When it comes to the first sparkling wine, we can be certain only of the first recorded sparkling wine—not what we might infer about what happened before. But even dated, documented evidence requires further definition, not least to determine whether it concerns an effervescence that was intentional. 

The very first recorded sparkling wine was inevitably of the unintentional ilk, and the most often quoted reference for that particular number one is the bible. But it’s not quite as simple as that.

In the King James Bible, published in 1611, we find in Matthew 9:17, Mark 2:22, and Luke 5:37 a warning that “no man putteth new wine into old bottles: else the new wine doth burst the bottles […] new wine must be put into new bottles.” Obviously, Jesus was not a tech-nerd hellbent on alerting his disciples to the insufficient compressive strength of contemporary glass vessels. He was merely telling a parable to explain why his new teachings were incompatible with the old religious traditions and that his teachings required a new, more adaptable mindset.

The bottles he mentions were not glass bottles, as we discover in the much earlier Codex Sinaiticus (c.325–360 ce), which is the oldest surviving source of the Gospels. Written in Koine Greek, the word used is  ἀσκοὺς (askous), which translates as “wineskins” or “leather bags.” They would swell and burst when filled with a wine that was either still fermenting or prone to refermentation, and this suggests that Jesus was well aware of the phenomenon. It’s not, however, proof beyond a date sometime in the mid-4th century. 

But we can go back another 200 years to Galen, the most prolific ancient Greek philosopher, physician, and researcher, who wrote (c.169–180 ce) that “Exhalations burst even wineskins and jars, when they are filled up with fermenting must […] jars are burst by the force of expansion through the must as a result of a build-up of gaseous spirits.” This is an indication of unintentional sparkling wine and the “gaseous” cause is quite a remarkable scientific observation for the age.

The first recorded sparkling wine—intentional

Moving on to what is currently the earliest documented evidence of intentional sparkling wine—which comes not from Christopher Merret in 1662 but Francesco Scacchi in 1622. On page 226 of De Salubri Potu Dissertatio, Scacchi wrote that “those who make it their business to produce biting wines are anxious to inhibit the fermentation of their wines [… This] is a practice that is often followed, particularly in France [… In] order to produce the most biting wines the French hold back the fermentation, once the jars have been filled, in such a way that they can be neither stirred nor breathe, to the point where it is not surprising that the jars, being tightly closed in this way, at times burst.”

On page 227, Scacchi further explains “that ‘biting’ or (so-called) piquant wine, does not promote good health, because that sting (or pricking) arises from no other source than an excess of gaseous spirit.” He uses the phrase flatuoso spiritu (albeit paraphrasing Galen, whom he quotes at length), literally meaning “windy air” and translated as “gaseous spirit.” Although Galen understood that wine vessels burst due to a build-up of “gaseous spirits,” it was Scacchi who links this (carbon dioxide) to the “exciting” (or titillating) and “biting” tactile sensation on the palate.

Scacchi continues, “The fermentation of the wine is halted by tightly closing the jars before the bubbling phase has been completed, and for this reason it often happens that the thin, watery, and undigested part of the wine cannot be resolved by the process of bubbling into an exhalation, or, if you prefer, into air, and it is therefore inevitable that when wines are confined in this way they have an enormous abundance of gaseous spirit, since its strong tendency to break out is inhibited [… If] wines of this kind are from time to time drunk from the jars, they can be seen boiling up with great force, and especially so, if the wine is poured into a glass, for then, once the stoppers are removed, those gaseous spirits, which were previously forced to remain quiescent, make a rush, and rapidly travel upwards, so that in that violent movement some foam also bubbles up on the surface of the wine.”

Thus, 40 years before Merret, Francesco Scacchi was the first to document the production of an intentional sparkling wine. He described it as méthode rurale utilizing a rudimentary cuve close system and was also the first to describe how a sparkling wine looks and reacts when poured into a glass. It is proof that somewhere in France winemakers were deliberately producing sparkling wine as early as 1622.

Christopher Merret remains the first to describe the use of a liqueur de tirage, something the Champenois did not adopt until the 19th century. And although Merret said this was used to make “all sorts of wine … drink sparkling,” and he did not specifically mention Champagne or bottles, it had been common in London for vintners to bottle wines since the 16th century, and by 1776 the drinking of “sparkling Champaign” had become so fashionable that George Etherege extolled its virtues in the popular stage comedy The Man of Mode. So while I dislike assumptions, given that we have documentary proof that Champagne was bottled and made sparkling, only conspiracy theorists believe that lovers went to “the Mall and the Park” riding on top of a barrel of “sparkling Champaign.” 

The post Missing link to the first fizz appeared first on World Of Fine Wine.

I cannot understand at all why it is not possible, in the UK or elsewhere, to purchase some of the planet’s most exciting sparkling wines, even though these emerging stars have proved their quality and consistency at the Champagne & Sparkling Wine World Championships (CSWWC) year after year. That is why the CSWWC will be introducing a Seeking Representation service on its website that will be totally free for both producers and shippers to utilize.

While there are some famous wines that fly off the shelf—and it’s the shippers that must compete to represent those—most do not. They require selling, and the less prominent a wine’s reputation is, the more difficult it is for merchants, restaurants, and retailers to sell those wines to their customers. All the wines listed on our Seeking Representation service will be able to hit the road running, with a list of medals and trophies. Here is a sneak preview of some of the very best wines to grace our competition and looking for representation:

Available world-class wines

Midalidare is a one-off. Although I had enjoyed many still wines from Bulgaria, particularly reds, when researching my Sotheby’s encyclopedia, I had not come across any potentially fine-quality sparkling wine when researching my Christie’s encyclopedia. Until November 2018, that is, when I doglegged to this country on my way from Hungary to Canada. In Sofia, I had arranged to taste everything sparkling from Bulgaria, and Midalidare stood out like a shining beacon. I met Aleksandar Aleksiev, its general manager and senior winemaker, and convinced him to enter the CSWWC in 2019, when Midalidare won two Best in Class, a gold medal, and two silvers, collecting the Tony Jordan Rising Star trophy in the process. The very next year, Midalidare demonstrated how deserving it was of the Rising Star trophy by winning the World Champion Classic Blanc de Blancs trophy and the Chairman’s Trophy. By 2023, it was winning four golds and six silvers. The quality and consistency here is comparable to that expected from the best producers in Trentodoc or Franciacorta, yet this world-class sparkling wine is impossible to find outside of Bulgaria, where, I fear, it is probably not appreciated.

Milazzo first entered the CSWWC in 2020, one year after Midalidare, but it impressed us every bit as much. Sicily is one of the most beautiful islands in the Mediterranean, with vineyards that are capable of producing very nice still wines, but this baking hot rock at the foot of Italy is a far cry from being a natural choice for sparkling-wine production. Yet, defying the odds, Milazzo produces world-class sparkling wines across the range. There is nothing heaving here. Nothing to suggest its origins. Just classic, structured, world-class sparkling wines, many of which the CSWWC regularly showers in gold. In 2023, Milazzo won a whopping seven gold medals and the Tony Jordan Rising Star trophy. How well deserved that trophy was became validated in 2024, when Milazzo won the Best Italian Sparkling Wine trophy. However impressed the judges had been in previous years, none of us would have predicted such an achievement. Standing at the podium during that presentation, the only thing that made me happier was to see Matteo Lunelli of Ferrari get to his feet and applaud enthusiastically with a big grin on his face. When I mentioned this to him afterwards, he said it was good for Italy—good that Italy has such diversity at the very top of its sparkling wine.

Carassia is another one-off, world-class sparkling-wine producer that has won the Rising Star trophy. In fact, Carassia won the very first Rising Star trophy we awarded. It was in 2018, a year before we named the trophy for our late, lamented, and hugely respected colleague and friend Tony Jordan. No other sparkling-wine producer comes remotely close to Carassia, which is best known for its rosé, which received the Chairman’s Trophy in 2021, and its blanc de blancs, which won the World Champion Classic Blanc de Blancs trophy in 2023.

Maset has to be the best-quality Cava not exported to the UK. The winery dates back to 1777, long before the birth of Cava, but carries this history lightly thanks to the fresh, crisp, modern style of its sparkling wines. This year Maset collected five gold medals and a Best in Class for Cava Brut Nature style, while in 2023 it won World Champion Organic Sparkling Wine, Best Cava, and Best Spanish Brut Nature.

Maso Martis is a highly consistent, top-quality boutique producer located on the lower slopes of Monte Calisio, where you will enjoy one of the most magnificent views of the Val d’Adige. It is owned and run by Antonio and Roberta Stelzer with their daughters, Alessandra and Maddalena—a wonderfully happy and hardworking family whose organic wines seem to reflect their own energetic attitude to life. Maso Martis wines are gastronomic in style and sought out by serious aficionados of Trentodoc. They regularly pick up top awards at the CSWWC: Best Italian Sparkling Wine in 2017; Best Trentodoc in 2018 and 2017; Best Trentodoc Brut Nature in 2024; and Best Trentodoc Organic in 2023, 2022, and 2019. With a tiny annual production of 60,000 bottles, this is tailor-made for the on-trade.

Other gold-medal winners this year who are also seeking UK representation are: Albet i Noya (Classic Penedès), Castel Faglia (Franciacorta), Firriato (Sicily), LeVide (Trentodoc), Pago de Tharsys (Cava), Tosti 1820 (Alta Langa), Villa Franciacorta (Franciacorta), and Weingut Kolm (Austria).

More information and contact details will be available for each producer at champagnesparklingwwc.co.uk when the Seeking Representation service is up and running; in the meantime, please contact me at tom@cswwc.com if you would like to be put in touch with the right person, no strings attached. 

The post What availability? appeared first on World Of Fine Wine.

In Kiboni’s Corky 2.0, Tom Stevenson thinks he may have found the best closure for re-sealing open bottles of sparkling wine.

Although you will find at least one open magnum of top-quality bubbly in my wine fridge almost every day of the week, I sometimes forget to use a closure, but as I confessed in WFW 83, I don’t know why I even own one. The fact is, however, that I do—and I have recently found the best closure. 

Check out that earlier column to see why a closure does hardly anything to stop the loss of CO2 from the wine itself. What it will do, though, is prevent any unwanted food smells lurking in the fridge from tainting the wine. I use a wine fridge, and there is no danger of that happening, so a closure is unnecessary for me. Yet I still use one. Habits die hard, I suppose. 

The only sort of closure that can withstand the pressure that builds up after resealing a sparkling wine is one that clasps over the annulus or bague on the neck, not those that depend solely on a slight bulging of the bung. They come in two types: single-lever or double-clasp and some work better than others, depending on how effective the bung is and how securely the closure attaches to the bottle. Kiboni’s Corky 2.0 is not only superior in mechanical design to all the otherwise perfectly functional single-lever and double-clasp closures, but it transcends the status of a mere tool to achieve the prominence of a work of art. If aesthetics mean little to you, then fair enough—you don’t need to read any further. However, if you regularly use sparkling-wine closures and believe that it is preferable for even everyday objects to possess a sense of beauty, then there is only one choice of closure for you, and that is the Corky 2.0, even though Kiboni’s choice of the word Corky is rather kitsch for something of such class and style.

Never heard of Kiboni? Take a look inside the lever of many of the best single-lever closures on the market, and you might well see the Kiboni name. You will also find Kiboni on branded single-lever plastic closures from Champagne houses like Charles-Heidsieck, Laurent-Perrier, and Bollinger, but they look rather cheap and clunky when compared even to the original Corky, let alone the Corky 2.0. 

Four years asleep

Kiboni is a German manufacturer of household and garden items. In the beginning, the company worked closely with award-winning Danish designer Nicholai Wiig-Hansen, which accounts for the minimalist Scandinavian appearance of so many of its products. Kiboni makes extensive use of a thermoplastic elastomer (TPE) for all sorts of household products, including the mushroom-shaped bung that is key to the functionality of both the original and 2.0 version of the Corky closure. This TPE is a polythene-based thermoplastic polymer that has the durability of plastic but the look and feel of rubber without any of its associated aromas. The Corky’s TPE bung feels solid yet soft, grippy, and pleasing to handle, enabling it to give an exceptional seal. The stainless-steel single lever provides the best fit to the annulus I have ever encountered, and this in turn gives the user confidence that it will remain in place however much pressure builds up.

The original Corky was first sold as long ago as 2015 and was designed by Wiig-Hansen, but it was in 2020 that the CEO, Kishwar Zuberi, made a change that revolutionized this closure by adding a classic metal plaque, so that it had not only the mushroom shape of a Champagne cork but the capsule too. The Corky 2.0 has two types of capsules: matt gold and, my favourite, shiny chrome (because it looks like highly polished solid silver). This change had a magnitudinal effect on the product. It was already the most mechanically secure sparkling-wine closure on the market, but Zuberi’s touch transformed it into an objet d’art. This was a game-changer as far as I was concerned. How could I buy any other closure after seeing and using such a gorgeous yet functionally superior device? 

