Drink now. This is a bit past it’s prime, as is evident by the lack of finish, but it still presents well. Medium ruby with a tinge of tawny and medium+ intensity aromas of red cherries, strawberries, cranberries, chocolate, and cedar with hints of an herbaceous, minty quality. This wine is dry with medium body, high acidity, medium tannin, and medium alcohol. Medium+ intensity flavors of plum and chocolate are the most expressive on the palate. It has lost something on the finish, but still very enjoyable with chocolate and worked as a lighter-end option with beef tenderloin.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
A year since last bottle. Italian restaurant, poured into decanter. This bottle showed better than any of the others we've had. Cherries, red berries, tobacco and spices. Medium bodied and well balanced. Tannins mostly resolved in a good way. Earthy and fragrant, enjoyed by all.
1 person found this helpful, do you? Yes - No
/ Comment
At restaurant so no decant. Poured and allowed to sit while dinner was prepared. Like previous bottles this was red fruits, red berries, spice, tobacco and some tomato leaf. Medium bodied, with fully resolved tannins this bottle showed well with pasta. Still time left for well stored bottles.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
At restaurant with friends. No decant, but poured into glasses and left for 30 minutes. Red fruits, cherry, tomato leaf, garrigue and spice. Smooth and balanced, went nicely with food. Perhaps at peak or just past.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Second half of bottle opened 2 days earlier, gassed, re-corked and kept in cellar. Not a lot of difference from days earlier. Maybe a little more fruit forward, smoother and more integration. Perhaps at peak or maybe just past.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
First time with this wine. Decanted and left for 3 hours. Dark brick red with a lighter rim. Nose of sweet red berries, tomato, and spices. On the palate, sweet red cherry, plum, clove and a little forest floor. Fully mature and resolved, medium bodied, this was enjoyable and easy to drink. With black truffle pasta.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
At Fabio Cucina in NYC, the wine was opened, decanted through a vinturi and allowed to sit for over an hour. The nose was was dark red fruit. The palate was dark cherry, red plums, tobacco and a hint of spice. The finish was moderate and very smooth. Tannins are fully integrated. If you have them in your cellar drink them as I do not see age improving this wine at all. It is very nice bottle of brunello but I believe it is at its drinking plateau.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Chewy Brunello. Dried cranberry and cherry, dried fennel and thyme, mineral through and through; could have used some more acidity for grip though. Almost needs to take on food, but what a great bottle for the evening table.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Beautiful wine. Nicely integrated at this point, tannins still evident but not overbearing. Nice bright fruits and hints of spice and herbs. Drinking perfect. Drink up!
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Clear, medium brick red, wide light brick rim. Clean nose, medium intensity, cherries, liquorice, hints of cinnamon and clove. Medium palate, tannins and acidity still evident, but well integrated. Medium+ finish. Interestingly, this had benefited hugely from having been opened 24 hours previously (compared to the yesterday's bottle). Merits a couple of points extra. An excellent Brunello.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Slight cloudy, dark brick red, narrow light brick rim. Notable sediment. Clean nose, medium intensity, cherries, liquorice, hints of cinnamon and clove. Medium palate, tannins and acidity still evident, quite chewy. Medium finish. A nice Brunello but perhaps not as well integrated as I would have liked.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Opening this bottle in September 2013, it has lost a bit on the nose. Still a very nice wine, light to medium bodied, with well-structured tannins and tart flavors of cherries, cranberries, and raspberries. It is accented with hints of evergreen trees like those that surround the vineyards. Good on its own or with red meats, pastas, and cheeses.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Un beau nez mélange de fruits rouges et de notes tertières. En bouche c'est sur la finesse que le vin se révèle. Une belle longeur. Un vin qui pourra tenir la route encore plusieurs années mais qui est très agréable maintenant.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Showing a bit of age, but with plenty more left in the tank, this was not as fruit forward as I was expecting and instead showed focus and structure. Lots of anise, tobacco, and at first a hint of lanolin, but this turns into pure Sangiovese fruit flavors that get chewier and chewier with time.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Bright garnet color with aromas of cherries, plums, and pine wood. Light to medium bodied with bright red fruit and soft, subtle tannins. Minimum 30 minutes of decanting. Outstanding with jambalaya.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
