I opened this bottle on Sunday night to have with an Italian Pot Roast. Pouring the wine, it displayed a beautifully-soft ruby color, with aromas of strawberries, raspberries and flowers soaring out of the glass. The palate however was not as remarkable as the nose, though elegant red fruit flavors were in balance with leather, mushroom and earthy nuances. A medium-bodied red that is very food-friendly, but is it considerably better than the '00 Rosso? A good wine, but not the best QPR at $40. 88pts.

i gave a test run to the 96 ciacci last night. wonderful nose, considerable amount of fruit, but still tight and tight on the palate. i will be waiting at least three more years before i go back to 96. i am sure the 98 is similar and will need a considerable amount of bottle age.

it's so interesting to see that the 96 and 98 need bottle age, but the 97, at least in my imo, seemed to drink extremely well young, yet also have the stuffing to go awhile as well.

I've never had experience with aged Brunello - what kind of characteristics does it pick up?

if everything goes right, the fruit and oak integrates well and the wine becomes more delicate, less tannic and less wood dominated. the fruit is normally black cherries, with nuances of truffles, soy, earth, leather and smoke. sometimes one or two, sometimes all. to really appreciate a brunello from an excellent vintage, you would usually need ten years of bottle age. before that , i believe the heavy use of oak tends to dominate. in many ways these wines are similar to barolo. they need time.

btw, when things don't go right, you are left with smoket astringent wines with little fruit.

OK I know that's the story but haven't they started making Brunello differently in the last 10 years. Less time in casks, more drinkable early.
So as with new style Barolo don't we have to wait another 10 years or so to see how the new style works?