and the hype award of the year goes to....

Carolina Wine Company! No surprise there, as their emails have been a source of mirth for years. But today's was a special winner:

$175 Brunello for Only $29.99!!!
The 1997 Sesti Brunello, at 97 points, was the International Wine cellar's top-rated Brunello EVER, and a "deep, sensuous, generous, compelling" classic. The lowest price in the Country for it is $175. Sesti's 1999 Brunello, which wasn't reviewed here but was one of Jancis Robinson's three best wines of this great vintage (and had huge press in Italy and Germany as well), was in our view even better. But the 2003 Brunello is Sesti's richest, most impressive and potentially greatest Brunello EVER! And we can offer it at the frankly insane PRE-ARRIVAL price of only $29.99 by the case!

OK, maybe the 2003 is a deal at $30 (or not). But calling it a "$175 wine" because a different (overhyped) vintage is that price on Winesearcher? They don't mention that the only place the 1997 is listed happens to be a store where EVERYTHING is ridiculously overpriced (a quick glance shows the '97 Abadia Retuerta Palomar - a $40 wine- for $135, but my favorite is the '96 Camensac for $125- methinks they somehow accidently dropped that 1 in there- I paid less than $20).

I actually have the '99 Sesti (its possible I bought from CWC back in the day), a pretty good wine, so I won't say the 2003 isn't worth $30, but I wouldn't chance it on an overripe vintage.

Great call, Dale. What I've always enjoyed most about the CWC emails is that they often under price the website prices. Here, the web price is $49.99, for example. And the text describing the wine is different too:

As we (and many in the press) have noted, this historic estate (occupying the old Argiano castle, with arguably THE best-placed vineyard in Montalcino) is one of the two or three greatest completely "traditionalist" producers in Montalcino. Their 1997 earned 97 points from the International Wine Cellar (their top Brunello score ever). The 1999 was even better (earning top ratings in Italy, Germany and the UK). In fact, with the 2001 Cerbaiona, I bought more of this wine than any other Brunello. The 2001 Sesti, meanwhile, was less dense and structured than the 1999, and one of the finest examples of this often over-extracted vintage. Again, the British and Italian press placed it among the top dozen Brunellos of the vintage and Jancis Robinson profiled Sesti's 2001 as the most traditional yet extremely dedicated and intelligent Brunello wine making. Even Sesti's 1998, 2000 and 2002 Brunellos were excellent. But the 2003 vintage - a year so special and unique Sesti has chosen to offer it as a true "future" (a la Bordeaux) - is shaping up to be something truly spectacular. It's richer and more enveloping than the 1997, denser (if less firmly structured) than the 1999 - and potentially, the most impressive Sesti Brunello to date. In this historically hot vintage, Sesti's high-altitude vineyard and gentle wine making touch have really excelled. In comparison to Soldera, my other favorite traditionalist Brunello, the color is always darker and more vibrantly red, and the flavor rounder, if not quite so stern or gripping when young. (I have yet to taste a 15-year-old Sesti, but I hope they'll develop some of the complex aromatics and mature Musigny-like flavors of an older Soldera.) This 2003 Sesti is still in barrel, of course, but I fully expect - as extraordinary as it is now - for it to improve significantly before its release.

I wonder from time to time whether the same person writes both copy.

Thanks for a chuckle, Bob

Hey, Bob, I just ran across your post re Montrachet on The Pour -- great stuff. We dined there once in '90 and wish that I knew then what I know now about wine, but had a great and meal memorable nonetheless.

Mark Lipton

I wonder from time to time whether the same person writes both copy.

Bob, I wonder if the same person even wrote all the sentences in the paragraph you quoted! Am I mistaken, or does he praise the 2001 as being one of the best of the vintage becauseit is not as dense as the 1999, avoiding the overextraction he sees as common in 2001. Yet the 2003 is a great vintage because it's denser than the 1999. I realize density and extraction are not EXACTLY the same, but this seems like a case of "whatever we can say, it's all good"

Valid point, Dale. As you said in your first post -- a candidate for the hype award of the year.