[wine] Rosso di Montalcino

Just in time for the Inoni tasting (this Sunday, 3-6, $50) Ciao, Jaime October 24, 2011 Pure Montalcino, Minus the Wait By ERIC ASIMOV IN retrospect, what was all the fuss about? Here sat the wine panel, having tasted 20 bottles of Rosso di Montalcino, reveling in the unmistakable earthy, dusty flavors of pure sangiovese. With their winsomely bitter, citrus-tinged cherry flavors, these wines were soulful and elemental, like good trattoria food. They wanted less talking and more drinking. In fact, they were so good that I couldn.t help but wonder about all the conflict in Montalcino, where it.s been a rough few years for the wine business. First came scandal in 2008, when some producers of Brunello di Montalcino were accused of adding other grapes to a wine that by law must be made of only the sangiovese grape. Then came prolonged debate over whether to change that rule and others, along with soul searching, breast beating, garment rending and other essential expressions of an acute identity crisis. It.s not as if the region were tampering with centuries of tradition. Brunello di Montalcino was a relative latecomer to the ancient world of Italian wines. Although wines had been labeled Brunello di Montalcino since the late 19th century, the name was largely the province of one producer, Biondi-Santi. The rules of the appellation were not codified until 1968, and the wines did not explode in popularity until the 1980s. Even from the outset, the rules for Brunello di Montalcino struck many as being overly rigid. In addition to the 100 percent sangiovese standard, the wines had to be aged at least 48 months, 42 of them in barrels, before they could be released. Over time, the period of barrel-aging was reduced to 24 months, although producers were still required to age their wines for four years, delaying substantially the return on their investment. To help ease this burden, back in the early .80s the authorities created Rosso di Montalcino, a wine that, like Brunello, could be made of only sangiovese but was required to have only one year of aging before it could be sold. In addition to improving cash flow, the new category let producers release as Rosso the wine that didn.t make the cut as Brunello or that came from grapes grown outside the areas designated for Brunello. So far, so good. So, again, why were people unhappy? Brunello made in the traditional manner can yield a wine that is lean and tight, requiring years to unwind, even after its long aging at the winery. While good traditional Brunellos like those made by Biondi-Santi offer a rare combination of purity, depth of flavor, intensity and grace, many consumers did not want to make the investment in time. What.s more, in the late 1980s and .90s, critics and consumers became enamored of wines that did not conform to any appellation rules , like the Super-Tuscans. These wines used foreign grapes like cabernet sauvignon, syrah and merlot, and many were aged in new barrels of French oak. Seeing the popularity of these luxuriant wines, many Brunello producers began their own stylistic experiments. The wines grew darker, softer, thicker, explosively fruity. Suspicions arose that not all Brunellos were 100 percent sangiovese. You know the rest: scandal, debate and, finally, in late 2008, affirmation of the 100 percent sangiovese rule. Yet another effort was mounted to ease the sangiovese standard, this time in Rosso di Montalcino. Just last month, producers voted again to uphold the 100 percent requirement. With wines as good as those in our tasting, why would anybody have wanted to change the rules? For the tasting, Florence Fabricant and I were joined by two guests, Lacey Burke, a sommelier at Del Posto, and Gabrio Tosti di Valminuta, the proprietor of De-Vino, a largely Italian wine shop on the Lower East Side. We all found common ground in our love for sangiovese, and thought our favorites were excellent representatives of the grape. Most of the wines were from the 2008 and 2009 vintages, with one 2007 thrown in. In the