Snippets from the Italian Scene Tuscan Vintages 2000: Where are
we headed?
Last week (Feb 2001) I attended the presentations of the latest vintages
of Chianti Classico, Vino Nobile di Montepulciano, and Brunello di Montalcino.
Quite interesting, especially the first morning, during which the Chianti
Classico Consorzio presented barrel samples of the 2,000 vintage to give
journalists an idea of what the future might hold. I say might because barrel
samples as a whole are merely indicative of a wine's potential (the bouquet
develops in the reducing environment of the bottle, where the wine also,
ideally, gains elegance and balance with time), and this is especially true if
the wine is newly fermented and is only just beginning its time in wood.
Therefore the wines themselves weren't that interesting as other than
curiosities, but the selection of wines presented was. The rules of Chianti
Classico production were recently modified to allow an increased use of foreign
varietals such as Cabernet, Merlot, or Syrah (from 15 to 20%) because many
producers like to include these grapes in their wines to give them a more
international feel. This year, all but one of the wines presented were made
entirely from local grapes -- many 100% Sangiovese (Tuscany's great red grape),
and some with Canaiuolo, the grape Bettino Ricasoli used to tame Sangiovese
when he developed the formula for Chianti in the mid-1800s, or with other
almost forgotten complementary grapes that people used in the past to add color
or grace, for example Colorino (which gives color). And we were told that
there's a push to reduce the use of oak in aging, because excessive wood
overpowers the nuances of the grapes.
Granted, we only tasted a dozen samples, but if the Consorzio adopts
this strategy and begins working behind the scenes to persuade producers to
make their Chianti Classico only from local grapes while putting their
Cabernet, Merlot, and whatever else into Supertuscan table wines, this will be
tremendously beneficial in the long run. Why? Because Sangiovese is a
temperamental grape, and though it has been planted elsewhere with satisfactory
results, to date it has only done _really_ well in central Italy; a good
traditional Chianti Classico made from Sangiovese and other local grapes is
unique and can't be copied by Sangiovese producers in other parts of the world
whose lower production costs would allow them to undersell Chianti producers. A
heavily oaked Cabernet-laden Chianti Classico is much less distinctive, and
could consequently be copied fairly easily. Considering the globalization of
the wine world, having something unique will mean the difference between
success and failure.
The Nobile di Montepulciano presentation was pleasant, with interesting
wines, though fewer considerations to be made. The vintage is 1998, which is
frankly inferior to 1997; taken as a whole the wines are lighter, with less
fruit and less concentration. Why buy them, when one can still find 97s, and
the 99 vintage, which is better than the 98, will be with us in a year's time?
Because, to the contrary of great vintages, which have enough body, structure,
fruit, and concentration that one has to plan the menu with them in mind lest
they overpower the food (assuming the vintage isn't so great that one decides
to enjoy the wine far from the distractions of the table, which is why great
wines are also called "meditation wines"), lesser vintages are adaptable and
approachable; if I were having a nice meatloaf or grilling a chicken I wouldn't
hesitate to break out a 98 Vino Nobile, but I'd think twice about opening a 97.
With it, I'd want something more, say a Fiorentina (a porterhouse steak,
grilled over the coals and rare), or perhaps a roast leg of lamb. Assuming I
didn't decide to meditate over it with friends.
The Brunello di Montepulciano was the 96 vintage, and it again invites
some considerations: It will likely be the last of its kind. Why? Because
they've changed the rules; up until 1998 Brunello had to spend 4 years in oak
barrels or casks before it could be bottled, and though this helped great
vintages mature, it was too much for lesser vintages -- too much time in wood
tends to dry out the fruit, producing a rather strident wine that feels thin
and overly tannic. There are of course producers who manage to shine even in
the face of adversity, and some others fleshed out their wines by adding some
of the 1997 vintage to them (this is allowed), but for many Brunello producers
1996 was a decidedly lesser year. With 1997, which was a great vintage, four
years in oak won't be a problem, and beginning with the 98 vintage the wood
requirement will be a minimum of two years, after which the producer can bottle
the wine (total aging time is still 4 years). Lesser vintages will still be
lighter than the great vintages, but with luck they won't have that stridency
to them. What about the 99 Rosso di Montalcino (Brunello's little brother)?
Quite nice, and augurs well for the 99 Brunello vintage.
A presto, Kyle Phillips Webweaver, About Italian Cuisine
| 