I’m confused about the ask. People are recommending Chiantis as pure expressions of Sangio. Most Chiantis are blends. Some are 100% sangio, though.
Riecine and Castell’in Villa are both 100% sangio, and I have to say I buy sight unseen.
Hi Joel, here is a list of Chianti I like. Most hover around $20-ish but there are some that get over $30. But Thomas Keim’s advice is good, find a local retailer and taste through. Some of these may be categorized differently by different people. I find the quality of Chianti has jumped up considerably in the last decade. 20+ years ago we would find either insipid wines or over-oaked in the 90’s. Now we seem to be a much better place overall.
–Traditional-ish or tweeners
Lucignano Chianti Colli Fiorentini
Felsina Chianti Classico
Viticcio Chianti Classico
Le Cinciole Chianti Classico
Giacomo Mori Chianti Colli Senesi
Villa Sant’Anna Chianti Colli Senesi
Monteraponi Chianti Classico
Isole e Olena Chianti Classico
Casa Emma Chianti Classico
–Slightly more (forward) modern
Rocca di Montegrossi Chianti Classico
Fontodi Chianti Classico
Querceto di Castellina Chianti Classico L’Aura
Castello della Paneretta Chianti Classico
San Giusto a Rentennano Chianti Classico
San Vincenti Chianti Classico
This. I’ve been following Chianti very closely for 20+ years (including a lot of time spent there on a more or less regular basis). I find the overall quality has never been better than now, and the highs are very, very high indeed, if one knows where to look.
Interesting thread–posting mainly so I can find it again. But fwiw, Castello di Ama,
mentioned by Richard, has memorable “purity” and red-fruitedness, though not cheap.
1 Like
Great thread, having a whack at Sangio this year and now have excellent homework.
I would agree with Tvrtko - Chianti has never been better in my “drinking lifetime” than it is lately. A lot of credible producers making nice wines at reasonable prices.
In certain “high tide” years like the recent 2010 vintage, it is difficult to find a crappy Chianti, at least in the export market to the U.S., and there are many examples of outstanding wines, especially when taken in the context of QPR.
+1
Had a 2009 late last year and it was just fabulous. Bought the 2010 based on that.
I don’t know if it meets all the OP’s requirements for a ‘pure’ sangiovese, but it’s a lovely vineyard, albeit a bit more costly than OP’s range.
The danger of these Selvapiana is that – even though they are super food friendly – if one opens them before dinner there may not be any left by the time the main course is served !!! SO made me stop slurping and had some sparkling sent over to slake our (well mine) greedy gullets last time we had this…
I would see if one could try the Castell’in Villa before buying, or at least, buying a lot of it.
Thought I would like it…but its not to my tastes.
Not criticizing it – its certainly true to its style – but sometimes wines made to last have to give up a little in drinkability today.
Arv,
I drink Nebbiolo so I guess I’m used to the abuse. I’ve also bought half bottles of the Castello di Ama that are nice if you just want a couple glasses. And the get ready earlier.
All great recs
However the purest expression of Sangiovese appears first after 20+ years in the cellar. IMO.
1995 CC is drinking beautifully now (and also 1988, 1985, 1975 etc)
Claus, you’re taking things to another level.
Had the '83 Il Poggio last year with grilled lamb for Easter. Wow.
Threads like this end are largely useless because there is no shared understanding of the meaning of terms like “pure” – which in this context clearly meant something other than 100% or “lacking oakiness.” Everybody thinks they are answering the OP just by listing their favorite wines, notwithstanding the fact that the various wines listed are completely different from one another. It’s quite funny, really.
Which doesn’t mean that I don’t love 20 year old Chianti.
Sangiovese is not different from other major grapes. Actually CC ages at least just as good as Bourgogne and Bordeaux
I am just advocating for the benefits of ageing the wines. To much Sangiovese is drunk too young. Also in our house.
IMO some of the above recs are not to be opened before age 15+
I wasn’t criticizing you Claus and largely agree with you on the substance. I was just remarking that your use of the concept “pure” is markedly different from others in the thread, including I think the OP, so this thread as a whole is not a meaningful conversation. Everyone is using the same words to mean different things.
1 Like
Hi Claus,
Your point about “pure” expression revealing itself after 20 years was borne out when we did a vertical of Soldera Case Basse - from 1976 to 2001. What was remarkable is that the wines from the 1980s - and even the 1976 VDT - were the wines that had definitely shed any f the “dark, deep, rich” characteristics David Z sees in Soldera. We had some very experienced palates at that event, and they found all the pre-1996 Solderas to be “pure” - even haunting - expressions of sangiovese. That event was hailed by those present as one of the greatest events our wine society had held in its 30 years of existence.
I reread the OP to see if I still interpreted it the way I did previously, when I responded early in the thread. By saying that he has a problem with “funk” but desires “earthiness” seems to me to be potentially problematic in that the two can sometimes be related. But putting that aside, my take on what he is looking for is an expression that demonstrates a crystalline quality as well as vibrancy. Interpreted that way, the wine being 100% Sangiovese is secondary. The first time I experienced Montevertine’s Montevertine it was unlike any Sangiovese based wine I had ever had in that it had both a crystalline aspect as well as a vibrancy to it. That is the purity to which I refer understanding it may or may no be what the OP meant.
1 Like
I know Jay. Just reminding about ageing Sangiovese is important. Especially for some of the recommended wines ![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}
I care ten times more about Chianti than I do about Burgundy or Bordeaux, and drink twenty times as much of it, but I am not entirely sure I agree with this. While I definitely do agree that much Chianti is drunk far too young, my experience suggests the best Chianti made between cca 1960 and cca 2000 could routinely age perhaps for 15-25 years, but very, very few (there are, of course, exceptions…) normally made it past the 30 (or so) year mark with any agility still left (no problem for most good Bordeaux, let alone good Rioja or Nebbiolo).
How the vast improvements over the last 15 years might affect the ageing ability of Chianti’s best wines is a different matter, but also something that remains to be seen.
Well said, Tvrtko - I have similar “consumption ratios” re: Chianti versus Bordeaux & Burgundy, and while I also think folks drink a lot of Chianti too young, I also wouldn’t put it in the same “extended aging” category as those other two regions.
In terms of one of those exceptions, though, I still have a couple '71 Castell’in Villa CCRs in the cellar, and I’m hoping they still have that “mojo” they used to at 45 years .
Dont worry Bob. Castell’in Villa’s ccr are extremely longlived and priced accordingly.