Opened both at home with friends. Thought is would be interesting to try one with some bottle age next to a recent, highly-regarded vintage.
2006 Valdicava Brunello - Decanted 1 hour before serving in wide-bodied zalto decanter for sediment. Could tell just by pouring that this had oxidized more than it should have in 15 years. Looked like it was 30 years old. Nose was closed but opened up over an hour (might have been a dash cold coming out of cellar temp). Leather, cedar, mushroom, caramel, dried herbs on the nose. Very interesting but the caramel (and lack of cherry) made me think I had waited too long to open this one. Taste confirmed this. Fruit was all but gone. No acidity. A short madeira-like finish. It was interesting for some in the group to taste some tertiary notes you only find in old wine, but was overall a huge disappointment. I bought this from Specks about 5 years ago, and I think this had some heat damage from improper storage before I bought it.
I’m not going to place a rating because I believe there was a storage issue with this bottle, but would definitely encourage anyone holding to drink now. The wine is in decline.
2015 Valdicava brunello- Double decanted for 1 hour (I typically don’t do this with a wine this young, but was trying to knock the reduced nose off of it). Nose improved but never fully lost the sulfur tinge. Nose was dry herbs, dried cherries, strawberry jam, high minerality. Structure was flabby. A short, earthy finish. Not an impressive showing for what is generally considered a good producer and a good vintage.
Score: 88
1 Like
Sorry those weren’t good experiences. Have you had Valdicava before, and if so what did you think of it?
1 Like
Very disappointing, especially for a well regarded name.
I haven’t had the 2006 Valdicava, but that bottle was almost certainly damaged. I’ve had quite a few 2006 Brunellos over the last few years and this is a well structured, long aging vintage. I’d expect bottles from good producers to be youthful but showing development and in a good drinking window.
1 Like
Yes, I’ve tried other vintages before and consider it very good. It is not on my list of top producers, but they make very good wine. Tasted the 2016 a few weeks ago and thought it was very strong.
The 2006 was clearly stored improperly before I acquired it 5 or so years ago (its been in a eurocave since), which is why I didn’t give it a rating. Still, some elements like the lack of acidity, that I don’t think would be massively affected by room temp storage, make me think the wine is still at the peak of its drinking window even if stored properly. It could very well be a great wine to open now, and I wish I had another bottle to try.
On the 2015, I can’t figure out why it was so reduced. Not a typical issue with this producer from what I can tell. Possibly just a bad bottle? Maybe I’m being overly harsh because we opened a 2015 rosso just before this (Stella di Campalto) that was absolutely stunning, and I was expecting the brunello to be a step up from that.
I can only speculate since I wasn’t there for the bottles.
Looking on CT at the 2006, three of the last eight notes indicate flawed bottles, so maybe you got one of those. I had the 2006 in January, and I didn’t take notes or have detailed memories, but I think it had showed well.
My guess is that the 2015 is just way too young, or it might need a very long decant. Valdicava Brunello is extremely dense, concentrated and tannic for a Brunello, and probably even more so in a hefty vintage like 2015. People often mistake that for them using modernist techniques, but they don’t, their vineyards just occupy a very solar microclimate that produces a darker, more masculine style of Brunello.
But that’s just a guess, I don’t have any 2015s and haven’t tried it. If I had a 2015, I I probably would be looking at 2030 or something to open it.
Does my description track at all with the other experiences you’ve had? I don’t know which vintages you had or at what age.
1 Like
Wow just looked at the CT notes and so many flawed bottles with very similar notes as mine. That most have been the issue with the 2006.
With the 2015, we only decanted an hour before initial pour, but we drank it over the course of 4 hours. Of course this was super young, not even in the drinking window, but it was not what a young, age-worthy brunello tastes like. You can tell when sangiovese has the structure to go the distance even if its not currently pleasant to drink. The sweet spot for good vintages like 10, 15, and 16 is probably 20 years at top producers. I’m currently opening a lot of early 2000s.
Would the bottle I had improve with another 5 years? Certainly. But it was not built for the long haul. Way to young to be developing strawberry jam notes, acidity was too low and the tannins had little grip for a wine that young.
1 Like