From a sparkling-wine producer’s point of view, the genius of the plaque on the Corky 2.0 is that it offers the perfect opportunity for own-branding. Four years down the line, you might expect that every Champagne house with any taste would be equipped with these beautiful closures, yet very few are. It is bad enough that it has taken me four years to wake up to the best and smartest sparkling-wine closure on the market, but it would appear as if the underachieving marketing guys in Champagne are still fast asleep. You are more likely to come across the Corky 2.0 in Italy, Austria, or Germany than in France (Camilucci in Franciacorta, Prati di Meschio and Soligo in Prosecco, Hofer in Austria, Schloss Vaux Sekt in Germany).

For the sake of full transparency, I purchased three Kiboni Corky 2.0 closures for the full retail price and was not asked or paid to write a review. I paid £7.99 per closure plus shipping from Wine and Barrels. Although I felt that was very expensive when I ordered, I was smitten by the photo and not disappointed when I received the real thing. If you want 100, the price drops to €1.80 per closure plus shipping. There is a minimum order of 500 for own-branding, but the price varies tremendously according to what the branding consists of to give any sort of sensible indication. 

The post Seeking closure appeared first on World Of Fine Wine.

Tom Stevenson marks 20 years since the first issue of The World of Fine Wine by looking back at 2004 Champagne—and picking out some of his favorite wines from the vintage.

What better way to celebrate WFW’s 20th anniversary than with the best Champagnes of its launch year, 2004? It was a unique vintage in the history of Champagne—a year that was born from extraordinary circumstance and known for its huge crop. Averaging 23,000 kilos or 144 hectoliters per hectare, 2004 Champagne was more than one and a half times the maximum allowed for a lowly Vin de Table. Ironically, had it been Vin de Table, the entire crop would have been carted off to the distillery… 

The sheer enormity of this crop had begun to sink in by June, when quality-conscious producers began debudding up to 40% of the potential, then green-pruning just as much again in July, but what remained was still enormous. Although the summer began well, it was so dull, wet, and cold for most of August that growth came to a complete halt. By August 23, the Chardonnay and Pinot Noir had barely nudged their way to a potential of 4%, whereas the harvest of fully ripe Champagne grapes had begun on August 21 the year before. 

With such a massive crop of undeveloped grapes and September just one week away, the fate of the 2004 Champagne harvest looked dismal indeed. If it rained in September, it could have been an even bigger disaster than 2021, when the crop was 17,000kg per hectare and a wet September had failed to ripen it. Only by harvesting the best 11,000 kilos per hectare was it possible to achieve a miserable 8.5% ABV and produce the worst vintage since 1984. In 2004, with 23,000 kilos hanging on the vines, the Champenois doubted that even a sunny September could save the harvest. Yet it did; and with hindsight, the poor weather that stopped the growth cycle dead in August would turn out to be a godsend.

When the sun came out in September, something strange and unpredictable happened. Yes, it ushered in ideal conditions for ripening, and cool, clear nights to preserve the acidity, but surely there was far too much ground to recover for even a half-decent vintage to be salvaged from such a vast crop of underdeveloped fruit? 

At this point in Champagne, a crop normally accumulates grape sugars equivalent to 0.8% ABV a week, but in 2004 the ripening process hurtled along at an unheard-of 1.5% ABV. Furthermore, contrary to all previous experience, the grapes continued to grow in size as they ripened, and the final result was not a half-decent vintage but a truly excellent one, with many great Champagnes produced.

The 2003 effect on 2004 Champagne

It was not until several months later that the explanation for this phenomenon emerged. The story begins in April 2003, exactly one year before the first leaf of 2004 appeared. Although 2003 is remembered as the pan-European drought year and known for its blistering heat, Champagne suffered devastating frosts and freezing fog in April of that year. The buds on more than 50% of the vineyards were destroyed, and this left vast reserves of unused plant sugars in the vine’s root system. When the sun burst through in September 2004, the ripening process was rekindled, and the 2003 plant sugars combined with those created by photosynthesis of the September sun turbocharged the ripening of a truly mega-sized crop. This phenomenon became known as “the 2003 effect,” and had it occurred in August when the nights would have been warmer, the wines would not have had less acidity and linearity. With the benefit of hindsight, the Champenois should be thankful that August was so dull, wet, and cold that the vine’s metabolism performed an emergency stop. Not that you could have convinced anyone of that at the time. 

Looking back over 20 years of notes, to see which 2004 Champagnes promised the most potential and stood the test of time, I ended up with 16 standouts. After a comparative tasting of historic disgorgements of 12 of these in both bottle and magnum (four were unavailable), only seven survived, and not all of those in both bottle formats. The five that did not make it are not failures, as they were all stunning in their day—some until very recently. They have now, however, succumbed to oxidation. A score of 100 here is the pinnacle of what could be achieved in the 2004 vintage.

2004 Champagne: Seven of the finest wines

2004 Roederer Cristal Brut

45% Chardonnay, 55% Pinot Noir; 12% ABV; 9g/l TS

The laser-like focus, sheer finesse, and beauty of this wine have been strikingly evident since the get-go and remain so to this day—and that’s the 75cl bottle. The magnum is so fresh and full of gorgeously pristine fruit that it is all too easy to overlook its complexity. Mesmerizing. | 99

2004 Roederer Cristal Rosé Brut

40% Chardonnay, 60% Pinot Noir; 12% ABV; 9g/l TS

Ridiculously fresh and young for its 20 years, with soft, sweet, vanilla-dusted Turkish-delight fruit riding on a gravity-defying cushiony mousse—and again, that’s just the 75cl bottle. One day I should drink, not just taste, this in magnum against a magnum of 2002 Cristal Rosé; or maybe not, since that would produce a winner, when I prefer to think that they are both the best! | 100

2004 Deutz Blanc de Blancs Brut

100% Chardonnay; 12% ABV; 9g/l TS

Initially, my favorite 2004 Deutz was the straight Vintage—and that was by a long chalk—but now, in magnum, this is easily deluxe Champagne quality, and it shines with a classy, understated, beautifully mellow toastiness. By the 75cl bottle, it is a conundrum: firm, fresh, and focused, but almost unformed. It’s as if it hasn’t grown up. | 97

2004 Dom Pérignon Brut

47% Chardonnay, 53% Pinot Noir; 12.5% ABV; 5g/l TS

One sign of great potential longevity is when the richness of a wine is originally perceived as light but steadily and relentlessly builds over the years, as this has in magnum. The bottle is oxidative and fails to make the grade, but the magnum is chock-full of reductive firework aromas, toasty and charred, with notes of coffee and Chantilly cream on the finish. | 96

2004 Dom Ruinart Rosé Brut

80% Chardonnay, 20% Pinot Noir; 12.5% ABV; 5.5g/l TS

Both bottles and magnums win here, with wild strawberries in the former, while the magnum is more cultivated strawberry edged with raspberry. The raspberry dissipates in the glass, and if you keep the opened magnum in the fridge, the strawberry increases. One of Dom Ruinart Rosé’s most delicate vintages. | 97

2004 Perrier-Jouët Belle Epoque Blanc de Blancs Brut (magnum)

100% Chardonnay; 12.5% ABV; 8g/l TS

The bottle failed to make the cut due to oxidation, although much less prominent than some of the other also-rans, and it’s a pity, because its vanilla-dusted coconut fruit is really delightful, and I suspect a recent disgorgement would be quite magical. In magnum, however, this historic disgorgement remains fresh, pure, and precise, and it still has many years to reach its full potential, as long as this clear-glass magnum is kept away from the light. | 96

2004 Pommery Grand Cru Vintage Brut

50% Chardonnay, 50% Pinot Noir; 12.5% ABV; 8g/l TS

This big, rich, toasty-fruity Champagne is still as clean as a whistle, with no oxidative aromas whatsoever, and it remains an absolute joy to drink, from both bottle and magnum. The magnum is less toasty, and the toasty notes are so evidently slow in their evolution, thus finer and more delicate. Probably one of the most underrated Champagnes. | 96 

The post Once upon a time: 2004 Champagne appeared first on World Of Fine Wine.

Tom Stevenson asks if we should let sparkling wines breathe.

The benefit of allowing a wine to breathe is inevitably discussed in the context of a still wine and almost always it will be a red wine—but what about sparkling? Should we let sparkling wines breathe? 

I must be slow, but it has only just occurred to me that I have been conducting a lifetime study of the effect of breathing on sparkling wine. You will find an open magnum of top-quality bubbly in my wine fridge virtually every day of the week. It will probably be resealed with a temporary closure, though I don’t know why I bother. When asked, I tell others to use a stopper—not to preserve the fizz but to prevent the wine from being tainted by unwanted food aromas. I use a wine fridge, however, not a domestic fridge, so that’s no excuse. The temperature of the fridge slows down the release of CO2, but the use of a closure will not stop this loss until the pressure above and below the wine has equaled. For a significantly ullaged wine, the time it takes to achieve that would be well beyond that of any reasonable drinking-up period anyone might be tempted to leave it in the fridge. Consequently, my stoppering of opened magnums can only be attributed to habit, and the few occasions I have inadvertently failed to reseal a magnum, I have noticed no negative effect on either the effervescence or quality, unless the wine was unpleasant to begin with.

What have I learned from a lifetime of allowing sparkling wine to breathe in a fridge for two to five days? First and foremost, I cannot remember one time when an enjoyable wine has not been even more enjoyable on a second, third, or fourth day. As I have already said, if a wine is unpleasant to start with, it will usually deteriorate further, whereas if it is a faulty wine, it will always get worse.

When you allow a red wine to breathe, it could be for just 30 minutes, an hour or two, or perhaps even three or four hours. The red wine will be at an appropriate drinking temperature and possibly even decanted. Decanting a sparkling wine is a whole different topic, but suffice it to say that the process itself removes CO2 through mechanical action, which is best avoided—unless, of course, that is the express intent of decanting. The substantially cooler temperature of a sparkling wine dictates a substantially longer breathing to achieve an equivalent breathing effect. From my experience, I would suggest that one hour’s breathing for a red wine is roughly comparable to one day’s “fridge-breathing” for a sparkling wine.

A glimpse into the future

What does breathing achieve for sparkling wine? First, it makes the mousse so much softer and silkier. This is not to say that it has a significantly different mouthfeel to a fully sparkling wine. For example, if you were poured a glass after five days of fridge-breathing in a restaurant, the mousse would still froth up in the glass, and the wine would taste as you might expect it to taste. 

On the palate of a sparkling wine, breathing can have different effects, but generally it adds creaminess to the texture, appears to magnify various facets of flavor, and subtly shows more evolved fruit and aroma. I have used fridge-breathing over considerably longer than five days to mimic aging. I call this glimpse into the future development of a wine “fast-forwarding,” and whereas one hour of red wine breathing equates to roughly one day of fridge-breathing, it seems that one day of fridge-breathing roughly corresponds to one year of cellaring under ideal conditions.

There have been rare occasions when a wine that was not particularly pleasant has surprised me after a few days in a fridge, and if you can track the relevant lot numbers down, I can give you an actual example to try yourself.

The wine in question is Fratelli Berlucchi Brut 25 in magnum. This beautiful sparkling wine won a gold medal at the CSWWC 2023 and the Best Franciacorta Trophy. Pleased with the result, Fratelli Berlucchi kindly sent me a magnum before Christmas. For transparency—because I am just one judge, and all three judges have to be in agreement under strictly blind conditions, where none of us knows who the producer of any wine is, let alone what the specific wine is—I feel it is only courteous to accept such gifts.

But when I tasted the gifted Fratelli Berlucchi Brut 25 in magnum, not only did I not recognize it as the wine that won the award, I have to confess that I did not even like it, because of its very reductive, green-fruit character. Sparkling wines are, by definition, reductive and should never be oxidative, but the reductive character here was simply too much. It was not a reductive fault—it was just “too reductive.” Since I have had a lot of experience of otherwise pristine and pure wines that are too reductive, I resealed the magnum and left it for one day. When I next opened it, the Fratelli Berlucchi Brut 25 was perfect. I had a glass with my dinner, resealed the magnum and left it another day. When I opened it after two days and a larger ullage, it was more than perfect! It was even better than I remembered it to be when it won the Best Franciacorta Trophy.

If any fizz fanatics reading this want to try this for themselves and can find well-cellared magnums of the correct lot number, the one submitted to CSWWC was LMB 182242, while the “too reductive” gift was LMB 182311. Happy hunting and fun tasting!

The post Have a breather appeared first on World Of Fine Wine.

Tom Stevenson tells the story of his conversion to English wine, and picks some of the best bottles he has tasted over the past 12 months.

There was a time when I certainly considered all English wine to be a joke—and a pretty poor one at that. I used to be embarrassed, but thanks to the viticultural revolution sparked off by Stuart and Sandy Moss, I am now very proud of what this country can produce. The Mosses were, of course, Nyetimber’s original American owners. Not original owners in a historical sense; that would have been long before Henry VIII gifted this ancient manor to Anne of Cleves as part of her annulment settlement. Before even its earliest mention in the Domesday Book of 1086. No, I refer to the Mosses as the original owners in a viticultural sense—the first owners to plant a vineyard on the estate and, in doing so, ignoring all local warnings that Chardonnay and Pinot Noir would rot before they ripened. And look where we are now. 