This took several hours to open up. Decanted 1 hour but it took 2+ more before it started to come out of its shell. Light delicate ripe red fruit with licorice, cedar and spice on the nose. Taste is ripe cherry, raspberry, some slight herbalness and spice on the finish. Alcohol creeps up towards the end. Texture is nice balance up front with fruit and acid and big tannins bringing up the rear. OK, didn't feel it was near worth the price.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Deep garnet with a hint of purple. Raspberry & spice aroma. Opening up nicely with fruity flavors dominated by raspberry and sage spice nicely mellowing tannins for a long silky finish.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Aromas of tobacco, black licorice and light cherry. Taste has cherry & raspberry, along with a nice earthiness to it. The cherry & raspberry tastes were lighter the first night the bottle was open, but when it was finished off 3 nights later, they had moved into a darker phase. This had some acidity to it, but not overbearing at all - it probably would have been best to hold off a couple years to drink this, but it was good nonetheless.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Wish we had chose a better bottle for our first Brunello adventure. Went well with a lamb/beef burger and heirloom tomatoes. Good, but not buying again.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Definite barnyard on the nose with some nice fruit followup on the palate. Medium body and medium finish. Overall enjoyed the wine and the age that it is starting to show.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Arthritis Foundation Connoiseurs' Room (Pfister Hotel, Milwaukee): tight dark red fruits in the nose. light barn and some pond water. rich aromatics. ben calls out some cocoa. palate really stretches its arms. big structure and it almost goes to cola-town. too bad the 1995 valbuena came first.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
A wood toast to the nose. Darnk cherry but buried in there off of the cork pull. Sweet coco note with greater swirling. Palate entry is soft, easy going. Mid palate is firm with tannin, acids playing a backing role, but still showing its bolder fruit. Tannin never massively builds as expect. The finish is medium lengthy with the tannins taking over mid-stream. Good brunello but not on an absolute high. We will see how it opens up.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Deep garnet with a hint of purple. Raspberry & spice aroma. Raspberry and Italian cooking spices on the pallet but very closed with tight tannins leading to a dry mouth feel. One can only hope it develops and opens up with age. We have some of the 01 remaining and it has substantially more appeal than this one.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
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).
4/16/2023 - Farlain24 Likes this wine: 95 Points
Very smooth. Has not lost anything over tge 20 years in the bottle
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
12/21/2022 - csnash22 wrote: 90 Points
Drink now. This is a bit past it’s prime, as is evident by the lack of finish, but it still presents well. Medium ruby with a tinge of tawny and medium+ intensity aromas of red cherries, strawberries, cranberries, chocolate, and cedar with hints of an herbaceous, minty quality. This wine is dry with medium body, high acidity, medium tannin, and medium alcohol. Medium+ intensity flavors of plum and chocolate are the most expressive on the palate. It has lost something on the finish, but still very enjoyable with chocolate and worked as a lighter-end option with beef tenderloin.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
8/8/2022 - Rick & Ilsa wrote: 92 Points
A year since last bottle. Italian restaurant, poured into decanter. This bottle showed better than any of the others we've had. Cherries, red berries, tobacco and spices. Medium bodied and well balanced. Tannins mostly resolved in a good way. Earthy and fragrant, enjoyed by all.
1 person found this helpful, do you? Yes - No / Comment
3/30/2022 - csnash22 Likes this wine: 90 Points
Drink now; slightly past prime. Aromas of flavors of red fruits with a dry mouth feel and relatively subtle tannins.
