Brunello, not Brunello - Author: Ben Christiansen - owner - Waterford Wines Milwaukee Wisconsin

These Brunello's were drunk together in this order: flight one, 2001 Conti Costanti Riserva, 2003 Casanova di Neri, 2003 Siro Pacenti; flight two, 2003 Poggio Antico, 2001 Poggio Antico Altero, 2005 Poggio Antico Madre; flight three, 2001 Fuligni Riserva, 2002 Caparzo, 2001 Uccelliera, 2002 Argiano, 2003 Lisini. Served in Riedel’s Restaurant Series Sangiovese / Riesling I opened them at 2:30 and slowly drank them down. The bulk of the imbibing happened between 7 and 9 pm.

Conti Costanti seemed to be an excellent example of powerfully aromatic cherry, chocolate-y palate with dusty dry tannins. “Classic” Brunello. Or, to paraphrase Victor Hazan, “few can challenge Biondi-Santi in prestige but foremost among them is Costanti.” And hell, he’s married to Marcela.

Costanti yearns to be more classical than it is. Can an inanimate liquid long for the days of being dried to parching? Can it pine for the yesteryears of grouchy-old-farm-wife acidity? This is what Costanti seemed destined to be; but is falling short. Nicolas Belfrage comments that “[Costanti] has shed what toughness it once had.” Maybe old farm wives just can’t hawk their biscuits anymore. Also, whence Riserva? After having had several other Costanti’s I would rather have the normale than the Riserva simply based on price ($77 and $124 respectively). Call me Scrooge.

Once we drank the 2003 Casanova di Neri my worries about Costanti became irrelevant. Casanova is currently the greatest exemplar of anygrape-anywhere-98point wine. Is it Syrah? Cabernet? Sangiovese? Or maybe some funky Pecornio / Abruzzo blend (oh yeah, how do you know it isn’t?) At $70 it hits the habitual 98 point nail hard. If you taste in points you should go looking for this bargain of a wine but I hate to think what your sex life is like. Furthermore, Casanova does what it does so much better than the shameful Siro Pacenti ($24 more than Casanova and frankly tastes like $30 Grenache). After drinking these two I yearned for my Costanti back. By the way, Costanti was at its best 6-1/2 hours open while Casanova was jumpy right from the get go.
Poggio Antico was quite a mess, but a distinctive mess. The Brunello was corked (alas). The Altero was ferociously oaked on the nose but still distinctively Brunello. Six hours in it started resolving into something dramatic. Rest this for a couple of years and try again. Madre is the best example I have had of its type but that doesn’t mean it’s worth the same price as Tignello. On the other hand Tignello is so restricted these days I can’t seem to get it. Next we began fooling around. The back half ran through Montalcino’s as yet undrawn crus as suggested by Franco Biondi Santi in the Decanter article Brunello on the Brink (August 2008 issue, page 52).

Fuligni took the cake with its densely layered, dramatically expressive aromatics. The big man says that wines from Fuligni’s region, Montalcino, are complex and balanced with beautifully rich bouquets. Read into this that they don’t have the palate weight of others in the zone. One disgruntled taster who hates Italian wine in general commented with a veiled undertone “Fuligni disguised the blending well.” This argument is a little bit like saying 30% of the population is gay and in the closet. Half of all Brunello producers are under indictment for blending in illegal wine, we just haven’t developed our Grosso-radar enough to be able to spot them (or them us!). Times do change, in this world and that. To get back to the point, was there a greater joy to go back and forth between the Costanti and the Fuligni? You can tell which ones were my favorites. My only regret is that I have not tried a non-reserve Fuligni and so cannot speak to the Reserva’s price.

Caparzo, the little green label that could, fell a touch flat being from 2002. Showing its mineral dexterity (is this what Montosoli is all about?) it was a good wine, and worth its bargain Brunello price of $43. Drink up.
Now big fun. Uccelliera, from Castelnuovo dell’Abate (which is fun to say fast after drinking 11 Brunellos) was simply a smash. Here is what this novice Brunello drinker believed to be a prime glance at Montalcino terrior. Powerful, muscular, expressive and fully and utterly worth its $74 asking price. Did I say Muscle? To lay down. More needs to be drunk from this region.
Tosca wept for Argiano’s 2002. The grand giant of Solengo fame is truly making blended shit. Not even the comment that Sant’ Angelo in Colle is all about rich, robust fruity Brunellos can save Argiano from its own hypocrisy. Drinking this wine leaves you in no doubt as to why they voluntarily declassified their entire 2003 vintage.