past I.ve tasted Brunellos and Rossos that I suspected were not exclusively sangiovese, but none of these wines raised suspicions. Naturally, we did find some stylistic deviations. Some wines were leaner and lighter-bodied; others were more robust. Some tasted of new oak barrels; others tasted just of the grape. But very few of the wines were polarizing. It seemed as if, in the case of these wines at least, the so-called traditionalists and modernists were meeting somewhere in the middle. Our No. 1 bottle was the 2008 from Le Chiuse, a lovely, pure and balanced wine that seemed perfumed with the exuberant essence of young sangiovese. Likewise, our No. 2 bottle, the 2009 Altesino, was graceful and silky with clear, direct aromas and flavors. The 2008 Poggio Antico, our No. 3 wine, was denser and more tannic than the first two but with attractive aromas of red fruits and flowers. No. 4 was the gorgeous, earthy and vibrant 2009 Uccelliera. Unlike Brunellos, most of these Rossos are ready to drink now and over the next few years. They are less structured than Brunellos, and simpler, but offer great values. In fact, 13 of our 20 wines cost $25 or under, and our best value, the fresh, graceful 2009 Mocali, was just $17. At the more expensive end, at $38, were the 2009 Valdicava, a lush, rich yet delicious wine, and the 2009 Conti Costanti, a dense, tannic wine that was one of the few in the tasting that did seem to need a little more aging. Returning to the question of what all the fuss was about, I will say that I am thrilled that the Montalcino producers will retain the sangiovese rules. Does this limit the flexibility of producers in years when they are unhappy with their sangiovese crop? Of course. Yet producers are not without recourse. They do not, after all, need to call their wines Rosso di Montalcino. Plenty of wines are labeled Rosso di Toscana, indicating they are red wines from Tuscany, but don.t necessarily conform to the rules of any appellation. Sangiovese, exclusively, is the foundation on which Brunello di Montalcino, and Rosso by extension, have been built. To change that would blur the meaning of the appellation and our vision of its wines. Tasting Report Le Chiuse, $22, *** ½ Rosso di Montalcino 2008 Pure, firm, balanced and perfumed with great texture and persistent flavors of red fruit, flowers and smoke. (Frederick Wildman & Sons, New York) Altesino, $25, *** ½ Rosso di Montalcino 2009 Dense and rich yet clear and graceful with silky, lush flavors of flowers, cherries and licorice. (Winebow/Leonardo LoCasio Selections, New York) Poggio Antico, $33, *** Rosso di Montalcino 2008 Dark and tannic with earthy, spicy aromas of cherries and violets. (The Sorting Table, Napa, Calif.) Uccelliera, $28, *** Rosso di Montalcino 2009 Earthy and well-balanced with sweet, ripe fruit flavors and vibrant acidity. (Michael Skurnik Wines, Syosset, N.Y.) BEST VALUE Mocali, $17, *** Rosso di Montalcino 2009 Pure, fresh, light-bodied and elegant with pretty aromas of red fruit, flowers and smoke. (Michael Skurnik Wines) Valdicava, $38, ** ½ Rosso di Montalcino 2009 Pure and bright with floral, mineral and red fruit aromas. (Vinifera Imports, Ronkonkoma, N.Y.) Collemattoni, $23, ** ½ Rosso di Montalcino 2007 Meaty, smoky, dense and tannic with aromas and flavors of cherries and violets. (Vignaioli Selections, New York) Campogiovanni, $25, ** ½ Rosso di Montalcino 2009 Tannic and dense, with aromas of minerals and dark fruit. (San Felice U.S.A., Manhasset, N.Y.) Col d'Orcia, $24, ** ½ Rosso di Montalcino 2009 Rich, plush and ripe with flavors of black cherries, licorice and a touch of oak. (Palm Bay International, Boca Raton, Fla.) Conti Costanti, $38, ** ½ Rosso di Montalcino 2009 Earthy with persistent aromas and flavors of ripe black cherries. (Empson U.S.A., Alexandria, Va.) -- ------------------------------ * Dr. James Ellingson, jellings(a)me.umn.edu * * mobile : 651/645-0753 * * Great Lakes Brewing News, 1569 Laurel Ave., St. Paul, MN 55104 * * james(a)brewingnews.com James.Ellingson(a)StThomas.edu *