat being from 2002. Showing its mineral dexterity (is this what Montosoli is all about?) it was a good wine, and worth its bargain Brunello price of $43. Drink up.
Now big fun. Uccelliera, from Castelnuovo dell’Abate (which is fun to say fast after drinking 11 Brunellos) was simply a smash. Here is what this novice Brunello drinker believed to be a prime glance at Montalcino terrior. Powerful, muscular, expressive and fully and utterly worth its $74 asking price. Did I say Muscle? To lay down. More needs to be drunk from this region.
Tosca wept for Argiano’s 2002. The grand giant of Solengo fame is truly making blended shit. Not even the comment that Sant’ Angelo in Colle is all about rich, robust fruity Brunellos can save Argiano from its own hypocrisy. Drinking this wine leaves you in no doubt as to why they voluntarily declassified their entire 2003 vintage.
But let’s not paint the whole Sant' Angelo in shame. Like Castelnuovo, Montalcino in Sant’ Angelo seemed to be giving up a lesson in terrior to us. Opulent, lush, rich, and well worth the $83 asking price. In fact, given the flailing failing strength of the dollar this and the Uccey are probably under-priced (Poggio Antico was more recently imported hence $10 to $20 more).
12/22/2023 - brianofthevine Likes this wine: 92 Points
Just something about aged Brunello. Although not the best vintage, at 20-years of age, this is good right now. Red fruit of cherry, strawberry, and plums...but mostly secondary notes now of leather, sweet herbs, chocolate, and tobacco. Good acidity, soft tannins, and long finish. Still holding on...
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
8/16/2018 - Burgnick wrote: 88 Points
A four squared brunello that lacked character. It was also very oaky.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
3/22/2018 - smphelps wrote: 88 Points
Tasted more over the hill than it looked. Nice crimson, virtually no tanning. Very thin upon opening, better after an hour gaining some weight. Light red cherry with a hint of mineral water.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
3/18/2018 - Chrisinroch wrote:
IMO it lacks varietal typicity. Doesn’t taste like Sangiovese. Decent wine, but could be mistaken for any number of cheaper wines.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
1/17/2018 - VinoVeloVinyl wrote: 94 Points
Loads of life left here still. Perhaps lacking a touch of refinement but this had a very joyful personality. Drink now - 2021
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
7/3/2017 - cglex Likes this wine: 92 Points
Wonderful. Served on a warm summer day, so that may have been a negative factor. Not old looking at all.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
5/16/2017 - Zweder wrote: 92 Points
Monthly Tuesday group "The Dead Sparrow" #019: Sangiovese, Italy (By PV): In the bouquet a creamy wine with sweet herbs and spices as well as a touch of barnyard and some development. On the palate some smoke, chocolate, good acidity, a touch of sweetness and soft, mature tannin. Nice wine and ready now.
1 person found this helpful, do you? Yes - No / Comment
9/16/2016 - Primordialsoup Likes this wine: 93 Points
Rolling into the station in a fine state. Ready now but should go another 5-8 easily enough regardless of hot vintage. My first Brunello with grilled steak. Sold.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
2/2/2014 - Outplaying wrote:
Wine with Friends (Our house, Kennett square, PA): A modern, fruity brunello showing black cherry, a little licorice, and old world acidity. A little simple and boring compared to the 2003 Fornacina BdM that followed. This wasn't recognizable as a Brunello and showed no sense of place. Modern producer and the warm vintage shows.
1 person found this helpful, do you? Yes - No / Comment
1/29/2014 - mclanew wrote: 90 Points
I was a little disappointed by this wine. Well crafted wine with nice balance. Red fruits, tobacco, minerals and spices. Medium bodied but somehow the integration of the tannins wasnt quite right.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
12/15/2013 - Zweder wrote: 91 Points
Occasional tasting group (@ My place Bordeaux 2002 plus some other nice wines.): Beautiful bouquet with red fruits, licorice, leather, chocolate, minerals and luxurious oak. On the palate a firm amount of acidity and some lactic impressions. Cassis. Soft and lush. Ok acidity and tannin. A bit drying in the finish. Overall; the bouquet is great, but on the palate it delivers less. Nevertheless an excellent wine. Maybe a few more years of ageing will help? 2016?
