Possible comparisons for aglianico :
- sangiovese (tannic, austere, acid) rather than nebbiolo
- grenache in Châteauneuf (solar) which would have a high acidity
+1 I don’t see much similarity in texture/structure or flavor/aroma between nebbiolo and aglianico.
I tasted a lot of aglianicos 20 years ago because a wine buddy got interested in them. A lovely old D’Angelo Aglianico del Vulture he served once piqued my interest. I remember a restaurant tasting of something like 20 wines. (That was tough work.) I even visited Basilicata in 2001 to see where Aglianico del Vulture came from.
A lot of those wines were pleasurable, and I occasionally find Irpinias that scratch a certain itch. But I never was fully bitten by the aglianico bug. (Later D’Angelos didn’t age.)
When I discovered Etna nerello mascalese, it seemed like a more interesting, aromatic grape. Contrary to Otto, I do find lots of parallels between it and nebbiolo – light color, aromatics, tannins. Yet many books (at least 20 years ago) said that agilianico was the third great red grape in Italy, along with nebbiolo and sangiovese. I never was convinced of that.
But this thread makes me think I should revisit aglianico. (So many grapes, so little time… )
Ditto. I think they called it that because they were trying to get some respect for it and they figured it would make age-worthy wine, but it’s too different in so many ways to be a good comparison.
And as far as being too modern, that’s just weird to me. The grape came from what is now Turkey sometime around 600 BC. The Italians called it “Ellenico”, which means it was Hellenic. So it’s been around for a long time. The Greeks stored it in resin-coated containers. They added spices and flavors because the wine spoiled pretty much as soon as it was made. The Romans took it a few steps farther. They used to add lead. And honey. And seawater. Yum! Those are the wines I love because I don’t like all this modern stuff.
And if you ever read Piny the Elder on the wines of Campania, he has a great recipe for the wine he gave to his slaves. For centuries the grape was used to make plonk for the peasants. It finally got some recognition as a “serious” grape with Antonio Mastroberardino’s Taurasi in the 1970s. So unless people are adding lead and honey, pretty much all of the Aglianico on the market is modern.
These guys (and fellow Berserkers) make an excellent domestic rendition of Aglianico. Especially the 2014.
If you are in Basilicata, Dimora Ulma in Matera has incredible verticals of multiple Aglianico del Vultura producers at very attractive prices. Many 15-20 year examples under 150 euro and their wine guru is very good at helping to navigate the list and serving. Interestingly, the Elena Fucci wines were far and away the most expensive, north of 500 euro for the older vintages.
Keith is right about the taste profile. Not remotely like any Nebbiolo.
Galardi Roccamonfina Terra di Lavoro 2012
94 RP “From a ten hectare vineyard, the 2012 Roccamonfina Terra di Lavoro touches on many of the glory points that made this such an important cult wine for Campania. Although 2012 was a hot vintage, this wine shows an impressive sense of balance and elegance. This is especially apparent on the nose where it delivers blasts of dark fruit, balsam herb, tar, licorice and volcanic ash with meticulous precision. The fruit is layered, soft and ripe. In fact, the mouthfeel is the wine’s best asset. Its fine tannins offer enormous structure, but they are soft and yielding at the same time. This is an open and honest expression of Aglianico (80%) and Piedirosso that has only just begun its long evolution.”
Who said that? Otto mentioned “modernist” producers, contrasting their wines to traditional takes. My personal opinion is such producers are clumsy hacks, regardless of grape variety. They aren’t “listening” to what the grape has to give. They are trying to force it rather than guide it. Making a hot, soupy, oaky mess to address tannins or get higher critical ratings?
There are plenty of good Aglianicos out there, and the potential of the grape is clear, but I have yet to have a great one. I’ll defer to others on that. The excitement to me with Italian wines is mostly with the less common grapes from off-the-beaten-path regions. Producers don’t have the constraints of expectations on them to conform and compromise. Rather they can pursue and explore, and really work to get the best out of the grapes. Italy is the most exciting place for wine right now, because so many are doing just that, and so many of their grapes have truly unique characteristics.
That sounds interesting. Do you have any sources? Because to my understanding that’s only a myth - the name “Aglianico” of the grape is slightly older than the supposed name “Ellenico” and these names appeared more or less at the same time: Aglianico ≠ Ellenico? | Do Bianchi. Also Wine Grapes by Robinson et al. corroborates this. Furthermore, what Turkey has to do with Hellenic? Hellas was a part of modern Greece.
