Are Young Barolo Generally More Accessible And Enjoyable Than They Were 10 Years Ago?
0 voters
It would seem that if this forum is an indication, many are drinking and enjoying contemporary Barolo at age 10 or sometimes even younger. Are you one of them, or, are you still of the mind that Barolo requires decades of aging?
Not happy with the 2 or 3 young ones drank in the last several years. Much happier with the 15+ years that I’ve drank.
I think there could be two pieces here. first, we definitely have some threads like otto’s earlier today about 2016 Barolo. I imagine that Otto is scoring some of those wines based on what they are now, but also their potential, understanding that they have heights they will achieve that they are too tightly wound for right now. then, there is a string of Barolo vintages like 2011 and 2015 that will tend to probably provide wines that are more enjoyable now than the wines from the 70s might have been
Indeed I am. Normally I score the wines only on how they perform now, i.e. if a wine performs very poorly but shows tremendous potential for future development (and I know the producer is known to make wines that both require and benefit from extended aging), I’m still going to rate the wine with a low score, because that’s how it is at the time of the tasting. However, if I know the wine is going to be tremendously better in the future, I’m going to mention it as well in the tasting notes.
If a wine is drinking wonderfully in its youth and going to be even better in the following years, I’m going to rate the wine highly and also comment how it will be even better in the future with a possible estimate how long it will take before the wine is hitting its peak.
And yeas, I think that even the traditionalists are making some very accessible wines now. Some vintages can even be best for short-term consumption, not really fit for longer-term aging, while some classic vintages like 2016 producing wines that are wonderful now and going to get so much better with further aging.
Oops. I voted ‘no’ without reading the first post as defining “young” as 10YRs. I had assumed young meant within a few years of release date, and I find many vintages too structured at this time (2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016). That said I expect to enjoy 2014-16 at the 10YR mark (that is also , but I expecting to start enjoying most of these vintages at the 8-10 year mark (2013 being the main outlier), which also can be defined differently I guess (10YR from vintage date or release date).
I am frequently surprised by how young WBers drink Barolo – and I mean actually drink, not counting the “early look at a vintage” tasting things like Otto’s.
I have to admit, though, since I have always had much better experiences with Barolo at 15+ years than younger, I don’t go buy a $80 2015 Barolo and have it with dinner, so maybe those do drink differently/better these days and I just haven’t tried it.
I drink a lot of young Barolo/Barbaresco and Nebbiolo/Langhe Rosso/Ghemme. The minor and young vine wines from traditional producers give a lot of pleasure at young age, pending shut down. If I had to hazard a guess, over the past two years I’ve opened and enjoyed more 5-8 year old bottles of Nebbiolo than any other single category of red wine.
I think it’s hard to deny the fact that there’s been a shift, even among those producers still considered “traditional,” towards wines that, among other characteristics, are more accessible when young. I remember the days when it was pretty unpleasant to taste young barolo that actually seemed like barolo. I’m sure a number of factors of both nature and nurture have contributed to that shift.
That said, I’m not sure the aging curve is all that different, if you are looking for mature examples. In other words, I don’t think the early accessibility means the wines are getting to a more mature stage sooner than they used to, only that the early stages have changed in character. I say I’m not sure because I feel we’re still smack in the middle of this change and I’m still watching closely as my favorites from the last decade mature. I absolutely agree that it’s easier to drink young barolo now than it was a decade or more ago, but I still prefer to wait on the serious wines.
+1 with every point you made. I remember the controversy when in the late 90’s Bordeaux shifted being phenolicly ripe making it more accessible earlier. Many were convinced that the wines would be short lived. But chemical analysis would often show that tannin levels were not diminished, but simply riper and sweeter. Now at age 20, I haven’t heard of any massive failures with these wines.
A lot of Barolo producers say that Barolo goes through an aging curve that puts Barolo to sleep for a while, so I’m not surprised that as Piedmont has gotten warmer even traditional Barolo is more approachable young in some vintages. That said, some vintages do remain quite structured though, like 2013 - a tasting of those wines a few years back was at times fairly unpleasant. Since many recent vintages, like 11, 15 and even to an extent 16 are fairly warm vintages, it’s not really a surprise a lot of the wines are reasonably approachable young. I’ve certainly opened some 2016 normales and they’re quite tasty, but it all depends what you’re looking for. But I went fairly deep on 2013 Cavallotto riservas, and I haven’t touched them despite Cavallotto generally making fairly approachable wines for a traditional producer.
That said, I also think people sometimes overfetishize older Barolo; my best experience with older nebbiolo has all been at around 30 years of age, and that’s for the best vintages. Beyond that, they’re generally more interesting than great.
I very much agree with your conclusion, but I do wonder how much of the shift is just a reaction to warmer vintages and better winemaking. There’s no virtue in making wine that’s unpleasant to drink young so long as it tastes good when it’s old as well. 
Precisely what I meant by nature and nurture!
Yes, and to be clear, I wasn’t disagreeing. I suspect the changes in winemaking have been very minor and in large part a reaction to warmer vintages. Cappellano was very approachable in 2011 and 2014 (less so in 2015), and I doubt he’s making too many changes in winemaking, lol.
Just drank a 06 Clerico Percristina that was mind blowing with plenty of life left, while at the same time had a '04 Oddero Rocche that was great…both on somewhat different spectrums, one considered more modernist, the other more traditionalist.
It would be interesting if some of those who think most Barolo continues to require extended aging would elaborate.
If you like older Barolo, then you need to age Barolo. Whether it’s approachable young isn’t really the point - it’s not the same experience.
Actually, it’s exactly the point of this inquiry. Most Barolo has long been thought to be pretty much undrinkable until it had aged for a long time. So that’s what is being discussed here. The fact that it may also be capable of long termed aging well is a secondary issue.
That’s not correct. There a long spectrum of age for drinking Barolo. Some like Barolo at 10-15 years of age, whereas others like Barolo at 20, 30, 50 years of age, even more. How approachable it is in its infancy is moot. I don’t think anyone here has suggested Barolo was undrinkable until it’s at least 30 years old; that’s not true even for very structured vintages.
I would also add that the lack of approachability of Barolo has always had different views depending on the perspective; most Barolo producers* one talks to drink their Barolos younger than a lot of people who like their Barolos older.
*And yes, I realize they need the move their product.
If you value tertiary/secondary aromas and flavor, then it needs more time. It’s one thing to enjoy a nebbiolo whose tannins have softened up a bit. It’s another thing to experience a genuinely aged bottle. The changes in winemaking don’t seem to have accellerrated the development of secondary elements. They’ve simply produced wines that can be enjoyed earlier for their fruit, with tannins that are softer than they were in decades past.
We need to get Mr. Levenberg involved in this discussion.