Just finished talking with a Wine Director (I think) from a local restaurant, trying to find a wine for tomorrow night. The cuisine is (very good) Tuscan/Central Italy, mostly pastas.
My buddy is probably bringing a 1997 Ceparello or Percarlo. On the restaurant list, if I choose to go that way, are several bottles that the Wine Director is claiming are drinking “beautifully” and “do not even need decanting”.
Oldest bottle is a 1999 Quintarelli Valpolicella, which ought to be good.
Next oldest is a 2005 Paolo Bea Montefalco Sagrantino
And then a 2007 Renato Barolo Marcenasco, which was also described as ready to go
I have to be a bit suspicious of the assertion about the “readiness” of a 2007 Barolo, but in addition I heard similar comments about the 2006 Canalicchio Brunello, which is described in both professional and amateur reviews as one of the more backward Brunellos of the vintage. So I have to wonder here…
This is becoming (unfortunately) one of my pet peeves, the lack of older wines on restaurant lists. One is hard pressed to find anything older than 2006 in many cases.
Yes…they should fire that guy for saying that. The Quintarelli is probably fine, the others are definite infanticide AND a waste of large markups to open now.
Define ready. I imagine they’re all drinkable, but an 07 Barolo isn’t ‘ready’. Of course the wine director says they are - it’s what he has on offer.
I’d do the Quintarelli myself, but the Barolo will be fine if you like baby barolo. The Sagrantino I imagine is not in a good place but I don’t know that wine that well.
I guess the Wine Director was not saying that they are mature, just that they can be enjoyed now, even without decanting. I personally have a very high tolerance for tannin etc, so I am sure I would still enjoy the wine on its own term. So the question is whether another wine on the list, being older, is going to offer more enjoyment/nuance, etc…
My experience with Bea Sagrantino earlier (a 2001 sampled 3 years ago) indicated that it might actually show well earlier than other Sagrantinos, perhaps counter to the prevailing wisdom. If I went that route, I am sure I would ask them to decant a couple of hours in advance…
I would expect the 2007 Renato Barolo Marcenasco to show quite well at this time. That’s a wine that generally shows well early in a vintage that is showing quite nicely. I think the other 2 wines have more potential to be interesting.
While this may be still young, I don’t think Sagrantino resolves its tannin over time. I have enjoyed all of my 2006 which were declassified. With that said, I would not spend the mark-up on it and they know they got holding a bottle that they paid too much for given the market for younger vintages as declassified thus the shill. I’d bring my own.
This is the choice he’s giving us. If I were there with people not so into wine, I would pick the Ratti. If I were there with geeks, I would pick one of the others.
I’m not a big fan of Ratti wines. I don’t think it will ever be that much better than it is now.
We had the 1995 Quintarelli about 2 months ago, and my wife (and everybody else) loved it. Given that we are celebrating her birthday, maybe that is a good choice, although the markup is pretty steep there.
But then, she loved the 2001 Bea Sagrantino as well 3 years ago…
Have you had the wine? I have no doubt that most people who like red wine would like it now. It’s not some tannic beast. Other 07’s I’ve are delicious right now.
I sampled lots of 2007 Barolo last October in Piedmont and found almost all of them quite enjoyable. The tannins were ripe and not extremely astringent. The one thing that was missing, and it’s something that I like, is the tertiary characteristics that come with time in the bottle. Another “negative” that can occur with a young Barolo is it going into a dumb phase, making it take several years to reopen.