WTNs: Sassicaia 1968-2002

The place for all things wine, focused on serious wine discussions.

Moderators: Jenise, David M. Bueker, Robin Garr

WTNs: Sassicaia 1968-2002

Postby Otto » Thu Apr 27, 2006 8:46 pm

In typical fashion, we started off with a few blind wines:

Bollinger 1955
Gold. An oaky, and a little evolved nose of ripe apples, mushrooms and earth. Fine mousse. The palate is slightly sweet, fruit forward but with fantastic acidity balancing it. Outstanding.

I guessed it as 1989 or 1990 Champagne! Ooops.

Sassicaia 1968
A rather salty nose of rye bread and red berries - seemingly falling apart. Yet it didn't deteriorate from that during the evening :confused: The palate was much better with lovely sweet, old fruit, resolved structure, layered, and great length. Ok nose; very good palate.

Sassicaia 1971
An immensely beatiful nose: leafy, red berries, elegant though full on. The palate had fine fruit and lovely, almost Sangiovese-like red berriness, but was unfortunately rather low in acidity. Good, but not great. In no danger of falling apart.

Sassicaia 1978
A nose of lead and blueberries, some peach and dung - a bit simplistic. The palate has fine concentration of fruit and good acid, but isn't quite as layered as some of the others. A bit simple but fine enough.

Sassicaia 1979
Dung and lilacs on the nose, peach, blueberry - a nose as classic Sassicaia as can be - but not favoured by all! The palate was very also with lovely balance: the overt fruitiness balanced by equally great acidity. Sassiciaia isn't really a wine made to my tastes, but this was perhaps the only wine in this tasting that I would gladly share a bottle of! Excellent.

Sassicaia 1980
A full on and floral nose, rather inelegant, but with the typical Tuscan red berryness well in evidence. Sweet, fruity, long, fresh, elegant perhaps, but also a bit simple. Good.

Sassicaia 1981
A nose of blueberries, salt and leaves. Still a bit tannic, with fine fruit, fine oak, rather intense, but still manages to be rather non-descript! Good, but not great.

Sassicaia 1982
A bit of dung, pleasantly leafy, much blueberry, very ripe. The palate is still rather tannic, but it has fine fruit and acidity which will surely survive until the tannins resolve themselves. I am a bit concerned about the aftertaste though - it is rather short despite the promise on both the nose and mid-palate.

Sassicaia 1984
Simple fruit, leafy, pleasant enough. Rather green (positive for me!) and tannic palate. Not very layered. A fine effort for what I understand to be an off-vintage. Good.

Sassiciaia 1985
Honeyed, very fat, leafy, slightly toasted nose which has bit of cassis. The palate is sweet, un-Sassicaiaish, very ripe, very fine, but has too much fat on it. Very good, but I do prefer the vintages with more acidity to them. But in all fairness, I do understand why some make such a fuss of this wine.

Sassicaia 1988
Corked.

Sassicaia 1990
Very full on scent, fat, noticably oaky, blue tinged as the wine so often is, with just a slight hint of dung. The palate is also very fat, fairly tannic, but with very fine acidity and length. Obviously a wine in the same mold as the 1985. Very good.

Sassicaia 1991
Confected nose of Coca-Cola - very sweet and confected and quite unpleasant: like a bad Burgundy! The palate is sweet, watery and weak. Quite unpleasant.

Sassicaia 1992
Most preferred the 1991 to the 1992. Not me. It was a touch green (remember: not a negative term for me!), rather tough, charmless maybe, but delightfully savoury - a food wine if there ever was one. The palate had sweetish fruit, was very savoury and still quite tannic, but some (not me) will say it is unripe. I rather liked it. But then again, I do also like the "lean and mean" Loire reds!

Sassicaia 1993
Leafy and a bit oaky and sweetly fruity scent. The palate has fine fruit, fine acid, but is a bit watery and simple. Very drinkable, pleasant infact, but rather uninspiring.

Sassicaia 1994
Leafy, a bit green. Not a favourite (not even mine, lol!!), but not the worst of the lot either. The palate is a bit green with fine tannins. Long, savoury. Decent for me, but a bad Sassicaia.

Sassicaia 1995
Confected nose, some savoury notes like exhaust fumes. The palate is confected also and is a bit dilute. Drinkable certainly, even has a little bit of charm, but frankly for the name, I would expect so much more. Poor (unless it would cost 15 euros!!!).

Sassicaia 1996
Well, here S. seems to have gotten its act together again! A lovely, savoury nose with a slight, but not overpowering, touch of blueberry liqueur. Finely balanced palate, with lovely acidity! Some found the acidity a bit too much, but for me that was what endeared me to the wine! Lovely.

Sassicaia 1997
Some forest floor character that I so often get with youngish Tuscans. Also some pine. Fine fruity yet savoury scents. The palate is sweetish but a bit flat due to very light acidity. Decent.

Sassicaia 1998
Youghurt. Some savoury notes to the sweet fruit also. Rather anonymous, though there is fine depth to it. The palate is sweet but also a bit flat. Good, pure fruit though, if you're into that sort of stuff. Spoofulated and rather anonymous.

Sassicaia 1999
A lovely nose of Cantillon's Gueuze (brettanomyces bruxellensis). I loved the nose: so deep and so Tuscan. The palate was a let down: light, spoofulated, smooth, so forgettable.

