~ Rampolla’s Cellars hold a mixture of various sized barrels ~
“The liveliness of earth; crossed by humans…..”
It’s been a while since I’ve visited Castello dei Rampolla and written about Sammarco. The estate, the family, indeed the environment there are in a sort of backwards transcendence. Why? Because the team of Luca and Maurizia di Napoli are virtually ignoring modern winemaking principles. Their goal, only nature makes wine.
The quote above is taken from the Rampolla website and provides insight into the producers mindset. From vineyard, to pressing, to aging – almost nothing is interjected by man. Mother Nature is in control at Rampolla. From start to finish. And maybe for better or worse.
~ The crops and wild flowers growing between the vine rows at Rampolla are so thick they almost obscure the vines ~
Since 1995, Castello dei Rampolla has been completely biodynamic. These principles are strictly followed. Vegetative growth between the rows of vines are left untouched. Stones, sand, weeds, worms, wild flowers, bees and insects all live naturally. There are no pesticides employed. No fertilization done. No watering.
Luca quips, “no one fertilizes the Amazon forest, so we let nature work it’s will here too.” Worms encourage water absorption; bees pollinate; frogs and newts eat insects, and nature works it’s magic.
The winemaking is also nod to the past. Gone are the stainless steel vats. Instead Luca employs enameled iron and cement vats. As a result, the wines are completely unadulterated. “We don’t want anything impacting the wine until we put it into barrel.” But, even barrels are slowly going away at Rampolla and the di Napoli’s are focusing more on clay vessels and smaller amphora. This writer isn’t completely sold on the “nature or bust” mentality. After all, there are reasons why thousands of winemakers the world over have moved beyond the manner in which wine was made centuries ago.
~ Rampolla is an estate lost in time ~
But Rampolla soldiers on. And thus far, it’s hard to argue with the results.
The 2016 Castello dei Rampolla Sammarco is a deep violet color; almost opaque. Aromas of blackberry, tobacco, menthol, spice and leather mingle nicely on the nose of this mostly Cabernet wine. Gorgeous mouthfeel. Viscous, silky and fresh. Wow! Black fruits mark the palate with tobacco, hints of fresh herb and coffee grind. Wet stones too. Long black plum driven finish. Tannins clamp down on the back end but this is delicious. Decant and drink now or cellar for a decade. It’s not Solaia, but it’s not $300 either. 95 points. Find this wine & Support Tuscan Vines.
~ The 2016 Sammarco needed some aeration to express itself fully, but it’s a wonderfully elegant red ~
Is this sort of ultra-minimalist winemaking for you? Let’s hear what you think in the comments.
Salute!
Hi John
Great write up. We visited last spring and the flowers between the vines are quite something and in stark constrast to some surrounding estates – you can clearly see where Rampolla owns the vines.
I’ve really been enjoying some 1999 Sammarco and it seems the % of sangiovese was higher back then. Nevertheless it does still make an appearance now (I think maybe 5%) and to me gives this a sense of place in Panzano!
I may have to get some 2016!
Hi Peter, Yes, I believe you’re right. Without looking back, I think Sammarco in the beginning was mostly Sangiovese (say maybe 55%) but don’t quote me on that. I remember that it changed around the time when Vigna d’Alceo was created. Incidentally, if you haven’t seen it – I had the 2006 Alceo in Roma this Summer and it was fresh as a daisy. You can check it out here: https://johnfodera.com/ritorno-a-roma/
Cheers!
*tried posting a comment but it didn’t seem to work*
Hi John love the site. I’ve been enjoying the 1999 Sammarco recently and enjoyed visiting the winery last summer. As you say the wildflowers growing between the vines is really something. I’ve got some 2015 in the cellar but looks like I’ll need the 2016 too.
Hi Peter, Thanks for commenting. Yes, comments made by people that have never commented before go cued for moderator (that’s me!) approval first. No worries. The 1999 must be really secondary now. I tell you what though, I loved the 2011. You can see my review on that one here too. The 2016 is still available readily despite not being the “current” vintage – but again, you never know how the supply chain issues impact things. Cheers and thanks for reading!
Hi John,
Best wishes for the new year!
