'Chianti' Riserva?

Thank you Filippo, but there was a serial of fine Anteprimas beforehand, from 1997 (iirc) uninterrupted up to 2004.

Excellent idea! Btw, I will carry another badge with the mention "Non avvino!".

Anyhow, I look forward meeting you next year. If you like, I will bring along a decent bottle of Grüner Veltliner for you to taste.

M.

Michael Pronay:

:-))

Very nice of you, thank you very much. I will bring along a bottle of mine, then, since if I will be there, it will be for oil, officially, not wine.

To me there is no problem with teh brand name 'Chianti' and the region 'Chianti' not being identical. What troubles me is the quality of what comes in the bottle of "Chianti Riserva", which was nothing special.

Well, to me there is, although maybe not from the point of view of the wine drinker, I have to admit.

Maybe you want to be more specific. Or is/was this a general problem with any bottle of Chianti (either Classico or not) Riserva?

Did you read this thread? I bought a $10 bottle of "Chianti Riserva" (not "Chianti Classico Riserva") and was less than impressed with its contents. Any typical $10-12 Sicilian Nero d'Avola blows it away.

Oh, I see.. You are talking about the Chianti Riserva of the start of the thread, the Via Firenze. Apparently this Campagna Gello is a bottler, probably specialized on the US market. There seems to be an Apulian red bottled by them too: IGT Puglia Primitivo "Il Valore", see for instance:

Also..

Chances are that they do not see a single grape in their activity, and that they only buy wines by the bulk and bottle/label it for a market they choose. Personally, I would prefer to buy wine from those who make it, rather than from those who merely label it and sell it. But this may be a biased position of mine.

instance:

Arcano:

Cara":

I agree. My thread was about this particular wine.

You are totally right. My apologies for hijacking your thread with my fixed thought ;-)

I think the marketing of a Chianti Riserva is a bit odd. Plain 'Chianti' is supposed to be a cheap wine, or at least that's what I thought. Why a $10 plain Chianti Riserva? It doesn't make any sense! Riservas are supposed to be special lots of wine from the best vineyards, right?

"UC"

Generally speaking, you mean? Why so?

Actually, it should not be supposed to be a "cheap wine". It is supposed to be _on_ _average_ less pricy than a Chianti Classico. But not a cheap wine, in theory. It depends on the specific implementation of the Chianti-whatever wine: generally speaking a single estate wine should ensure a more accurate product, still on the average.

Yes, in general "riserva" is supposed to be a selection and not made every year, but only in the best vintages. This theoretically speaking. They should be fuller bodied, and aged for longer. Again: on average. A 10$ Chianti Riserva, i.e. a Chianti Riserva which reaches the US final customer at 10$ per bottle, with all you lot told me about the three-tier system of US wine distribution, would mean that this wine left the bottler at about 2 $ per bottle, which sounds pretty low price. Maybe in this case the 3-tier system was just not operating, dunno...

I don't know if it would have been even that much. In any event, I thought the wine was not good at all, because it had no flavor to speak of. It was neutral-tasting, like water, but it was deeply colored and not 'watery' in texture. I suggested the dealer not buy any more, but he said someone ordered a case of it!

to say the very least..

But someone thought highly of it!! Is it possible I got a flajey bottle? the wine was not 'bad' (I have had 'bad' wine before), but it simply was not 'good'.

Relative notions of "good", "bad", and "ugly", I suppose. A wine which is:

a- neutral tasting b- like water c- deeply coloured d- "not 'watery' " in texture (i.e. tannins like a tarmac, I guess)

we may dispute about whether it is "not good" or "bad", as long and fiercely as we want, but: I think I will hardly find myself fighting in order to get the last glass of it.

What I mean was the bottle was not spoilt, but it wasn't 'good'.

I understand, but I believe that by now (at least since the advent of widespread oenological wisdom and common sense) we can rule out the cases of blatantly faulty wine, and speak of the above mentioned kind of wines in terms of "bad" wine. The faulty ones may well deserve the appellative of "ugly", I think.

Maybe you should try to get some of this wine; maybe I was wrong about it. I need a second opinion.

I will try and get it, but seems unlikely I can find it: never heard of. I will let you know if I can make it. Or I could always go and pay visit to the bottling guys, near Pisa..;-)