Wonderful with dark chocolate.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
8/28/2021 - Rick & Ilsa wrote: 91 Points
At restaurant so no decant. Poured and allowed to sit while dinner was prepared. Like previous bottles this was red fruits, red berries, spice, tobacco and some tomato leaf. Medium bodied, with fully resolved tannins this bottle showed well with pasta. Still time left for well stored bottles.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
5/9/2021 - Rick & Ilsa wrote: 91 Points
At restaurant with friends. No decant, but poured into glasses and left for 30 minutes. Red fruits, cherry, tomato leaf, garrigue and spice. Smooth and balanced, went nicely with food. Perhaps at peak or just past.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
10/20/2020 - Rick & Ilsa wrote: 91 Points
Second half of bottle opened 2 days earlier, gassed, re-corked and kept in cellar. Not a lot of difference from days earlier. Maybe a little more fruit forward, smoother and more integration. Perhaps at peak or maybe just past.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
10/18/2020 - Rick & Ilsa wrote: 91 Points
First time with this wine. Decanted and left for 3 hours. Dark brick red with a lighter rim. Nose of sweet red berries, tomato, and spices. On the palate, sweet red cherry, plum, clove and a little forest floor. Fully mature and resolved, medium bodied, this was enjoyable and easy to drink. With black truffle pasta.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
8/18/2018 - markcic Likes this wine: 90 Points
At Fabio Cucina in NYC, the wine was opened, decanted through a vinturi and allowed to sit for over an hour. The nose was was dark red fruit. The palate was dark cherry, red plums, tobacco and a hint of spice. The finish was moderate and very smooth. Tannins are fully integrated. If you have them in your cellar drink them as I do not see age improving this wine at all. It is very nice bottle of brunello but I believe it is at its drinking plateau.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
2/5/2016 - Xfactor wrote: 92 Points
Chewy Brunello. Dried cranberry and cherry, dried fennel and thyme, mineral through and through; could have used some more acidity for grip though. Almost needs to take on food, but what a great bottle for the evening table.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
2/1/2015 - UofM Likes this wine: 91 Points
Beautiful wine. Nicely integrated at this point, tannins still evident but not overbearing. Nice bright fruits and hints of spice and herbs. Drinking perfect. Drink up!
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
11/22/2014 - Andrewbdc wrote: 90 Points
Clear, medium brick red, wide light brick rim. Clean nose, medium intensity, cherries, liquorice, hints of cinnamon and clove. Medium palate, tannins and acidity still evident, but well integrated. Medium+ finish. Interestingly, this had benefited hugely from having been opened 24 hours previously (compared to the yesterday's bottle). Merits a couple of points extra. An excellent Brunello.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
11/21/2014 - Andrewbdc wrote: 88 Points
Slight cloudy, dark brick red, narrow light brick rim. Notable sediment. Clean nose, medium intensity, cherries, liquorice, hints of cinnamon and clove. Medium palate, tannins and acidity still evident, quite chewy. Medium finish. A nice Brunello but perhaps not as well integrated as I would have liked.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
6/26/2014 - pot20 wrote: 89 Points
Très beau présentement, très raffiné il en donne autant au nez qu'en bouche. Belle longueur.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
9/22/2013 - csnash22 wrote: 89 Points
Opening this bottle in September 2013, it has lost a bit on the nose. Still a very nice wine, light to medium bodied, with well-structured tannins and tart flavors of cherries, cranberries, and raspberries. It is accented with hints of evergreen trees like those that surround the vineyards. Good on its own or with red meats, pastas, and cheeses.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
7/7/2013 - pot20 wrote: 90 Points
Un beau nez mélange de fruits rouges et de notes tertières. En bouche c'est sur la finesse que le vin se révèle. Une belle longeur. Un vin qui pourra tenir la route encore plusieurs années mais qui est très agréable maintenant.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
2/12/2013 - Squirrelled wrote: 92 Points
Showing a bit of age, but with plenty more left in the tank, this was not as fruit forward as I was expecting and instead showed focus and structure. Lots of anise, tobacco, and at first a hint of lanolin, but this turns into pure Sangiovese fruit flavors that get chewier and chewier with time.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
1/15/2013 - Birk Borka Likes this wine: 90 Points
