I’m sitting around waiting for reactions on a draft that needs to go to Europe overnight, which is not the good news. However, though I’m eating at my desk, at least I have a little wine fridge in my office and have opened a half bottle of '97 Altesino Brunello to wash down the pizza. Now, this is not a great wine, but it’s a good one - it’s in about the B+ range for me. It’s still on the rich and soft side for a Tuscan, but it has some nice leather and animal complexity sitting on top of the red/black fruits. Decent length, missing a little something in the midpalate.
What I don’t get, though, is “it’s a 97 so it’s falling apart.” Sort of a minority conventional wisdom masquerading as contrarianism. (Oh yeah? You’re cool because you reject the conventional wisdom that '97 is a great vintage and say it’s all spoofulated crap? Well, I reject your rejection!) Haven’t had that experience with any decent wine from that year - God knows that Tuscan styles were all over the place then, but I wouldn’t write the entire vintage off. The wine just struck me, not so much as the most interesting wine I’ve had lately, but as an interesting instance of an “unconventional wisdom” that groups such as this like to think we’re all immune too.
By the way, all but one of my '02 Fevres have been fine, so feel free to discount my ramblings entirely.
Half of my Fevre Clos’ have been premoxed. So there! and I didn’t buy any 97 Brunellos because I didn’t like them when I tasted them on release. (the 97 Rancia–not too far away–was and is woonderful, however)
Paul, the original trashing of the 1997 Brunello vintage cannot be traced to “minority conventional wisdom”, except to the extent that such a minority was largely composed of acolytes of a certain wine critic. Instead, it emanated from the “Monkton majority of one”, Robert M. Parker, Jr. He has never understood that red wines that you cannot stand a butter knife up in, like Brunello and Burgundy, have the same shot at greatness as do his beloved fruit bombs. I took him to task on the 1997 Brunello vintage, e-mano a mano, on the Squires board. He ended up challenging me to a tasting of the 1997 wines in 2002, and even offered to buy lunch in Baltimer. I had to decline, pointing out that, for most Brunelli, it is a waste of time to open them until they have at least a decade of bottle age, and if one cannot properly read the tea leaves from barrel, trying to read them after the bottled wines have had a chance to shut down a few years later makes little sense. The 1997 vintage produced some exceptions to that practice (the Fanti comes to mind), and no doubt produced some wines that fell apart quickly, as all wine regions in all vintages necessarily do. However, if you keep track of the wine boards since people have begun to open their 1997s, all signs point to a great vintage overall. I daresay that your “B+” for Altesino’s basic Brunello would confirm that…
Slight digression, but I still don’t understand what must be just massive bottle variation with the Fevres. I understand people being all over the map on whether a wine is “shut down” or just not a good wine; I understand people liking or not liking a certain style. But it’s a lot harder to disagree over whether a Chablis is poxed at less than ten years. People have reported brown sherry (only a slight exaggeration). Mine just hasn’t been like that - a light-colored wine that smells of apple and stone isn’t oxidized, no matter how incompetent I might be otherwise. I don’t doubt the reports of unmmistakable train wrecks, but I’ve also heard from others that haven’t experienced the same thing.
Bill, I don’t think the “97 isn’t so great after all” is limited to Monkton - I never followed TWA on Italian wines until they got Galloni, so I’m pretty sure that’s not where I’ve seen it, and if you search this board you’ll find some of the same - but perhaps he was the prime proponent. I agree with you generally (in my view, B+ is a more than respectable showing for a half-bottle stashed in the office for late-night pizzas), and I certainly agree with John on the Rancia - lovely wine.
Paul,
IIRC, the backlash against 1997 Tuscan wines was to Wine Spectator’s (i.e. Suckling’s) pronouncement that it was the greatest vintage ever. Suckling seemed to imply that less-ripe vintages and wines not treated to new oak were unworthy of consideration.
Personally, I loved lots of chianti classico across a broad range of styles in 1997, including the rather modern Fontodi and the Rancia which tastes traditional (to me) in spite of the new oak. I don’t own any more, but they had a great 10-year run in our home. In my albeit limited exposure to brunello (and nothing high-end) from that year, I’ve been less impressed with ultra-ripe examples, including the Altesino and Banfi Mure. I did like Uccelliera, go figure. I don’t know if that makes me a contrarian or a sheep. Please let me know.
Peter
Off topic, but I marvel at the concept of having a wine fridge in your office (or any alcohol for that matter). In today’s PC world where any altered mental status is grounds for trouble (you can interpret that any of 1000 ways, as I intended), I’m surprised anyone is allowed this unless they are in business by themselves. I read this quite frequently here. Consider me very jealous, although it really would never be appropriate in my line of work.
If I remember correctly, the reviews of Brunellos in 97 in Tanzer’s publication were done by someone else (and very high scores were awarded). There was some kick-back on this, because some of his subscribers didn’t think the wines were nearly as good as rated, and questioned the choice of reviewer (don’t remember who it was). More recently, the Italian reviewer for IWC, Ian D’Agata, has opined that some 97 brunellos aren’t againg very well, (while some are). I can’t comment since I don’t have any.
With regard to other areas of tuscany, I think Tanzer and D’Agata think it was a very good year.
I’m sorry – did WA (Parker or Galloni) question the 97 Brunelli?
I was impressed young but was amazed at a tasting two or three years ago to find a number seemed fully mature and sort of diffuse – with resolving structures that made me wonder if I shouldn’t drink up my 97s.
Some Italian cognoscenti I know have dissed the vintage. But I have had only that one systematic sampling and I’ve lost track of what the Received Wisdom from Monkton is. Can someone update me on the Accepted Take(s) on 97 in Montalcino?
Just reviewed some old copies of Tanzer. Edward Beltrami reviewed the 97 Brunello nomale and Tanzer reviewed the Riservas a year later upon release. Beltrami was very taken with the wines and scored some very highly. Tanzer was slightly less enthusiastic but still called the vintage “excellent.” He did write that he thought the heat and ripeness of the vintage did not show well with the riservas with their longer cask age. He also stated that many “insiders” and “producers” thought it an excellent vintage as well. I’ve several, but haven’t touched them yet. The I drank my Rossos already and thought them quite good.
Eric–If you still have access to the Tanzer site, there are several old threads on the 97 brunellos. Ian D’Agata, the current Italian reviewer, feels that the vintage was over-rated and too warm for typicity, and has had a number of wines that are not holding together, although there were a still a number of good wines. There were some recent threads about this, but at the moment I can’t find them. Maybe Paul can remember.
Don’t subscribe anymore. I really don’t buy any new table wines anymore since I have too many as is, so I’m not keeping track of new releases. I was living in Italy at the time of the 97 Brunello releases and got mine cheap. (Also got 95 riservas, 96’s, and 98’s) The dollar was very strong then.