Tasting six Brunello di Montalcino, vintage 2010

Brunello di Montalcino is a red DOCG Italian wine produced in the vineyards surrounding the town of Montalcino, in the province of Siena, located about 80 km south of Florence, in the Tuscany wine region. Famous for being the DOCG with the longest ageing requirement and for its prodigiously tannic, age-worthy Sangiovese, Brunello di Montalcino is a gem among Italy’s fine wine regions.

Notes on the vintage

Decanter magazine

Brunello di Montalcino 2010 – the finest vintage yet?

The near-perfect growing conditions in 2010 have resulted in one of the finest vintages in a generation. The beautiful conditions produced first rate Sangiovese, which in the hands of skilled wine makers has resulted in the finest examples in a generation, better even than the highly-rated 2004 and 2006 vintages. 2010 really is something special.

The 2010 vintage provided perfect conditions throughout the year and is clearly exceptional. Generous rainfall enabled vital refilling of the reserves during winter and the spring continued this theme, bringing vigour to the vines, whilst the weather during the summer months was warm enough for optimum ripening and moderated by very few heat spikes which kept away the threat of over ripeness. The end result brought wines of depth and complexity, with good levels of acidity bringing freshness to the sumptuous fruit and ripe, assertive tannins. There is tremendous structure behind these wines which suggests a long, illustrious life ahead.

Brunello di Montalcino 2010 panel tasting results August 14, 2018

Rated as one of the top all-time vintages in Montalcino, many unheralded producers did very well in this tasting.

Jancis Robinson

Tuscany 2010

Much cooler than the hot 2009. A very wet winter continuing into a very wet spring was followed by a cool growing cycle. The heat that came in July helped to reduce the delay in ripening that was by then an estimated 15 days behind schedule. Sangiovese was harvested as late as the third week of October and many producers had to do several pickings to obtain regularly ripe grapes in the fermentation tanks. Montalcino, exceptionally, was drier than other parts of Tuscany and the long and slow ripening of the grapes resulted in what is considered an outstanding vintage with true ageing potential for years to come.

Wine Scholar Guild

Tuscany 2010

The growing season was quite warm, but not torrid in 2010, with average rainfall totals spread out throughout the year. Thanks to warm days and cool nights in the weeks leading up to harvest, the grapes were picked at excellent levels of ripeness. Despite the warm temperatures, acidity levels are higher than normal, giving these wines excellent aging potential. Look for 15-20 years of drinkability with the top wines.

Vintage charts

Wines to taste

Brief tasting notes

Bottles were opened 4 hours before tasting; all wines opened up in the glass when poured, suggesting that they could have been opened much earlier. The eight amateur participants rated all of the wines as excellent.

Val di Suga Montalcino

After discussion, voted third best. Opened up in the glass: forest floor, tar, resin / rubber, red berries, butter. Taste of fig, with citrus and earth aftertaste. Went well with the food at the end of the tasting (Mediterranean pie).

Fattoi

Cork very hard to remove. Strong berry / acid combination in the mouth; and took much longer to open up in the glass. Aroma of mint, salami, tar: and taste of jammy plum and citrus. Quite different to the other wines; and everyone agreed that it went best with the food at the end.

Col d'Orcia

Much less tannin / acid initially. After discussion, voted equal fourth best. Aroma of soil / wet leaves and pot pourri; rich taste of acid, plum and soil / cigar box, aftertaste of citrus and tannin.

Tenuta La Fuga

Darker colour. Less tannin / acid and milder taste initially, but opened up. However, much more elegant immediately, and voted as the best wine by all participants. Aroma grass / vegetation initially. Mild but elegant taste, notably liquorice, plum, leather, tannins.

Fattoria dei Barbi

After discussion, voted equal fourth best. Mild initially, pine needles, but opened up to aroma of plum, vanilla, pine / resin; taste of resin / kerosene initially, followed by very fruity plum.

Castiglion del Bosco

Hardly any pale rim, and much darker throughout; less tannin / acid, but keeps it — clearly destined for a long life. After discussion, voted as second best. Started with least taste initially, but later much stronger fruity flavours, notably plum.