We should not forget Kit Lindlar, who made the first wine, Nyetimber Blanc de Blancs 1992, at his High Wealds winery. This groundbreaking wine received so much astonished praise in the wine press that it was selected for Queen Elizabeth II’s Golden Anniversary Lunch in 1997. After winemaking, Kit took to the cloth, making him quite literally the father of English sparkling wine.

In the first edition of Christie’s World Encyclopedia of Champagne & Sparkling Wine (1998), I included an entry on Nyetimber, but there was no getting away from the fact that the quality of almost every other wine produced in this country was really quite embarrassing. Wines were made either from crosses or hybrids—crosses such as Müller-Thurgau, Reichensteiner, and Huxelrebe, grapes that are now so unfashionable that they are rarely grown in their own country or in a state of inevitable decline; while hybrid varieties were grown, so we were told, because nothing else could—a falsehood so eloquently exposed by the Mosses.

By the second edition (2003), English sparkling wine had achieved “world-class potential”—it happened as fast as that. Nyetimber was facing a competitor, Ridgeview, which was snapping at its heels at every turn. Ridgeview owner Mike Roberts had helped pick one of Nyetimber’s earliest harvests, and it was this experience that convinced him to start a vineyard and plant what was at the time the second-largest acreage of Chardonnay, Pinot Noir, and Meunier vines. 

Nyetimber and Ridgeview both launched their products to much acclaim, enjoying success everywhere—from Michelin-starred restaurants, to supermarkets. This did not go unnoticed as entrepreneurs and their fellow investors began buying up land and planting it exclusively with the three classic Champagne grape varieties that not so long ago no one would dare to grow in this country. Having to wait three years for the first crop, then another three years for the first sparkling wines to be disgorged, it was more of an evolution than a revolution, and of course not all the wines launched hit the quality their owners aspired to. But as new labels began to trickle onto the market, so it became apparent that all the best and most exciting wines were coming from the new kids on the block, not the brands that dated back prior to Nyetimber (unless replanted with classic Champagne varieties).

By 2014, English sparkling wine was so cool it was hot. Other sparkling-wine regions could not understand how English wine had gone from being the laughing stock of Europe to laughing all the way to bank, with prices higher than some Champagnes. I was asked by Maurizio Zanella of Ca’ del Bosco to put on a tasting for his fellow producers. He wanted me to explain how English sparkling wine had managed to achieve a level of fame that Franciacorta had already been chasing for decades. My presentation kicked off with a track by The Beatles—“Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds”—as I told everyone that I was taking them on an acid trip. 

That acid is part of what English sparkling wine is; and while much positive work has been done to curb it in the vineyard and winery, that bright natural acidity should be embraced, not neutralized, if its sparkling wines are to sustain its identity and fortune.

Still English wine starting to steal hearts

Until as recently as the latest editions of Christie’s World Encyclopedia of Champagne & Sparkling Wine (2019) and Sotheby’s Wine Encyclopedia (2020), my mantra to English wine producers in that book was to uproot all hybrids and crosses and focus exclusively on the one world-class wine this country has to offer: traditional-method sparkling wine. But I now admit it’s no longer quite so simple.

Recently, some of the still wines from Chardonnay and Pinot Noir have started to show exciting potential. It hasn’t been easy. Initially, the climate did not seem warm enough to ripen vinifera grapes sufficiently for non-sparkling red and white wines—but it was not that long ago that the climate did not seem warm enough to ripen classic sparkling-wine grapes either, until the Mosses proved otherwise. The one thing that everyone can agree on, though, is the extreme variability of the quality and quantity of English vintages, but it is evident that the learning curve for classic still wines has been much steeper and longer than it has for classic sparkling wine.

Even for established top-tier English still-wine producers like Gusbourne, there have been some disappointments—such as Boot Hill Pinot Noir 2019, which now shows more oak than fruit, and the fruit that remains is thin and astringent, with little more than tart cherries to show for it. Nevertheless, it is just a glitch in the mostly smooth progress of one of the UK’s most consistent wine producers, whereas every single still wine made by a number of other wineries has been so bad and fault-ridden that I dare not mention their names. Between these two extremes, the bulk of still English wines are simply dull and uninspiring, the sort of hopeless fodder that has fed my Sotheby’s Wine Encyclopedia mantra. However, the exciting still wines are beginning to spread, while the bulk of dullards are gradually—very gradually
—starting to shrink. And perhaps, just perhaps, I should be encouraging those who really want to produce classy reds and whites to do just that.

Tasting English wine

The best English wines I have tasted, sparkling and still, over the past 12 months.

ENGLISH SPARKLING WINES

All Angels 2015 Classic Cuvée
(Berkshire; 58% Chardonnay, 19% Pinot Noir, 13% Meunier, 10% Pinot Gris; 12% ABV; 7.6g/l RS)

Evolved yet remarkably well preserved, with lovely, yeast-complexed fruit. A full wine, but its pincushion mousse gives finesse. | 90

Ambriel 2018 Blanc de Blancs
(West Sussex; 100% Chardonnay; 11% ABV; 7g/l RS)

Fresh orchard-fruit aroma, with citrus highlights and toasted-quince complexity. Bracing attack. Precision mousse. | 90

Balfour 2018 Blanc de Blancs (magnum)
(Kent; 100% Chardonnay; 12% ABV; 0g/l RS)

Elegantly toasty nose leading to fresh and feisty fruit on the palate. Good intensity, crunchy freshness, and a fine mousse. | 90

Balfour 2018 Blanc de Noirs
(Kent; 75% Pinot Noir, 25% Meunier; 12% ABV; 8g/l RS)

Clean and inviting nose leading to a fresh, invigorating palate with a perky mousse. Bright, juicy fruit. An early-drinking wine. | 90

Camel Valley Vineyard 2015 Special Reserve
(Cornwall; 44% Chardonnay, 37% Seyval Blanc, 12% Pinot Blanc, 7% Reichensteiner; 12.5% ABV; 11.9g/l RS)

Beautifully fresh, with fleeting toasty notes; this crisp and feisty blend has a classic, lean structure with plenty of fruit attack, supported by a delicate creaminess and a long, lingering finish. The Special Reserve was entered into the CSWWC 2023 as a blend of 30% Pinot Noir and 70% Chardonnay. It easily won a gold medal, but when chatting with its winemaker, Sam Lindo, after the competition, he mentioned its Seyval Blanc content, so I asked him to kindly confirm the precise encépagement and was amazed to discover that it also contained Pinot Blanc and Reichensteiner. It is still a lovely wine, and if anything, I am even more impressed by Sam’s mastery of his blending skills. The man is a wizard! | 96

Camel Valley Vineyard 2020 Pinot Noir Rosé Brut
(Cornwall; 100% Pinot Noir; 12.5% ABV; 12g/l RS)

This is one of the most consistent, top-performing English sparkling wines on the market, with its exquisite intensity of fruit, blade-like structure, and nicely neat acid line, yielding soft yet crisply cut peach fruit and a zesty-juicy finish. | 95

Camel Valley Vineyard 2016 Chardonnay Brut
(Cornwall; 100% Chardonnay; 12.5% ABV; 11g/l RS)

Youthful, orchard-fruit nose, with beautiful, soft, delicious fruit on the palate and a lovely, silky mousse. Juicy and quaffable. | 94

Chapel Down 2017 Grand Reserve (magnum)
(Kent; 63% Chardonnay, 31% Pinot Noir, 6% Meunier; 12% ABV; 8.7g/l RS)

Fresh, zesty aromas, with a twist of exotic fruit. Yeast-complexed, creamy-rounded fruit on the palate, supported by a firm mousse of fine bubbles. Well structured and faintly toasty. | 91

Everflyht NV Brut
(East Sussex; 47% Chardonnay, 47% Pinot Noir, 6% Meunier; 12% ABV; 7g/l RS)

Although initially dismayed at its deepish color and overtly developing nose, with exotic notes, I was more than won over by this wine’s intensely flavored fruit, weight, and creamy ripeness, with a fine mousse helping to lighten the load. | 90

Furleigh Estate 2013 Classic Cuvée (magnum)
(Dorset; 46% Pinot Noir, 40% Chardonnay, 14% Meunier; 12% ABV; 8.3g/l RS)

Softly evolved nose highlighted by toast and yeast-complexed fruit aromas. Remarkably well-preserved melange of orchard fruit on the palate. Lovely ripeness and soft, silky mousse, leading to a long, focused, high-acid finish. | 91

Furleigh Estate 2018 Classic Cuvée
(Dorset; 40% Chardonnay, 30% Pinot Noir, 30% Meunier; 12% ABV; 6.2g/l RS)

Some yeast-complexed aromas and toasty notes. Fresh, vibrant, crunchy, bright-fruit palate, with well-balanced dosage, excellent mousse, and good carry. | 90

Gusbourne 2018 Rosé (magnum)
(Kent; 59% Chardonnay, 23% Pinot Noir, 18% Meunier; 12% ABV; 10g/l RS)

Such an elegant wine and top stuff by any standard. Fresh, smart, restrained orchard-fruit aromas, followed by a core of juicy orchard fruit on the palate, all underpinned by lovely, cushiony mousse. Winner of both Best English Rosé and Best English Sparkling Wine plus World Champion Classic Rosé trophy at CSWWC 2023. | 98

Gusbourne 2019 Blanc de Noirs
(Kent; 75% Pinot Noir, 14% Chardonnay, 11% Meunier; 12% ABV; 9g/l RS)

Gorgeously rich, yeast-complexed fruit, with a lovely, long acid-line finish. Juicy-ripe and refreshing fruit, with a pincushion mousse. Creamy attack and a classic English Pinot profile. Best English Blanc de Noirs at CSWWC 2023. | 97

Gusbourne 2018 Blanc de Blancs Selhurst Park Vineyard
(Sussex; 100% Chardonnay; 12% ABV; 9g/l RS)

Youthful orchard-fruit aromas, with toasty and grilled rind notes. Beautifully balanced orchard fruits on the palate, with citrus notes starting to emerge. Lovely, creamy mousse, giving a lightweight and airy feel. Eternal length. Winner of Best English Blanc de Blancs at CSWWC 2023. | 97

Gusbourne 2018 Brut Reserve (magnum)
(Kent; 46% Meunier, 35% Chardonnay, 19% Pinot Noir; 12% ABV; 8.9g/l RS)

There are not many wines that are thirst-quenching, but this is one, with its deliciously juicy fruit and refreshing, sappy finish. Diving a little deeper, there is a lovely toastiness on the nose, but the fruit is still so youthfully pristine. | 96

Gusbourne 2018 Blanc de Noirs Heartbreak Vineyard
(Kent; 100% Pinot Noir; 12% ABV; 9g/l RS)

Fresh and complete, with an elegantly restrained zingy-fruitiness on the palate. Compact and balanced whole. Crunchy fruit, hints of toast, and good energy. | 95

Hattingley Valley Wines NV Classic Reserve
(Hampshire; 47% Chardonnay, 32% Pinot Noir, 19% Meunier, 2% Pinot Noir Précoce; 12% ABV; 6.4g/l RS)

Seductive, toasty nose, with full, rich, deeply flavored, yeast-complexed fruit on the palate. Fresh and vibrant, with a firm mousse. Drinking well now but still has plenty in the tank. | 94

Mereworth Wines 2018 (Kent; 100% Chardonnay; 12% ABV; 6g/l RS)

Fruit-forward, vanilla-laden aroma leads into elegantly lightweight and beautifully balanced precision fruit on the palate, with a fine mousse and a vibrant, classic finish. | 96

Nyetimber 2014 Blanc de Blancs (magnum)
(Sussex; 100% Chardonnay; 12% ABV; 9.5g/l RS)

Amazing! This classically constructed masterpiece offers great elegance and exceptional finesse. I don’t think I have ever had any Nyetimber in magnum that was not outstanding, and this is no exception. It is not just complex and potentially capable of even greater complexity; it is also so full of lovely, fresh, ripe fruit, long, focused, and lingering that it is a delight to drink with abandon now. Yet stop to analyze for a moment, and the detail beneath the surface is a revelation. Hints of toast and warm spices are just beginning to emerge through orchard fruit, stone fruit, and yellow flowers. Creamy and juicy. An unbelievably young wine in its tenth year, this could well be a potential Library Sparkling Wine trophy winner at the CSWWC in ten years’ time. | 97

Plumpton Estate NV Brut Classic
(Sussex; 41% Pinot Noir, 34% Meunier, 25% Chardonnay; 12.5% ABV; 10.4g/l RS)

A delicate hint of peach colors this wine, giving the appearance of a blanc de noirs rather than a rosé. Very fruity aromas, full of berries and peach. An intensely fruity, fresh and elegant palate floats on a soft, airy mousse. Very Pinot, smart and stylish. A triumph for the guys and girls of Plumpton College of Viticulture & Oenology. Winner of Best English Brut NV at the CSWWC 2023. | 96

