Nicolas Belfrage: Literally opaque. How can this be 100 percent Sangiovese? Nose is neutral, and palate lacks acidity; has fatness without elegance. Very concentrated; possibly a Parker wine but not elegant Brunello. 12.5

Stephen Brook: Rich fleshy black-fruit nose, with some licorice. Voluptuous and bold, very concentrated, with huge but ripe tannins, this is a mighty Brunello with, perhaps, a touch too much force and drive. Undoubtedly impressive, it’s also rather overwhelming and arguably too extracted and thus lacking in typicity and clarity. Perhaps my judgment is clouded after tasting 42 other Brunellos, but I’ll give this the benefit of the doubt. Not for the faint-hearted and demands cellaring. 18.5

Andrew Jefford: Deep black-red, with some opacity. Warm, rich, enticing: This is a gorgeous aroma, with lots of vellum, flesh, and richness. There is a sense of fullness and thickness here that suggests fine raw materials. A lovely weave of forest, cream, pencil, cedar, and Havana leaf over beautifully ripe fruits that hover between the red and black spectrum. Complex and teasing, the kind of thing that could detain you for hours. Here, too, the wine is riveting, with huge intensity and depth, though the actual flavors are a little spikier than the aromas suggested. Give it time. This is huge, multidimensional, complex, layered, intricate, and quintessentially Tuscan. You could fault it by saying it is hard, bitter, overextractive, and austere, but given the cultural context, I find it hard to imagine anything better. An intense, long, provocative, and challenging red wine with a two-decade lifespan quite easily ahead of it. The antithesis of Châteauneuf—or of Bordeaux 2009. But great nonetheless, with all its difficulties and austerities. 18.5