My Barolo Buying Strategy (vs Burg and N Rhone)

[Ken_V]

@Bill Klapp

@Keith Levenberg

I don’t buy Barolo in every vintage, but I don’t understand the thinking behind “only buy '01, '04, '07.” I hardly bought any '07s, but a lot of '06s.

+1. When pressed on the 2007s, Galloni claimed yes, early drinking potential, but also exceptional quality and ageworthiness. He has no more basis for the latter assertion than any of the rest of us do for a 5-year old Nebbiolo, and I found it a little surprising coming from a critic who has pretty consistently pooh-poohed the idea of hot-weather vintages like 2000, 2003 and 2009 going the distance. 2007s are being drunk in quantity in ristoranti here since release. I am drinking them and enjoying them, but would not take up cellar space with them…

Or putting 2006 in the context of 2007, one could say that 2006 is “no vintage for old men.”

[David_Bu3ker]

The idea that buying only the “great” vintages is a good idea just escapes me. Unless a year is a complete washout (e.g. 2002) there’s good reason to buy wines from less heralded years. Earlier drinkability is an obvious one. Then there’s the different facets of a wine type that can be gleaned from different vintages. I suppose if one is focused on the status of the wines instead of the enjoyment then sticking to trophy years makes sense, but to me it’s all about drinking, not displaying.

[Bill_Klapp_deactivated]

@Ken V

@Bill Klapp

@Keith Levenberg

I don’t buy Barolo in every vintage, but I don’t understand the thinking behind “only buy '01, '04, '07.” I hardly bought any '07s, but a lot of '06s.

+1. When pressed on the 2007s, Galloni claimed yes, early drinking potential, but also exceptional quality and ageworthiness. He has no more basis for the latter assertion than any of the rest of us do for a 5-year old Nebbiolo, and I found it a little surprising coming from a critic who has pretty consistently pooh-poohed the idea of hot-weather vintages like 2000, 2003 and 2009 going the distance. 2007s are being drunk in quantity in ristoranti here since release. I am drinking them and enjoying them, but would not take up cellar space with them…

Or putting 2006 in the context of 2007, one could say that 2006 is “no vintage for old men.”

So I believe, but I am at a loss to explain why there are still six bottles of 2006 Barolo in my cellar. Somebody gave them to me. That is my story and I am sticking to it…

[Bob_Hughes]

That’s funny, Bill - as I posted earlier, with the exception of buying some Produttori Normales, I haven’t really pursued a Piemonte vintage since 2001. That said, somehow a case of the 2006 Brovia Ca’ Mia is down there .

OTOH, I have been buying a fair amount of 2006-2007 Brunello, and at my age I’m not sure that makes any more sense than buying (or not buying) Barolo.

[Eric_Guido]

@Cristian Dezso

@Markus S

@Barry L i p t o n

Who wrote that 07 was better?

If you like jammy Barolo’s, you will be fine with 07s.

I’ll second this. If you want something big and accessible, then maybe the 07’s might be for you. I’ll take a couple of something, like I do every vintage just to see what the vintage is like, but I wouldn’t be stocking up on them.

I am curious, how do people think 07 in Barolo compares to 09 in Burgundy? Both have been considered hot and ripe years. Seems to me that in Piemont, this has a more negative effect on the perception of the wines. Anyhow, from the few that I sampled (Brovia, Vajra) they were more than fine, and time might benefit them. But I have to say, I did not like the Marcarini, at least not now. I dunno however about generalizing. Seems 07 is so easily dismissed, but have people (well, except for Greg) tried that many of them, especially in the high-end range?

Keep in mind that Brovia and Vajra are an exception to the norm. Vajra, for one thing, is making their Barolo from one of the highest altitude sights in the Barolo zone, so the hot year did more good than anything else for this wine. In fact, it was my favorite Barolo of 2007.

