Friday, January 21, 2011

Santa Cristina Antinori Chianti Superiore 2008

Picked this up for $9 at Costco because, well, the last time I had "red-sauced" Italian, I really wanted the acidic snap of a Chianti. Unfortunately for me, this wine is a large departure from that. Can anyone say oak? Or how about Parker? Mildly put, this wasn't what I was expecting or wanted. It should go with out saying for all wine: caveat emptor. Of course, I really don't listen to my own advice: I tend to be an impulse driven buyer. If something looks interesting or like it might be a good deal, I'm in. 

Tons of oak. Spicy (coriander-ish?), along with some herbal (rosemary) and subdued cherry. Smooth, soft, and not a lot of acidity--although this isn't out of whack in terms of balance. It's out of whack in terms of what I look for in Chianti. Not that Chianti-esque, and way too much oak. This is Chianti made for the Parker palate. Your results with this wine may differ. If you for some reason have a bottle of this, I would suggest letting it sit for a year or two and hopefully the oak influence will turn less oaky and develop tertiary aromas that are interesting. D+/C-


Cabfrancophile said...

These are the sorts of wines I loathe: nowhere wine. Chianti/Sangiovese has no business being soft and deficient in acidity. If this was sold as Tuscan table wine, that would be one thing. But I suspect the only reason this gets to carry the name Chianti is the size of the backing financial interest.

Basically, if they called this something else I'd have no objection. There is a need for this type of generic commodity wine. It just shouldn't get to use a varietal or place to market itself. There are problems with administrating typicity, but when inexpensive Sangio is lacking a bit of angularity, you can be pretty sure it isn't typical.

Jeff said...

Yeah, totally agree with you. It says should taste like fucking Chianti!