Afterword

When dealing with a comparative wine tasting, we might consider how the Ancient Greeks viewed time. They had two words for time: Chronos and Kairos. Chronos refers to the quantitative or measurable passage of time. Kairos refers to a qualitative assessment of the right time, the opportune or perfect moment. Clearly, when deciding when to open a bottle of wine we consider Chronos, but we are also hoping for Kairos. A good wine tasting gets both concepts right.

Medical research concerning heart disease indicates that wines are safe to drink

The main point that I made in the previous blog post (Contrary to WHO, recent medical research shows that wine is safe for cancer) was that the WHO's recent attack on drinking alcohol has focused on cancer as a cause of health problems, and that this has been shown by medical evidence not to be true for wine.

I also pointed out that cancer is only the No.2 cause of deaths, whereas No. 1 is heart disease, as shown in the first figure below (from Leading causes of death in the US, 2019—2023). Indeed, the WHO Cardiovascular diseases 2023 reports an estimated 17.9 million deaths each year, making up 32% of total global fatalities.

So, the thing we should be most interested in is what is known technically as Cardiovascular Disease, the No. 1 cause of deaths in the USA for many years. That is what I will do in this post, noting that it also is fairly safe as far as wine is concerned.

I will proceed in the same manner as last time. As before, it is important to first note that wine is not the same as other forms of alcohol intake, especially in terms of the medical effects. Then we can proceed to look at a recent research publication (17 June 2023) that compiled the results from 25 medical research studies concerning the effects of wine on people in relation to heart disease (Association between wine consumption with cardiovascular disease and cardiovascular mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis). This has made it clear that heart disease is not often associated with wine intake, as opposed to other forms of alcohol or other health issues.

So, this publication (Nutrients 2023, 15:2785) was based on a search of the medical literature, in which 7 suitable studies were found from the 1980s/90s and 18 from the 2000s. The studies were from nine countries, including Australia, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Greece, Italy, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. The study looked separately at cardiovascular mortality, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and coronary heart disease (CHD).

The detailed summary of the publication is this:

Background: The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was: (i) to examine the association between wine consumption and cardiovascular mortality, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and coronary heart disease (CHD), and (ii) to analyse whether this association could be influenced by personal and study factors, including the participants’ mean age, the percentage of female subjects, follow-up time and percentage of current smokers.

Methods: In order to conduct this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched several databases for longitudinal studies from their inception to March 2023. This study was previously registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021293568).

Results: This systematic review included 25 studies, of which the meta-analysis included 22 studies. The pooled RR [Relative Risk] for the association of wine consumption and the risk of CHD using the DerSimonian and Laird approach was 0.76 (95% CIs: 0.69, 0.84), for the risk of CVD was 0.83 (95% CIs: 0.70, 0.98), and for the risk of cardiovascular mortality was 0.73 (95% CIs: 0.59, 0.90).

Conclusions: This research revealed that wine consumption has an inverse relationship to cardiovascular mortality, CVD, and CHD. Age, the proportion of women in the samples, and follow-up time did not influence this association. Interpreting these findings with prudence was necessary because increasing wine intake might be harmful to individuals who are vulnerable to alcohol because of age, medication, or their pathologies.

The situation is now quite clear. Wine is no more dangerous for increasing the risk of heart disease than it is for increasing the risk of cancer. It is worth also noting that a more recent, much smaller, set of medical data (Urinary tartaric acid as a biomarker of wine consumption and cardiovascular risk: the PREDIMED trial) suggests that “∼3–12 and 12–35 glasses/month of wine, were associated with lower CVD risk [HR 0.62 (95% CI 0.38; 1.00), P=.050 and HR 0.50 (95% CI 0.27; 0.95), P=.035, respectively].” This reduction in risk has previously been reported in the generalist literature (New evidence on the relationship between moderate wine consumption and cardiovascular health).

The WHO stated attitude in their 2023 publication in The Lancet that: “no safe amount of alcohol consumption for cancers and health can be established” (Health and cancer risks associated with low levels of alcohol consumption) is therefore even more mysterious than I noted last week, flying as it does in the face of two sets of comprehensive medical evidence.

