"UC"
> filippo
>
> > UC wrote:
> > > I agree. My thread was about this particular wine.
>
> > You are totally right. My apologies for hijacking your thread
> > with my fixed thought ;-)
>
> I think the marketing of a Chianti Riserva is a bit odd.

Generally speaking, you mean? Why so?

> Plain 'Chianti' is supposed to be a cheap wine, or at least that's what I
> thought.

Actually, it should not be supposed to be a "cheap wine". It is
supposed to be _on_ _average_ less pricy than a Chianti Classico. But
not a cheap wine, in theory. It depends on the specific implementation
of the Chianti-whatever wine: generally speaking a single estate wine
should ensure a more accurate product, still on the average.


> Why a $10 plain Chianti Riserva? It doesn't make any sense!
> Riservas are supposed to be special lots of wine from the best
> vineyards, right?

Yes, in general "riserva" is supposed to be a selection and not made
every year, but only in the best vintages. This theoretically
speaking.
They should be fuller bodied, and aged for longer. Again: on average.
A 10$ Chianti Riserva, i.e. a Chianti Riserva which reaches the US
final customer at 10$ per bottle, with all you lot told me about the
three-tier system of US wine distribution, would mean that this wine
left the bottler at about 2 $ per bottle, which sounds pretty low
price.
Maybe in this case the 3-tier system was just not operating, dunno...