First, you’re suggesting that pre-1990s Bordeaux weren’t phenolicly ripe, which is just not the case in good vintages. What happened was a choice to pick later, combined with more warm vintages since the late 90s. I don’t know that anyone was “convinced the [post-1990] wines would be short-lived.” The issue was what they would be like with age. And to some extent, the jury is still out, particularly with the wines since 2000, where alcohols are sometimes several degrees higher than in good vintages in the past, and acids lower.
Put another way, not everyone subscribes to the (Parker) view that everything has been on the upswing in Bordeaux in recent decades. There have been more vintages where minimum ripeness levels have been achieved (in contrast with, say, the 70s), and prices have risen so much that producers can be more selective. That’s helped put a floor under the quality of lower and mid-tier wines. But the choice to pick riper for so many top wines is not clearly a positive.
As grapes get riper, they tend to loose some precision-- it becomes harder to discern the varietal, let alone the source, because very ripe grapes tend to converge in flavor. Nebbiolo will always be distinctive for its tannins, but I find the same quality in recent, very ripe Barolo vintages that I find in the newer style Bordeaux: They show less nebbiolo character, and show their terror less clearly. (This ripeness factor is separate from efforts over the past several decades to manage tannins better and to avoid overexposure of the wine to air that cost some old wines too much of their fruit.)
In fairness, I do wonder to what extent that’s because we are drinking some Barolos younger than in the past, due to the warmer vintages. I assume you’re not drinking much modernist Barolo, so doubt that’s the issue The oak on some modernist Barolo makes it impossible to distinguish them anything other than expensive wine products.
Agreed - it’s no different in Burgundy. Wine is cleaner and fruit is more expressive in general. The combination of warmer weather + better/smarter winemaking in the cellar and in the vineyards have resulted in wines that are “more” accessible when young but still have the structure to age.
Just opened 10/13/15 bartolo - 10/13 need to be locked away and forgotten for awhile (definitely gone to sleep) but the 15 is really really tasty right now.
In Barolo 10s and especially 13s (and even a few 12s) are not happy being opened right now, as you would expect for a very structured vintage. Whereas I’ve been drinking through a reasonable amount of 07s, 09s and 11s because I don’t think they’ll age into anything spectacular, and for those producers who didn’t overdo it, they’re very nice wines now.
I think it’s vintage dependent. I remember liking the 1989s when they first came out. They were fruit bombs. I love tannin — so, as long as there’s fruit to balance and the wine isn’t closed, I’m game. I’ve had a dozen 2016s now, give or take, and they are wonderful. I am tasting for reference more than because I have a preference for 4 year old Barolo. But, there hasn’t been a single bottle where I said, ‘I wish I hadn’t opened that one…’
Now the 2013s — that’s another story. I did the same thing there and gave up because they started to shut down comparatively quickly.
Also, I agree with Greg that old Barolo is a bit of a fetish for some. In the late 1990s and early 2000s we regularly were drinking 1970s, ‘71s, ‘74s, and ‘78s from top producers and while interesting and very often great, I don’t think I generally preferred them to the ‘89s or ‘90s at the time. Different strokes for different folks.
Great points, and that just covers what happens in the vineyard. When you factor in changes during the winemaking process itself, it’s clear that there has been a rather large stylistic shift with Bordeaux in particular over the past few decades. Some would argue not for the better.
The oak on some modernist Barolo makes it impossible to distinguish them anything other than expensive wine products.