However, Aglianico has certainly been around for a long time, although it’s still unsure whether the variety actually existed back in the period Ancient Rome.
The Greeks stored it in resin-coated containers. They added spices and flavors because the wine spoiled pretty much as soon as it was made.
This is white wine now known as Retsina - nothing to do with Aglianico, really.
The Romans took it a few steps farther. They used to add lead. And honey. And seawater. Yum! Those are the wines I love because I don’t like all this modern stuff.
To my understanding, that seawater thing was a Greek invention and was frowned upon Romans. Wines were certainly diluted with water almost everywhere for a very long period of time in the history, since most of the wine was very robust and rustic and diluting it made it more palatable. Also, as far as I know, lead wasn’t “added” to wine, but instead in antiquity wine must was cooked in lead cauldrons, in order to produce sweet, concentrated syrup. This syrup was used as a preservative - and it would also increase the lead burden of people in antiquity.
Why lead cauldrons when they had copper as well? Well, wine made in those rustic conditions most likely contained quite high levels of volatile acidity, i.e. acetic acid. With copper acetic acid produces bitter copper acetate, whereas with lead acetic acid produces sweet lead acetate, i.e. sugar of lead. It was only a matter of taste.
And what’s wrong with honey? I normally buy an inexpensive bottle of white wine during Christmastime and make ourselves a bottle of Roman muslum - i.e. a sweet wine-based beverage flavored with honey and spices. A great alternative to the mulled wine that’s quite ubiquitous around here.
And if you ever read Piny the Elder on the wines of Campania, he has a great recipe for the wine he gave to his slaves. For centuries the grape was used to make plonk for the peasants. It finally got some recognition as a “serious” grape with Antonio Mastroberardino’s Taurasi in the 1970s. So unless people are adding lead and honey, pretty much all of the Aglianico on the market is modern.
Campania was definitely the historical “wine factory” of Ancient Rome, but I really don’t see what’s the point of your argument here.
I never said that. I just said ‘is aglianico a variety that can excite the kind of wine drinker who loves barolo, Burgundy and Etna Rosso?’
I’m so glad I started this thread. The wealth of knowledge is overwhelming! Too many great posts to reply to individually. Thanks for all your thoughts! 
I vacationed in that area in January, and tried mid to upper tier Aglianico at most of my lunches and dinners. Some pretty good, some too baked/ripe/heavy, overall I wasn’t hooked, and I’m pretty easily hooked on Italian wines.
I think Sagrantino can be very good, though it seems to priced pretty aggressively too. Like Aglianico, it doesn’t resemble Nebbiolo in any particular way.
To James Billy, I’d suggest looking at Alto Piemonte wines – Gattinara, Spanna, Ghemme, not sure all the names they go under. They’re mostly nebbiolo, from not too far from Piedmont, but north and at higher elevation, so lighter/cooler reds than Barolo and Barbaresco.
There are also some interesting reds from Veneto and Alto Adige. Someone mentioned Lagrein, which can be good. Sometimes you’ll find merlot, pinot nero, or other international varieties, or blends, from those regions that are interesting if you like those wines in cool climate herbal type style.
Another fun one to discover is the Vajra Langhe Freisa “Kye.” Vajra is a good Barolo producer, but this bottling of Freisa is really good, good value for the price, drinks well young and also ages at least medium term well.
I’ve tried a few other Freisa and haven’t had another particular hit yet - for example, I tried the G Mascarello one with high hopes, but it was very rustic and dirty, not really a good wine. Though I might have just had a bad bottle.
I assume you’ve tried some better Barbera? They don’t generally reach very high heights, but they are good values and versatile wines at lower and mid price points.
The Vajra Kye can age a long time. A 1990 I served blind to a group in Vancouver in 2008 (including Berserker Bill Spohn and sometime Berserker Rasoul Salehi) was mistaken by most people as a Barolo, and it was at perfect moment.
If you can find Burlotto’s freisa, it’s very good, but in a very different, more approachable style. Fabio Alessandria, the winemaker, said the trick for him is to pick it pretty late. It’s chewy – more like a full-bodied dolcetto from Dogliani than a nebbiolo. I’ve found those chuggable.