Mitch Frank, editor of Wine Spectator, thinks that this “is part of a movement trying to paint all alcohol as dangerous by making broad, oversimplified claims”(Cherry-picked science? the confusing narrative around wine and health). In that same article, wine writer Dave McIntyre says that the current anti-alcohol movement, which in his recent coverage he dubs The New Prohibition, is trying to shift consumer messaging away from drinking responsibly to not drinking at all. Frank also calls attention to a major new scientific report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) (National Academies publishes findings on alcohol and health) which found that moderate drinking is linked to lower death rates compared to not drinking at all. This finding is expected to help shape U.S. dietary guidelines for 2025–2030.

Contrary to WHO, recent medical research shows that wine is safe for cancer

One of the main points that I made in my previous blog post (Recent science reports suggesting that wine alcohol is usually safe to drink) was that the World Health Organization's recent attack on drinking alcohol has focused mainly on cancer as a cause of health problems. Other commentators, however, have emphasized alternative medical issues, which may be less troublesome.

You should read that previous post to set the scene. This obviously has a big effect on the wine industry, affecting wine sales especially among the young people.

In this new post, I will take a more recent look specifically at cancer in relationship to wine consumption. I will look at the range of the other health issues next week, noting that they are also not necessarily as big a deal as has been made out. So, we can all continue to safely drink wine (in moderation).

First, however, it is worth mentioning that there actually is a good reason for the WHO’s focus on cancer. If we take the USA as but one example, we can see that Cancer has been recorded as the No. 2 cause of death, behind Heart disease, as shown in the first figure (from Leading causes of death in the US, 2019—2023). So, anything that potentially increases cancer risk is worth looking at, as far as health is concerned.

However, it is also important to note that wine is not the same as other forms of alcohol intake, especially in terms of the medical effects. Indeed, a very recent research publication (31 January 2025) compiled the results from 42 medical research studies concerning the effects of wine on people in relation to cancer (Consumption of red versus white wine and cancer risk: a meta-analysis of observational studies). This has made it clear that cancer is not associated with wine intake, as opposed to other forms of alcohol or other health issues.

So, this publication (Nutrients 2025, 17:534) was based on a search of the medical literature, in which 8 studies were found from the 1990s and 34 from the 2000s. There were 24 studies found from the US / Canada and 18 in Other regions, which are quite respectable sample numbers. The organs studied for cancer included: skin, lung, kidney / urinary tract, colon / rectum, prostate, ovary, and female breast.

The detailed summary of the publication is this:

 

Objectives: While alcoholic beverage consumption increases cancer risk, red wine has been touted as a healthier option. To address this unexplored question, we conducted a meta-analysis to summarize evidence from observational studies.

 

Methods: A literature search of PubMed and EMBASE through December 2023 identified studies examining wine and cancer risk. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed to estimate relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for an association between wine intake and overall cancer risk.

Results: A total of 20 cohort and 22 case–control studies were included. Wine intake was not associated with overall cancer risk (n = 95,923) when comparing the highest vs. lowest levels of consumption, with no differences observed by wine type (red: summary RR = 0.98 [95% CI = 0.87, 1.10], white: 1.00 [0.91, 1.10]; Pdifference = 0.74). However, white wine intake was significantly associated with an increased risk of cancer among women (white: 1.26 [1.05, 1.52], red: 0.91 [95% CI: 0.72, 1.16], Pdifference = 0.03) and in analyses restricted to cohort studies (white: 1.12 [1.03, 1.22], red: 1.02 [95% CI: 0.96, 1.09], Pdifference = 0.02). For individual cancer sites, there was a significant difference in associations between red and white wine intake only in skin cancer risk [6 studies, white: 1.22 (1.14, 1.30), red: 1.02 (0.95, 1.09); Pdifference = 0.0003].

Conclusions: We found no differences in the association between red or white wine consumption and overall cancer risk, challenging the common belief that red wine is healthier than white wine. Our significant results related to white wine intake in subgroup analyses warrant further investigation.

