In many cases yes, generally due to lower yields, resultant higher alcohol and lower acidity. Some clones were also selected for small berry size, which in the era of high heat and no water can produce wines with outsized tannins.
That’s surprising about Cerbaiona, but I’ve never had an older one. Was Poggio di Sotto in the tasting? That seems to me to be one of the outliers (for Brunello) in that it can reward longer aging.
Supposedly the '10 is an outlier wine for Cerbaiona. I haven’t tasted other vintages, but my two experiences with the '10 were similar. My note below fwiw.
There was not a Poggio di Sotto. The surprise in the negative direction was Conti Costanti which was good, but seemed a bit past peak - the only bottle I’ve had, so hard to say if it was representative. The other wines that did not show well in my opinion were the modern style producers, Siro Pacenti and Casanova di Neri, where the wines had overly dark flavor profiles, lacking freshness, and the tannin quality was low. Other good performers to me were Salicutti, il Marroneto, and il Poggione.
The '10 Cerbaiona showed similarly to the prior time I’ve tasted it, in 2020. This is a very enjoyable Brunello, a bit funky but in a good way. It also has this combination of richness but elegance that the best wines have. That said, as I said in 2020, I don’t really understand AG’s 100 point score / the market price of this wine. The flavor profile is just a bit too rustic in my view for this to score at that level.
The nose was nicely perfumed with black fruit, violets, chocolate, leather, and roasted meats, a good mix of sweet dark fruit and slightly rustic, but attractive savory characteristics. On the palate, the wine is concentrated but very elegant, with no perceptible tannins to speak of at this point. I found leather, brown spices, chocolate, violets, and black fruits, leaning a bit savory but with a very attractive core of dark fruit. This wine has a textural richness that most of the other wines in this lineup lacked, but yet it’s so finessed.
1 Like
Very interesting. Thanks.
I am very inexperienced in this area but a year or two ago I had a 2010 Felsina Riserva Rancia at about 12 years old and it felt quite young, like it had a decade or more to go.
1 Like
I have just picked up a bottle each of the ‘00, ‘01, and ‘04 Baricci BdM. A fairly traditional producer. Looking forward to trying them this winter.
My notes on a bottle of the '97 opened ten years ago (i.e., 16 years out): “Tough sledding. Hard tannins, not much evolution. Needs more time??”
I haven’t touched my second bottle. I was concerned that the tannins were just too hard for this to ever come around. And I’m a Barolo guy. But I have no history with Rancia.
I’m sitting on some 04’s and 06’s. I opened one of each a few yrs ago, and they definitely needed more time.
Thanks for the info- very useful. I’ve had Caffaggio young, and I was a big fan. In fact, a young Caffaggio riserva was one an important part of my very early wine journey.
And yes of course- I would LOVE to get together for some aged Sangiovese. Let’s talk!
I actually just tried this wine, and liked it quite a bit. I didn’t think it was too hard, but it was a half bottle, which might have had an effect.
1 Like
How much longer did you feel like it has to go? Beginning of its maturity or toward the middle or back end?
Oh, it had a long way to go. Still young- drinkable, but young. I’d bet there was at least another decade in the tank, even in half bottle.
1 Like
Just popped the cork on an old Brunello and thought I’d drop a note here. This is a 1979 Argiano Brunello Di Montalcino Riserva. This is an ex-library release, so it’s probably not entirely representative of most of the older Sangiovese on the secondary market. The wine was very good, though short of excellent. Clearly fading while remaining very drinkable and engaging. Not sure I’d seek out more, but glad I got to try this. Here is my TN from CT:
"From the winery’s library. Perfect cork, garnet with some bricking on the rim. Drank straight out of the bottle. Only about a tsp or so of dark gritty sediment that is easy to separate.
The nose is subtle, gentle, but intriguing and quite complex. The Sangiovese sour cherry is present in spades, though it’s a bit dried out, raspberry preserves, and jellied cranberry sauce on the nose. Also plenty of damp earth and worn leather. Body is medium to medium-minus, pleasant acidity, tannins are nearly completely gone. Surprisingly good amount of red fruits remain but with a big dollop of aging leather. The finish is long and smooth with a good amount of complexity.
The whole package is rathle subtle- you have to really go hunting for aromas and flavors, but the once you find them, the package is very pleasant. The one thing this wine is missing is intensity. I imagine the intensity was there years ago, but this wine is surely fading. Better than I expected, but if I had another bottle (I don’t), I’d have it on it’s own as it got rather overpowered by food. Still, a treat to try."
2 Likes