Before anyone does a search and pulls up the thread that I originated some weeks back reporting about a suggested new paradigm with the 2010 Brunello, let me remind that it was simply that: reporting, not necessarily agreeing. And now that AG has published his findings on the vintage, a more comprehensive understanding on the 2010’s is possible. He highlights the strengths of the vintage, not just with individual producers but also collectively, but also points out the circumstances that continue self imposed limitations for Brunello do Montalcino. All and all, a fair and balanced take on both the vintage and region. A lot of the scores seem downright conservative, not to suggest that they should be otherwise. It’s clear that there is a huge difference between professional critics in their abilities and style of presentation. Those who have lumped AG with those with a penchant for sensationalism, are simply not acknowledging what is almost always a reasoned and thoughtful approach.
So what does he conclude about the vintage? Any wines he particularly recommends?
Mike, believe it or not, I agree with you in some small part! The problem with Brunello has been, and continues to be, there is not much there there, as the old saying goes. First of all, the effective history of the wine is roughly 40 years, so we find Cali Cabs with longer and more distinguished track records, not to mention Chiantis (which Galloni should have identified as Italy’s most famous wine, rather than Brunello…Hannibal Lecter did not drink a nice Brunello with that fellow’s liver and the fava beans, did he? 
). Secondly, Brunello is crowd-pleaser, like Chianti, far more often than it is a serious wine, and the feeding frenzy that you see for every good Brunello vintage reflects the often favorable pricing, as well as the fact that there is a wider audience for Brunello than serious collectors. I believe that Galloni did touch upon that, pointing out that of the over 200 Brunello producers, only a small number produce wines that are at all reflective of their microclimates. In the wake of Suckling’s “288 out of 100” or whatever that blathering was, Galloni is more measured, but he did peg all of the usual suspects with 95 to 97+ scores. (Chris, I will throw you a bone, already plastered all over the Internet: shocking absolutely nobody, Cerbaiona di Diego Molinari walked away with the only 100.) The problem with that, to my mind, is that, with only a handful of exceptions in its brief history, Brunello is a high 80s-low 90s wine on its best day, and not always ageworthy. Indeed, in recent years (and I invite Bob Hughes to chime in here), there have been a number of pure-Sangiovese (or nearly so) Chiantis that deliver greater quality, more complexity and more age-worthiness for your Sangiovese buck. So, on numbers alone, Galloni does not mirror reality exactly, but he comes closer than Suckling. I also give a little credit for his indication that the 2010 Brunelli may not measure up to 2006 and 2004, but if that ends up being so, then surely the 2010 numbers are too high.
So much for making nice. In his preamble, Galloni recites the old saw about how we must all read the tasting notes rather than just looking at the scores to fully appreciate the nuances from estate to estate in Montalcino. While that OUGHT to be true, and is generally true with the tasting notes of guys like Ian d’ Agata and David Schildknecht (if you have the vocabulary and stamina to finish a Schildknecht tasting note), Galloni’s 2010 Brunello tasting notes are total gibberish, reminiscent of Richard Jennings’s robo-tasting of 30 or so Pinot Noirs a while back, where he wrote more or less the same, brief, empty-headed note 30 or so times and just varied the scores by a few points. Galloni was in a huge hurry to finish his tastings and meet his self-imposed deadline, no doubt in order to scoop Monica (and I assume WS, too, but I do not know). Galloni is a terrible note writer to begin with, but the latest set of Brunello notes are worse than useless. They are mindless gushing that tell you nothing of use about the wines, other than that he liked them enough to string together a bunch of inartful, imprecise modifiers about them. Perhaps more on that anon…
P.S. Michael, there may indeed be a new paradigm for Brunello. There are enough examples that one barely recognizes as Sangiovese and which fall apart within a decade or so to make the case for drinking up those weak sisters in a hurry! Banfi’s normale and Antinori’s Pian delle Vigne will scratch that new paradigm itch for you…
A whole other thread could be, and perhaps should be had, to ask what one considers important in a tasting note. Something you learn as you advance through life is that some people like to be schmoozed and some like it short and sweet. I’ve mocked tasting notes on particular wines with side by side comparisons by different critics that have completely different aroma and flavor profiles. I respect Schildknecht and don’t doubt his capability as a taster, but I find myself thinking: point, just get to the point, enough with all of the flowery descriptions. So at least for me, what I’m looking for is an indication of intrinsic quality/potential. I’m ok with cryptic and sometimes even contradictory notes if I get a feel for that, from a critic who has a palate that I trust.
I agree on the separate thread on tasting note content…
Hard to hear something like “…there have been a number of pure-Sangiovese (or nearly so) Chiantis that deliver greater quality, more complexity and more age-worthiness for your Sangiovese buck” and not hear specifics. Who are these producers? I ask as someone looking to buy, not contest its veracity.
As for Galloni, tasting notes aside, I feel like his videos and general regional assessments certainly convey a “reasoned and thoughtful” approach. They often come across as even-handed and frankly, useful in many cases. I think its fair to ask though, how thoughtful can one be in a tasting note? Either one bludgeons with pure verbosity, uses wearisome enthusiasm or is straightforward and pithy to the point of not saying anything of real meaning. So I find it hard to judge the worthiness of someone’s tasting notes - especially since when looking at them in their collective totality (and this is true for any critic) it only seems to expose how completely ridiculous it all seems.
I wish AG would retire “Bursts from the glass”
I am sure Bill has his own answer, but mine is often to look to Montepulciano. I think Avignonesi’s “regular” Vino Nobile bottling, for instance, is consistently better (and a more classic expression of Sangiovese) than most Brunello at twice the price.
Yes.
Along with “drop dead gorgeous” and “inner perfume”. The first is overused, the second I can’t comprehend…what the heck is inner vs outer perfume…annoys me every time I read it in one of his notes.
I’m a big fan of Chianti, but I’m hard pressed to name more than a couple that even come close to the best Brunello. Maybe if QPR is factored in, a bang for the buck argument can be made, but that’s entirely subjective. Depends on budget and how much more one is willing to pay for incremental improvement. I’m also curious to hear more about how Brunello is intended as more of a crowd pleaser than Chianti. I see a lot more Chianti on Italian by-the-glass restaurant wine lists, can’t recall ever seeing a Brunello. Also, Chianti may have more name recognition to the general public, but I find it’s often a hard sell to wine collectors. My experience is that Chianti is still thought of by a lot of folks as that dreck they used to sell in the straw covered bottles. I don’t find that the general public associates Chianti with quality wine. For collectors/geeks, I think Chianti has made its wines into a sort of mine-field by allowing international grapes like Cabernet, Merlot, and Syrah into the blend. At least theoretically it’s easier to get pure Sangiovese in a Brunello or IGT.
Rob, what I said was that Chianti is more famous than Brunello, having nothing to do with the quality of either, and there was no comparison made of the two wines as crowd pleasers. (I suspect that Chianti’s greater fame, along with bar/restaurant profit margins, account for all that Chianti by the glass.) Both are crowd pleasers. Barolo, grand cru Burgundy and German Riesling are not crowd pleasers, by comparison. A lot of Chianti is still dreck (as is a lot of Brunello), and you are correct that blending in a bunch of alien juice is now permitted, which has led to a new generation of dreck. My point was only that the best few Chiantis and the best few Brunelli can be of comparable quality…
Taylor, I drafted a reply for you but I see that I did not post it. Felsina Rancia Riserva for great Sangiovese, Monsanto Il Poggio Riserva and Selvapiana Bucerchiale for longevity. On the Brunello side, I do not collect much any more, but I think Soldera (if the VA don’t get ya), Cerbaiona and Salvioni are the top three…
Thanks for the reply, even if it’s the abridged version! I was just looking at the 2010 Felsina Rancia Riserva and that might be my next purchase. I recently had the 2010 Monsanto CCR and thought it quite a good value with some mid-term potential. I’ll be on the lookout for the Il Poggio Riserva when it’s released. If the base CCR merited a 95 point score from Suckling, I’d expect nothing less than a 101+ (?) for the Il Poggio.
Looking at the regular Felsina CCR bottling, do these hold much near to mid-term appeal while waiting for the Rancias to come together?
“This wine is all about X” should be the first of his worthless phrases to be murdered in its sleep, especially when the “X” is something inane and nonsensical like “this wine is all about finesse”. Why would anybody want a wine that is “all about” a single thing? And he apparently does not know what the words “finesse” and nuance" mean, much less how they are best used (the answer would be “sparingly, if at all” in Galloni’s case). The worst, however, may be the grammatical atrocity “the wine impresses FOR its finesse”. The expression is “impresses WITH” or better yet, “the wine’s X is impressive” or “I was impressed BY the wine’s X”. “She constantly impresses us with her poise under fire” works, for example.
The examples are endless…does “endowed with magnificent depth and pedigree” mean anything at all, in ANY context? Anyone for “textural unctuosity”? “Thrilling, fabulous, aristocratic or noble”? Anybody even remotely curious about acid, tannins, balance, alcohol level, type of wood used and for how long?
Not the guy to answer that, as I go only for the Rancia…
Like Bill, I am also not a fan of Brunello - which has pretty consistently under-delivered for me. On the other hand Chianti surprised me, with me going in expecting a region still milking a name that had been debased. Instead Selvapiana and Felsina have been absolute gems and (though this might prompt strong disagreement from others) Stak / Monte Bernardi have also excited. Throw in the 100% Sangiovese Chianti exiles (Cepparello and others), and it’s been a consistent source of really good fine wines, not ludicrously priced.
I honestly would choose Vino Nobile ahead of Brunello, which I too often find overly soft, making such a comparison to the tannic bite that young Vino Nobile can offer, but holds it in such good stead a decade or more later.
I suspect I would very much enjoy Biondi-Santi and Soldera, for different reasons perhaps, but both have appealed when reading tasting notes. Biondi-Santi has always been a bit more than I could justify spending and Soldera even more so.
regards
Ian
Both Brunello and Chianti taste good when I’m having dinner in Tuscany, but pretty much nowhere else.
As for Bill’s comments about Galloni’s fatuous ‘tasting notes,’ I believe that almost all current and former TWA wine writers owe their livelihoods to Gregory Sumner ~ Tech Blog on Security, Networking, Linux, Games, Wine, other geekery.
I would add heartily Il Poggione Riserva…
Not sure if this directly responds to Taylor, but I think the entire Felsina line-up has something to offer, from base CC up through both the Rancia & Fontolloro.
The base CC is designed for drinking on release, up through 10 years after the vintage.
At least in my experience, the CCR, while #2 in the line-up, is not necessarily a wine that will be ready sooner than, say, the Fontolloro.
My favorite in the line-up is the Rancia, which to me has the rusticity I look for in Chianti. Fontolloro can be nice, but also comes across as more “sculpted”, if you will, Felsina’s 100% Sangiovese Super-Tuscan.
But at each level in their hierarchy, I think the wines are worthy of “cellaring consideration”.
While not Chianti, I’d add Montevertine’s wines at all price points. I think they may be applying for the new Gran Selezione for their top wine. I don’t know what they will then do with Pian and Montervertine. For Brunello, Poggio di Sotto is just a notch below Cerbaiona which I think is the best Brunello. And while I like many Brunello producers, mostly traditional, price/value is the real issue. Are any Brunello’s worth $150/bottle?
Bob Hughes’ experience in Chianti far outpaces mine, but I generally prefer Monsanto’s wines to Felsina’s at all price points, primarily due to Monsanto’s more rustic style. I am not disparaging Felsina’s wines, which are terrific, just pointing out a difference in style.