Glad to see the Sammmarco ’16 to be this good, as I have this waiting in my cellar as well.
Regarding your question: I think the vast majority of the wines I drink fall under the bio / biodynamic label (whether they are officially certified or not, and not limited to Italian wines either). Personally, I think it is a quite logical step as a winemaker / producer to attempt to work as “clean” as possible (i.e. no pesticides etc.). This will give you, if the vintage goes well (!!!), the purest fruit, taste-wise, I think; and it will be the purest expression of the land in my opinion. Crop size, that is a different topic. It may be risky, but I think we have sufficient knowledge on how to manage vineyards without “chemical intervention”.
And I think it also makes sense to try an keep the same approach when it comes to cellar practices. It makes little sense to me to try and get the purest fruit from your vineyards and then throw that all away by applying very invasive winemaking techniques. Ageing in wood or another vessel, for me that comes down to a question of personal taste. But I do tend to seek out wines with less wood influence, in order to bring the fruit more to the center stage. So In that regard, I can understand the search for other containment vessels, in order to reduce wood influence. But I am certainly not against using wood; if you for example use large casks (like sometimes in Tuscany) or the barrels are 2nd or 3rd passage, their influence on the wine is also limited. Personally, I would avoid using wood with a high toast, as that tends to rub of quite easily in my experience.
Of course, the most important condition is that you need to have a winemaker who really understands and controls the vinification process. That is, according to my opinion, sometimes the problem with “all natural winemakers”. Yes, their fruit is pure, but they have insufficient knowledge / control over what is happening in their cellar. And so they spoil their wine and are left with something stuck halfway between wine and vinegar (e.g. VA)… Moreover, hygiene in the cellar is also key (brett…)! And no, those defaults are not what wine is supposed to taste like (an excuse sometimes used by natural winemakers…) 🙂
A hot topic here is also the addition of sulphite to the wine. If you use too much, your wine becomes dull and flat, losing its liveliness. This is what you sometimes find in (cheap) industrialized wines you can find at supermarkets. But a small amount of sulphite is in my opinion necessary in order to stabilize and protect the wine – also during transport, which in my opinion often still is the Achilles heel in the whole chain of distribution (uncontrolled temperatures during transport). I am not saying suplhite protects wine against high temperatures, but it does help in keeping the wine stable during that stressful time of transport (apart from the temperature).
Best regards,
Hi Steven,
Woof! A lot to unpack here. 🙂 I agree with almost everything you say actually. And I think you’re right when it comes to vineyard practices, though most producers I speak to don’t mention the word biodynamic. In fact, like “natural wine” (where all winemakers will say my wine is natural) the word doesn’t really have a defined meaning. That’s not the same with Organic where again, I think every producer I come across works this way. Whether they can be certified or not often depends on their proximity to other wineries and vineyards. But they practice this way. Why would they not want to, to your point? Nothing bad into the soil. Nothing bad into the grapes. Nothing bad into the wine.
When it comes to wood, I’m a proponent when it comes to fine red wines. I think wood (lighter toasts as you say) is important not only as a “seasoning” tool but as an oxidative mechanism that has worked for centuries. It’s understood, it’s the easiest to control and it yields the most consistent results. Generally, the larger the better but again, that depends on the grapes being used. And yes, 2nd and 3rd passages I usually find attractive. An easy way to see this (though not a cheap way) is to look at Ornellaia vs. Le Serre Nouve.
Finally, when you say “sulphites around here” what do you mean? Where is here? Again, generally I agree. No wine is free of sulphites because they occur naturally in wine. When a wine is “sulphite free” that just means that the amount is so little as to be immeasurable. Same as alcohol free. Countries may define that differently though. But in terms of not adding sulphites, that’s a key distinction. Personally, I have never noticed a difference. I just say that they don’t bother me and since it’s not advertised anywhere, it’s impossible for me to know whether I’ve had a bad experience with a wine containing higher sulphites. That said, this 2006 Alceo I had in Roma this Summer was super fresh. Granted, the cellar is great and it hadn’t traveled far, but still. https://johnfodera.com/ritorno-a-roma/
Good discussion, salute!
John
Thanks John!
Salute! You made it