We took full advantage of the gorgeous weather this weekend and that included grilling some wonderful porterhouse steaks and opening some Brunello. The 2007 Ciacci Poccolomini d’Aragona Pianrosso Brunello di Montalcino likely wins the contest for longest wine name in Italy. I was tempted to say “in the world” but I’m betting there are some Trocken’s from Germany that would eclipse it.
What this wine doesn’t win, is the title of best 2007 I’ve had to date. I have to admit, I was a little disappointed here. While many of the 2007’s I’ve had were rich and forward, this one seems to have fallen a bit short with the concentration and ripeness of it’s fruit. In the glass, the wine is a deep ruby, with slight copper reflections at the rim. Honestly, it already looks a bit older than it is. The nose of the wine is straightforward, with spicy cherry, cedar, and earth notes that carry through on the chewy, but medium bodied palate. I recalled my recent review of the Ciacci 2006 and it’s obvious to me that the 2006 is the better wine. At least right now. I think part of that has to do with the 2006 vintage which is slightly better in quality, but vastly superior in character, to the 2007’s. Ciacci always seems to make rustic Brunello, and many times, their wines seem unclean to me. I didn’t get that sense here, however, I do believe that in riper vintages (1997, 2003, 2007) the nature of the fruit doesn’t lend itself well to their style of production. For less money, there are better options out there if you’re looking to buy 2007 Brunello. If you use the search engine on this website, you’ll find some. Allora…..90 points, about $40.
 |
| 2007 Ciacci Pianrosso Brunello di Montalcino |
After a while, we do expect excellence, and for $40-$80 you should get it. I find though, that the more of these Brunellos I taste, the more my standards for California Cabs goes up; I know they are different, but as red wines go I can't help but compare Italian wines with California, and for the price-point, richness, and complexity, I'm trending Brunello.
I just bought a bottle of Tom Eddy 2008 Melbec for $43 (about the price of a Brunello), and that should be an interesting comparison.
John, my son says your photos, especially food photos are quite good, and he doesn't compliment easily. 🙂
I understand what you're saying. I'm always doing that. And Napa Cabs are notorious for the comparison. If I sit down with a $75 bottle of Cab (or more) and it doesn't distinguish itself from lesser Cabs, I'm always left thinking, I could have bought 2 of X or 2 Brunello… When you factor in which wines pair better with a wider range of food, it becomes an even easier choice. But that's why these blogs are good. And your Tom Eddy is the perfect example. I'd be really pissed if that wine didn't wow me. There are lots of really good wines available for that money. As for the photos, that's funny, because I think I'm barely passable and every photo on this site has been taken with my simple iPhone.
iphone! My pal Ben did an amazing photo of scallops and bacon on cucumbers with just that; so not so unreal!
John, I couldn't find your e-mail address so I hope this is OK, and if not, please delete. NH has a premier wine reviewer (Jim Beauregard), and he's one reason I began posting my own reviews. I know he has as much right to his opinions as anyone else, but he seems to have a kind of monopoly on the subject, which I have often been offended by.
This is my latest offense:
Tell me what you think, if you would (I understand if you don't). Jim's review: "2006 Castel Giacondo Brunello di Montalcino, Italy, 13.5% abv, $33.99 at the NH State Liquor Store, marked down from $59.99 (Yes, you read that right, a $26 markdown): Deep core of purple, intense nose and, not surprisingly, a little barnyardy on opening — many Brunello's need some air before they are ready to drink. Red and black fruit on the nose on opening. The palate is bone-dry with intense coarse tannin on opening, medium-plus alcohol that's a little warm at the outset, medium-plus body, medium flavor intensity of sour cherry, black fruit and hints of red fruit. After an hour of decanting and air, the barnyardy aromas are gone, the tannins die down and fall back into balance, and the whole is more harmonious, with good fruit and an earthy finish. Relatively well-balanced, good quality, good concentration. 82/100."
I have the 2006 and the '07, and have yet to taste them, but because I saw this 82 point score, while he gives much "lesser" wines scores of 92 points and higher (You have to get his track record) I feel somehow "out of joint" about this; he's a professional, and who in their right mind would buy an 82 point wine for $34.00?
Maybe he doesn't understand that brunellos have a kind of hibernation period, I don't know, but with advice like this, he'd better stick to his beer reviews.
Cellar Tracker is pretty stingy as an average: 90.8
with the top 25 reviewers having a LOW score of 87 points.
J.S. score this wine 95 points,
WS scores this wine 93 points.
Ok, Ok, I'm off the deep end with this, but are there no standards, is this a partiality issue (Mine & his)?
Thanks,
Dennis
http://www.unionleader.com/article/20120725/NEWHAMPSHIRE0705/707259956/0/SEARCH
Dennis,
First of all, my email is on my bio in the top left of this site. Summus68@yahoo.com Feel free to use it anytime, as often as you like.
As for the other stuff, this is an age old debate. Wine tasting is so subjective, that's why I laugh when I see people chasing after points. I have the Castelgiocondo 2001 in the cellar, but have not bought it since. Mostly for no reason other than the fact that I haven't seen it. Still, for a 2006, 82 strikes me as a very low score. His written comments also seem out of step with the numerical score.
All that said, he might be, ala Tanzer, stingy with his numbers. I just try to get a feel for professionals palates and calibrate it to mine. For example, if I see Parker raving about a wine with gobs of hedonistic fruit, I can guarantee it won't appeal to me. My palate is more instep with James Suckling and occasionally Tanzer. But not with every wine type. For example, when Suckling likes Brunello, I usually like it. But the same does not apply to his Bordeaux review. And I've learned all this over 20+ years of tasting.
So in closing, no, I don't think you're off the deep end with this. Every taster is just a data point. And only one. That's what's great about blogs like ours. You can never have too much information when you're being asked to plunk $40-$60 on a bottle of wine, Brunello or otherwise.
The bottom line is, there are so many factors that could have contributed to his score: what he ate that day, if he smokes, the temperature of the wine, if it was decanted, what he served it with, if the wine was in a dumb phase, the format of the bottle, maybe even who he was with! That's why I always try to provide as much context as possible and also always try to taste the wines with and without food. Because after all, we don't enjoy wines in a vacuum -we enjoy them the Italian way! With family and friends around the table….
Salute!
Great wine philosophy: "That's why I always try to provide as much context as possible and also always try to taste the wines with and without food. Because after all, we don't enjoy wines in a vacuum -we enjoy them the Italian way! With family and friends around the table…."