Louis Pommery England NV Brut
(Hampshire; 50% Chardonnay, 35% Pinot Noir, 15% Meunier; 12% ABV; 8g/l RS)

Needs time to develop more tertiary aromas but easy to quaff now, with its fresh, airy, and juicy fruit on the palate. Sweet and precise fruit attack. Soft mousse. | 90

Ridgeview NV Cavendish
(Sussex; 36% Pinot Noir, 32% Meunier, 32% Chardonnay; 12% ABV; 3.9g/l RS)

Soft, well blended, and well balanced, with a lovely, lacy mousse. Fresh, light, and creamy style. Good vibrancy. Smart winemaking. | 94

Simpsons Wine Estate 2018 White Cliffs Blanc de Blancs
(Kent; 100% Chardonnay; 12.5% ABV; 6g/l RS)

Instantly shows class. Fine, toasty complexity on the nose, with fresh, crisp, youthful Chardonnay fruit on the palate, a lovely, focused finish, and creamy aftertaste. A firm yet airy mousse. | 93

Squerryes 2014 Brut (magnum)
(Kent; 35% Chardonnay, 34% Pinot Noir, 31% Meunier; 12% ABV; 8g/l RS)

Lovely and fresh, with pencil-shaving complexity to the nose, this beautifully preserved wine has compact, yeast-complexed fruit on the palate, with a gorgeous, cushiony mousse and long finish. The balance here is exceptional, and the magnum format has obviously kept the wine on top form for a decade. Serious stuff. Winner of Best English Brut Vintage at the CSWWC 2023. | 96

Squerryes 2014 Blanc de Blancs (magnum)
(Kent; 100% Chardonnay; 12% ABV; 8g/l RS)

Lovely, gracefully aged fruit, with soft, vanilla hints on the nose and beautiful, creamy ripeness and gentle mousse on the palate. Amazingly fresh for a 10-year-old English sparkling wine. | 93

Squerryes 2019 Brut
(Kent; 36% Chardonnay, 36% Pinot Noir, 28% Meunier; 12% ABV; 5.7g/l RS)

Clean, fresh, and easy, with soft peachy aromas on the nose and bright, pristine fruit on a fresh and vibrant palate. Super-youthful. Very elegant. Lovely mousse. Bright and zesty. | 91

ENGLISH STILL WINES

Lyme Bay Winery 2020 Crow’s Lane Pinot Noir
(Crouch Valley, Essex; 100% Pinot Noir; 13% ABV; SC)

A deeper color than Martin’s Lane—not always a plus point for Pinot Noir, but in this case it is, and the extra 0.5% of ripeness makes all the difference to the structure, fruit, and tannins. The fruit is much softer and richer, with velvety, luscious notes of blackcurrant, blackberry, mulberry, and plump morello cherry. Gone is the menthol, to be replaced by complexing hints of vanilla and cinnamon, while the tannins are nicely soft and supple, yet have more than enough grip to sustain this Pinot Noir for many years to come. This might be the same price as the 2020 Martin’s Lane, but it is ten times the wine. Or certainly this vintage is. It is also the only English red wine I have purchased by the case—ever. It’s that good. | 95

Gusbourne 2019 Guinevere Boot Hill Chardonnay
(Kent; 100% Chardonnay; 12.5% ABV)

Classy, elegant Chardonnay nose. Finest, fleeting notes of baked apple and warm spice, flowing seamlessly onto the palate, where it is beautifully integrated with a light touch of creamy oak. | 93

Gusbourne 2022 English Rosé
(Kent; 100% Pinot Noir; 12.5% ABV)

Glass stopper. Delightful pale peach color with a lovely fresh aroma of orchard fruits and notes of raspberry and redcurrant leading to a core of crisp, quaffing fruit. Presented in an entirely different bottle from the rest of the range. Designed to catch the eye, but unfortunately its clear glass construction will also catch the light. | 90

Lyme Bay Winery 2021 Martin’s Lane Chardonnay
(Crouch Valley, Essex; 100% Chardonnay; 12.5% ABV; SC)

Lovely, toasty-oak aroma, with citrus notes, mostly ripe lime and fresh, and lime-rich fruit on the palate. A serious wine that is ready to drink. | 90

Lyme Bay Winery 2020 Martin’s Lane Pinot Noir
(Crouch Valley, Essex; 100% Pinot Noir; 12.5% ABV; SC)

Good color and depth. Nice core of cherry and damson fruit, with menthol aromas. Could be riper, with softer fruit and more supple tannins, but it has true varietal character. It is also very young and tight and should loosen up. | 88

New Hall 2021 Single Estate Pinot Noir Précoce
(Crouch Valley, Essex; 100% Pinot Noir Précoce; 11% ABV; SC)

Pale-red color. Lovely, soft, light, elegant, cru Beaujolais-type fruit. Could be a Fleurie! Although I would like this style to continue, I would also like to see what these vines could produce if harvested at 12.5–13% ABV. | 90

Sharpham 2022 Pinot Rosé
(Devon; 74% Pinot Noir, 26% Meunier; 11% ABV; SC)

I like that this wine has a screwcap, but unfortunately it has been bottled in clear glass, though thankfully the sample I tasted had not yet been tainted by light strike. Very pale, pink color, very fresh on the nose, with crisp and zesty fruit on the palate, finishing with a tang of sherbety sweetness. | 84

Sharpham 2021 Pinot Noir
(Devon; 100% Pinot Noir; 11.5% ABV)

Sealed with a cork, not screwcap, though I have seen other vintages under screwcap. Fresh, red-cherry varietal aroma on nose and palate. Simple, with fine, accentuated acidity. Probably needs another three to four years in bottle. | 84

Simpsons Wine Estate 2022 Roman Road Chardonnay
(Kent; 100% Chardonnay; 13% ABV)

Sealed with cork. The first few vintages were too oak-dominant and suffered from too much lees stirring, as far as I was concerned. But by the 2022 vintage, these techniques had been well and truly mastered, revealing a lovely, light, and elegant touch of French oak, with just the barest hint of creaminess and no trace of distracting lactic aroma, though it went through a full malolactic, of course. The sweetness of ripe fruit abounds, with notes of citrus, pineapple, and red apple. Crisp and long. Costs half as much again as Gravel Castle but is worth it, as much as I love the entry-level wine. | 94

Simpsons Wine Estate 2022 Rabbit Hole Pinot Noir
(Kent; 100% Pinot Noir; 13% ABV)

Sealed with cork. Medium color. Very fruity. Soft cherry fruit, with coffee-oak notes on a light, supple tannin structure. Very nice, easy drinking. | 91

Simpsons Wine Estate 2022 Gravel Castle Chardonnay
(Kent; 100% Chardonnay; 12.5% ABV; SC)

I adore this entry-level, unoaked Chardonnay and often purchase it as my everyday drinking dry white, even to the point of pestering Charles Simpson to dig through his stock when a particular vintage has run out at all the online retailers I deal with. It consistently achieves what most Chablis producers should aspire to—and what they could easily achieve with their entry-level wines yet seldom manage: an uncomplicated, fresh, crisp, quaffable, dry white wine in a lean, mineral style, with a purity and elegance of fruit. Nothing lactic, nothing oaky; just an ideal aperitif that can easily lead into a meal. Perfect. | 90

Simpsons Wine Estate 2022 Derringstone Pinot Meunier(Kent; 100% Meunier; 13% ABV)

Sealed with cork. Gold color, with peach reflections, primary ferment odors melting into soft-fruit sorbet aromas. A delicately fruity quaffer. | 83

The post State of the nation: Where does English wine stand today? appeared first on World Of Fine Wine.

As the word suggests, complexity is a complicated issue—but in terms of importance, it comes second to almost everything else in a wine. 

There are six primary categories of complexity in a traditional-method sparkling wine: the first fermentation, reserve wines, the second fermentation, yeast-aging, pre-disgorgement bottle aging, and post-disgorgement bottle aging. The first fermentation is faster than it is for a still wine. It provides varietal complexity, but its complexity is more potential than actual. Vins clairs can be fascinating, but they are seldom complex in any true sense. Reserve wines, on the other hand, provide an instant hit of complexity, the type and intensity depending on the age and proportion of the reserve wines and how they have been stored. The second fermentation takes much longer than the first, uses more varied metabolites and operates at a cooler temperature, resulting in a different complexity (more acetate-based).

Yeast-complexed aromas are the product of autolysis, a process that has such a delicate effect that it requires relatively neutral grapes. Even a classic Champagne grape like Pinot Noir can sometimes be too dominant for autolysis to reveal itself at the upper end of its cool-climate ripeness. At the opposite end of the varietal spectrum, terpene-laden aromatic grapes annihilate autolysis, and sparkling wines made from those varieties have to rely on either super-freshness or bottle-aged aromas. Autolysis usually starts a couple of months after the second fermentation has ceased and will have most effect over the following four to five years. Although autolysis is commonly active for up to ten years and has even been detected 80 years after the second fermentation, its effect on the aroma and flavor profile of a sparkling wine is minimal after five years. For a deeper dive into autolysis, see pp.26–27 of the 2019 edition of Christie’s World Encyclopedia of Champagne & Sparkling Wine.

Other than the direct effect of autolysis, pre-disgorgement bottle aging covers the entire period from the end of the second fermentation until disgorgement. This is when Maillard reactions can create precursors to future complex aromas from amino acids from autolysis reacting with sugar molecules. With all oxygen consumed by the second fermentation, all chemical and biochemical processes operate in almost completely anaerobic conditions. Almost completely, because the ingress of O2 molecules through the closure is so minuscule that it should really be called nanooxygenation rather than microoxygenation. The most important complex pre-disgorgement bottle-aged aroma is toast and derivatives, though toast can also come from barrels.

Against false goût anglais

When a sparkling wine is disgorged, it is not merely the matter of time on lees that determines its continuing quality but also whether it was disgorged when a window of opportunity presented itself (see “When to Disgorge?” WFW 45, 2014, p.74). Quite often and unsurprisingly, bottles of the same wine disgorged at different times will eventually develop in a similar fashion, but when one does not, it is almost certainly due to it having been disgorged when the window of opportunity had slammed shut.

Complexity of all sorts up to the point of disgorgement will be slow, whereas post-disgorgement complexity is faster, having been exposed to the air. Once shipped, a sparkling wine will be subject to multiple places of storage and the whims of the buyer, making development faster and less controlled. Even by the best-case scenario, including jetting prior to corking and the use of a super-efficient closure, such as Mytik Diam 10, and where the end product has been purchased by someone able to move it straight from the winery to a personal cellar possessing ideal storage conditions, the rate of development after disgorgement will always be quicker than before disgorgement. Even if the disgorged wine remains in its cellar of production, it will be quicker. Compare a commercially disgorged 30-year-old Champagne with exactly the same wine disgorged just 12 months earlier, and the contrast in the degree of toastiness and other complex aromas will be evident. That is the nature of the beast (mature Champagne). And while it is down to personal taste whether someone prefers pre-disgorgement or post-disgorgement aromas, pure science dictates that for both, the slower the development, the better. Mature Champagne is in the eye of the beholder, but dead Champagne is dead.

Occasionally, I encounter a Champenois who thinks that the goût anglais is a love of old Champagne. Mature, yes; but old, no. The times I have had a brown-colored liquid with very little fizz and a whiff of Sherry stuck under my nose… But that is the very antithesis of the goût anglais. Historically, the English have not loved the oldest Champagne; they have loved the oldest-freshest Champagne.

Anyone who has tasted a 100-year-old Champagne that still has a smidgeon of mousse, a golden color without a hint of brown, fabulous freshness, fruit, and finesse, with the purest notes of coconut, coffee, vanilla, and baking spices, but without any hint of acetaldehyde or volatile acid, will be as dismissive of the false goût anglais as I am. When this experience, though rare, is repeated over the decades, it is easy to appreciate how the glacially slow development of a truly monumental Champagne can achieve complexity and finesse in equal measure. Such wines will eventually die, of course, but so do great oaks. 

Mind you, I am a dinosaur. There are people out there who expect recently launched Champagne to be oozing oxidation and aldehydes. Sorry, but if a premox white Burgundy is deemed faulty, why is it fine for Champagne, the most famous reductive wine in the world, to be prematurely oxidative? 

The post How important is complexity? appeared first on World Of Fine Wine.

Every time I book into a hotel that boasts a Nespresso machine in each room, I let out a sigh. It should be seen as a nice touch—but while the coffee looks the part, with a consistently dense crema, I find the taste so insipid. 

Simon Stockton, the reserve judge at the Champagne & Sparkling Wine World Championships (CSWWC), convinced me, however, that Nespresso, the machine, is brilliant; only Nespresso, the pod, is not. Being Australian, Simon is serious about his coffee. When the CSWWC judged in Tunbridge Wells, he always made the judges take a pit stop at The Black Dog while moving between the tasting venue and our hotel. The Black Dog serves the best coffee in town (Monmouth coffee), and it is not for nothing that is it known as a “little bit of Australia in Tunbridge Wells”!