Sassicaia 2000
Forest floor and pine character again on the nose, warm and open. The palate is overtly fruity, with fine structure and surprisingly good acidity for such a warm year. Good.

Sassicaia 2001
Closed. Some earth and dark fruit peeking through. A rather elegant type of S., sweet fruit yet structured. Shows some promise.

Sassicaia 2002
Yoghurt on the nose, some savoury elements, good fruit but it somewhat hidden under the overt oakiness. The palate is berryish, light, slightly vegetal. I liked the other elements except the oak. Is a very decent effort for the year.

We then had a few fully blind wines to finish off the tasting with:

Niepoort Vertente 2002
Dark. Chemical nose, some hedge and savouriness. The palate is very sweet, rather harshly tannic. Not pleasant.

Dönnhof Oberhäuser Brücke Riesling Eiswein 2001
Lovely young Riesling characteristics of hedge, olive stone (which I find is a precursor to budding petrolliness) - very savoury, and shows few signs of the sweetness on the palate. The palate is a bit too pineappley, but has very fine acidity and minerality and is supported by the fine sweetness. Very good.

Robert Weil Kiedrich Gräfenberg Riesling Spätlese 2004
Light as water. The nose has olive stone, hedge and lots of minerals. It is very slightly sweet (thought it has c.100 g/l RS!!!), high in acid, a bit tart some would say, but I say this is frigging fantastic stuff!
I don't drink wine because of religious reasons ... only for other reasons.
User avatar
Otto
Musaroholic
 
Posts: 4040
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 5:07 pm
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Re: WTNs: Sassicaia 1968-2002

Postby Rahsaan » Fri Apr 28, 2006 3:03 pm

Robert Weil Kiedrich Gräfenberg Riesling Spätlese 2004
Light as water. The nose has olive stone, hedge and lots of minerals. It is very slightly sweet (thought it has c.100 g/l RS!!!), high in acid, a bit tart some would say


Interesting. So this response is all about the light effects of 2004? Because Weil is usually quite full-on even for the Rheingau? I had the 97 KG spatlese the other day and it was quite robust and "sweet" so I'm assuming your response is also not a function of the vineyard?
Rahsaan
Wild and Crazy Guy
 
Posts: 6927
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 9:20 pm
Location: Chapel Hill, NC

Re: WTNs: Sassicaia 1968-2002

Postby Dale Williams » Fri Apr 28, 2006 9:54 pm

Thanks for notes. The only older Sassacaia I've had was the '88- sorry yours was corked. A very good wine, though not really my style- I'd far rather have 2-3 Pergole Tortes for the same price.

I'm surprised to hear you thought the Bollinger was much younger- the one constant of my few experiences with 30+ year old Champagne is that they barely resembled younger ones (less petillance, almost still). Sounds like great storage on this one!

Thanks as always for the notes.
User avatar
Dale Williams
Compassionate Connoisseur
 
Posts: 7855
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 5:32 pm
Location: Dobbs Ferry, NY (NYC metro)

Re: WTNs: Sassicaia 1968-2002

Postby Bill Spohn » Sat Apr 29, 2006 12:03 pm

Your tasting reprises two I did - one from 1979 - 1997 with notes at

http://www.wineloverspage.com/user_submitted/wine_notes/tn_391073.html

That was done in 2003 and the wines would be in similar (or better depending on cellaring) shape to yours.

and an earlier one in around 1997 covering 1978 (I think your bottle failed to live up to the potential - one of the best vintages ever), through about 1990, but the old forum has eaten my notes.
User avatar
Bill Spohn
He put the 'bar' in 'barrister'
 
Posts: 5011
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 8:31 pm
Location: Vancouver BC

Re: WTNs: Sassicaia 1968-2002

Postby Otto » Sat Apr 29, 2006 3:02 pm

Interesting. So this response is all about the light effects of 2004? Because Weil is usually quite full-on even for the Rheingau? I had the 97 KG spatlese the other day and it was quite robust and "sweet" so I'm assuming your response is also not a function of the vineyard?


Yes, usually Weil does seem rather full on, but this had all of the full-on-ness in reserve. What I meant was that this had impeccable balance and had the pin point precision that the 2003s lacked. No idea about your other q's because I haven't drunk enough Weil, nor 2004s, nor this vineyard. Sorry.

A very good wine, though not really my style [...]

I'm surprised to hear you thought the Bollinger was much younger- the one constant of my few experiences with 30+ year old Champagne is that they barely resembled younger ones (less petillance, almost still). Sounds like great storage on this one!


Quite what I thought about the stylistic issues. The temperature must have been 7 C or thereabouts!!!! The colour was very light. I arrived to the tasting an hour late (because of the Chateau Divine Nectar tasting I also posted on), but thought this had been in the glass for the whole hour, the mousse was perfection. Certainly not even pétillant, but true strong mousse, elegant and of perfect size: a marvel in itself. If there's any fault with it, I would have liked more age on it. I love the phase in Champs when they are slightly oxidised but still fruity and bubbling well. This wasn't yet at that stage.

Bill, thanks for the link! The 1978 was liked by most, but it might just be my idiosyncratic tastes that I preferred the 79. Both were impeccably stored and were showing well.
I don't drink wine because of religious reasons ... only for other reasons.
User avatar
Otto
Musaroholic
 
Posts: 4040
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 5:07 pm
Location: Helsinki, Finland


Return to The Wine Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Florida Jim and 8 guests