The 2000 G. Mascarello that I opened a couple of years ago was a disappointment, too.
A bad freisa is like nebbiolo without any fruit – all tannin and acid.
More like a N. Rhone Syrah! That said, you’re probably right that barolo of the south is more about it being a serious/ageworthy wine, rather than a direct comparison. While I drink Nebbiolo (and the Nerellos) out of Burgundy bowls, I drink Aglianico out of a more typical Bordeaux glass. It’s rustic, mineral, meaty, and capable of surprising elegance in the right hands. Are their better Italian varieties? maybe, but Aglianico has the best potential, and a higher number of producers trying to make world-class wine. Etna Rosso certainly, and if Sagrantino had more good producers that would be on the list (thought to be fair that grape was almost extinct at one point so it’s made good progress). I think Aglianico and Etna Rosso are the best bet for someone you loves Burgundy/Barolo etc.
My mistake. The recipe was from Cato the Elder. Pliny was the guy who described Coan wine, which was wine mixed with seawater.
Here is Cato’s recipe. The Romans most certainly did add seawater:
Thanks, Rory. Sounds very promising!
Maybe Sagrantino would be next on the list…
Sagrantino is sooooooo tannic.
More than nebbiolo or sangiovese, more than aglianico … more than mourvèdre, malbec or tannat …
This is why I did not mention it.
I think if we’ve made it to this part of this thread it’s safe to assume that you’re not averse to tannins. ![[wow.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/7/7d450e9830889c8943b674446a21b7254cad657e.gif "wow"){kind=small}
Sagrantino’s tannins are particularly fierce …
Recently confirmed with :
Ombrie : Montefalco Sagrantino - Adanti Arquata 2011
Ombrie : Sagrantino di Montefalco - Antonelli San Marco “Chiusa di Pannone” 2005
But in the 1500’s Southern Italy a term referring to Greek origin would’ve been based on the word Grecia, the connection between Hellas and “Hellenistic” was coined later and the synonym “Ellenico” started appearing after this. Again, a point made out also in the Wine Grapes book. According to this same book, from a linguistical perspective the most likely origin of the name comes from the Spanish word a llanos, i.e. “from the plains” - because the name seemed to have emerged during a period of when the Spanish occupied central Italy.
From ampelographical point of view, Aglianico was never brought from anywhere, but instead is an ancient Italian grape variety. After all, there are very few if any of those historical grape varieties left that were grown in the antiquity.
You’re certainly right about the point on modern national boundaries, but “hellenistic” refers to Hellas and Hellas was the name for the peninsula that is the modern continental Greece. Anatolia was a different place from Hellas.
Not relevant. What we call retsina today is not what I’m talking about. The Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans all coated their amphorae with pitch or beeswax to make them perfectly air tight. They were used to transport olive oil, fish sauce, and wine. The color of the wine was irrelevant. I’m never heard or read anything that says resin-coated containers were only used for white wine. The only reason amphorae fell out of favor is because the Gauls had shown the Romans that wood barrels were a bit easier. And they didn’t replace the amphorae for many many years.
Sorry, I originally misread it as wine that was flavored with resin, in conjunction with flavoring the wines with spices and all that - after all, Retsina is one of the few extant historical styles of wine that came into fashion after the amphorae fell out of use. I concur with the history of amphorae and why they fell out of favor, you’re entirely right about that. And there is definitely no basis on the idea of transporting only white wines in amphorae.
However, to my understanding, resin was only used to seal the amphorae airtight. Coating the amphorae with resin sounds weird, since to my understanding, resin is dissolved into wine. Coating the amphorae with beeswax sounds more sensible, because it really doesn’t flavor the wine nor is it dissolved into wine.
My mistake. The recipe was from Cato the Elder. Pliny was the guy who described Coan wine, which was wine mixed with seawater.
Here is Cato’s recipe. The Romans most certainly did add seawater:
LacusCurtius ⢠Cato On Agriculture â Sections 104â125
No, that’s only a description how Coan wine was made. According to Wikipedia, Coan wine was popular only in Greece, whereas the Romans didn’t regard the wine highly: Coan wine - Wikipedia
There are even some sources in the Wikipedia page, if you want to look further into the subject.