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
10/25/2013 - Rezy13 Likes this wine: 91 Points
Friday Night Double Blind Tasting $40+ (Bin 75): Dark crimson almost to rim; sweet red fruit, slight candy, berry, burnt sugar; smooth, no graininess, spice; the best '03 BdM I've had showing great balance with the ripeness; 91+.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
10/2/2013 - eudora Likes this wine: 93 Points
a prtotypical classic Brunello. Sour cherry fruit, earthy, soulful.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
7/13/2013 - BillyRayValentine wrote: 89 Points
Bright cherry and some spice on the nose, soft cherry, earth and leather n the palate. Medium finish. Better after an hour in the decanter. Decent wine but falls far short of the 2004.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
7/9/2013 - John McCabe wrote: 93 Points
Showing so much better than my last bottle. This is soft, well integrated and supple. Not too tannic or heavy, but still reasonably good concentration. One of the best producers in Moltalcino, and this shows, especially in this challenging vintage.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
6/14/2013 - VinoVeloVinyl wrote: 89 Points
Moderately decent in all areas. Just failing to ignite the brilliant category. There's a waft of dried cranberry and redcurrant, a lowish sense of acidity. Not the powerhouse it once was, but not a demure elegant, complex mature wine either.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
6/5/2013 - khmark7 wrote: 87 Points
2nd bottle is better, more like a Pinot Noir. Certainly more interesting. Pair with white meat.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
6/4/2013 - khmark7 wrote: 84 Points
Past prime, which was probably shortly after release. Distant red fruits, thin, structured and slightly herbal.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
10/11/2012 - rbs1 wrote: 93 Points
Deep cherry, hints of oak and cocoa. Very smooth.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
10/6/2012 - Sirmika wrote: 88 Points
Tolle Nase, aber der Rest war eine einzige Enttaeuschung. Zuviel Säure, wenig Körper.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
4/22/2012 - John McCabe wrote: 91 Points
Quite vetegal, but still pleasant and interesting. May need more time.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
3/2/2012 - alion wrote: 92 Points
The nose is wonderful, and exotic - gentle cocoa and sweet cherry which deepens with hints of mint, damson, and the oak over time. Palate is not quite right for the first couple of hours. Slightly out of balance - too bitter and strangely lacking in concentration for such a hot vintage. But no doubt this is wonderfully made and, like others, I love the Burgundian elegance and the velvet silkiness. 92+
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
11/27/2011 - Outplaying wrote:
Wine with Friends (Our House, Avondale, PA): Slightly earthy nose. Cherries, faint tar and earth. Fine tannins. Great acidity. Very nice.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
8/14/2010 - SteveW wrote:
Excellent first to last. Left me wanting more to be sure.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
7/9/2010 - Ben Christiansen wrote:
Rather sweet but still tasted. But not my favorite Brunello.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
5/15/2010 - Winevestor wrote: 91 Points
This needed a lot to open it up. Drinking it young, but needed at least a couple of hours of decanting. Deep cherry and tar on the nose. Lot of oak in the mouth (too much for me), but great integrated Brunello flavors kicking in. Long finish
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
12/7/2009 - R6 wrote: 92 Points
Amazing complex brunello. Weak at the nose but opened up after four hours.
