Thanks Kevin.
Scott,
Go ahead and order Barolo you will drink in a wheelchair. It will help the daygo by.
A fine discussion, thanks everyone. We all struggle with this! For me I’ve had quite a few great Barolo experiences with bottles from 1996-2004. But I’ve also had more outright failures (mostly cooked bottles) from 20-30 year old Nebbiolo. These result from storage/provenance problems since I wasn’t buying new releases that long ago.
When I think about bottle readiness the key parameters are vintage and producer. I’m seeing some really beautiful 2004s now (eg Vajra, PdB) while 2006s don’t seem quite there yet. 2005/2007/2009 are readier, but I have less experience with those. I’m seeing more ready 2001s and 1999s, though I wouldn’t open 2001 Giacosa red labels, or Monfortino from these vintages. 1995/96/97/98/2000 in general seem to be really ready to my palate. Older bottles are certainly ready if the bottles are sound. The very few 2008/2010/2013s I’ve opened have been pretty darn tannic.
My conclusion: 15-20 years is still needed for top Barolos. 10? Not so much.
Btw I’ve bought and enjoyed quite a few entry level or lower level Nebbiolos (I.e. non Barolo). I don’t have nearly enough of these in my cellar but they represent a nice way to enjoy younger Nebbs while the long agers sleep away. Some of the ‘16s have been startlingly good - e.g F. Alessandria, PdB, Bruno Giacosa …
Your Giacosa experience sounds very odd. I haven’t had the '98 San Stefano, but Giacosa’s '98 Asili was hard as nails when I shared a bottle with friends (including WBers James Wright, Jay Miller and Claude Kolm) several years ago, despite a several-hour decant.
I’ve heard Aldo Vacco’s preferences before. As Doug pointed out (and I’m sure you know), many Italian and French producers like their wines relatively young, just as the English were known for liking very mature wines. To each his own. I opened an '01 Produtttori Montestefano recently that was coming along, but very slowly. I can imagine that it might have had some appealing baby flesh eight years ago, but I’m pretty sure that, for my tastes, it will be better some years down the road. The '06 normale was fabulous but VERY young a year ago. Young enough that I won’t touch most of the rest of the case. The '05 normale, on the other hand, is ready to go (and a touch hot, I thought).
I’m with you on the VERY old bottles, though. Few I’ve had from the 60s and early 70s – mostly purchased from Chambers Street – were to my tastes. I found many have gone to a point in oxidation where they have a coffee note that I find kind of generic, or they’ve just thinned out without gaining a lot of complexity. But others present have oohed and aahed at them. I’m not sure to what degree their development is a function of winemaking in that era, or whether they wines haven’t had cool storage all those years. The (sadly) few '78s I’ve had, on the other hand, have always been fresh.
1 Like
^^ This!
You’ve been quoting Bill on '07 for years. Have you been back-filling '07s and drinking them?
+1
FIFY
+1
This + a lot. Like everyone else, I’ve had great old bottles of Barolo but even correct bottles from the big names often leave me wanting. We have to remember that many things have changed in the Piedmont over the last several decades including viticulture and winemaking that result in much cleaner, more approachable wines. Even from those who are “traditional”. Coupled with a changing climate, wines are much more open and “drinkable” early. I’ve really enjoyed bottles of 2009s and 2011s Cappellano, Brovia, Prod. di Barbaresco, Conterno this year as well as a stupendous bottle of 2012 Roagna Paje. Last year, 2004 Cappellano Franco and Vajra Viole were on point. I’ve has lots of Alto Piedmont from 2006-2013 in the last year that have been delicious and only a few (2010 Piane Boca) that have been too firm for enjoyment.
The banal truism that each wine needs to be taken on its own timeline applies here, but I’m much more interested in drinking my Barolo (and Burgundy) younger (a view shared by Levi Dalton). I find that bottle sweetness and tertiary aromas and flavors tend to blur terroir signatures. I have a sweet spot where the wines still have energetic fruit but the structure has mellowed and become knitted. That seems to be somewhere between 8-20 years post vintage.
Honestly, if you like old wine, you’re better off buying villages Burgundy (and comparable nebbiolo) and waiting it out since it is rare that the terroir signatures can survive the ravages of age.
As for 1998 Giacosa, the Falletto from magnum a couple of years ago was fully resolved and I wouldn’t expect (nor want for) it to make old bones.
Possibly nebbiolo is more of a crapshoot in the cellar than other major wines, but I suspect at least part of the variability of old Barolo is not on account of the crapshoot but on account of those older wines just having been flawed from birth - too much unattended time in cask indifferent to introducing oxygen and VA or just generally stripping the fruit. I’m hopeful that today’s conscientious producers that hew to the best of the traditional techniques while paying attention to hygiene and chemistry will be solid bets to cellar for the same timeframes as Bordeaux and Burgundy. But it is also true that some nebbiolo is just gonna be too tannic because it’s a tannic grape, whereas pinot noir really requires a special level of incompetence to turn out too tannic.
James,
I thought all the moonies were in Pope Valley.
Here is another one:
Fate La Morra
Non fate la guerra!
Well, that seems very odd to me, but I haven’t had the wine.
Funny, I’ve had more “too tannic” Pinot Noirs than Nebbiolos. While Nebbiolo is definitely more tannic as a grape variety, it is rarely if ever subjected to overextractive vinification methods, unlike some Pinot Noirs. Furthermore, I think that Nebbiolo both carries its tannins better with its often bigger and sweeter-toned fruit and its tannins feel less aggressive than those of heavily extracted tannins.
Even in cooler years Nebbiolo does not seem to make wines that are too tannic (to me), whereas, say, an extracted, cooler-vintage Pommard can be tough as nails with forbidding, angular tannins that won’t resolve - at least before the fruit gives in.
Of course it might be because Pinot Noir doesn’t mask its tannins that well and it most likely is often higher in acidity than Nebbiolo, which can further contribute to the tough, grippy nature of the tannins.
I’ve had tannic pinot noirs and nebbiolo where the tannins have melted away…your point was?
Well said. I foolishly opened a 2010 G Mascarello Monprivato based on CT notes a couple of weeks ago. With half a day of decanting, it was drinkable and decent, but it really didn’t show what the wine could become.
Plus, I usually find it’s a mistake pouring barolo or barbaresco in a group tasting dinner. It’s so hard to get those wines to show their best within the window of time everyone is going to drink their glass of it, unless it’s really a peak maturity bottle. Far better to drink those when you can follow them over a longer evening.
IMO Barolo and Barbaresco are among the safest bets to keep cellared for decades.
And this also applies for the very cheap wines from Ghemme and Gattinara
A lot of Italian producers will freely admit that storage in Barolo was terrible all the way through the 80s, so provenance of older bottles is a complete crapshoot. I also don’t think nebbiolo handles difficult conditions as well as, say, cab, which is why I feel much safer buying older Bordeaux (that and good English/American cellars). I fully expect that when “old” barolo is being opened up 30 years, results will be significantly better because storage will have been so much better. Until then, judging will be extremely hard.
I’m in this camp as well. Besides my taste preferences, I’ve had more disappointments than not with older wines, so have become more risk adverse when it comes to investing time and/or $ in old bottles.
8-20 years is a good guide.
Not sure I’d agree that terroir is blurred by age, though. The very top Burgundy GCs are often smoothered by new oak when young only to reveal themselves with age.