The situation is now quite clear. The WHO's 2023 publication in The Lancet that: “no safe amount of alcohol consumption for cancers and health can be established” (Health and cancer risks associated with low levels of alcohol consumption) has two limitations. First, it pools all alcohol types together, rather than looking at wine separately — and wine is very different in terms of its health effect. Second, it does not take into account the 2025 publication concerning the effect of wine on cancer — this points out that the medical studies do not find any important effects of wine consumption on human cancer.

As a final point, it is also worth noting the comments about WHO made by Ramon Estruch:

When it comes to the WHO declaration, Prof. Estruch has some scepticism about the methods used. 

 

First, the declaration was based on the Global Burden of Disease work, and he says the results were confounded because the general consumption of alcohol across the world was dropped into the mix, and the specific way that alcohol is consumed is extremely important.

“Context is very important in the effects of alcoholic beverages,” he says. “Drinking gin outside of meals is not the same as drinking wine with meals. The frequency of consumption is also important.”

He says another problem was that some studies considered weekly consumption of alcohol, rather than daily consumption. “It’s not the same. If you have one drink, seven days a week, it’s not the same as seven drinks in one day. That’s binge drinking.”

Recent science reports suggesting that wine alcohol is usually safe to drink

We are all well aware that back in 2023 the World Health Organization (WHO) published in The Lancet a statement that “no safe amount of alcohol consumption for cancers and health can be established” (Health and cancer risks associated with low levels of alcohol consumption). No evidence was explicitly provided in this publication, but half a dozen references are cited in support of the claims that: “The overall risks and harms resulting from alcohol consumption have been systematically assessed and are well documented.”

I thought that it might be interesting to gather together references to publications that refute these claims, or at least suggest that they are exaggerated; and that is what I have done here and in the next post.

At first, I will start by pointing out that a reply to the above publication was published in The Lancet a couple of months later (Alcohol and health: all, none, or somewhere in-between?):

The risks and harms associated with alcohol are well documented, and the substantial harms of heavy or binge drinking are not debated. But health benefits of lower levels of alcohol intake have been widely reported. Many studies have shown that low or moderate amounts of alcohol (particularly red wine) can reduce risk for cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and even death — possibly due in part to a tendency to reduce systemic inflammatory mediators. These benefits might be limited to adults older than 40 years ... Potential benefits of light to moderate alcohol consumption have also been reported among patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Dire warnings like these seem to have become commonplace (a similar statement about alcohol and cancer was issued by the American Society of Clinical Oncology in 2017) and have the potential to be ignored by many people as undesirable and unattainable. WHO correctly argues that no studies have addressed whether the potential benefits of alcohol on cardiovascular disease and diabetes outweigh the risks with regard to cancer, and that the harms of alcohol fall disproportionately on disadvantaged and vulnerable populations. In view of these truths, a why-risk-it approach might seem sensible. But interpretation of the seemingly conflicting reports requires consideration of many factors, including the varying levels of alcohol intake considered light to moderate, competing risk factors for disease, choice of comparator groups, and the known pitfalls of self-reported alcohol consumption. It is also important to put the results of these studies in the context of absolute levels of risk (versus relative risk) associated with alcohol intake, which are generally quite small.

So, even at the time, the WHO’s pronouncement was questioned, because it focused on cancer rather than any other health characteristics (of which there are many!). And, of course, alcoholism itself is not good for you, by definition.

However, organizations that advocate for more stringent policies around the sale and marketing of alcohol are gaining momentum (What do neo-prohibitionists really want?). In fact, it has been suggested that the influence is entering US politics (Source says Feds will declare “no amount of alcohol” is healthy). So, we need to take this seriously.

Now we might look at some other publications, that review the topic. These also refer to things other than cancer, and in particular they focus on wine as opposed to other forms of alcohol. I will look at an overview paper here, and then continue next week with some more details.

