Super, you say?
***This one may go on for a bit. Hopefully it will be worth reading.***
Last week I took the opportunity to revisit a wine I hadn't had in some time. The wine: Fattoria Valtellina 'Convivio' 1996. The back label reads simply:
This wine, along with myriad others falls under the general catagory of 'Super-Tuscan'. Many people, layman and critic alike, get all sorts of excited at the mere mention of the phrase. And more often than not, the wines warrant this kind of affection, but I suspect that most people don't know what the big deal is. It is this that I will try to clear up.
The moniker 'Super-Tuscan' was created to describe wines made in the region of Tuscany but made in 'un-accepted' methods, or more specifically, made with 'un-approved' grapes. Actually, the latter is only partially true, the crux of the matter is the percentage of 'foreign' grapes in the final blend. To give some context, the mother grape of Tuscany is the Sangiovese (San-gee-oh-vay-say). This is the primary grape in Chianti (and its related subregions) and it produces wines of varying quality, from incredibly disappointing to literally 'life-changing'. In the 1970's and 1980's, a number of producers started making wines that had greater percentages of traditionally French grapes like Cabernet Sauvignon and Merlot. The local laws permit these grapes to be only 10% of the final blend. Most of the 'Super-Tuscans' you will find today start with 25% Cabernet Sauvignon and go up from there, the remainder being usually Sangiovese.
Are they really 'super'? Well, for the most part, yes. I have had Sassicaia, Ornellaia, and Tignanelloa, and while the wines may not be what you would expect from your average Tuscan, they were phenomenal. Another thing that was phenomenal was the price. Thankfully, I didn't have to pay for any of these wines. Suffice it to say, these things are astronomical in what they command. Unfortunately, this is driven mostly by the hype given them through the press. These are generally considered 'trophy' wines and I fear that most of them produced will never be consumed, merely shown off. Enough about that, let us on to the wine at hand.
Fattoria Valtelline 'Convivio' 1996. I keeping with the usual blend this wine is 75% Sangiovese and 25% Cabernet Sauvignon. The estate makes four wines, of which the Convivio is the flagship. The vineyards are farmed organically, yields are kept very low and the wine is aged 16-22 months in French oak, depending on the vintage. All in all, this wine is amazing. Here's how it went down.
The Financial Advisor prepared dinner. Whole Roasted Chicken stuffed with Lemon, Onion, and Sage, Mashed Potatoes with Fresh Horseradish, and Sautéed Asparagus with Sel de Mer and Fresh Garlic. I opened the bottle around 8:30 in the pee em. Straight away, the aromatics of the wine gave the tell-tale acidity that I always enjoy in Italian reds. (Truth be known, Acidity is a must for me. It should be for you as well. I will opine on this in a future post) The chicken didn't want to go down without a fight, and as such required longer cooking time than anticipated. We got to table around 9:20. During this time, the wine had begun to flesh out a good bit. That's a term throw around alot, but for those of you unsure about it, it means exactly what it implies. The wine had 'stretched out' metaphorically speaking and the aromatics and palate were broader than when it initially hit the glass. When queried, the F.A. said that on the nose, the wine smelled "not of pee or poo, but more like hay and horses". Her words, not mine. I took it to mean that wine showed a hint of brett (brettanomyces) with a strong dried leather aromatic and the vibrant acidity one would expect with a wine from Chianti. With the food, it went very well. The tannins in the wine were kept well in check by the chicken. The sage, while not overbearing in the meat of the bird seemed to bring out an herbal asthetic to the wine. I mean that in a positive way, and while it may easy to say the wine tasted like sage, that would be incorrect. The closest analogy that I can think of is the garrigue that certain critics speak of when talking of wines from the Southern Rhône and Provence. Awesome!
The F.A. needed to get her 'marginal foodstuff' fix and requested that I run her to McDonald's for a hot fudge sundae. Against my better judgement, I relented and off we went. For those unfamiliar with Savannah, the restaurant in question is literally about a mile away from my house. Total time spent on said sundae (including the 2 minutes in travel to and from): 40 minutes. Unbelievable.
Back at the house, I returned to the wine. The acidity on the palate was still present, yet toned down. Not surprising given the amount of time in glass. What was interesting was how the wine had progressed as a whole. It drank like a 'quasi-Barolo' i.e. A nice Burgundy with an uber-shot of tannin. Is this wine at its peak? I seriously doubt it. The levels of both acidity and tannin suggest to me that this wine could easily hold for another 4-5 years and will continue to drink well for 3-4 after that. All in all, this was (is, and will continue to be) a very nice bottle of wine.
Mr. Parker wrote of this wine something along the lines that "it is priced for the rich and famous". I retail this wine at $53. While that may not fit into your 'everyday' budget (and it certainly doesn't fit into mine), this is a far cry from what the more 'well known' Super-Tuscans that are on the market, particularly the big three I mentioned earlier.
