I had my magnum of 2000 last November, and it was fantastic. Maybe my best “hit a Barolo at the perfect moment” episode in years.
We had it at a restaurant and it had only an hour or so in the decanter, but it was ready to go.
2000 was a hot year in Piemonte, but I don’t know how it compares to 1997 in that respect.
Oh 97 was hot, first of the new climate change ‘Hots’. Suckling loved the vintage.
I never bought either vintage, but my impression from reading and from visits to the Langhe in '98, '00 and '02 was that 2000 didn’t pose the same kinds of heat issues that 1997 did. I’ve noted a number of good experiences reported here with 2000 Barolos. I don’t recall many tasting notes here on the '97s.
Decanter in its vintage table notes the very ripe quality of the '97s:
Vintage: 1997
Rating: 3.5*
A hot and precocious summer led to some overripeness, though fresher in Barbaresco. Plump wines with immediate appeal, but limited structure.
Drink upVintage: 2000
Rating: 4*
A hot late summer led to very ripe wines with moderate acidity and some jamminess. Appealing but initially overrated.
Drink up
Wine Spectator alludes to that difference in fruit quality, also:
2000 - 93 Drink - Rich and opulent reds with round tannins and exciting fruit; more forward in style
1997 - 93 Drink - Superripe, opulent, flamboyant wines
(So much for their cover story touting 2000 as the vintage of the century!)
For what it’s worth (not that much), the Wine Advocate vintage chart as of late 2013 rated 1997 93 points and '00 was put at 91.
But it was 2000 that WS proclaimed the best ever!
Being curious, I checked the CellarTracker notes on the '97. While the average is 93.6 points, in a number of cases, the same tasters report significantly different experiences with different bottles, sometimes drunk within a few weeks of each other. There are several notes from a dozen years ago saying it was “mature” or “at its peak.”
There are also a number of unrated, “flawed” bottles that aren’t factored into the average. Some were corked, but there also bottles reported to be reduced (!), cooked or over the hill.
So it sounds like it may have had a lot of bottle variation from an early stage.
My sense is that a lot of producers struggled with '97 in Barolo and the results have been decidedly mixed at best. I can’t recall having the Monprivato. Giacosa baroli were consistently “meh”, although he made some good barbaresci. The Bartolo Mascarello can be enjoyable, but very atypical compared to other vintages. The Gaja Barolo Sperrs is delicious. But compared to the other adjoining hot vintages, 98 and 00 have stood the test of time better.
As John Morris noted, G Mascarello has lengthy track record of wild bottle variation
I’m sure I could have been wrong to blame only heat or the cork with this being the case. I have heard about this with older vintages of Bartolo, but not so much with Giuseppe. Do you (or does anyone else) think there’s still a lot of variation on newer vintages?
I do not know. Quite frankly the wine (Monprivato) has gotten beyond a price I am comfortable paying for
Did you drink it all that night, or pour the rest of it down the drain?
I would argue for following the wine over the course of 10 days to two weeks, in order to learn what you can coax out of the wine’s oxidation curve.
Nebbiolo tends to produce bizarre oxidation curves which can seem to defy [what ought to be] the laws of chemistry & physics.
And at 23 years young, that wine is only about a third of its way to reaching [what ought to be] its middle age.
Obviously it could just be a lousy bottle [of what might ultimately prove to have been a lousy vintage for the winery], but I would be loathe to give up on a bottle of Nebbiolo too quickly.
While I agree with this post in general principle, if 23 years for Nebbiolo is a third of the way to middle age, I didn’t stock my cellar properly.
Hi Nathan. We did finish the bottle that night. (My Mom and wife both said they enjoyed it, and I mostly kept my opinions to myself.) A wine has to be pretty badly corked for me to pour it out. Usually in this kind of situation I would recork it and put it on the counter for my wife’s next sauce.
Having said that, I very much agree on the sometimes bizarre oxidation/drinkability curves of nebbiolo! I can think of several occasions when I have opened an older barolo/barbaresco with a cloudy or even muddy appearance and a somehow “off” nose, set it aside or decanted it for many hours or even overnight or longer, and returned to find a delicious and non-oxidized wine.
This chain inspired me to open an 00 Monprivato last night. Stunning. Shows all of Monprivato’s greatness scaled to this vintage and in perfect proportion. I have to think that the experience with the 97 was the vintage and a bad bottle conspsiring. Anyone who owns the 00 should definitely drink one now. At a perfect spot!
I opened a 97 Monprivato 48 hours ago and had the exact same experience as Kelly the OP. If I had to guess I would think this is a problem related to the wine itself and not to an outside factor such as heat damage. Mine was purchased and cellared on release. Pristine cork. Last M 97 was many years ago and was delicious and nothing like what is showing in the bottle now. Revisited 24 hours ago and had improved a bit but it was nothing like it should be. Will check on it over next few days to see if any magic transpires but I’m doubtful. I’ll post if anything changes.
Yeah, as Oliver, John and a few others have already mentioned, ‘97 was a problematic vintage due to the heat. Hotter than ‘90, and at this point I think it’s inarguable that the ‘90 vintage didn’t age as well as the ‘89 vintage, even though it was initially acclaimed on release.
To me, ‘99 and 2001 are far more interesting, and “classic” vintages, that either ‘97 or 2000, even though on release the critics like RMP and Suckling swooned over the two hotter years. Like John, I pretty much stayed away from both of those years, although I still have some ‘97 Ca d’Morrissio from Mascarello that I should probably check in on soon to see if it shows any different than the Monprivato.
If ever a red light and klaxon warning should have sounded 
Oh hang on, he loves every wine and every vintage ![[wink.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/04707e6a7bbb03e0153e349d8a9270d30e1e9525.gif "wink"){kind=small}
FWIW I mostly avoided this vintage, but there were successes (alongside the unmitigated disaster of 3/3 bottles of Aldo Conterno Cicala Barolo). Lorenzo Accomasso Rochette Barolo would have been difficult to place as a 1997, and indeed similar for a Marcarini Brunate from recollection (perhaps tasted in a vertical it might have been more obvious). Both were good and felt classical.
A Terre del Barolo was arguably helped by the extra ripeness. Nothing to get excited about, but a good effort vs. their normal standards
PdB Montestefano Barbaresco perhaps not typical for the vineyard, but another that hints that a tight/traditional style had a little wiggle room for the extra heat.
Thanks, folks, for all the notes.
I will add that the 1997 Elvio Cogno Barolo “Vigna Elena”, drunk recently, was markedly worse than the G Mascarello of the original post.
But thankfully not all is lost in 1997 Italy – the Altesino “Montosoli” brunello (from mag) was absolutely singing this weekend!
When I next get my hands on some osso bucco (not easy to find in IA!) I will uncork my first 97 Bartolo to shed some more light on the mystery of 97 Piemonte.
Too much oink and not enough moo out there?
Agree, Bob, with all that you wrote, especially about ‘99 and ‘01. I don’t know how it has aged, but ‘97 Ca d’Morrissio was one of my favorite early drinking Barolo, which isn’t necessarily compliment, given its pedigree and price tag. But, I sure loved it young.
Lotsa moo too but infanticide doesn’t play so well in these parts. 