We should start with defining low (1–7 drinks/week) and moderate (8–21 drinks/week) wine drinkers, as designated in the best of the recent review articles (Moderate wine consumption and health: A narrative review). These researchers note:

Although it is clearly established that the abuse of alcohol is seriously harmful to health, much epidemiological and clinical evidence seem to underline the protective role of moderate quantities of alcohol and in particular of wine on health. This narrative review aims to re-evaluate the relationship between the type and dose of alcoholic drink and reduced or increased risk of various diseases, in the light of the most current scientific evidence. In particular, in vitro studies on the modulation of biochemical pathways and gene expression of wine bioactive components were evaluated. Twenty-four studies were selected after PubMed, Scopus and Google Scholar searches for the evaluation of moderate alcohol/wine consumption and health effects: eight studies concerned cardiovascular diseases, three concerned type 2 diabetes, four concerned neurodegenerative diseases, five concerned cancer and four were related to longevity. A brief discussion on viticultural and enological practices potentially affecting the content of bioactive components in wine is included. The analysis clearly indicates that wine differs from other alcoholic beverages and its moderate consumption not only does not increase the risk of chronic degenerative diseases but is also associated with health benefits particularly when included in a Mediterranean diet model. Obviously, every effort must be made to promote behavioral education to prevent abuse, especially among young people.

So, wine is not the same as other forms of alcohol. If you want to get technical: “the beneficial effects of wine are mostly derived from its polyphenolic content, and this represents the crucial difference between wine and other alcoholic beverages.”

We also need to get clear what we mean by “a drink”. We might try this definition (Why do medical experts define moderate drinking as one to two glasses of wine per day?):

In the United States, the Departments of Agriculture (USDA) and Health and Human Services (HHS) recommend that men consume no more than two alcoholic beverages per day, and that women consume no more than one. Those U.S. Dietary Guidelines issued by the federal government also serve as guidelines for medical professionals when they define moderate drinking.

However, exactly how much alcohol constitutes one “drink” varies from country to country, as do dietary guidelines. In the U.S., one “drink” is defined as containing 14 grams (0.6 fluid ounces) of pure alcohol, which equates to 12 ounces of beer (5 percent alcohol by volume), 5 ounces of wine (12 percent ABV) or 1.5 ounces of 80-proof distilled spirits (40 percent).

In Europe, a standard glass is often taken to contain 12 grams of alcohol, instead. This is: 50 cl standard beer, 33 cl strong beer, 12 cl wine, 4 cl of liquor (Dags för “alkoholfri operation“ [in Swedish]). By risky use of alcohol these scientists then mean: >14 standard glasses / week for men and ≥5 standard glasses at one time for men, and >9 standard glasses / week for women and ≥4 standard glasses at one time for women. This Swedish paper then discusses how much you should reduce these before hospital operations.

That might be enough science for one week. Next week I will look some more at where those glasses can safely go, according to research.

Search popularity versus the price of Australasian wines

I have sometimes looked at this topic: The relationship of wine price to wine-quality scores. However, that mostly involves the professionals (who provide the scores), not the public (ie. the rest of us). So, today I thought that I might look at web-search popularity of wines, instead. I have previously done this for: The world’s most expensive wines! However, that situation is not for most of us either!

Recently the idea has been raised that Australia and New Zealand might become a single wine zone (Reimagine the border of New World wine regions). Indeed, there is already a joint Australian & New Zealand Wine Industry Directory (2025 Wine Industry Directory released).  So, this might be an interesting topic for looking at search popularity. (I have previously looked at their wine production and consumption: Australia and New Zealand wine comparisons). Are these areas equally as popular for the web searches for their wines?

The article cited above on unification notes:

Given this year’s joint tasting event, the wine industry is curious to see the possibility of Australia and New Zealand becoming a unified wine zone. In the evolving landscape of New World wines, Australia and New Zealand have emerged as prominent players in the New World wine landscape, each offering distinct and high-quality wine profiles. While collaborative marketing efforts have gained momentum, it's essential to understand the unique characteristics that define their wine industries.

To compare the similarity of any two regions, Wine Searcher is a good place to choose data, since it is dedicated to accumulating a database of both the price (see: Average Wine Prices) and the search popularity (see: Wine-Searcher Technology) of wines. It claims to base the data on 240 million searches of its database by consumers each year.

Wine Searcher publishes annual Top lists of its data, and the recent ones of relevance here are:

• The world's most wanted Australian wines of 2025
• The world's most wanted New Zealand wines of 2025.

