WTN: 2 nice Italians - Chianti Classico and Etna Rosso

With Batali's parsnip/pancetta pasta (recipe obtained from a Jenise post in the Kitchen), the 2006 Fontodi Chianti Classico. Larger framed CC, big black cherry fruit, slightly surprising oaky vanilla notes, moderate tannins, good acids. Not especially friendly, needs time. I often find Sangiovese doesn't do well overnight, but this is better on night 2, more integrated and less overt oak. Will leave others alone for a few years. B/B+

With takeout pizza, the 2005 Biondi "Outis" Etna Rosso. I loved the '04 of this, and am not disappointed with the '05. Maybe a bit more fruit forward than I remembered the previous vintage, but still a lovely balance of fruit, acids, and light tannins. Cherry/kirsch fruit, lively in mouth, some peppery spice. Good length, not a blockbuster but sweet and elegant. B+/A-

Grade disclaimer: I'm a very easy grader, basically A is an excellent wine, B a good wine, C mediocre. Anything below C means I wouldn't drink at a party where it was only choice. Furthermore, I offer no promises of objectivity, accuracy, and certainly not of consistency.  

Dale,

I am glad you enjoyed the Biondi. I think Etna is the best terroir in Sicily, and one of the best in southern Italy.

I think Etna is the best terroir in Sicily, and one of the best in southern Italy.

On limited experience, I agree. The wines seem to have a lot more finesse than anything else South of Tuscany. (I like some Aglianico derived wines a lot but finesse is not a word I would associate with them.) The Etna volcanic sites are obviously very special and I hope that the vines will not be swept away by an eruption.

Italian wine poses a number of interesting problems, not the least of which being that they certainly don't us any favors with labeling....ok rant over.

I've tried the Etna before and thought it was quite good. The older volcanic sites often have some interesting flavor profiles.

Italian wine poses a number of interesting problems, not the least of which being that they certainly don't us any favors with labeling....ok rant over.

What is wrong with that labelling, Mark? It's not varietal, but would it help people to have the Etna labelled "Nerello Mascalese"? Or indeed the Chiant Classico "Sangiovese?

I think Italian wine labels are very easy to read for consumers who are used to the New World 'variety + place' labelling, as the great majority are labelled this way (eg Roero Arneis, Fiano di Avellino). The wrinkle is that there are some very famous exceptions, eg Soave, Chianti, Barolo, and, yes, Etna Rosso. It's certainly no worse than the great majority of French labels, though.

I think Italian wine labels are very easy to read for consumers who are used to the New World 'variety + place' labelling, as the great majority are labelled this way (eg Roero Arneis, Fiano di Avellino). The wrinkle is that there are some very famous exceptions, eg Soave, Chianti, Barolo, and, yes, Etna Rosso. It's certainly no worse than the great majority of French labels, though.

So what are you suggesting, Oliver? Sangiovese di Chianti Classico? Pinot Noir de Richebourg? Grenache, Mourvèdre, Syrah, Cinsault, Counoise, etc. etc. de Châteuaneuf du Pape? Come on . I would support a mention of the variety for mono-varietals in small print on the front label and details of the varieties for multi-varietals on a back label but otherwise I believe that emphasis on place is right for AOC/DOC wines.

I think Italian wine labels are very easy to read for consumers who are used to the New World 'variety + place' labelling, as the great majority are labelled this way (eg Roero Arneis, Fiano di Avellino). The wrinkle is that there are some very famous exceptions, eg Soave, Chianti, Barolo, and, yes, Etna Rosso. It's certainly no worse than the great majority of French labels, though.

So what are you suggesting, Oliver? Sangiovese di Chianti Classico? Pinot Noir de Richebourg? Grenache, Mourvèdre, Syrah, Cinsault, Counoise, etc. etc. de Châteuaneuf du Pape? Come on . I would support a mention of the variety for mono-varietals in small print on the front label and details of the varieties for multi-varietals on a back label but otherwise I believe that emphasis on place is right for AOC/DOC wines.

Bold emphasis mine.

Tim, why not be consistent in your approach and put the varietal identity/blend on either the front label OR the back label?

You would probably reply that front-label blend lists would be ungainly. But having one consistent approach (back label identification) would solve the problem, and would not elevate single-varietal wines to a higher plane (front label marquee) than the more humble back-label blend list.

You would probably reply that front-label blend lists would be ungainly. But having one consistent approach (back label identification) would solve the problem, and would not elevate single-varietal wines to a higher plane (front label marquee) than the more humble back-label blend list.

You have a good point there, Hoke.

You would probably reply that front-label blend lists would be ungainly. But having one consistent approach (back label identification) would solve the problem, and would not elevate single-varietal wines to a higher plane (front label marquee) than the more humble back-label blend list.

You have a good point there, Hoke.

Whenever you think that, Tim, consider it was coming from a guy who used to strongly advocate putting all constituent varieties of a blend on the front label and damn the torpedoes!

(and that would be soooo popular with the trade since it would essentially force about 98% of "single varietal" labeled wines out of that spurious category. )

I think Italian wine labels are very easy to read for consumers who are used to the New World 'variety + place' labelling, as the great majority are labelled this way (eg Roero Arneis, Fiano di Avellino). The wrinkle is that there are some very famous exceptions, eg Soave, Chianti, Barolo, and, yes, Etna Rosso. It's certainly no worse than the great majority of French labels, though.

So what are you suggesting, Oliver? Sangiovese di Chianti Classico? Pinot Noir de Richebourg? Grenache, Mourvèdre, Syrah, Cinsault, Counoise, etc. etc. de Châteuaneuf du Pape? Come on . I would support a mention of the variety for mono-varietals in small print on the front label and details of the varieties for multi-varietals on a back label but otherwise I believe that emphasis on place is right for AOC/DOC wines.

Take a deep breath, Tim. I'm not suggesting anything, just pointing out that many Italian wines are labelled very clearly with both place and variety, which makes the suggestion that their labelling is mysterious hard for me to understand, given that it's the clearest type of labelling possible; and that the remainder are named in the classic European manner, place only with controlled variety or varieties, which makes them no less mysterious than the French classics. Incidentally this is true of many DOCs as well.

Where's Châteuaneuf?