Fruity, plummy,silky, great brunello that need à couple of More years in the cellar.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
9/11/2009 - WildeMeeuw wrote: 87 Points
2003 Siro Pacenti Brunello di Montalcino (Italië, Toscane, Montalcino, Brunello di Montalcino) Kleur: Opvallend diep robijnrood Aroma / bouquet: Op dit moment halfgesloten. Donker fruit maar vooral rijpe tonen als hout, vanille en kruidnagelen. Smaak / Afdronk: Krachtige en friszure aanzet, veel donker fruit, krachtige maar boterzachte tannines. Indrukken van tabak, Lange afdronk met een aangename bittertoon. Algemeen / potentieel: Mooie wijn, maar op de één of andere manier nu niet maximaal interessant. 50 + Kleur: 5 + Aroma / bouquet: 10 + Smaak / Afdronk: 15 + Algemeen / potentieel: 7 = 87/100
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
3/2/2009 - cvvhrn wrote: 90 Points
Not too bad, but since it was tasted head to head with the 1997 version, that may have skewed the results. It was decanted for about 3 hours. The nose was pretty tame and you had to work to get an impression Hints of fruit on the nose with tobacco, spice and dark ripe fruit on the palate. fair finish.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
3/2/2009 - InternationalWineReport wrote: 93 Points
Wonderfully vivid, fruity character, with plum, raspberry and floral aromas and flavors. Full body, with silky tannins. Finish is long and silky. Outstanding finesse in this wine. (Best from 2010) - JD93
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
2/28/2009 - Outplaying wrote:
Ann and I had Elle pick a bottle for us (out of eight different varietals we had previously picked) and our notes were taken blind. Definitely old world. The initial nose was tar, earth, cherry, strawberry, floral notes, and peppermint/eucyliptus. We both thought it was a Barolo before we even tasted it. On the palate it is dry, with sour cherries, mushroom, strawberry and licorice. Medium bodied with fine tannins. Very long on the finish and nicely balanced. This went well with the eggplant parm. Ann was underwelmed which was dissappointing as we thought the eight bottles that we had pre-selected for the night were all going to be very solid choices. Ann said it lacked intensity and complexity and scored it 84. She didn't enjoy the sourness. I scored it an 88. We guessed Barolo. When we took the bottle out of the bag, we were both shocked to see that it was the Siro Pacenti brunello. This wine has much more finesse and elegance than the 99 vintage. Unfortunately we prefer the more muscular styled 1999. We will wait a while on the remaining bottles.
March 25th: I have been thinking about this wine quite a bit since we tried it last month. We tend to like big wines and I think we were somewhat dissappointed in that it was more medium bodied and more elegant. This wine has a very long finish, subtle complexities and a lot of potential to improve. I look forward to trying the next one.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
8/20/2008 - Ben Christiansen wrote: flawed
Opened at 2:30. Almost nothing on the nose. Is it corked? Grippy. I do think its corked. We shall see.
These Brunellos were drunk together in this order: flight one, 2001 Conti Costanti Riserva, 2003 Casanova di Neri, 2003 Siro Pacenti; flight two, 2003 Poggio Antico, 2001 Poggio Antico Altero, 2005 Poggio Antico Madre; flight three, 2001 Fuligni Riserva, 2002 Caparzo, 2001 Uccelliera, 2002 Argiano, 2003 Lisini. Served in Riedel’s Restaurant Series Sangiovese / Riesling I opened them at 2:30 and slowly drank them down. The bulk of the imbibing happened between 7 and 9 pm.
Conti Costanti seemed to be an excellent example of powerfully aromatic cherry, chocolate-y palate with dusty dry tannins. “Classic” Brunello. Or, to paraphrase Victor Hazan, “few can challenge Biondi-Santi in prestige but foremost among them is Costanti.” And hell, he’s married to Marcela.
Costanti yearns to be more classical than it is. Can an inanimate liquid long for the days of being dried to parching? Can it pine for the yesteryears of grouchy-old-farm-wife acidity? This is what Costanti seemed destined to be; but is falling short. Nicolas Belfrage comments that “[Costanti] has shed what toughness it once had.” Maybe old farm wives just can’t hawk their biscuits anymore. Also, whence Riserva? After having had several other Costanti’s I would rather have the normale than the Riserva simply based on price ($77 and $124 respectively). Call me Scrooge.