I have plotted these two sets of data (10 wines for each country) in the first graph, with each wine represented by a point, located with its Search rank horizontally and Average Price vertically.

As you can see, there are three Australian wines where the price stands out from the main bunch of wines, both Australian and New Zealand. These are: Henschke Hill of Grace Shiraz, Penfolds Grange Bin 95, and Penfolds Bin 707 Cabernet Sauvignon. Otherwise, there is no particular relationship between search rank and price — popular wines for search are neither the cheapest nor the most expensive wines, for either country.

Equally importantly, though, all of the Australian wines are more popular in search terms than are all but two of the New Zealand wines, which are: Kumeu River Maté's Vineyard Chardonnay, and Cloudy Bay Sauvignon Blanc. The Australian wines thus appear to be much better known. This is in spite of The rise and rise of New Zealand wine.

The article about unifying the Australian and New Zealand wine zones does note differences between the two countries:

Australia's wine industry is renowned for its diversity, with climates and terroirs that create a rich variety of wine styles. The country has developed a comprehensive appellation system featuring over 60 designated wine regions, producing wine in every state ... Today, Australia ranks among the world's largest wine exporters.

Renowned for its aromatic Sauvignon Blanc, New Zealand is a leading wine-producing nation, acclaimed for its cool-climate Pinot Noir, Chardonnay, Bordeaux-style blends, and Syrah. Located in the Pacific Ocean, 2,000 kilometres (1,300 miles) southeast of Australia, its 10 major wine regions span two main islands, with Marlborough as the most prominent.

So, Australia is a much bigger and more diverse wine-producing region. Indeed, it has previously been noted that New Zealand should be doing more to emphasize its own unique place in terms of quality (New Zealand Pinot finds its place):

In 2023, New Zealand was the sixth largest exporter of wine in the world by value; by volume it was the 11th. The US remains its number one market, largely due to its thirst for Sauvignon Blanc ... Eric Asimov, perhaps bravely, furthered that New Zealand needs to do more to promote its product and engage more with sommeliers and importers ... He concluded that by promoting its own tremendous story, New Zealand Pinot Noir will then find its place in the world.

On the other hand, it has also been suggest that: The next great Chardonnays are from New Zealand. In particular:

New Zealand has been producing Chardonnay for decades, but quality examples of this wine are on the rise from both islands ... In fact, it was the most-planted variety in New Zealand in the 1990s. Sauvignon Blanc may now rule when it comes to quantity, but the quality of Chardonnay is on its own steep incline.

Interestingly, in self-deprecating style, it has also been suggested that fine wine is perhaps not what New Zealand should be emphasizing (Leading NZ producer to move away from fine wine). Two Felton Road wines are in the list of the top ten most-searched wines (8: Felton Road Bannockburn Pinot Noir; 9: Felton Road Block 5 Pinot Noir). However, their producer has noted:

“The whole notion of fine wine is based around over-priced snobbery,” declared Felton Road owner and vigneron Nigel Greening during a panel discussion at the Pinot conference held in Christchurch between 11–13 February ... From here on, he added, Felton Road is “uncomfortable belonging to the fine wine sphere.”

Mind you, the same article also notes:

Felton Road is no stranger to fine wine. One of Central Otago’s leading producers, it commands impressive prices globally for its organic and biodynamic wines. One of just a handful of producers to make Pinot Noir exclusively from Bannockburn, New Zealand’s latest GI, which became a protected region on 1 February 2022, Felton Road also crafts premium Chardonnay and Riesling from three vineyards in this coveted spot on the South Island.

So, as a conclusion, pay attention from now on — an increase in New Zealand web searches for wines will indicate that you are doing so. But look for the affordable stuff (see US imports here: Can you tell the difference between Australia and New Zealand wine?).

As a final aside, we could look at the critics scores for the 40 Most Popular American Products (ie. the most-searched-for wines). Here, in this second graph, we can see that there is a very distinct increasing relationship between score and price. Personally, I could not afford any of the wines with scores >91 points. This is not true for either the Australia or New Zealand wines (graphed above), where I could afford most of the wines with these scores.