I made it to NYC, got a job, and finally…got the internet!
Yesterday I had some free time so Jess and I hoofed it to Wine Library to check it out and say hi to Ian. He gave us a great tour of the facility and we got to taste a few wines and cheeses. Gourmet Library is just as dangerous to the wallet as Wine Library is. Unfortunately we had to walk to the train station so we couldn’t load up too much. That will be a separate trip.
Ian recommended a nice Italian red to us and I was excited to try it. So we stopped at Fairway and picked up some fresh pasta and salad fixins to go with this wine.
2006 Paolo Bea Sanvalentino - Nice color, deep purple with ruby edges. Nose was very showy with clack cherry, leather, tobacco, and earthy notes. On the palate it was fruit forward with layers of cranberry and pomegranate. In the mid palate is when the acidity comes in and keeps the wine fresh and introduces hints of vanilla and a little bitterness. Very good wine on its own and paired very well with the pasta. In fact we killed the bottle so quickly!
Thanks Ian for your recommendation on this and for taking some time to show us around yesterday. Hope we get to share some wine with you soon.
Sanvalentino is a new bottling to me; I’ll need to look this up and see what it is. I know in the past that Bea has declassified Sagrantino di Montefalco under the Rosso di Veo (or something like that) label, and I wonder how Sanvalentino relates to this. Off to the Rosenthal site…thanks for the heads-up.
And Bea’s site isn’t very informative, either: http://www.paolobea.com/eng/sanvalentino.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; That says it’s a sagrantino, montepulciano and sangiovese blend. It doesn’t mention ripasso treatment, but Ken may be right about that since it’s hard to see otherwise what would distinguish it from the plain rosso.
Congratulations! Time to update your location in your WB profile…
I am very intrigued as well as this is a Bea I’ve not heard of. Am strongly considering breaking my not-buying vow to get some. Sounds delish. Thanks for posting.
According to Ian, this is maybe the 2nd vintage of this wine, so yeah it is pretty new. The label was an off white, with scribbly handwritten looking text. plus it was in Italian, so I don’t know anything about it.
It did have some sweetness of fruit, so Ripassa style is possible. I also think Ian mentioned that it had Sagrantino with some other grapes.
Sorry i am not much more help, I’ll PM Ian and see if he has any info on this wine. I just know I liked it.
Mike,
The sweetness of fruit you are talking about sounds like the character of the Sagrantino grape, which in ripe vinatges, can have huge phenolics and have a little dark roasted sweetness to it so if Ken is right and it is Ripasso style then that would explain that up.
Sorry I’m late to the game. Based on what I recall from my conversation of when I brought it in to the store, this is essentially a base Montefalco Rosso from the estate (the blend would clearly indicate such, despite the official lack of the words Montefalco Rosso on the label). The Sagrantino is has a pretty big impact on the wine, but I don’t think it’s Ripasso. This is the 3rd vintage of this wine actually.
With regards to the 05 Pagliaro, if it’s like all the other vintages, it’s safe to pop one now. They usually stay accessible and quite fun to drink for the first year, and then go in to an awkward phase.
I did read the winery’s description and had in fact posted the same link two posts above yours. But the winery’s web site doesn’t explain why this isn’t labeled as a rosso. Perhaps it’s because the sagrantino content is too high, but the page suggests that sangiovese is the dominant grape. Are you divining something in there that I’m not seeing?
Sorry, John, I didn’t see that you’d posted that link previously! I thought I’d read your post, but alas…fallibility!
Anyway, I didn’t glean any additional info, and was responding to your original question of why it’s different, which the site indicates, in addition to the maceration times you noted, the different ageing regimens. As to why it isn’t labeled as a Montefalco DOC rosso rather than IGT, I didn’t see indicated on the website, nor do I know. Maybe an ageing requirement?
Just checked the Montefalco DOC rules (http://www.consorziomontefalco.it/index.php?page_id=46&parent=19" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) and it ain’t ageing, nor does it look to be precluded for any other reasons of appellation law. Maybe Bea is making a statement about where they think the regulations on the DOC/G Montefalco wines should be.
Just talked to my guy from Rosenthal, and he is thinking it’s a elevated percentage of Sagrantino that prevents it from being labeled Montefalco Rosso, which makes a ton of sense. Bea will be here in a few weeks, so we will get a firm answer then!
Sorry to dig up an old topic but I’m considering picking up some of the San Valentino '06 and stumbled across it. I think Antonio Galloni may have an answer to the DOC question. Part of his review reads, “In 2006 the DOC tasting commission rejected the Vigna San Valentino for its lack of color and oxidative tones, which seems a bit harsh in my view, even if those qualities are present. Bea opted to release the wine as an IGT and lowered the price by nearly 50%.” Still sounds like my kind of wine so I’ll probably grab some!
Scott: You won’t be disappointed. The wine is a steal and delicious. With regard to the “oxidative” nature, my bottles haven’t shown any overt oxidation but perhaps it doesn’t strike me as a long ager. If I were looking for nits to pick, the Sanvalentino did strike me as perhaps a bit older than '06. Maybe that could be chalked up to a bit of oxidation. But again, I’ve certainly enjoyed my bottles. Since it is drinking great now, just enjoy it and save the higher end Pipparello and Pagliaro bottlings.