QPR and value in Brunello

I has recently come to my attention that another WB member feels that, well I won’t speak for him, instead I will let him give us his thoughts and feelings on the subject. I would be intersted to know what others think about the topic.


Only in VERY good vintages is the BdM QPR not an oxymoron.

Ok, I see what this is stemming from now. Keep it civil folks

Certainly some vintages are better than others. In Brunello and everywhere else in the wine world. So I would agree with you on the whole. But very good vintages can have a very different meaning to different people. Take 1997 and 2000 VS 1999 and 2001. Some like soft, warm years and others like the more classical and structured years.

And since we are talking about value and QPR, even in vintages like 2003 and 2005 there are wines that are a buy depending on the price. I agree with you that it is best to buy in good-great vintages. But you are going to pay more for the wines. And if that works for you, I see no reason to change it.

Agostina Pieri, il poggione and Santa Guilia Stoke me as producers who can offer value for money even in not so great vintages.

At one time, it seemed like Brunello di Montalcino was the most overpriced wine coming out of Italy -

But for some strange reason - the prices have held surprising well - what was selling for $50 a bottle ten years ago might be selling for $65 today - that’s unbelievable considering what Barolo and Barbaresco prices have shot up to (with many selling for three times the price they were ten years ago) -

You still have to be very selective - even with the top houses, but the top '97s and '01s have turned out remarkable well, and considered their prices - were relative bargains -

Relative newcomer Stella di Campalto makes some of the most expensive wines in the DOCG (Rosso is over $50) yet they VAPORIZE every time we get them in. People come back calling the wines “brilliant” and “breathtaking”. Someone likes them.

I agree with Thomas Keim’s post - Brunello used to be horrible QPR, but for whatever reason the pricing over the last decade or so stabilized while Barolo escalated, and now it doesn’t strike me as nearly so egregiously priced. That said, I have a lot of difficulty pulling the trigger on most Brunelli these days when Felsina Rancia is $35 a bottle.

Bingo, Bobulous! Rancia is my benchmark too.

Sometimes I wonder if many buyers of Brunello know it is Sangiovese.

The only BdM I bought in 2004 was Il Poggione.

That’s probably my benchmark as well Bob - and at ten years of age - Rancia rocks - Two years ago I found a couple bottles of '88 Rancia in a hot bottle shop in Siena - they were 10 euros a bottle so I gambled on the last three bottles and hauled them back home - all three bottles were amazing - and could have gone another 5 years -

La Massa is my other go-to Tuscan label today - both the Giorgio Primo and Rosso are terrific wines -

Most wines in the world will lose when stacked up against Rancia.

There are few Montalcino producers whose sangiovese wines are excellent at all levels and who resist spoofulation when crafting their Brunello Riserva. For me, those wineries are Poggio di Sotto and Talenti. But, Poggio di Sotto is not priced at an attractivel QPR, so I drink mostly Palmucci’s Rosso. THen, there is Pierluigi Talenti from S. Angelo in Colle - all purchased within the last 6 months in U.S.:
2006 Rosso di Montalcino $18
2004 Brunello Pian di Conte $40
2004 Brunello Riserva Pian di Conte $50


That’s a double bingo for me too,KBob!

Come on guys, two parody posts do not a hostile flame war make.

Now that I know this thread is here:

  1. To me, Brunello is difficult QPR no matter what the year. It is rare, for me, to find examples that merit 2X the price tag of excellent Chianti Classico Riservas and the better Vino Nobile de Montalcinos (traditionalists should check out Fanetti, imported by Enotec - I miss having that portfolio in MO). The wines can be excellent, no doubt, but just as often I find wines that taste almost exactly like wines from the less expensive regions I just cited.
  2. I also usually would rather spend my money on a top producer’s Rosso di Montalcino.
  3. Brunello producers I like and in some cases own and cellar (in both on- and off-vintages) would include Poggio di Sotto, Pertimali/Sassetti, Ciacci Piccolomino, Fuligni, Lisini and Uccelleria. I buy A LOT more Barolo and Barbaresco than I do Brunello.
  4. Brunello Riservas seem like horrifying QPR. I have never had one that, for me, merited the $125+ price tag.
  5. I think are good at 10 years, and become considerably less interesting at 15. I have had a few 25+ year-old Brunellos, and most seemed tired at best. Off all the highly-regarded old world wine regions, Brunello’s aging curve offers the least interest for me.

Anyway - that’s how I discuss QPR in a region that doesn’t excite me much. Hope that helps.

In Brunello, there is a big difference between list prices and what you pay.

Conti Costanti, Sassetti Pertimali, Ciacci Pianrosso, Lisini, Uccelliera, Il Poggione, Fuligni are all very good wines and vary between $35-$55 for the savvy shopper.

Of course they’re a shitty deal at $100. But I like them at the prices I pay.

Pretty sure I know the reason. A lot of people followed Suckling and the other hype over the '97 vintage, bought the highly rated wines, and didn’t find anything remarkable about them. Every Brunello since '97 has been cheaper.

Did you like the '97 Brunellos Keith?

I really find Brunello incredibly tough to taste young - I usually like to sit on my favorite Brunellos for at least 10 years before popping corks - and I think the majority of the top '97s are just stunning today -