I have to admit it, curiosity got the better of me and I felt compelled to try the Antonio-anointed 2004 Il Poggione. Going in, I wasn’t sure whether I’d get the pleasure of a great wine (as others of Galloni’s recommendations have been) or simply the pleasure of being contrary. The latter pleasure wins out. First sip is OK. Deeply fruited but not fat, and with tannin remarkable for its softness despite the fact that there’s a whole lot of it. Doesn’t take long before the dominant element of the wine is the fruit’s sur-maturite. Pruny, figgy, that kind of thing. It isn’t a fruit bomb, just raisined. The proportions stay relatively restrained despite the flavor. I also understand the wine saw some French oak, and fortunately it’s pretty subtle. You don’t really taste it until the finish, which is cedary. This is usually the point in the note where one compliments the “deftness” of the oaking, and while it might indeed be deft it’s also totally unnecessary; the wine would have been better without it. Overall, it’s not an over-the-top Michael Bay-movie kind of wine in the fashion of many WA95’s; it’s more like a Tom Hanks-movie kind of wine, like it had gone through a dozen focus groups. Better with age? Maybe, and it’ll need it, since the tannin, soft as it is, is abundant enough that the wine becomes aggressively drying. Wish I’d bought a 375ml to sample this instead of a 750, since there are gonna be lots of leftovers.
Have you had any other 04s to compare it to? Just wondering if the prune-ness of it is just at the estate, or a sign of the vintage
Interesting note Keith, I have been a pretty big fan of past vintages and would surmise the wines as a bit coarse in comparison to some (say, Costanti or Pertimali or Ciacci) but very classically built and really rewarding aging.
I’m looking forward to an 04 Barolo taste off this winter or spring once I have them all: Uccelliera, Costanti, Ciacci Pianrosso, Lisini, Il Poggione, Pertimali, Sesta di Sopra, perhaps a couple more I’m forgetting…
Brunello…the best marketed wine in the world.
I’d suggest Champagne or BDX or Napa as the best marketed wines. Not saying Brunello isn’t awash in shitty wines that are overpriced, but the whole world is and Brunello is not alone there. I am quite happy with the value proposition of my favorite $30-$50 Brunellos, something I can’t say about BDX or Napa. I guess part of it is taste, no?
Josh, naturally a good point, but Brunello is just simply Sangiovese in cask for 5 years (or it is supposed to be just that). For me, nothing very special about that.
For me, it represents some of the worst QPR going, at any price point.
I would even choose Bordeaux before it. ![[shock.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0b1dcf699ec319f43254f92e3f145786dcd93904.gif "shock"){kind=small}
I agree. Over-priced Chianti in most cases.
Haven’t tried the 04, but Poggione is one of my favorites, in part because it’s not so ridiculously priced. Their 82 Riserva is still a beautiful wine.
That Brunello is available in Germany for the same price as a Chianti Riserva from a top producer such as Felsina (25 Euro). I bought a few bottles of the 2001 and 2004 because I owned a case of the 1988 and that wine was a real beauty. Drank my last bottle a few years ago and it was delicious. In fact - it was better as the onces I drank earlier. I hope the 2001 and 2004 will be as good when they are 10+ years old.
Jurgen
I am referring to Brunello, in general, not Il Poggione. Sorry for the confusion.
Daniel,
well - most Brunello are totally overpriced compared to other good Sangiovese. I agree. Il Poggione is one of the few exceptions. Haven´t ried the 04 so far since the wines are meant for extended cellaring. I would be surprised if the wine doen´t turn out as a beauty.
By the way - bought the Rossi of the house 06 and 07 both for little money. For everyone interested more in elegance than in power these wines are the ones to buy. They have much in common with a good Burgundy. Seem to be light first but have superb balance and a long finish. 06 is better in the future while the 07 is for drinking now.
I can’t get on board with Dan on this one. While the Banfis et al. would be nothing without their slick marketing and Wine Spectator cheering section, the best Brunellos have a depth and nobility that Chianti can’t really match. And when it’s done well I don’t find either the flavors or construction all that similar. Credit the sangiovese grosso clone or the Montalcino terroir or both. Brunello is also capable of producing some of the most boring, commercial wines out there at its price point, but it would be a shame to let the junk crowd out the good stuff.