But let’s not paint the whole Sant' Angelo in shame. Like Castelnuovo, Montalcino in Sant’ Angelo seemed to be giving up a lesson in terrior to us. Opulent, lush, rich, and well worth the $83 asking price. In fact, given the flailing failing strength of the dollar this and the Uccey are probably under-priced (Poggio Antico was more recently imported hence $10 to $20 more).

Lessons learned: blending distorts Brunello; understanding Montalcino’s terrior enhanced pleasure.

Wisconsin's first Master Sommelier Candidate

Since August of 2004, I have had a bug. That is when I took the introductory course for the Court of Master Sommeliers and passed it. And I passed it only missing two of the 80ish questions. OMG did I know about wine or what! I thought I knew it all. I only missed two questions!!!

Subsequently, I have applied to take the advanced certification three times. There now exists a certification level that is a requirement to pass and then wait a year before you can even apply for the advanced certification, but I took the first before that was implemented.

The first time I applied for the advanced I was turned down because I hadn’t waited the pre-requisite year, but even knowing that I was crushed. I only missed TWO of the questions! Didn’t they know that?

The second time I applied, I was accepted and I promptly set up shop to study, study, study. And to my credit I really did study. I wrote note cards, filled notebooks with my illegible handwriting with all of the things I though were necessary to study to pass THIS test, only missing two questions. I got to San Francisco in October of 2006 and after the first day of lectures and tastings, I knew I was in big trouble.

First of all to pass this you have to pass theory... this is where you hear the DUH DUH DUH DUH music that indicates that this is by far the hardest part of it. Then there is the service test. This test involves going to three different stations to perform some aspect of service while being grilled about vintages and food pairing and such. There is a decanting station where you get grilled about Bordeaux or Burgundy vintages. A champagne opening station where you get asked about up coming champagne vintages and answer questions about aperitifs. And then a station where you perform banquet style putting down of glasses (correct ones that is) while you get grilled about food pairings. Whew!

You also have to blind taste six wines in front of three Master Sommeliers and deductively (yea sure) guess exactly what they are and where they are from to the pinpointed appellation.

I knew I was sunk. But I valiantly carried on trying to memorize in the few hours between the end of the lecture and the next day, all of the things I barley touched on in all of my studying thinking my knowledge (remember I only missed TWO questions) would be enough. WRONG!

“But now I see our lances are but straws; our strength as weak, our weakness pass compare...that seeming to be most, which we indeed least are....” as the beautiful Kate tells her maidens in the final soliloquy of The Taming of the Shrew. She was of course talking about men and sex but I heard those words loud and clear when I sat down to take the theory, looked at the questions and realized I would probably be leaving allot of questions blank. My lance was so a straw!

OK so the times comes to the individual evaluations after all three sections and then the giving out of the big green pins to those who did indeed study all of the right things. I was told I passed blind tasting and service but obviously I did not study the right things and so subsequently I did not get the big green pin.

The reality is the Court of Master Sommeliers is their club and if you want to be a member you have to follow their rules, and their rules are you must know EVERYTHING, they certainly do. Some of the Masters that taught the classes I found out tried five or six times to pass the Masters level. One of them jokingly said that if you pass the Masters on your first try, you get a special designation called the Krug cup. She said that after the six times she tried to pass, her designation was called the Schlitz cup. But now she is one so who am I to be bitter.

Fast forward to August 6^th - 10^th of 2007. I took it again in Chicago, and passed. This time I knew what I had to know, I had some confidence in the blind tasting because I had passed it before and service, well I am all about service! If I strive to move on, even getting the Schlitz cup will be great with me.

“Then vail your stomachs, for it is no boot, and place you hands below you husbands foot. In token of which duty, if he please, my hand is ready, may it do him ease” Then Petruchio spouts “Why there’s a wench - Come on and kiss me Kate!” Ah Shakespeare, she definitely got the cutest guy by doing what she had to do despite her pride. And me, well I got the big green pin becoming the first person in Wisconsin to take and pass the advanced certification with the Court of Master Sommeliers and possibly be the first Master Sommelier in this state.

Santé!