blending laws for the region in question must be sold as “table wine” rather than, say, Chianti. In Tuscany in the mid 1970s, producers began to experiment with non-traditional grape varieties with great international success, and the term Super Tuscan was coined to describe those wines.This wine offers lots of anise and dark berry on the nose, and also minerals, cedar, tobacco, spices, and maybe also coffee, chocolate, and oak. It is luscious on the palate, with firm tannins throughout and especially on the finish, which is long. It is distinctly Italian in style. Tasting blind (as usual), I immediately identified it as Italian. Then I proceeded to guess practically every grape variety in the known universe before settling on Bordeaux; and I’m usually pretty good at identifying that blend, whatever its origin. It is delicious, and good value at the price. We have an older vintage in the cellar that should be very interesting for comparison.
P.S. Only after writing this review did I learn that we already blogged this wine. Norman was apparently testing us - he’s cheeky that way - and I think the reviews are quite similar.
Price: $48.99
Score: 93
Value: 4/5
Region: Tuscany, Italy
Grape: Cabernet Sauvignon, Merlot, Cabernet Franc
Tasted: March 2009
UPC: 8007425050452
Posts
I've had this one a couple times and agree it is luscious,full bodied, rich and has tonnes of sweet red fruit. My most recent bottle was more like a 90-91 in my opinion; as I did not get as many of the subtleties/complexity you describe. There was just a bit too much heat. And I did find the tannins very nicely integrated. All in all a very nice bottle of wine.
ReplyDeleteKelly's imagination does tend to run wild sometimes - it's wine appreciation / creative writing. I agree that it was more like a 91.
ReplyDeleteI as well enjoy Meritage blends, especially from Italy, but I can't recall ever buying the Collazzi. Local wine rep Eric Manning has always spoke very highly of this wine but the price always stops me. I think I will finally buy one. I can see that this Blog is costing me lots of money. Back to the value wines please.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to spend $50 on a wine, why not the Bouscasse Vieilles Vignes 2000? We scored it 94 (I can't figure out how to link from a comment), and Wine Spectator gave it 93 and put it at #29 in the Top 100 for 2003. I know I keep plugging this wine, but it pains me to see it just sitting there on the bottom shelf at Prospect St. Not even on the fancy wine shelf, where it belongs.
ReplyDeleteN- I got a number of those tucked away. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteI have not had the Bouscasse vielles vignes, but tried the regular Chateau Bouscasse 2002 and found it rather uninspiring. Does anyone know if 02 was a bad vintage for them, or is the vielles vignes a whole lot better, or am I just atypical?
ReplyDeleteThanks
Wine Spectator gave the regular Bouscasse 2002 an 86 and it gave the 2000 VV a 93. They also gave the regular bottling in 2000 an 86 and the 2002 VV a 90. So it looks like the VV is normally much better AND 2000 was a particularly good year for the VV.
ReplyDeleteThanks. I will have to find the VV version! As I agree with WS on the regular bouscasse score.
ReplyDelete