Taking Simon at his word, I did a little digging and discovered that Nespresso was invented by a Swiss guy called Eric Favre as long ago as 1976. This was itself rather puzzling, because Nespresso has really only been a “thing” since 2006, when George Clooney became involved. 

Favre had started working for Nestlé in 1975, at the height of the instant-coffee market, when Nescafé instant coffee—which Neil Armstrong took to the moon and back—was one of Nestlé’s most lucrative brands. It’s no surprise, then, that when Favre invented Nespresso at the company’s packaging division just one year later, there was little incentive for Nestlé to commercialize it just yet.

Espresso epiphany

The how and why of the machine’s invention is a story in itself. Favre had just married an Italian lady, Anna-Maria, who laughed when he told her he was going to invent a machine that would make good espresso at the press of a button. “How can you, when you don’t even know what a good espresso tastes like?” she asked—and to remedy that, they both set off on a tour of Italy to discover why some espressos are better than others.

It was in Rome that they found the legendary Caffè Sant’Eustachio in Piazza di Sant’Eustachio. What caught their attention was the long line this small establishment was drawing, while other cafés in the square were virtually empty. The espresso machines in those days were primarily direct lever-operated, which entails pulling up the handle to bring the hot water in, leaving it a few seconds to pre-infuse, then pulling it down again to push the water through the coffee. How that lever is pulled down affects the aromatics and the crema. Favre observed that while other baristas pulled the lever at different speeds, they all pulled it just once, whereas Eugenio, the barista at Caffè Sant’Eustachio, pulled it down in several short pumps. His objective was to achieve maximum aeration and create the softest, densest, and creamiest of creme, something that Caffè Sant’Eustachio has become famous for, though more for tourists than purists these days.

Favre managed to replicate the effect of Eugenio’s usage of a nine-bar full-sized espresso machine with an automated 19-bar small-sized device, but it took ten years to convince Nestlé to commercialize the product, launching it in Japan in 1986, when he was made CEO of the newly formed Nespresso business.

Favre left Nespresso in 1990 after a dispute with Jean-Paul Gaillard, who was brought in to make the company profitable. When Favre left, Gaillard took over as CEO and continued with his reversal of the Nespresso strategy. Instead of selling clunky machines that were so expensive only businesses could afford them, Gaillard made the machines sleek and practically gave them away, focusing on the pods for the primary source of income and profit.

This was the beginning of Nespresso’s ascendancy, but it was not until 2006 that George Clooney became the face of Nespresso, making it a super-cool, luxury brand that the aspiring classes just had to own.

Arabica difference

Very few Nespresso pods are 100 percent arabica, and I have yet to taste one that excites me. Most Nespresso pods contain robusta, particularly the darker roasts, and if you are partial to robusta or always drink your coffee with milk, then Nespresso might well be for you—but I do not like robusta, and I drink Nespresso-sized ristretti, with no milk or sugar, so every aspect of robusta is intensified.

Nespresso-sized shots are different from those served by a barista from a traditional machine. I normally drink a classic espresso (about 30ml) and only occasionally a true ristretto (about 15ml), but a Nespresso espresso is 40ml and a Nespresso ristretto 40ml. You can manually adjust the size of any coffee on a Nespresso machine, but not below the smallest shot of 25ml, so the Nespresso-sized ristretto I drink is effectively a short espresso.  

After plowing my way through one highly praised Nespresso-compatible range after another, I found Difference Coffee to be in a completely different class. There is one Difference Coffee pod I am not particularly fond of, but its Hawaii Kona is out of this world, and I would happily drink the entry-level Yellow Bourbon and Swiss Water Decaf until the cows come home. Difference Coffees are not just 100 percent arabica; they are from the top one percent of quality-graded arabica. Furthermore, they are varietal, single-estate, and often single-lot. Difference Coffees are found in many of the world’s greatest Michelin-starred restaurants, and I now understand why.

At CSWWC 2023 the team drank its way through more than 1,000 Yellow Bourbon and Swiss Water Decaf coffees. When we ran out, I ordered 100 pods from one of the greatest names in coffee worldwide for next-day delivery, but after the first cup hardly anyone touched them! 

Now, whenever I have a hotel room that boasts a Nespresso machine, I always make sure to take some Difference Coffee with me. 

The post Making a difference appeared first on World Of Fine Wine.

Some sparkling-wine tasters believe there is a significant difference between brut nature and brut—but there isn’t, and this misconception can lead to ill-defined judgments, something that has tripped me up in the past.

Whether you are old enough to remember when a brut could contain up to 15g of sugar per liter, or young enough to realize that it cannot contain more than 12g/l, you should be wise enough to understand that nothing has really changed. When EC607/2009 was introduced on July 14, 2009, it was sold to the wine press that lowering the dosage was a reaction to global warming, but this conveniently ignored the fact that the new law included a 3g margin of error that was not present in the old regulations—thus 12g plus three equals 15g, representing no difference whatsoever.

As for brut nature and extra-brut, they were and still are 0–3g/l and 0–6g/l respectively, making a massive difference when taking into account the 3g margin of error. Extra-brut has effectively increased to 0–9g, while brut nature has essentially doubled to 0–6g, though it must still be without any sugar-added dosage. There are ways to achieve 6g without adding a dosage, though I doubt that anyone would bother.

Further confusion sets in when it comes to describing these wines in an article or on a wine list, because the data supplied by producers will vary between residual sugar (which is the dosage plus any residual sugar that might be remaining in the wine prior to adding the dosage) and the dosage itself (which is what producers usually communicate about). Although most producers instinctively provide details of the dosage, when asked for residual sugar, some do indicate the true residual sugar. The dosage by itself is a fairly useless piece of information, which is why the entry form for the Champagne & Sparkling World Wine Championships (CSWWC) requests residual sugar, and we add the following explanatory note: “This is the residual sugar after the dosage has been added.” Even so, the accuracy of information received we currently estimate to be about 75 percent: not precise, but a lot more useful than relying on the simplicity of dosage, to which we might add 0.5g or 2g, depending on the wine in question. 

All about balance

When the CSWWC started (2014), we used to judge brut nature in its own category, but we were not convinced that this worked well, so we stopped. Tasting blind by origin and style is the gold standard for medaling in any well-run wine competition, and we do taste by different sweetness category. But whereas it makes total sense to taste brut wines separate from sweeter styles, fractionalizing the brut style into brut nature, extra-brut, and brut serves no useful purpose. Judging brut nature in its own category can lead tasters to make allowances for the lack of dosage. The brut nature designation should never be used as an excuse for an austere mouthfeel.

The late Dr Tony Jordan suggested that we taste all three subdivisions of brut together in random order of sweetness. As he pointed out, they are all technically brut. Brut nature and extra-brut can each be labeled brut; it is a matter of choice for the producer, and there is, in any case, a considerable overlap in the residual-sugar requirement.

The question of dosage should have nothing to do with sweetness per se. It’s all about balance. The use of either sweetness or austerity as a descriptor for any subdivision of brut should be equally negative, whatever the label states. That is not to say that some wines with these descriptors cannot win a medal at the CSWC, but they won’t be at the top of their game. And though dosage is all about balance, there are many other quality attributes to a great sparkling wine that need to be considered, so a weakness in balance might not gain the top spot, but it can be made up for if there are sufficient strengths elsewhere.

We have followed Tony’s suggestion for eight years now, and I can confidently state that by focusing on balance rather than sweetness, any brut nature that manages to stand out against the greatest brut wines of a given region must be truly exceptional.

On the grapevine

• I hear that Diam has stopped production of its Mytik Revtech (see WFW 64, p.72). The sooner it is gone, the better, in my opinion, because it continues to harm the carefully crafted reputation of Mytik Diamant. Only at the drawing-board stage and a long way off given the green light for production, is a new Diam product that will see the TCA and other bad aromas removed from the supercritical mass before reimpregnating Mytik corks with the good aromas only! Sounds fascinating and might attract some producers who like Mytik for the consistent OTR of these closures but want to benefit from the aromas of natural cork. 

• Belinda Kemp PhD, principal scientist at CCOVI, Brock University, Ontario, is the single most sparkling-wine-driven academic on the planet, so I was pleased to hear (but sad for CCOVI) that she has left Canada to return home to the UK, where she will be group leader at the brand-new, state-of-the-art Viticulture, Oenology Research & Wine Innovation Centre at NIAB East Malling. 

• One of Belinda’s postgrads also specializing in sparkling-wine science is Hannah May Charnock, who has already made a name for herself researching Maillard reaction. Belinda told me that Hannah has other Maillard papers due out soon, including one that names the two amino acids that are responsible for these reactions. I can’t wait! 

The post Brut strength appeared first on World Of Fine Wine.

In 2022, Ca’del Bosco celebrated the 50th anniversary of its inaugural vintage. Tom Stevenson took the opportunity to catch up with its founder Maurizio Zanella in Franciacorta, taste the range, and look deeply into his technological innovations.

We met up at Da Vittorio, a family-owned Relais & Châteaux hotel with a three-Michelin-star restaurant near Bergamo. It’s a personal favorite of Maurizio’s so, when he made an appearance, everyone—from the staff, to the customers—recognized him and wanted to shake his hand. As always, Maurizio was dressed casually but impeccably: a walking advert for Gucci chic. Maurizio loves Gucci; he even provides his hospitality staff with Gucci scarfs.

He apologized for being late, but I told him he wasn’t, since it was only 8.30pm and he was, therefore, on time. To which he seemed puzzled, claiming his secretary had texted that him dinner was for 8pm. Then the penny dropped for both of us, as we realized his secretary knew Maurizio better than he did himself. I raised my glass and declared, “In that case, I’m 15 minutes late!”

It was one of those balmy nights when you could sit on the terrace until midnight in short sleeves and feel totally relaxed—unlike the next evening, when I was on my own and it was raining. No matter how hard Maurizio tried to restrain the number of courses when dining, they just kept coming. They were supposed to be tasting-menu size, and in a Yorkshire Michelin-starred restaurant, I suppose they would be. In any case, it was all sublime and I was not complaining. When I dined alone the next day, however, and they offered me ten courses, I asked as diplomatically as I could for an absolute maximum of five. The waiter smiled and said “So, only eight courses then?” to which I replied, “Only five maximum please.” The waiter’s smile widened, “Okay, five… and a surprise!” and he served me ten! All different from the night before, but all as sublime, of course. The sommelier gave me a small glass of Yquem 1928 from another table, which had left one third of the bottle for the staff to experience. Fabrizio thought I might appreciate the gesture, and I most certainly did. There are whole generations who would like to be a celebrity, but not me. I don’t want to be recognized by anyone … except the sommelier, maybe.

From Bosc to Bosco

Maurizio was born in 1956 in the provincial capital of Bolzano, Alto Adige, to Albano and Annamaria Clementi Zanella. When you drive up to Ca’del Bosco, you might notice the road is called Via Albano Zanella and, of course, Cuvée Annamaria Clementi is Ca’del Bosco’s deluxe cuvée.

It was love at first sight for Albano and Annamaria, who were married within three months of meeting, and they soon had a bouncing boy to contend with. Maurizio was just two years old when his parents moved from Bolzano to Milan in search of fortune. Initially, they were so cash-strapped that Albano had to ask the manager of the building in which they had a flat if he could have the deposit back so he could bring Annamaria home. She had just given birth to Maurizio’s sister Emanuela, and Albano had to pay the clinic’s bill.

In Milan, the family finances began to improve when Albano, an engineer, set up his own transport company with friends. As he began to earn dividends, so he was determined to invest in property. In 1964, Albano noticed an advertisement in Corriere della Sera, a local daily newspaper, for the sale of a 5-acre (2ha) plot in Erbusco and decided to take his family to look over the place. They found a very rudimentary shack surrounded by oak and chestnut trees. They entered to encounter an old lady, whom Annamaria asked for some water to quench Emanuela’s thirst. The old lady nodded, lifted a trapdoor, and revealed a number of tubs that collected rainwater. From one of these she filled an empty wine bottle. Later, Annamaria Clementi would describe the contents of those tubs as “full of everything from frogs to lizards and insects”. The old lady then filtered the water through linen cloths into a pot, which she boiled over an open fire. After cooling, it was offered to Emanuela.

Because the place was without water, electricity, or sewage, Albano was horrified, but Annamaria had fallen in love with it. Unlike her husband, she was born in the very north of Lombardy, in Bormio, in the Valtellina valley, a stone’s throw from the Swiss border, with a vista of snow-capped mountains. She told Albano that all the places they had viewed in the Bergamo area looked “flat and plain” and she felt she was “dying”, whereas Ca’del Bosc sat on a hillside and made her feel more at home.

