Numanthia

ricard

Tags: assertive chocolate cinammon intensity liquorice power profound smoky toffee treacle vanilla velvety

Food pairing: Goat's cheese - superb.

Made from 100% Tinta de Toro (the local name for Tempranillo) from pre-phylloxera ungrafted vines. Alcohol b.v. 14.5%.

Frustratingly, this celebrated wine didn't match my expectations. I've had every vintage since 1998 and still consider Numanthia to be one of Spain's emblematic "new" wines. It's highly regarded by the critics: you're looking at a Robert Parker (well, Jay Miller) 98 here, which is a pretty serious Wine Advocate score, and Wine Spectator has rated previous vintages regularly in the 90s.

But on this occasion I couldn't muster a high-nineties experience. It's got the colour of youth: a dark, rich cherry of incredible intensity. The nose is smoky and expresses treacle and leather, with a discreet but unmistakeable background of vanilla and cinnamon. It's got tremendous volume and power on the palate. An expansive, assertive wine of unusual profundity, it exudes raw sensuality in the form of an earthy, rustic seductiveness, beautifully framed in a bold tannic structure that's surprisingly velvety and soft (compare, for example, with the 2003, which is tannic beyond belief). In the first hour the fruit was restrained and I wonder whether the acidity was also excessive - not a good combination! The wine was fighting to open up, so perhaps it needed decanting or breathing for a few hours. I admit it had improved by the end, and started to express more fruit, floral aromas, liquorice, toffee, cream and chocolate complexity. Remarkably, most of the fruit revealed itself on the finish rather than on the nose or palate - a sort of brambly, blackberry affair.

I think the best vintages are the 1998 and the 2000. The 2003 is an acquired taste, and the 2004, despite Jay Miller's fascination with it ("killer nose", "immense power", "sensational effort") probably needs cellaring for a decade or more before it starts to reveal its real virtues, which I regret to say, are at the moment mostly hidden from view.

It's difficult to do the 2004 justice, it struck me as not immediately as good as its worldwide reputation, although it's unquestionably a wine of considerable pedigree. I still think the Mauro 2004, which is cheaper and less admired (Jay Miller 92, WS in the low 90s probably), was a better wine.

Comment on this experience