The debate on this wine piqued my interest and I decided to try one for myself.

Upon opening, the wine gave off some aromas of sour cherries, earth and a bit of tar. Very dark red and no bricking yet. On the palate, I found it thin and too acidic. I thought it was more like a rosso di montalcino rather than a brunello. I let it sit for three hours in the bottle. On next taste, the wine had added weight and complexity. Less earth/tar and more violet/floral aromas. Very soft tannins. My wife and dinner guest enjoyed it.

On final pour/taste, however, it seeems like the wine reverted back to my initial impressions - thin and simple sangiovese.

The long and short is that the wine was all over the map for me and I'm not yet convinced that that it is as good as some of the critics predicted.

I opened a bottle last night. I found it very smooth and silky but, as Duojet noted, simple, enjoyable but without the depth I was looking for.

Popped and poured, blind, in a lineup of 15 Tuscan reds. This was my highest scoring of the bunch. (My lowest score, a 76, went to an '07 Monte Antico.)

Pretty, charming spice, vanillin cherry nose; big, luscious fruit, velvety on palate, yet packed & concentrated leading to a long, echoing finish. Very refined & harmonious.
95 pts.

Opened a bottle of the 99 last night. It got better with some air time in the glass, but not a great wine. Well made and elegant as always, but the nose was somewhat muted and the finish so-so. I'd rate it 90-91 at best.

I'll hold my last bottle for a few more years to see what happens.

Thanks for the update on this wine.
The muted nose and short finish seem to indicate a tipical dumb phase experience.
Most '99 I have are that phase right now, and I expect them to stay there longer than for example the '97 vintage.

quote:

Originally posted by steve8:
Opened a bottle of the 99 last night. It got better with some air time in the glass, but not a great wine. Well made and elegant as always, but the nose was somewhat muted and the finish so-so. I'd rate it 90-91 at best.

I'll hold my last bottle for a few more years to see what happens.

I had several 99 brunelli that were showing lots of tannin and little else. They now have a more patient loving owner.

If your wine is still in a 'dumb' phase 13 years after harvest, I think it is trying to tell you something.

I don't want to drag this off topic, but I had a 1999 Fuligni on Saturday night and it definitely wasn't in a dumb phase. Early drinking window for sure.

quote:

Originally posted by steve8:
Opened a bottle of the 99 last night. It got better with some air time in the glass, but not a great wine. Well made and elegant as always, but the nose was somewhat muted and the finish so-so. I'd rate it 90-91 at best.

I'll hold my last bottle for a few more years to see what happens.

Glad to hear yours were still alive. The last two bottles I opened were completely dead, past prime.

Interesting. Were your bottles and steve8's SAQ acquisitions? I had this wine last year and my notes were that it was entering it's window. Like steve8, if pressed I'd have hit this in the 91-92 point range and I tend to be a tough scorer. I'm wondering if your bottles were flawed or otherwise injured in transit?

PH

I had a '99 Castelgiocondo last Sept. It was very good, at least on par with the excellent 2001. When I had it a couple years earlier, I thought it was very good then, too.

I think PH asks a good question. Impulse and Steve8, sounds like your bottles may not have been quite right.

quote:

Originally posted by PurpleHaze:
Interesting. Were your bottles and steve8's SAQ acquisitions? I had this wine last year and my notes were that it was entering it's window. Like steve8, if pressed I'd have hit this in the 91-92 point range and I tend to be a tough scorer. I'm wondering if your bottles were flawed or otherwise injured in transit?

PH

Yes, in my case, two bottles straight from SAQ to my cellar... I was surprised that this could be dead already, but both bottles were faded in exactly the same way. Drinkable, but not pleasurable at all.

I was curious, so I opened one of mine last night.
I'm with Steve8 on this, well made but nothing exceptional and not as fresh as the first time I had it. Also would rate it 90-91. I Would not say its in a dumb faze, but not dead either, just an OK wine.

I have one of mine standing. Will report back.

I do think that 90-91 is better than "ok" though......

PH

You're right, 90-91 is better than OK
Since mine were sourced from the SAQ,
I was more mentioning that it was OK and not faded like Impulse's

I think wine needs a decant, yes I said it. Sorry but I think the wine would have tasted better with time in the glass. I have one more bottle which I will open soon.

I'm going to pop one of these tomorrow for Christmas dinner along with a 1999 Poggio Antico Altero. Should be interesting.

PH

So.... slow-oxed a bottle for 2 hours before dinner. Had a sniff and a taste from the initial pour a half hour after opening. Lovely. Fresh red cherries on the nose with a definite tang of cranberry to accompany the cherry in the mouth. The cranberry faded after a few hours to be replaced with some darker (plummy) fruit and noticeable secondary nuances....earth, sweet mulch and some mushroom. Smokin' good. Have 3 left, and will probably consume one a year with NO worries about it going anywhere I don't want it to go!! Will bring a bottle to Montreal next visit. If I can remember..... Great bottle of Brunello.

PH

Still working on my last pour. It's getting better.... Again, not a points guy anymore - but if pressed a definite 93+ right now. Perfect with short ribs. Just enough acidity to cut through the richness. Bam!

Over and out.

PH

quote:

Originally posted by PurpleHaze:

not a points guy anymore -

There was no serious pressing going on.

quote:

Originally posted by PurpleHaze:
Still working on my last pour. It's getting better.... Again, not a points guy anymore - but if pressed a definite 93+ right now. Perfect with short ribs. Just enough acidity to cut through the richness. Bam!

Over and out.

PH

Whew!

I was a bit surprised by our friends' comments above. I also have a bottle standing for this coming Fri. or Sat. evening.

I have 9 or 10 more, and from my previous tastings could not really see this wine suddenly heading south so quickly, other than perhaps the odd bottle, of course. I've been drinking 2001 Castelgiocondo before 1999 finding the former showing a bit more forward.

Last night we had a bottle of this with roasted chicken dinner. It's showing really well.

Still fairly dark, no obvious bricking; nice floral and berry nose; medium weight, silky, good acidity, lots of berry, plum flavours, coffee, spicy; long finish with still some fine tannins at the end. This is flirting with being classic. I'm not seeing any disappointment in this wine at all.

Is it possible that in such a large production wine there could be <gasp!> bottle variation?

I am finally redeemed. The MWP never really liked this wine but I knew it had promise. Glad Seaquam and PH liked it a lot as well!

quote:

Originally posted by Mimik:
I am finally redeemed. The MWP never really liked this wine but I knew it had promise. Glad Seaquam and PH liked it a lot as well!

Steve8 has mentioned to me more than once that he thinks you are the only guy in Montreal with a really great palate, and that he wishes he were more like you. I look forward to meeting you and sharing a glass or two in the next couple of years.

quote:

Originally posted by Seaquam:
Steve8 has mentioned to me more than once that he thinks you are the only guy in Montreal with a really great palate, and that he wishes he were more like you.

PH

This message has been edited. Last edited by: PurpleHaze,

quote:

Originally posted by PurpleHaze:

quote:

Originally posted by Seaquam:
Steve8...thinks you are the only guy in Montreal with a really great palate, and that he wishes he were more like you.

PH

^
steve8 vinaigre KSC02 Impulse lovelandre