Last week I took the opportunity to revisit a wine I hadn't had in some time. The wine: Fattoria Valtellina 'Convivio' 1996. The back label reads simply:
This is a bit misleading and modest as the words (both in English and Italian) imply this to be a simple wine that one would drink casually over dinner. Of course, one could do that with this wine but it is so much more.RED TABLE WINE
1996
CONVIVIO
VINO DA TAVOLA DI TOSCANA
This wine, along with myriad others falls under the general catagory of 'Super-Tuscan'. Many people, layman and critic alike, get all sorts of excited at the mere mention of the phrase. And more often than not, the wines warrant this kind of affection, but I suspect that most people don't know what the big deal is. It is this that I will try to clear up.
The moniker 'Super-Tuscan' was created to describe wines made in the region of Tuscany but made in 'un-accepted' methods, or more specifically, made with 'un-approved' grapes. Actually, the latter is only partially true, the crux of the matter is the percentage of 'foreign' grapes in the final blend. To give some context, the mother grape of Tuscany is the Sangiovese (San-gee-oh-vay-say). This is the primary grape in Chianti (and its related subregions) and it produces wines of varying quality, from incredibly disappointing to literally 'life-changing'. In the 1970's and 1980's, a number of producers started making wines that had greater percentages of traditionally French grapes like Cabernet Sauvignon and Merlot. The local laws permit these grapes to be only 10% of the final blend. Most of the 'Super-Tuscans' you will find today start with 25% Cabernet Sauvignon and go up from there, the remainder being usually Sangiovese.
Are they really 'super'? Well, for the most part, yes. I have had Sassicaia, Ornellaia, and Tignanelloa, and while the wines may not be what you would expect from your average Tuscan, they were phenomenal. Another thing that was phenomenal was the price. Thankfully, I didn't have to pay for any of these wines. Suffice it to say, these things are astronomical in what they command. Unfortunately, this is driven mostly by the hype given them through the press. These are generally considered 'trophy' wines and I fear that most of them produced will never be consumed, merely shown off. Enough about that, let us on to the wine at hand.
Fattoria Valtelline 'Convivio' 1996. I keeping with the usual blend this wine is 75% Sangiovese and 25% Cabernet Sauvignon. The estate makes four wines, of which the Convivio is the flagship. The vineyards are farmed organically, yields are kept very low and the wine is aged 16-22 months in French oak, depending on the vintage. All in all, this wine is amazing. Here's how it went down.
The Financial Advisor prepared dinner. Whole Roasted Chicken stuffed with Lemon, Onion, and Sage, Mashed Potatoes with Fresh Horseradish, and Sautéed Asparagus with Sel de Mer and Fresh Garlic. I opened the bottle around 8:30 in the pee em. Straight away, the aromatics of the wine gave the tell-tale acidity that I always enjoy in Italian reds. (Truth be known, Acidity is a must for me. It should be for you as well. I will opine on this in a future post) The chicken didn't want to go down without a fight, and as such required longer cooking time than anticipated. We got to table around 9:20. During this time, the wine had begun to flesh out a good bit. That's a term throw around alot, but for those of you unsure about it, it means exactly what it implies. The wine had 'stretched out' metaphorically speaking and the aromatics and palate were broader than when it initially hit the glass. When queried, the F.A. said that on the nose, the wine smelled "not of pee or poo, but more like hay and horses". Her words, not mine. I took it to mean that wine showed a hint of brett (brettanomyces) with a strong dried leather aromatic and the vibrant acidity one would expect with a wine from Chianti. With the food, it went very well. The tannins in the wine were kept well in check by the chicken. The sage, while not overbearing in the meat of the bird seemed to bring out an herbal asthetic to the wine. I mean that in a positive way, and while it may easy to say the wine tasted like sage, that would be incorrect. The closest analogy that I can think of is the garrigue that certain critics speak of when talking of wines from the Southern Rhône and Provence. Awesome!
The F.A. needed to get her 'marginal foodstuff' fix and requested that I run her to McDonald's for a hot fudge sundae. Against my better judgement, I relented and off we went. For those unfamiliar with Savannah, the restaurant in question is literally about a mile away from my house. Total time spent on said sundae (including the 2 minutes in travel to and from): 40 minutes. Unbelievable.
Back at the house, I returned to the wine. The acidity on the palate was still present, yet toned down. Not surprising given the amount of time in glass. What was interesting was how the wine had progressed as a whole. It drank like a 'quasi-Barolo' i.e. A nice Burgundy with an uber-shot of tannin. Is this wine at its peak? I seriously doubt it. The levels of both acidity and tannin suggest to me that this wine could easily hold for another 4-5 years and will continue to drink well for 3-4 after that. All in all, this was (is, and will continue to be) a very nice bottle of wine.
Mr. Parker wrote of this wine something along the lines that "it is priced for the rich and famous". I retail this wine at $53. While that may not fit into your 'everyday' budget (and it certainly doesn't fit into mine), this is a far cry from what the more 'well known' Super-Tuscans that are on the market, particularly the big three I mentioned earlier.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home