Albano was left with no option but to purchase the property, and the first thing he did was to dig a well, even though that cost him more than the land itself. The Zanella family remained in Milan, visiting Ca’del Bosc every weekend at Annamaria’s insistence. Albano hired Antonio Gandossi to manage Ca’del Bosc and build a proper, albeit somewhat rustic, farmhouse. He trusted Gandossi with a cheque book and instructed him to buy up any surrounding properties he could find, which he did quite successfully and often at very little cost. In those days, the area was well and truly in the back of beyond, with any available property uncultivated, either abandoned or woodland. Albano imagined it would become a smallholding with cattle, sheep, horses, and an orchard, and, as part of this strategy, a vineyard was planted in 1968 (under the guidance of Franco Ziliani of Guido Berlucchi), when Maurizio was just 12 years old. 

There was no ambition beyond supplying Berlucchi with grapes and retaining some of the production for home consumption, as was the habit of so many in Italy at that time. It was also very early days for Italian fine wine. The Franciacorta DOC had been granted only the year before (1967) and Italy’s entire appellation system was itself so young that Franciacorta was just the fifth DOC to be announced. As was the norm in those early years, the Franciacorta DOC was for still wines as well as sparkling, and those still wines could be red or white, dry or sweet, or passito in style. 

Today’s reputation of Franciacorta as a great sparkling-wine terroir was thus a long way off. There were only 11 wineries making sparkling wine locally, and Guido Berlucchi represented 80 percent of all sparkling Franciacorta production. Franco Ziliani had been the first to produce sparkling Franciacorta as recently as 1961, making him the most experienced producer locally. This was why Albano asked him to plant a small vineyard and to teach Antonio Gandossi how to train and prune vines. So, it was by accident that Albano laid down the first piece of the jigsaw that would eventually become the famous Ca’del Bosco of today.

Boy on a bike

After a few years of misbehavior at a couple of schools, Maurizio was sent by his parents to work on the docks of Manchester in the UK as a punishment. On return to Italy, he was exiled to Ca’del Bosc, where he was made to study accounting at the local college in Iseo. During the week, he grew to love Ca’del Bosc by riding his motorbike over its hills and through the woods, but he remained rebellious and had no idea what to do with his life. At the weekends, when his parents came to visit, he avoided confrontation by making the reverse trip to see his girlfriend in Milan.

In 1972, Maurizio went on a wine study trip to Burgundy, Champagne, and Paris, with a bus-load of Lombardian wine producers. He had told his mother he wanted to make wine, but in truth he simply fancied the opportunity to enjoy an unsupervised weekend in Paris at the age of 16. That might have been his intention, but his visit to Champagne was an eye-opener. He got it—not simply the quality of Champagne, the greatest sparkling wine in the world, but the branding of Champagne and how its deluxe cuvées could cross the boundaries of wine to become icons of haute couture and art. That and its proximity to Paris, which was also the capital of haute couture and art. For someone living in Milan, one of the four fashion capitals of the world, it struck a resonating chord, even if he could not have cared less about fashion when he was in the city. Until then, all he cared about was his motorbike.

Maurizio might have gone on that trip based on a lie, but when he returned, he really did want to make wine. So much so, in fact, that he went directly to see his father. Until then he always sought the help of his mother to persuade his father. This time, however, he was so fired up with his newfound passion that he went directly to his father and found him surprisingly receptive. As Annamaria would later confirm, “For the very first time, Maurizio’s father saw a passion in his eyes. That was why he encouraged him.”

Rebel with a cause

Excitedly, he told his father of his plan to expand the vineyards, build a cellar, and make a sparkling wine that would become an iconic brand like the most famous Champagnes. The rebel had found a cause. Albano immediately responded, “If that is your idea, then you should do it!” and when Maurizio asked how a 16-year-old could fund his dream, his father told him to use his accounting qualifications to draw up a business plan and go with his mother to ask the bank manager for a loan. This he did, and managed to secure a 160 million Lira mortgage (equivalent of $160,000 then, $1.8m today), little realizing that behind the scenes his father had already secured the loan. From that point on, despite underwriting the venture, Albano never interfered. He always let his son run Ca’del Bosco as he wanted and never let him feel as if he was not the entire driving force of the venture, which in every important way he was. (Maurizio had added the “o” to Bosc to transform it from what he perceived as the hard local dialect into a more elegant, classical Italian Bosco.)

Maurizio ran Ca’del Bosco as he saw fit, however, I get the feeling that he never felt out of his father’s shadow in life generally. Even as a grown man successfully running Ca’del Bosco, he still turned to his mother, such as when he wrote off a brand new Range Rover and conspired with his mother to buy an identical one so that his father would not notice!

Yet the only time that Albano attempted to interfere in Ca’del Bosco was when it had grown to 150 acres (60ha) and was steadily selling 500,000 bottles a year. Maurizio’s father pointed out that he could remain totally independent if he were willing to stay with these numbers and to forget about all the wild and wonderful R&D projects he was always dreaming up. If he wanted to pursue his dreams, however, he would have to find a partner to share the financial burden—or else he could go bust.

No one who has created anything worthwhile wants someone else to steer the ship, so it was little wonder that Maurizio fought for two years against the idea of selling out. Part of Albano’s brilliance, however, was to recognize that such a decision had to be Maurizio’s and Maurizio’s alone, and he knew that would take time. He therefore brought up this matter long before such a decision would have to be made and patiently waited until Maurizio finally realized that a partnership was in his own best interest.

In 1994, an agreement was made in great secrecy between the Zanella and Marzotto families. The Marzotto family owned Santa Margherita; a large group now, but even back then it had built up a portfolio that included, among others, Kettmeir in Alto Adige (winners of Best Italian Sparkling Wine at The Champagne & Sparkling Wine World Championships in 2022; see p.31). The meeting took place at the Alpine lodge built by Albano for his wife’s retirement in Ossana. Set in the upper Val di Sole of Trentino and surrounded by the mountains and forests Annamaria loved, the Marzotto family could come and go without drawing attention. By all accounts, Albano was in charge of negotiations for the Zanella family, and he drove a very hard bargain. For an undisclosed sum, the Santa Margherita group took a controlling 60 percent shareholding in Ca’del Bosco, but the Zanella family retained ownership of the winery itself, its cellars and grounds, and the 150 acres of vineyards that existed at the time of the contract. The winery and vineyards are leased to Ca’del Bosco, which has to pay rent to the Zanella family, and all future investments in vineyards, technology, and research would be split 60/40.

From a fortuitous cause, to a farsighted pioneer

It was this 60/40 split that enabled Ca’del Bosco not only to expand to 620 acres (250ha) of vineyards with a production of almost 2 million bottles, but also to invest in what is uniquely the most cutting-edge, high-tech sparkling-wine winery in the world. Uniquely because it comprises some extraordinary Ca’ del Bosco patented technology. Having to pay only 40 percent for every investment in growth must have been such a relief, but having to pay just 40 percent of all the research, innovative technology, and, let’s face it, more artwork than you can chuck a Rhino at, must have felt like a miracle for a visionary like Maurizio, who wakes up every morning with a brand new, potentially very expensive, and often very whacky, idea.

How does he feel about losing control of Ca’del Bosco? If truth be told, the Marzotto family has been as benign as any financial partner could possibly be. There are always discussions to be had between major shareholders in any business, but for all intents and purposes, the Marzotto family has left Maurizio to run Ca’del Bosco as he sees fit. Why mess about with a winning formula? Why expend energy and time trying to micromanage something so iconic than they have bought into it?

As for Maurizio, he still does what he does. Life is no different for him, although, without 100 percent of the financial burden, it is perhaps a little easier. He is much richer today, owning just 40 percent of Ca’del Bosco, than he would have been had he resisted a partnership back in 1994. In some years, the Ca’del Bosco partnership spends more in investments than it turns over in sales. If he had tried that on his own, he would have gone bust. No, Maurizio has the best of both worlds, and that has enabled him to drive his iconic brand to greater heights.

What makes Ca’del Bosco different?

All of Ca’del Bosco’s vineyards are now certified organic. The vineyards of any wine estate represent 100 percent of the wine’s potential, just as its grapes, when picked, represent 100 percent of the wine’s potential quality. The terroir determines its potential, but that includes the varieties of vine chosen, how they are planted, how old they are, how they are trained, pruned, cared for, and harvested, but no winemaker ever gets close to achieving 100 percent of a vineyard’s potential. While the grapes when harvested will always fall short of the vineyard’s potential, however hard its owner might try, each grape at the time of picking has its own intrinsic potential. As Johnny Hugel used to say, the moment a grape is picked, its potential is 100 percent and dropping as the clock begins ticking. The winemaker can never improve on that 100 percent, he or she can only hope to preserve as much of it as possible, and each step taken from here will play a hugely significant part in this respect.

Not everything Ca’del Bosco does is unique, but a lot of what I call its basic qualitative steps are rarely found in other wineries. Certainly not the complete list. In addition to this, there are procedures that are proprietary, and it is these that make Ca’del Bosco truly unique.

All grapes are picked by hand and transported in stackable 35lb (16kg) crates.

Each crate is bar-coded in the vineyard and this coding is used to trace the origin of every grape through the winemaking process.

The grapes go straight to cold rooms, to stop any oxidation.

When the grapes have cooled, the automated pallets travel to Ca’del Bosco’s “Berry Spa” where robotic arms gently empty them onto a conveyer belt.

The “Berry Spa” consists of four separate lanes, enabling Ca’del Bosco to wash and dry four different grape varieties or four different locations of the same variety.

Initially, there is a manual sorting to remove the easily observable foreign material, such as leaves, bad fruit, and creepy-crawlies, but much can still get through at this stage, hidden under or inside bunches.

The bunches continue by conveyor belt to three water baths and one drier.

• Bath #1 is pure clean water at 54^ºF (12^ºC) through which bubbles are generated to clean by gentle agitation. As the grapes exit the bath, they are softly sprayed with pure clean water to rinse away the bath water.

• Bath #2 is pure clean water at 54^ºF to which citric acid has been added for its antioxidant, antiseptic, and antifungal properties. As the grapes exit the bath, they are softly sprayed with pure clean water to rinse away the bath water.

• Bath #3 is again pure clean water at 54^ºF to provide a thorough rinse and once more as the grapes exit the bath, they are softly sprayed to rinse away the bath water.

• The bunches move onto a pair of cold-air blow-driers designed by the salad industry to dry tender plants without bruising.

• The chilled, washed, and dried grapes for sparkling wine go straight by conveyor belt to one of the 11 Wilmes pneumatic nitrogen-flushed presses (still wine grapes arrive here via a destemmer).

From pressing to bottling, the entire Ca’del Bosco winery is gravity-fed, even to the point that when wines have to be moved from one tank to another, such as in blending a final cuvée, there are two giant lifts into which the vats can moved and, to avoid disturbing the wine, the vats are lifted upwards at a snail’s pace.

The final point of difference in the sparkling wine-production process comes at the point of disgorgement and corking, which takes place in a nitrogen-filled chamber on the bottling line:

• As it is essential to have entry and an exit flaps, the nitrogen-filled chamber maintains a positive over-pressure, to prevent O2 leaking in.

• At the point of disgorgement, the TPO is non-existent.

• The headspace is drip-fed with nitrogen prior to corking, almost entirely eliminating the oxidative shock of disgorgement (not complete elimination as the cork itself will release between 2.5mg and 3mg of O₂ per bottle, but this is closer to micro-oxygenation than oxidative shock).

There are other factors, but essentially it is the combination of washing the grape and disgorging-dosage-corking under nitrogen that enables Ca’del Bosco to add no SO₂ to most of its wines, although a very small amount is added to the longest-aging cuvées such as Cuvée Annamaria Clementi

The “Berry Spa”

When I first saw this in 2014, I was blown away, and there were only two lanes then, whereas there are an even more impressive four lanes now. While I had seen the odd few organic and biodynamic producers plunge bunches into a barrel of increasingly murky looking water prior to fermentation, only Maurizio Zanella, the founder of Ca’del Bosco, could dream up, let alone devise, a fully automated system to wash and dry an entire crop of a substantially sized wine estate. It was a wake-up call. It made me think, “Why aren’t all grapes washed before the winemaking process?”

We wash any freshly grown ingredient before eating or cooking, so why don’t winemakers wash grapes before fermenting? Some might say that it is unnecessary because anti-bacterial agents such as SO₂ will cleanse the must… but cooking sterilizes ingredients, yet does not stop us from washing fresh ingredients. It is a precaution. As for wine, there are a lot of bugs, creepy-crawlies, leaves, and other extraneous matter that even the most fastidious manual sorting will not remove—especially the tiniest life forms roaming around inside bunches. Then there is the chemical and inorganic residue from spraying grapes. While there might be more of this found on conventionally grown grapes, even certified organic producers are allowed to spray their crops with copper sulfate.

Since 2008 and, particularly, 2014, Ca’del Bosco’s wines have had a greater purity. It is not simply a matter of less SO₂, thanks to washing the grapes and disgorging under nitrogen. It is also the absence of certain organic and inorganic material that is foreign to both the fruit and its terroir, thanks to the washing alone. How that absence imprints itself on the fermentation process gives the wine more precision and is, by definition, more authentic and expressive of place and grape.

