Although it’s the most widely-planted red wine grape in Italy and serves as the main ingredient in Chianti, sangiovese is a really misunderstood piece of fruit. Part of it is the fault of Chianti, actually, since many people think it’s a varietal made of the chianti grapes. Actually, there’s no such thing: Chianti is not a grape but a region in Tuscany, and like many European wines, Chianti takes its name from the place it comes from. And although Chianti does consist mostly of sangiovese, a vast majority of Chiantis are blends, with all sorts of other varieties allowed, some of them (like canaiolo) fairly obscure.

For my tasting group’s complete evaluations, including a winning wine with a Kelly Moore bouquet, click here:

Add to this that sangiovese is notoriously difficult to grow, nearly impossible to cultivate outside Tuscany, and totally tricky to pronounce (try “san-gee-oh-VAY-zee”), and you have a serious underdog situation. Even the Italians seem to be having trouble throwing their complete support behind their traditional, flagship grape. First you had the rise of the Super Tuscan, where winemakers in Tuscany began widely blending French grapes like cabernet and merlot into their wines. Then last summer we saw “Brunellogate,” where winemakers in Montalcino were accused of sneaking illicit varieties into Brunello di Montalcino, which is supposed to be 100 percent sangiovese.

The Ladies Tasting Society decided to narrow our focus straight on to pure sangiovese, and to compare a handful of Italian selections to a couple of Californian versions. Finding the wines wasn’t easy: most sangioveses coming out of Italy are (like Chianti) blends, though there are a few delicious exceptions, including the aforementioned Brunello; Brunello’s little brother, Rosso di Montalcino; Rosso di Montepulciano; and the rare but worth-it Vino Nobile di Montepulciano. In California, the problem lies in both quantity and quality. Not much sangiovese is planted in Napa and Sonoma — in fact, many of the old Italian houses (the most tragic example being Charles Krug/Peter Mondavi Family) are pulling up acres of ancient sangiovese vines and replacing them with cab and merlot. The few brave souls who are still trying to cultivate and make wine out of sangiovese in California find themselves struggling with a climate that that’s too perfect, soil too rich, and rain too predictable for this crabby, contrary fruit.

But we managed to find seven bottles and overall, it was an interesting blind tasting, in the best sense of the word. Although we weren’t always charmed by them, the classic characteristics of sangiovese shined through: violet-scented aromas, medium-bodied weight, fresh acidity, softly bitter cherry flavors, and tell-tale notes of leather, herbs, and even tomatoes.

After the labels were revealed, we found our favorites tended to be from Italy, confirming the rumors that this grape is hard to have success with in the New World — until we pulled the brown bag off a wine we were thinking of as the “sangiovesiest” of all, which we were sure was from Tuscany because of its classic profile, only to discover it was actually the Frey Vineyards’ “Masut Vineyard” from Mendocino County (also our Best Value at $16). “House paint, celery salt, and V-8 juice,” my notes start out. “Tomato juice. Great mouthfeel, light, fresh, and with a long finish. ‘I taste flowers,’ says one Lady. ‘Spaghetti sauce and oregano,’ says another. Later, raisin flavors emerged.” Hard to believe that a wine that smelled like Kelly-Moore would top on my list, but the Frey was so interesting, and so sangiovese-esque, I couldn’t resist falling for it.

The clear group favorite, though, was a Brunello di Montalcino from Sesta di Sopra ($45), a tiny winery on the south below Montalcino that produces only about 350 cases a year. The wine is made very traditionally with pure sangiovese and no new oak in the ageing process. “Very complex nose,” read my notes. “Lots of fruits, smoke, and earth. Then, mmmmm. Dried cherry, cedary flavors, good fruit, supple mouthfeel with a little tomato.” Other Ladies commented on the wine’s depth and appealing licorice notes.

In the end, we agreed that more sangiovese, especially in the form of Brunello, was worth drinking in the future. And we definitely felt the love for this cranky underdog.

Sangiovese: Italian meets Californian

Best of Tasting
Sesta di Sopra Brunello di Montalicino 2003 (Italy) $45 ****
This wine won over the group with its supple mouthfeel, depth of flavors, and complexity. Even though it’s not made with small, new-oak barrels, it had plenty of smoky, cedary characteristics. Great red and cherry flavors, licorice, and earth. Long finish.

Best Value
Frey Vineyards Sangiovese “Masut Vineyard” Mendocino County 2006 (California) $16 ***
House paint, V-8 juice, and celery salt were some of the comments that flew out of our mouths as we smelled this wine. Herbal and tomato noes announced that we were in the land of sangiovese. A couple of tasters were put off by “wierd” tastes, others loved its typicity.

Sesti Rosso di Montalcino 2006 (Italy) $27 ***
Ruby-red and rusty colored, this wine just shouted “sangiovese.” Cherry and blood orange on the nose, some pepper and plum. Tart, perrpery, brambly, dusty, loads of dried cherry and white pepper, with a long finish. One Lady said, “I smell puppy’s breath,” which we decided was better described as “meaty.”

Petroni “Rosso di Sonoma” Sonoma County 2006 (California) $24 ***
Cigar box, smoky tobacco, pepper, and dark fruit aromas introduce this agreeable wine. Although I felt it was well-made and I liked its ripe, black cherry flavors, it wasn’t my favorite because it didn’t taste like sangiovese — indeed, some cabernet and syrah help flesh things out here.

Podere Brizio Brunello di Montalcino 2000 (Italy) $49 **1/2
Ruby-colored, this fragrant wine smells like a field of violets. More fruit on the nose than the Sesti, but not as complex on the palate. Softer mouthfeel, but some ladies detected chemical and “synthetic” flavors.

Capezzana “Conti Contini” Sangiovese Toscana (Italy) $12 **
This wine has some body, and some interest on the nose, with a bit of barnyard and dark fruits. But overall it’s a disappointment: acidic, tannic, and with a clipped finish that made us think it was ill-made.

Altamura Sangiovese Napa Valley 2005 (California) $36 **
A darling of the wine press (Robert Parker gave it a 91, Wine Spectator a 92), this wine disappointed us. It had a nice, bright color, but then a sweet nose and sweet flavors on the palate were just too much — some Ladies were even reminded of Port. “Sweet and simple,” I wrote. Some cinnamon and clove on the finish. But this did just not taste like a sangiovese.