A smooth wine with taste of red berries and summer breeze. medium/light bodied. I really enjoyed this wine.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
5/22/2012 - csnash22 wrote: 90 Points
Bright garnet color with aromas of cherries, plums, and pine wood. Light to medium bodied with bright red fruit and soft, subtle tannins. Minimum 30 minutes of decanting. Outstanding with jambalaya.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
1/21/2012 - Bellissimo wrote: flawed
Corked - poured down the drain.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
11/3/2011 - rb1164 wrote:
Decanted 3hrs. Wine was well balanced with a medium finish . Not a Cali sugar bomb but full bodied. 91 scale
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
10/16/2011 - RussK wrote: 90 Points
RUSSK Jim's after BB party. Drinking fine now.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
1/29/2011 - Bellissimo wrote:
This took several hours to open up. Decanted 1 hour but it took 2+ more before it started to come out of its shell. Light delicate ripe red fruit with licorice, cedar and spice on the nose. Taste is ripe cherry, raspberry, some slight herbalness and spice on the finish. Alcohol creeps up towards the end. Texture is nice balance up front with fruit and acid and big tannins bringing up the rear. OK, didn't feel it was near worth the price.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
1/2/2011 - FPNova wrote: 90 Points
Deep garnet with a hint of purple. Raspberry & spice aroma. Opening up nicely with fruity flavors dominated by raspberry and sage spice nicely mellowing tannins for a long silky finish.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
11/12/2010 - vinedresser75 wrote: 91 Points
Very Nice
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
11/5/2010 - Wine Sparty wrote: 90 Points
Aromas of tobacco, black licorice and light cherry. Taste has cherry & raspberry, along with a nice earthiness to it. The cherry & raspberry tastes were lighter the first night the bottle was open, but when it was finished off 3 nights later, they had moved into a darker phase. This had some acidity to it, but not overbearing at all - it probably would have been best to hold off a couple years to drink this, but it was good nonetheless.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
10/17/2010 - OmiyaDrinker wrote: 92 Points
Lovely. Stewed fruits and liqourice on the nose with a long, smooth, balanced finish
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
9/23/2010 - nlassow wrote:
Wish we had chose a better bottle for our first Brunello adventure. Went well with a lamb/beef burger and heirloom tomatoes. Good, but not buying again.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
8/16/2010 - ssock wrote: 90 Points
Definite barnyard on the nose with some nice fruit followup on the palate. Medium body and medium finish. Overall enjoyed the wine and the age that it is starting to show.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
2/19/2010 - nzinkgraf wrote:
Arthritis Foundation Connoiseurs' Room (Pfister Hotel, Milwaukee): tight dark red fruits in the nose. light barn and some pond water. rich aromatics. ben calls out some cocoa. palate really stretches its arms. big structure and it almost goes to cola-town. too bad the 1995 valbuena came first.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
2/19/2010 - Ben Christiansen wrote:
A wood toast to the nose. Darnk cherry but buried in there off of the cork pull. Sweet coco note with greater swirling. Palate entry is soft, easy going. Mid palate is firm with tannin, acids playing a backing role, but still showing its bolder fruit. Tannin never massively builds as expect. The finish is medium lengthy with the tannins taking over mid-stream. Good brunello but not on an absolute high. We will see how it opens up.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
12/27/2009 - alion wrote: 90 Points
Nice, young brunello. 3 hours air. Sweet raspberry and cherry nose. Dark cherry and some wet herb and cocoa bitterness. Needs food. 90+
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
9/27/2009 - FPNova wrote: 88 Points
Deep garnet with a hint of purple. Raspberry & spice aroma. Raspberry and Italian cooking spices on the pallet but very closed with tight tannins leading to a dry mouth feel. One can only hope it develops and opens up with age. We have some of the 01 remaining and it has substantially more appeal than this one.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
9/17/2009 - leonardo_de_araujo wrote: 92 Points
very elegant Brunello
impressive how accessible it is now
92 points
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
4/5/2009 - socidelvino wrote: 85 Points
Poggio Antico stand visit w/ Paola Gloder - Vinitaly 2009
A bit more raisiny than the 2004 - very hot summer in 2003.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
8/20/2008 - Ben Christiansen wrote: flawed
2:30 opened. Herbs or cork on the nose.
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