Once we drank the 2003 Casanova di Neri my worries about Costanti became irrelevant. Casanova is currently the greatest exemplar of anygrape-anywhere-98point wine. Is it Syrah? Cabernet? Sangiovese? Or maybe some funky Pecornio / Abruzzo blend (oh yeah, how do you know it isn’t?) At $70 it hits the habitual 98 point nail hard. If you taste in points you should go looking for this bargain of a wine but I hate to think what your sex life is like. Furthermore, Casanova does what it does so much better than the shameful Siro Pacenti ($24 more than Casanova and frankly tastes like $30 Grenache). After drinking these two I yearned for my Costanti back. By the way, Costanti was at its best 6-1/2 hours open while Casanova was jumpy right from the get go.
Poggio Antico was quite a mess, but a distinctive mess. The Brunello was corked (alas). The Altero was ferociously oaked on the nose but still distinctively Brunello. Six hours in it started resolving into something dramatic. Rest this for a couple of years and try again. Madre is the best example I have had of its type but that doesn’t mean it’s worth the same price as Tignello. On the other hand Tignello is so restricted these days I can’t seem to get it.
Next we began fooling around. The back half ran through Montalcino’s as yet undrawn crus as suggested by Franco Biondi Santi in the Decanter article Brunello on the Brink (August 2008 issue, page 52).
Fuligni took the cake with its densely layered, dramatically expressive aromatics. The big man says that wines from Fuligni’s region, Montalcino, are complex and balanced with beautifully rich bouquets. Read into this that they don’t have the palate weight of others in the zone. One disgruntled taster who hates Italian wine in general commented with a veiled undertone “Fuligni disguised the blending well.” This argument is a little bit like saying 30% of the population is gay and in the closet. Half of all Brunello producers are under indictment for blending in illegal wine, we just haven’t developed our Grosso-radar enough to be able to spot them (or them us!). Times do change, in this world and that. To get back to the point, was there a greater joy to go back and forth between the Costanti and the Fuligni? You can tell which ones were my favorites. My only regret is that I have not tried a non-reserve Fuligni and so cannot speak to the Reserva’s price.
Caparzo, the little green label that could, fell a touch flat being from 2002. Showing its mineral dexterity (is this what Montosoli is all about?) it was a good wine, and worth its bargain Brunello price of $43. Drink up.
Now big fun. Uccelliera, from Castelnuovo dell’Abate (which is fun to say fast after drinking 11 Brunellos) was simply a smash. Here is what this novice Brunello drinker believed to be a prime glance at Montalcino terrior. Powerful, muscular, expressive and fully and utterly worth its $74 asking price. Did I say Muscle? To lay down. More needs to be drunk from this region.
Tosca wept for Argiano’s 2002. The grand giant of Solengo fame is truly making blended shit. Not even the comment that Sant’ Angelo in Colle is all about rich, robust fruity Brunellos can save Argiano from its own hypocrisy. Drinking this wine leaves you in no doubt as to why they voluntarily declassified their entire 2003 vintage.
But let’s not paint the whole Sant' Angelo in shame. Like Castelnuovo, Montalcino in Sant’ Angelo seemed to be giving up a lesson in terrior to us. Opulent, lush, rich, and well worth the $83 asking price. In fact, given the flailing failing strength of the dollar this and the Uccey are probably under-priced (Poggio Antico was more recently imported hence $10 to $20 more).
Lessons learned: blending distorts Brunello; understanding Montalcino’s terrior enhanced pleasure.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
7/13/2008 - alion wrote: 90 Points
Outstanding for the vintage. Gentle and subtle, almost Burgundian with perfect balance. Red fruit; a little farmyard after an hour. Leave 2+ years.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment