2004 Selvapiana Chianti Rufina Riserva "Bucerchiale" vs. 2007 Rocca di Montegrossi Chianti Classico

We went over to our friend's house for dinner last night and brought a couple of wines to go with roast pork. Normally, I'm thinking white, but there were two people that aren't really fans of white...hence Chianti. The Italians are normally right about these things, you know? Plus, all that acidity works well with food. I thought it would be interesting (in my head, because frankly, no one else really cared) to compare two different expressions of Chianti side by side. The 2007 Montegrossi hails from the Chianti Classico (this is the area the Cosimo III de' Medici outlined as Chianti in 1716) zone, which is directly south of Florence, and closer to Siena, whereas the Selvapiana hails from the lesser known apellation of Rufina, which is to the east of Florence, and situated in the foothills. While there are many producers in Chianti Classico, Rufina is dominated by Selvapiana and Frescobaldi (you see the Nipozzano everywhere for about 20$).

Both wines are roughly the same price--the Montegrossi was 20$, and the Selvapiana was 27$. The Montegrossi is a regular Chianti and the Selvapiana is a Riserva, which means that instead of the year in wood that the Montegrossi saw, the Selvapiana saw two years. To make matters even more interesting, Robert Parker gave both of these wines roughly the same score--a 91 for the Montegrossi, and a 92 for the Selvapiana. Basically, as far as Parker is concerned, there is no quantitative difference between the two wines. I disagree, and for that matter, so did our non-wine consumer friends Steven and Catie (they're big drinkers, just not discriminating).

The Montegrossi opens up extremely tight, which makes sense, since it's a young wine. After an initial sulphery nose blew off, this was all classic bright Sangiovese scents of cherry (specifically black) and earth. This is a big wine, and it has fierce (ah, yes, channeling Tyra Banks...) acidity that really needs some food (Not really a sipping wine...). Fruit is at the forefront, and you can tell that this is a ripe wine with lots of structure. To sum it up in a single word, this wine is raw. Reminds me of Conan the Barbarian. 

In comparison, the Selvapiana is immediately drinkable, softer, and offers up a much more elegant nose of regular cherry, spice, herbs and some earthy notes. It's immediately apparent that the Selvapiana has more bottle age. It's got all sorts of secondary aromas, and while the fruit is virbrant it isn't the bitch-slap of the Montegrossi. Much smoother mouth-feel, and a lightness that is in direct contrast to the brawn of the Montegrossi. This wine is more like Aubrey Hepburn--refined and elegant. 

I don't see how these could possible have only scored one point apart. It really doesn't make much sense to a certain degree. Yes, they are different stylistically, but I think this demonstrates how bunk the point system is. For all intents and purposes, these wines have the same score, but there is an enormous difference. For my money, the Montegrossi is a B-/B, and the Selvapiana is more like a B+. I think both are a bit on the pricey side. The thing that interests me about these wines is that I know they're good--they both are well-made--but I don't find either one to be particularly exciting on its' own. To me, these are wines that are made to go with food, and lose much of their context if consumed on their own.