My turn to make dinner last night, but I was too tired to go back ojut
to the store. A rummage through the fridge led to a pasta with a
ricotta, spinach, parmesan and bacon sauce. Betsy threw together a
green salad with mango and peppers. I opened a bottle of 1999 Cantele
Salice Salentino Riserva. Label says it's 85% Negroamaro grapes and 15%
Malvasia. Rather ripe dark fruit, decent acidity, some slightly drying
tannins. Some light pleasant aromas of vanilla oak and roadtar. Not a
bad wine for the price, and I've touted it in past vintages as a QPR
favorite. But this doesn't excite me. Part of the problem is probably
the match - an unoaked white would have been a better match. Yet a sip
well after dinner still left me unexcited, and more than half the
bottle remained. B-

Grade disclaimer: I'm a very easy grader, basically A is an excellent
wine, B a good wine, C mediocre. Anything below C means I wouldn't
drink at a party where it was only choice. Furthermore, I offer no
promises of objectivity, accuracy, and certainly not of consistency.

"DaleW" > skrev i melding
oups.com...
>......... I opened a bottle of 1999 Cantele
> Salice Salentino Riserva. Label says it's 85% Negroamaro grapes and 15%
> Malvasia. Rather ripe dark fruit, decent acidity, some slightly drying
> tannins. Some light pleasant aromas of vanilla oak and roadtar. Not a
> bad wine for the price, and I've touted it in past vintages as a QPR
> favorite. But this doesn't excite me.........

Slightly corked?
Anders

Taurino's Salice Salentino product is very consistent, but I like the
Notarpnaro much better.

Cantele? Who knows? Not all producers are top-rate.

DaleW wrote:
> My turn to make dinner last night, but I was too tired to go back ojut
> to the store. A rummage through the fridge led to a pasta with a
> ricotta, spinach, parmesan and bacon sauce. Betsy threw together a
> green salad with mango and peppers. I opened a bottle of 1999 Cantele
> Salice Salentino Riserva. Label says it's 85% Negroamaro grapes and 15%
> Malvasia. Rather ripe dark fruit, decent acidity, some slightly drying
> tannins. Some light pleasant aromas of vanilla oak and roadtar. Not a
> bad wine for the price, and I've touted it in past vintages as a QPR
> favorite. But this doesn't excite me. Part of the problem is probably
> the match - an unoaked white would have been a better match. Yet a sip
> well after dinner still left me unexcited, and more than half the
> bottle remained. B-
>
> Grade disclaimer: I'm a very easy grader, basically A is an excellent
> wine, B a good wine, C mediocre. Anything below C means I wouldn't
> drink at a party where it was only choice. Furthermore, I offer no
> promises of objectivity, accuracy, and certainly not of consistency.

Anders,
When someone uses "dull" that's often my first reaction (a TCA taint
below perception threshold), but I don't think this is the case here. I
just retasted this tonight, and what I think:
1) this is a good wine for it's $8 pricetag, but was too
heavy/ponderous for the meal.
2) more importantly, I was tired yesterday. '82 Mouton ( a wine I love)
would have probably gotten a A- ("really nice, but not thrilling").
While my disclaimer notes that I make no claims of consistency, most of
us view tasting notes (from anyone, professional or amateur) as real
snaphots of wines at a particular moment. When in fact they are
snapshots of wines at a particular moment as seen through a flawed lens
(in this case, me). I've noted before that maybe one should take
exuberant reviews of wines I had on a special night with Betsy (or
first night I saw her after she got back from a tour) with a grain of
salt, but how is the reader to know everytime I've had a bad day? No
biggie with me, but one can extrapolate to other reviewers. Taste IS
subjective.