When both Maurizio and I are long gone, every winery will wash its grapes and consumers everywhere will take it for granted, like washing hands before the preparation of food. Why wouldn’t they?

Disgorging and corking under nitrogen

Nitrogen chamber corking system is composed of a corker [1], preceded by a carrousel [2] aimed at injecting N₂ in the neck space of each bottle, to replace the existing air, collect it, and bleed it outside. Both turrets are fitted in a sealed chamber [3], to keep the concentration of O₂ at a steady value; such concentration is controlled by the detector [4] and adjusted by feeding N₂ through the ducts [5] and [7]. To reduce the flow of the gas mixture between inside and outside as much as possible, gas curtains [6] are placed at the entry and exit of the chamber and use the flow exiting the injection carrousel. [8] and [9]: Nitrogen detectors.

Patented by Ca’del Bosco in 2005, disgorging, dosaging, and corking inside nitrogen is probably the Betamax to Jetting’s VHS. This was the year that Moët began trialing the beer industry’s continuous stream form of Jetting (see “Jet-Age Fizz,” WFW 48, 2015, p.62), following the ground-breaking paper that was published by the CIVC in 2003 quantifying oxygen ingress between disgorgement and corking. The beer industry’s jetting lacked the precision required for Champagne and it was not to be until 2009 that LBM Industries in Reims patented a nitrogen-based pulse-Jetting technology. In theory, Ca’del Bosco had a four-year window in which to market this device, but Jetting itself was not an easy sell and, although cheaper, it took longer than four years to build up its own sales. Had it been invented ten years earlier, licensing could have paid for its development, but the only benefit for Ca’del Bosco now is that it has exclusive use of what might be a superior technology. Anyone who has read my position on Jetting will know that I am a big fan, and yet, looking at both Jetting and Ca’del Bosco’s nitrogen chamber, I get the feeling that the latter has the edge. A feeling, however, is not science, and I would dearly love to see these two systems tested under laboratory conditions.

Franciacorta's single greatest promoter

Ca’del Bosco is a globally recognized luxury sparkling-wine brand. Maurizio might not be the Father of Franciacorta, but he has become its single greatest promoter and he embodies the notion that world-class sparkling wines can be produced here. 

This praise does not come unqualified. Ca’del Bosco has a major flaw. Maurizio once claimed in an interview, “I am Taliban when it comes to quality. There is no compromise.” And yet he continues to use clear-glass bottles for Cuvée Prestige and Cuvée Prestige Rosé, which is a compromise too far.

When I put this to him, he pointed out the orange cellophane wrapping, used to protect the wine from light-strike. So, I explained to Maurizio that I have seen bottles of Roederer Cristal with their protective covering removed in a brightly lit fridge in a supposedly top-flight establishment. I wish Roederer did not use clear-glass bottles, but I recognize the 150 years of history wrapped up in the Cristal bottle, and if Roederer is willing to risk the quality and reputation of one of the monumentally greatest Champagnes in existence, then so be it. For everybody else, however, the only excuse is marketing and how pretty the bottle looks. 

As I put to Maurizio “If the protective wrapping is removed and bottles are put on display under bright lights even where there is team of professional sommeliers reporting to a head sommelier, who in turn reports to a wine director, what do you think happens behind closed doors of ordinary folk at home?”

Clear glass is the most glaring flaw at Ca’del Bosco, and its solution is profit-plus, as dark amber glass is cheaper and there would be no need for protective wrapping. Traditional corks are another flaw on the quality control checklist and it is one that applies to thousands of other sparkling wine producers as well. The threat they represent is less obvious and less known. Virtually all of the corks that I have drawn from a bottle of Ca’del Bosco have been beautiful to look at and sweet to smell, but even the best natural cork discs on the most expensive traditional stoppers are useless. They are cut the wrong way, leaving the lenticels to act like oxygen super-highways (see my “Cutting Remarks,” WFW 70, 2020 p.94). I am one of DIAM MytiK Diamant’s biggest fans, but I understand why that is not the solution for those producers who want the aromatics associated with natural cork. I would urge them, however, not to risk their wines aging on the rough and raw aromatics of the agglomerate just for the sake of picking up some natural-cork aromas along the way. Instead, ask your cork supplier to quote you for traditional sparkling wine stoppers with the discs cut the right way. Yes, they will be expensive, so this will not be a profit-plus answer, but if a producer believes in the quality of his sparkling wine, it will be a cost-effective solution.

Tasting Ca’del Bosco

All wines were tasted at Ca’del Bosco on August 30, 2022, with the exception of any older vintages and blends mentioned in the notes. The sparkling wines are, of course, DOCG Franciacorta, whereas the still whites are DOC Curtefranca and the reds are IGT Sebino. In 1995, when the sparkling wines of Franciacorta were elevated to DOCG status, the delimited region was restricted to just 19 of the original 23 communes, and any still wines had to be sold as DOC Terre di Franciacorta, which in 2008 changed to DOC Curtefranca.

Curtefranca is a modified transposition of Franzacurta, which itself is the origin of Franciacorta. Franzacurta was first mentioned in 1277, when an injunction in the Eighth Book of Statutes of Brescia defined an area to the south of Lake Iseo, between the Rivers Oglio and Mella as a tax-free haven for goods transported to Brescia. 

Curtefranca may be produced as either red or white, but Ca’del Bosco uses the DOC for its white wines plus the Corte del Lupo Rosso, preferring to make and market its other reds under the IGT Sebino for the greater flexibility this entry-level appellation offers.

SPARKLING WINES

Cuvée Prestige Edizione 44 DOCG Franciacorta (75cl) (81.5% Chardonnay, 1.5% Pinot Bianco, 17% Pinot Nero; 12.8% ABV; 0.9g/l RS)

This 2019-based blend is composed of 197 plots with reserve wines from 2018 (26%) and 2017 (3%). Cuvée Prestige and Cuvée Prestige Rosé are the most disappointing and inconsistent wines in the entire range. How could this be for a producer that rarely disappoints and prides itself on consistency? Is it a coincidence that they are the only wines bottled in clear glass? I doubt it. The two absolute standouts for me have been Edizione 30 (below) and Edizione 41 (gold medal at CSWWC 2019), but here’s the kicker—they were both 75cl bottles and the magnum of Edizione 41 was extremely disappointing. A bit like the magnum of Edizione 44. So, what happened to the “magnum effect”? The magnum effect worked for Edizione 42 both here and in 2020, when it was on the market, as it did for 43 in 2021, but it was more silver than gold. I believe the potential quality of Cuvée Prestige is nothing less than outstanding, but it is being ruined by its clear glass bottles. And seeing the magnum effect reversed for Edizione 44 when tasted at the winery itself leads me to suspect that at least some of these clear-glass bottles and magnums are accumulating up to 60 minutes light exposure prior to being wrapped in their protective orange-colored cellophane. Wherever the light gets in, be that at the winery, in a restaurant, a shop, or the customer’s home, it’s a shame. I cannot remember ever detecting a fully developed light-strike stink on any Cuvée Prestige, just disappointment, and this 75cl might seem very pure and fruity, but it leaves me wondering what might be missing. I wish Maurizio would get rid of these damn clear-glass bottles. | 87

Cuvée Prestige Edizione 44 DOCG Franciacorta (Magnum) (81.5% Chardonnay, 1.5% Pinot Bianco, 17% Pinot Nero; 12.8% ABV; 1.4g/l RS)

Same composition as the 75cl bottle, which, strangely, I much preferred! | 75

Cuvée Prestige Edizione 42 DOCG Franciacorta (75cl) (83% Chardonnay, 5% Pinot Bianco, 12% Pinot Nero; 12.5% ABV; 1.5g/l RS)

This 2017-based blend is composed of 139 plots with reserve wines from 2016 (22%), 2015 (6%), and 2014 (3%). Fruity, okay, with no obvious defects, but not special and totally different to the magnum below. | 83

Cuvée Prestige Edizione 42 DOCG Franciacorta (Magnum)
(83% Chardonnay, 5% Pinot Bianco, 12% Pinot Nero; 12.5% ABV; 1.5g/l RS)

Same composition as the 75cl bottle, but this is classic Franciacorta. Some charred notes on the nose; clean, fresh citrus and white-fruit palate. Initially quite smart, but the finesse drops away on the finish, hence one point away from 90. | 89

Cuvée Prestige Edizione 36 DOCG Franciacorta (75cl)
(75% Chardonnay, 10% Pinot Bianco, 15% Pinot Nero; 12.5% ABV; 0.5g/l RS)

This 2011-based blend is composed of 149 plots with reserve wines from 2010 (26%) and 2009 (14%). A commercially disgorged preview sample, this is as fresh as a daisy, with fine, classic structure, supported by a lovely, soft mousse full of energy. | 90

Cuvée Prestige Edizione 33 DOCG Franciacorta (75cl) (79% Chardonnay, 6% Pinot Bianco, 15% Pinot Nero; 13.14% ABV; 0.5g/l RS)

This 2008-based blend is composed of 146 plots with reserve wines from 2007 (17%) and 2006 (10%). Poured à la volée. Fresh, unblemished aromas, with orchard-fruit notes and classic Franciacorta fruit structure. All the ducks are in a row, but nothing truly stands out. | 85

Cuvée Prestige Edizione 32 DOCG Franciacorta (75cl) (78% Chardonnay, 7% Pinot Bianco, 15% Pinot Nero; 12.6% ABV; 0.7g/l RS)

This 2007-based blend is composed of 144 plots with reserve wines from 2006 (15%), 2005 (8%), and 2004 (5%). Poured à la volée. The phenolic disgorgement aromas that dominate this wine indicate that it has been opened between windows of disgorgement opportunity. Not possible to make a reliable judgment at this juncture. | NS

Cuvée Prestige Edizione 30 DOCG Franciacorta (75cl) (75% Chardonnay, 10% Pinot Bianco, 15% Pinot Nero; 12.9% ABV; 0.9g/l RS)

This 2005-based blend is composed of 134 plots with reserve wines from 2004 (15%) and 2003 (10%). Poured à la volée. An utterly gorgeous wine of timeless aging. Considering this is from a cold, wet, and delayed year that required extensive sorting, Edizione 30 is nothing short of miraculous. I have tasted this commercially disgorged, and it was not in the least bit outstanding. Obviously, it was the same wine initially, so why the difference? Natural-cork bottle variation? Disgorgement window? Clear glass? Just too many anomalies to make a call. | 95

Cuvée Prestige Rosé Edizione 44 DOCG Franciacorta (75cl)
(80% Pinot Nero, 20% Chardonnay; 12.5% ABV; 2.7g/l RS)

This 2019-based blend is composed of 16 plots with Chardonnay-only reserve wines from 2018 (10%). The grapes were destemmed and macerated for 24–36 hours, then blended with the Chardonnay seven months later. Darkish color, simple fruit… not impressed. Not produced in magnum, but if and when Ca’del Bosco moves away from clear glass, it should be. | 75

Vintage Collection Satèn 2017 DOCG Franciacorta (75cl)
(85% Chardonnay, 15% Pinot Bianco; 12.5% ABV; 0.4g/l RS)

Composed of wines from 14 plots. Severe spring frosts damaged two thirds of Ca’del Bosco’s vineyards. Harvested mid-August with peak temperatures of 102^°F (39^°C), yielding 4,000kg/ha and providing 17hl/ha (43% extraction). Fresh, restrained, flowery aromas, with a nice flick of toast, followed by very ripe fruit on a plush palate. Very good, but not in the same league as Satèn 2015, 2014 (magnum), or 2012 (magnum). | 90

Vintage Collection Extra Brut 2017 DOCG Franciacorta (75cl)
(64% Chardonnay, 26% Pinot Nero, 10% Pinot Bianco; 12.5% ABV; 0.4g/l RS)

Composed of wines from 25 plots. Same annual conditions, harvest, and yields as the Satèn above. Soft, toasty aromas with elegant, mouth-watering fruit on the palate. So complete and satisfying, with textbook pin-cushion mousse and the promise of slow-building complexity. Wonderful! | 95

Vintage Collection Dosage Zéro 2017 DOCG Franciacorta (75cl)
(69% Chardonnay, 18% Pinot Nero, 13% Pinot Bianco; 12.5% ABV; 0.3g/l RS)

Composed of wines from 24 plots. Same annual conditions, harvest and yields as the Satèn above. Charming, toasted-brioche aromas, with elegant fruit and fine mousse on the palate. | 90

Vintage Collection Dosage Zéro 2016 DOCG Franciacorta (Magnum) (65% Chardonnay, 22% Pinot Nero, 13% Pinot Bianco; 12.9% ABV; 0.8g/l RS)

Composed of wines from 28 plots. Harvested in the last third of August, yielding 8,000kg/ha and providing 34hl/ha (43% extraction), this magnum won a gold medal at CSWWC 2021. Lovely, toasty layers on deliciously ripe, flinty fruit. Powerful, but linear, smart, and stylish, with nicely yeast-complexed finish. | 95

Vintage Collection Dosage Zéro 2015 DOCG Franciacorta (Magnum)
(65% Chardonnay, 22% Pinot Nero, 13% Pinot Bianco; 12.8% ABV; 1.2g/l RS)