[Bill_Klapp_deactivated]

Bob, I wouldn’t worry. There is a big difference between “pursuing” a vintage and stumbling upon the odd case in your cellar. I, too, have maybe a mixed case and a half of 2004, 2006 and 2007 Brunelli, but all of it will be drinkable, if not mature, within 5 years, so I do not worry about that. I worry about the 5 cases of 1996 Giacosa Falletto Riserva shut like a maximum-security prison in lockdown…

[Bill_Boykin]

@Bill Klapp

I worry about the 5 cases of 1996 Giacosa Falletto Riserva shut like a maximum-security prison in lockdown…

As we should.This wine will continue to be vexing as to maturity dates for some time.Tasted with great anticipation and satisfaction on release,but it seems more and more like a 78 as the years roll by…

[Andrew_Gold]

I’m enjoying this thread quite a bit, though do wonder if my appreciation of barolo/barbaresco could be that different than the bulk of you. I’ve only been cellaring the wines since buying 2004’s on release, but I don’t see the problem with drinking these wines young. Yeah, sure they will improve significantly, but they do provide me real pleasure now too. I’d guess, and hope my cellar will allow me to test this eventually, that even if I only had a stock of mature wines from Piedmont, I would still want to drink young examples some real percentage of the time. I really enjoy the fruit, and massive tannins the wines show in their youth; it’s no replacement for the few aged bottles I’ve been able to try, but also very enjoyable.

[Bill_Boykin]

Andrew,
Well,as some of the 78s that I referenced,which were made when you were…-2 are still in need of bottle age or significant and enlightened aeration to be appreciated at their best,you may require some significant and enlightened aeration of your own to enjoy them at their best…

[Peter_Hirsch]

@David M. Bueker

The idea that buying only the “great” vintages is a good idea just escapes me. Unless a year is a complete washout (e.g. 2002) there’s good reason to buy wines from less heralded years. Earlier drinkability is an obvious one. Then there’s the different facets of a wine type that can be gleaned from different vintages. I suppose if one is focused on the status of the wines instead of the enjoyment then sticking to trophy years makes sense, but to me it’s all about drinking, not displaying.

I want price differentiation when I buy an inferior product. Only in wine (and really only in Piedmont and Burg) do people ‘tout’ the idea that you should try inferior products to better understand the better products. Good/great vintages at roughly the same price are just a much better deal than ok/yuck vintages at only a small discount. I’ll pass on earlier drinking crappy vintages and just buy older wines from better vintages. An old friend once told me “life is too short to drink only ok wine”. I have to agree…

[David_Bu3ker]

Peter-there have been only 1 or 2 poor vintages in the last 15 years or so. I’m not suggesting loading up on 2002 or 2003.

[Ken_V]

@Peter Hirsch

@David M. Bueker

The idea that buying only the “great” vintages is a good idea just escapes me. Unless a year is a complete washout (e.g. 2002) there’s good reason to buy wines from less heralded years. Earlier drinkability is an obvious one. Then there’s the different facets of a wine type that can be gleaned from different vintages. I suppose if one is focused on the status of the wines instead of the enjoyment then sticking to trophy years makes sense, but to me it’s all about drinking, not displaying.

I want price differentiation when I buy an inferior product. Only in wine (and really only in Piedmont and Burg) do people ‘tout’ the idea that you should try inferior products to better understand the better products. Good/great vintages at roughly the same price are just a much better deal than ok/yuck vintages at only a small discount. I’ll pass on earlier drinking crappy vintages and just buy older wines from better vintages. An old friend once told me “life is too short to drink only ok wine”. I have to agree…

Unlike many other regions, many producers in Piedmont use the Riserva designation as an indirect way of giving you a discount in an inferior vintage. In a great vintage, the best wine goes into the riserva and sells for more. If the next vintage is inferior, no riserva is produced and the price for the best wine of that vintage goes back down.

[David_Bu3ker]

Never mind the fact that some top Barolo is priced at the level of good village Burg.

[Peter_Kleban]

@David M. Bueker

Never mind the fact that some top Barolo is priced at the level of good village Burg.

Shhhhhhhhhhh!!!

[A_Kohse]

@Peter Hirsch

for '07 vs '06/'08, just think that (from all I’ve read) '07 is ‘better’, though ymmv.

I Think the early drinking thing is big as no one drinks young Barolo (or at least no one drinks and really enjoys young Barolo) while Burg has a much wider drinking window. And the recession in the ‘natural’ markets also must matter. I also don’t think that Barolo producers have done a very good job at explaining differentiation between vineyards. In Burg, they’ve done a great job. So there’s demand for each vineyard from each producer, not just demand for the producer. So instead of buying a case of some Barolo, I wind up buying 5 cases of different vineyards from a single Burg producer.

