2006 Falesco Sangiovese

As I had mentioned in my previous post, I had brought along a very nice Sangiovese when out to dinner one night with family. The wine was the 2006 Falesco Sangiovese (Paid $11.95), which came recommended from my local wine purveyor.

I did a bit of research after I got it home and found that Wine Spectator gave it a 90 and several other professional tasters rated it between 87-89. It almost seemed to good to be true - an almost-90-point wine priced reasonably? Almost unheard of these days. Much to my surprise, it lived up to the hype. Great mouth feel with a full body, not the typical weak, acidic Sangiovese's you find a lot of these days. Wonderful berry taste that screams pure Sangiovese. Also, I was surprised at what was missing - the hard-core earthiness that almost permeates the Chainti's of today. Neither of us care for it, and it has really pushed us away from all but the top Chaintis anymore (except Ruffino which has a barnyard taste in seemingly every bottle these days. This Sangiovese has definitely won a couple followers and we'll be buying a few cases of it for the cellar.

Rating -

Side note..
I completely understand how the same wine can taste different to different people, but seriously, how can someone who 'claims' to be a top-notch taster rate this wine a 77 when some of the most renowned tasters in the world put it around 90? Perhaps he got a bad bottle? Is that to unrealistic to consider? Perhaps he's so accustomed to drinking $150 bottles that he forgets there are some wines that are made to drink today.. like with a nice tomato pie? I guess this just proves the point that you really have to taste for yourself. Tasting notes are great for guidance, but always make your decision after YOU taste it.