The best proof of rising quality is the success of ‘lesser’ vintages. 2018 and 2017, the focus of this report, are less celebrated than their immediate predecessors, yet each has something to offer. 2018 is what passes in these warmer times for a cooler, wetter vintage. The wines are less concentrated and powerful, but the best are captivatingly airy, understated and drinkable, some with refreshingly moderate alcohol levels. They’re a beautiful reminder of what Sangiovese once looked like in Montalcino.

2017 is different, with extremely hot, arid conditions from spring until September’s harvest rains; some vines shut down in the drought, retaining grape acidity. Many producers simply didn’t make Riserva, but those that benefited from altitude – like San Polino or Fattoria dei Barbi – or moister, clay-rich sites were among those that had the most success. Intense fruit ripeness and dense structure work where fresh acidity helps keep the opulence in check. Though neither vintage promises massive longevity, they may well last longer than anticipated, especially where acidity is pronounced.

With the shadow of Burgundy looming large over virtually every fine wine region, the decade-old question in Montalcino has been whether and when it will establish formal subzones. Unlike in Burgundy, the principal goal would be to recognise (substantial) intraregional differences in style rather than quality, anxiety around which seems to be a factor holding up the ongoing process.

The region is in some ways relatively straightforward and an eventual delimitation of some form seems all but inevitable. Topography centres on the limestone hill of Montalcino itself, which rises to around 600m above sea level (asl); both geology and especially average temperature largely correlate with altitude. There are general distinctions between the north (shadier, giving more herbal, subtle wines) and south (more exposed and thus more generous), east (more clay, more diurnal variation and so more structure) and west (stonier sites with Mediterranean heat, hence more lusciousness). In this report, I have jumped the gun and used loose geographical descriptions like ‘Torrenieri’, ‘Tavarnelle’, and ‘Castelnuovo dell’Abate’, which are in general use, though I have also given more specific information (an upcoming article will explore this idea further). However, wines blended between ‘subzones’ persist, often to the benefit of quality; I for one would be loath to see mediocre wines from single subregions automatically prized over balanced, characterful blended-site wines.

A parallel but possibly competing trend is the prioritisation of single sites, or ‘vigna’, especially historical spots like the hill of Montosoli to Montalcino’s north. Superstar producers like Casanova di Neri have spearheaded this movement (though ironically ‘vigna’ doesn’t appear on its wines, since many are not from historical toponyms), revealing Sangiovese’s previously under-explored potential for site expressiveness. The 2015 revision of the region’s disciplinare (regional wine law), eliminating the maximum elevation restriction of 600m, has ushered in extreme sites like Le Ragnaie’s Passo del Lume Spento at 620m asl, presenting an even lighter, more ethereal facet of Sangiovese.

We may also be at the start of a decoupling of quality perception from maturation time in wood. Relatively few wines in the report aged for longer than 36 months in oak and there are certainly fewer barriques than had become common in recent decades, though their deft use by producers like Siro Pacenti suggests they have their place. The renewed emphasis on Slavonian botti as ageing vessels – largely positive in my view – has unfortunately also resulted in some young wines showing a reductive, gamey character, which will hopefully be worked out over time. Meanwhile, longer maturation time in bottle is a hot topic. Those producers who can afford to are releasing wines ever later (e.g. Le Chiuse’s Diecianni Riserva, released a decade after harvest). Vintage libraries are slowly being accumulated, though few producers have much stock from before the 1990s, Biondi-Santi aside.

Speaking of more youthful, primary Sangiovese, Rosso di Montalcino has been building steam for years, its main hindrance being, ironically, tiny production volumes. Very little land (510ha vs. 2100ha for Brunello) is designated for Rosso production and with so many ripe, generous recent vintages there is less need to declassify Brunello. Cashflow and storage space do motivate smaller producers like Salvioni, whose ‘Baby Brunello’ Rosso is largely the result of insufficient space to age it to Brunello status. However, this quality of Rosso commands higher prices and should encourage us to see it simply as a different style rather than a lesser category.

Overall, it is an exciting time for the region, though it has been quieter about it than its fine wine peers. There is nothing revolutionary here; no major stylistic shifts. Fittingly, the changes are best exemplified by what is happening at Biondi-Santi: much is changing in the vineyards and cellars so that everything in the bottle can stay fundamentally the same, just better.

Tasting notes and scores from Club Oenologique’s Brunello di Montalcino Report 2023 (featuring only those wines scoring 90 points and above) are available to all registered users of The Collection, the online home of our premium wine and spirits content. To register for free, click here.