And for whether to buy now (for '07s) or wait for deals, just a tradeoff between wanting the stuff in your cellar vs waiting for that great deal to come along in time. I’m sure, every year, you’ll get a crack at a great Barolo deal, either a ‘sale’ or a ‘dump’.

If you’re looking to drink now, then 07 would be the more approachable vintage. However, approachability when young seems to me like a pretty absurd metric by which to judge the cellarworthiness of a wine.

Since I’m not particularly interested in drinking young Barolo, I bought some 06 and avoided 07.

That’s not to say that one vintage is better than the other, but, as is frequently the case with wine, it completely depends on what you as the consumer want to DO with the wine.

[Faryan_Amir-Ghassemi]

This post is tremendous as I have increased my fondness for Barolo but haven’t set up a gameplan on attaining the bottles I like.

Many thanks Peter and the rest for providing excellent fodder.

[P_L_owet]

I’m surprised no one has teased Peter yet that he forgot to include 2003 as a great vintage!

Lots of good reasons already mentioned for why worldwide demand for Barolo doesn’t compare to burgundy’s. it’s still viewed fairly parochially and its versatility isn’t fully appreciated. The market just won’t support too many producers charging premium prices. So we can find terrific wine at relatively moderate prices, as long as not named Giacosa, Gaja, etc. (And even those premium producers don’t command prices of top burgs.)

I think Peter is overrating opportunities to get tip top wines at slashed prices. I know we’re spoiled by a couple of recent dumps due to importer changes, but that can’t be planned for. But yes, Barolo list prices seem to go up but often can’t be sustained and get discounted to old prices. other than for Giacosa et al., prices PAID are little changed from mid 1990s! We buyers have been lucky with so many good/great vintages and the lid on demand. Of course, past performance doesn’t guarantee future.

Regards,
Peter

[Barry_L_i_p_t_o_n]

I am happy seeing an unexpected barolo/barbaresco from any of the more recent years: 2000, 2001, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and I that’s true for the 2 vintages and the prior 5. Two bad years in the last 16.

It could be that the wine that is drinking best tonight from the named years are not 01 or 04.

[Kevin_Harvey]

My favorite recent Barolo vintages are 2008, 2004, 2001, 2006 and I am very excited about the upcoming 2010s. IMO, 2007 and 2009 (and probably 2011 and 2012) were too hot and ripe and I worry that those wines will be more similar to '97 and '00 (not my style).
Just like with Burgundy, I think it is important to taste enough Barolo/Barberesco to learn what you like as the conventional vintage wisdom may not fully correlate with your personal tastes. I prefer the cooler vintages as long as the grapes were fully ripe. IMO, this region is making some of the world’s most amazing wines right now.

[Rasoul_Salehi]

First off: personally i buy exactly the red wines from the regions you mentioned and have been doing so for nearly a decade.

there are a few answers and all seem simple to me:

1. Inherently nebbiolo based wines are much harder to enjoy young for many. the high acid, often pale colour (in a world of darker colour wines getting much love) and of course intense tannins are not for all. Also they tend to shutdown and aromatically not give you much for a long time before they become some for the most perfumed wines bar none. Conversely while your syrah and pinot based wines surely benefit from aging, they still offer far more pleasure in their youth. pinot is drinkable and delicious 19 out of 20 times regardless of age. i dont think same can be said of nebbiolo. when its on its ON, but this often means at least for me i wait 15-20 years post vintage to open any of my bottles.

2. i dont think there is as clearly and as much “consistently noticable” differences in nebbiolo from different subregions in barolo and barbaresco as it can be seen in Burgundy and even northern rhone. chambolle and volnay are radically different from NSG and pommard. year in year out. regardless of producer. gevrey jumps at you as gevrey. vosne similarly so. cornas and cote rotie are worlds apart. hermitage and crozes same thing. cote the blonde vs brune… while i have been a student of all these wines i cant with same probability and confidence narrow down the sites of barolo/barbaresco wines the way i can with the northern rhones and burgundies. this is not due to lack of practice either. i have probably more of these wines and drink more of them too. maybe 5 to 1!

3. French are awesome in marketing themselves and their products esp when it comes to wine. italians not so much. they are far better than many but still not at the top level that the french are.