Composed of wines from 24 plots. Harvested in the second third of August, yielding 8,200kg/ha and providing 35hl/ha (43% extraction). Fresh, succulent, zesty-citrus fruit, with a very delicate mousse. This is a very good, elegant wine that has some finesse, but not the completeness, nor the degree of finesse that the Satèn of the same vintage has. | 90

Vintage Collection Dosage Zéro 2014 DOCG Franciacorta (Magnum) (65% Chardonnay, 22% Pinot Nero, 13% Pinot Bianco; 12.5% ABV; 1.8g/l RS)

Composed of wines from 19 plots. Harvested in the last third of August, yielding 8,000kg/ha and providing 34hl/ha (43% extraction). This delicious, toasty, golden-hued beauty has come on leaps and bounds over the past 3 to 4 years. Beautiful acidity drawing a long line in the linear fruit structure, with yeast-complexed, yellow fruit and hints of grapefruit on the finish. Simply vivacious! | 95

Vintage Collection Dosage Zéro 2013 DOCG Franciacorta (Magnum) (65% Chardonnay, 22% Pinot Nero, 12% Pinot Bianco; 12.5% ABV; 1.5g/l RS)

Composed of wines from 25 plots. Harvested in the last third of August, yielding 7,500kg/ha and providing 32hl/ha (43% extraction). Another gorgeous, toasty-rich wine. More power, less elegance, but packed with energy and freshness, therefore not lacking finesse. | 93

Vintage Collection Dosage Zéro 2012 DOCG Franciacorta (Magnum) (65% Chardonnay, 22% Pinot Nero, 13% Pinot Bianco; 12.5% ABV; 1.7g/l RS)

Composed of wines from 25 plots. Harvested in the second third of August, yielding 7,400kg/ha and providing 32hl/ha (43% extraction). This vintage has a similar power to the 2013, but it is more linear, compressed, and intense. The restraint in the toastiness is so impressive. Such a long and lingering finish. Fabulous! | 95

Vintage Collection Dosage Zéro Noir 2013 DOCG Franciacorta (75cl) (100% Pinot Nero; 12.5% ABV; 0.9g/l RS)

Composed of wines from just 3 plots on Ca’del Bosco’s acclaimed Belvedere vineyard at at altitude of 1,500ft (466m) overlooking Lake Iseo. Harvested on September 6, yielding 5,900kg/ha and providing 25hl/ha (43% extraction). Thunderstorms and extremes of temperature reaching almost 104^°F (40^°C) were responsible for gray rot, requiring the strictest pre-selection in the vineyard and addition sorting in the winery prior to the full “Berry Spa” treatment. What a beautiful, rose-gold hued delight has blossomed from such an awkward start. Pure finesse, from its warm and welcoming toasty aromas, through plush fruit and velvety mousse, to its never-ending finish. | 96

Vintage Collection Dosage Zéro Noir 2011, 2009, 2007, and 2006 DOCG Franciacorta (75cl) (100% Pinot Nero; 12.5% ABV; 0.9g/l RS)

Although I am used to tasting à la volée, I found the potential of these four vintages difficult to predict, particularly in context with the awesome quality of the commercially disgorged 2013. Sometimes it is better to disgorge à la volée the day before and allow the disgorgement aromas to settle. These aromas, which should not show in the commercially disgorged wine and seldom do, can include excessively aldehydic. Maybe a future à la volée vertical could be disgorged one day ahead, but for now, I shall reserve judgment. | NS

Annamaria Clementi 2013 DOCG Franciacorta (75cl) (75% Chardonnay, 15% Pinot Nero, 10% Pinot Bianco; 13% ABV; 0.7g/l RS)

Composed of wines from 24 plots. Harvested in the last third of August, yielding 7,500kg/ha and providing 29hl/ha (39% extraction). Same weather and harvesting conditions as the Vintage Collection Dosage Zéro Noir 2013 above and, well, goodness gracious me, what a mesmerizing wine it is! Another glorious 2013, this extraordinarily fresh and vibrant Franciacorta has a refined and toasty nose with complex notes of brioche, biscuit, and bread, exquisite linear structure, and intensely rich fruit beautifully balanced by bright acidity. Full of life and vitality. | 96

Annamaria Clementi 2013 DOCG Franciacorta (Magnum) (64% Chardonnay, 26% Pinot Nero, 10% Pinot Bianco; 13% ABV; 0.7g/l RS)

Same as the 75cl above, but disgorged à la volée and super-charged by the magnum effect to make it even more mesmerizing. Wonderfully toasty aromas cross seamlessly from nose to palate, where the fruit is silky-smooth and buoyant on a creamy mousse. Beautifully balanced. Opulence meets class! Extraordinary length. Extraordinary quality. This has to be one of the greatest Franciacortas I have ever tasted. | 98

Annamaria Clementi 2011 DOCG Franciacorta (Magnum) (65% Chardonnay, 15% Pinot Nero, 20% Pinot Bianco; 12.9% ABV; 1.4g/l RS)

Composed of wines from 15 plots. Harvested in the middle third of August, yielding 7,700kg/ha and providing 30hl/ha (39% extraction). Poured à la volée, all these magnums of Annamaria Clementi are fabulous sparkling wines by any yardstick. Thank goodness for scores, which enable me to provide a distinction between the degrees of greatness that mere words cannot do. This is just so lovely and satisfying. It has a super-fresh, deliciously toasty nose, with fleeting notes of coffee and charred oak, followed by glacially evolved, yeast-complexed fruit over a sumptuous mousse on a classic lean structure, tapering endlessly to a finish of great finesse. | 97

Annamaria Clementi 2010 DOCG Franciacorta (Magnum) (55% Chardonnay, 20% Pinot Nero, 25% Pinot Bianco; 12.8% ABV; 1.2g/l RS)

Composed of wines from 18 plots. Harvested in the first third of September, yielding 7,600kg/ha and providing 30hl/ha (39% extraction). What a stunning wine! Words fail me. It is just so complete and satisfying in every respect. How can a wine have so much intensity and yet practically no weight? This is masterclass in and of itself. Annamaria Clementi 2010 in magnum demonstrates that if complexity builds up slowly enough, it will not just retain fruit and freshness, but can do so in perfect harmony. Is this the greatest Franciacorta ever produced? I cannot even answer my own rhetorical question because the commercially disgorged version of this magnum was not very impressive at all in 2020. As there is no danger of clear glass involved, and Ca’del Bosco is consistently super-protective about the entire disgorgement process, it can only be whether the window of opportunity was open, and clearly it was not. | 99

Annamaria Clementi 2009 DOCG Franciacorta (Magnum) (55% Chardonnay, 20% Pinot Nero, 25% Pinot Bianco; 12.7% ABV; 2.0g/l RS)

Composed of wines from 26 plots. Harvested in the second third of August, yielding 8,000kg/ha and providing 31hl/ha (39% extraction). This is the first vintage of Annamaria Clementi to benefit from Ca’del Bosco’s “Berry Spa” and had it not come immediately after the 2010, this wine would have been amazing. Even after the 2020, it is delicious, with just a phenolic hint to knock it down from a 95-point score. | 94

Annamaria Clementi 2008 DOCG Franciacorta (Magnum) (55% Chardonnay, 20% Pinot Nero, 25% Pinot Bianco; 12.5% ABV; 1.7g/l RS)

Composed of wines from 29 plots. Harvested in the last third of August, yielding 7,700kg/ha and providing 30hl/ha (39% extraction). There is toast and there is toast: from the sulfidic toast, which arrives quickly and lacks finesse, to the slowly evolved toast that emerges as super-mellow notes. This has the latter in spades, and it’s so classy. Toast heaven! And the color is so pale when compared to younger vintages of Annamaria Clementi. Truly great Franciacorta. | 97

Annamaria Clementi 2007 DOCG Franciacorta (Magnum) (55% Chardonnay, 20% Pinot Nero, 15% Pinot Bianco; 12.5% ABV; 1.3g/l RS)

Composed of wines from 28 plots. Harvested in the last third of August, yielding 7,500kg/ha and providing 29hl/ha (39% extraction). Complex aromas of smoke-infused toast mingle with exceptionally fresh citrus and orchard fruits, following onto a perfectly balanced palate, gently supported by a creamy-pincushion mouse. Seductive and satisfying. | 95

Annamaria Clementi Rosé 2013 DOCG Franciacorta (Magnum)
(Pinot Nero 100%; 12.8% ABV; 1.5g/l RS)

Composed of wines from just 3 plots. Harvested on August 26, yielding 7,700kg/ha and providing 35hl/ha (45% extraction). With the exception of the 2011, which won a gold medal and Best in Class at the CSWWC in 2021, the rosé Annamaria Clementi has not impressed me much. | 85

STILL WINES

Corte del Lupo Bianco 2020 DOC Curtefranca (75cl)
(80% Chardonnay, 20% Pinot Bianco; 13% ABV)

Harvested the first third of September, with a yield of 35hl/ha (from 6,000kg/ha of grapes), and just 25% of the wine was aged in one-year-old oak barriques, while the rest aged on lees in stainless-steel vats. Nice minerality of fruit. I prefer the leaner, cleaner, crisper profile of this Chardonnay-dominated wine to pure Chardonnay, although the different vintages do not make a valid comparison. A vertical of both at some future date would be instructive. | 89

Chardonnay 2018 DOC Curtefranca (75cl)
(100% Chardonnay; 13% ABV)

Harvest began on September 6, with a yield of 39hl/ha (from 6,800kg/ha of grapes). 100% fermented and aged for nine months in new oak barriques, with weekly bâtonnage and the rest aged on lees in stainless-steel vats, Too oaky, too broad, and too leesy for me. | 84

Corte del Lupo Rosso 2018 IGT Sebino (75cl) (38% Merlot, 33% Cabernet Sauvignon, 22% Cabernet Franc, 7% Carmenère; 13.3% ABV)

Harvested the second half of September, with a yield of 51hl/ha (from 8,000kg/ha of grapes). Vat-fermented in stainless-steel, gravity-fed to oak barriques for MLF, then aged in a combination of oak and stainless-steel. Plenty of black fruits, but a touch of bitterness, and too much oak on the mid-palate through the finish. | 89

Maurizio Zanella 2018 IGT Sebino (75cl)
(50% Cabernet Sauvignon, 25% Cabernet Franc, 25% Merlot; 13.5% ABV)

Harvested between September 21 and 25. Vat-fermented in stainless-steel, gravity-fed to oak barriques for MLF (70% new) and 13 months aging. This was Annamaria Clementi’s favorite, and frankly, it’s mine, too. I would have loved to share a glass of this lovely blend with her. Deep ruby color that is beginning to mellow, rich in soft black fruits, particularly blackberry with a touch of blackcurrant, with spices, first mace, then nutmeg, and finally notes of cinnamon infused by the oak. Nice and grippy finish. | 92

Pinéro 2019 IGT Sebino (75cl)
(Pinot Nero 100%; 13.5% ABV)

Harvested on August 22, with a yield of 35hl/ha (from 6,000kg/ha of grapes). Vat-fermented in stainless-steel, gravity-fed to oak barriques (50% new) for MLF and 11 months aging. Although a lovely, elegant wine in itself, it lacks true Pinot expression and could benefit from 10–20% carbonic maceration—not to show the slightest amylic aroma, but simply to lift the varietal character, much as many Australians did in the 1980s before they understood how to grow and produce classic Pinot Noir for themselves. | 89

Carmenero 2018 IGT Sebino (75cl) (100% Carménère; 13% ABV)

Harvested on September 25, with a yield of 41hl/ha (from 7,000kg/ha of grapes). Vat-fermented in stainless-steel, gravity-fed to oak barriques (65% new) for MLF and 12 months aging. There are wolves all over Ca’del Bosco’s roof and, as the label for this wine depicts, Carmenero is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. This is because the vines were purchased in 1990 by Ca’del Bosco as Cabernet Franc (it is, after all, a Cabernet Franc × Trousseau cross, and the same error has been made as far afield as New Zealand) but were later identified as Carménère. This vintage has a full ruby color, with chocolate and balsamic oak aromas on the nose. The palate has bright black fruit, particularly blackberry, with plums and fresh, toasty oak, complexed by notes of vanilla and grilled coffee beans. | 89

Merlot 2009 IGT Sebino (75cl) (100% Merlot; 13% ABV)

Harvested on September 15, with a yield of 50hl/ha (from 8,700kg/ha of grapes). Vat-fermented in stainless-steel, gravity-fed to oak barriques (65% new) for MLF and 11 months aging. Not regularly produced, this vintage is remarkably fresh for 13 years, with a nose of ripe plums and fleeting glimpses of violets and warm baking spices. Soft and fruity with supple, ripe tannins and a kick of acidity to maintain freshness on its long finish and lingering aftertaste—even staunch supporters of Miles in Sideways should give this wine a try! | 91

The post Ca’del Bosco: House in the woods appeared first on World Of Fine Wine.