Further to my comments on the Querciabella yesterday, some more thoughts on Sangiovese.
You know, I think Sangiovese is a grape that falls into the
Serious rather than the
Non-Serious category, despite what I may have said in the past. It's just that, for one reason or another, it frequently underperforms. Thinking out loud, it seems that even those grapes which are mostly
Non-Serious, like Merlot, do have their moments (anyone for Petrus?), and when they do perform they can be stellar. But, generally, it's good advice to pass when offered a Merlot.
So I search my rack for more Sangiovese. I come up with the following:
Banfi Chianti Classico Riserva 2003
(£9.99 Majestic)
Now I'm going to give Banfi the benefit of the doubt here, and put this wine's relative underperformance down to the dodgy 2003 vintage. Now this is a perfectly adequate Chianti, showing a muted, rather earthy nose which leads to a savoury, balanced palate with a bit of plummy fruit, some spice and a rather earthy, tannic finish. But it doesn't excite or thrill. It lacks something, but I can't quite put my finger on what this something is. 86/100
So I return to the
Querciabella Chiantic Classico 2004. You know, I may have underrated this wine last night, even though I enjoyed it a good deal. It has so many different dimensions: acidity, tannin, fruit, spice, aromas, savouriness, length, bitterness. It's really alive. On tonight's showing, after being open for 24 h, I'd rate this as 92/100, with some upside potential.
Labels: Chianti, sangiovese