TN: 2006 Produttori Barbaresco Normale

[Ian_Dorin]

@John Morris

@Ian Dorin

@Chae Yi

Ian, is that “L9.105” or “L10.105”?

Sorry, L9.105

Ian – What do you mean “this special bottling”? Jamie quoted Vacco saying there were two (blended) bottlings of what would have been the single crus.

I don’t know what the ratio is of normale/torre to cru bottlings is in good years, but given the number of crus, it wouldn’t surprise me if the total volume of the crus isn’t that much less than the normale. If that’s right, the “special” bottlings for 2006 might not be that rare.

FYI, they did the same thing in 1998, when some of the crus weren’t up to the quality they wanted. Vacco said that the politics of the coop were such that they have to bottle all the crus or none.

I used the word ‘supposed’ b/c I am only working off of info that was put in front of me. I actually tried this lot and found it extremely similar to Antonio’s tasting notes that he reported for L9.125 (as indicated in his review).

[Claude_Kolm]

@John Morris

@Ian Dorin

@Chae Yi

Ian, is that “L9.105” or “L10.105”?

Sorry, L9.105

Ian – What do you mean “this special bottling”? Jamie quoted Vacco saying there were two (blended) bottlings of what would have been the single crus.

I don’t know what the ratio is of normale/torre to cru bottlings is in good years, but given the number of crus, it wouldn’t surprise me if the total volume of the crus isn’t that much less than the normale. If that’s right, the “special” bottlings for 2006 might not be that rare.

FYI, they did the same thing in 1998, when some of the crus weren’t up to the quality they wanted. Vacco said that the politics of the coop were such that they have to bottle all the crus or none.

John - Apparently there was a run of straight Barbaresco before the final decision to blend the crus in.

[mjrusso]

I inquired at the winery, and Ian is correct the most recent bottling is L9.105
Another source who obtain info direct from the winery was also told that 105 is the blended lot.
But I am sure that all lots are good

[Claude_Kolm]

@mjrusso

But I am sure that all lots are good

Yes, I’ve had the earlier lot and it is very, very good.

[John_Morris]

1. We’ve established that there are at least four lots in the U.S.: 9.097, 9.099, 9.105 and 9.125.

2. Jamie says that Aldo Vacco told him there were two bottlings of the blended wine originally intended for bottling under the cru designations.

3. Mark, citing the winery and a knowledgeable source, says that 9.105 is the most recent (they bottled 9.125 before 9.105??) and is the blended cru wine – implying that there is only one such bottling.

You see why I’m confused?

I’m assuming that the 9.097 that I had was an early lot always intended to be normale. Naturally, I’m curious to try the later lot(s) composed of wine originally intended for the single-vineyard designations. I’ll try to track down 9.125 and 9.105 on the assumption that those are the ones to which Jamie refers.

Thanks everyone for all the intelligence gathering!

[Claude_Kolm]

@John Morris

1. We’ve established that there are at least four lots in the U.S.: 9.097, 9.099, 9.105 and 9.125.

2. Jamie says that Aldo Vacco told him there were two bottlings of the blended wine originally intended for bottling under the cru designations.

3. Mark, citing the winery and a knowledgeable source, says that 9.105 is the most recent (they bottled 9.125 before 9.105??) and is the blended cru wine – implying that there is only one such bottling.

You see why I’m confused?

I’m assuming that the 9.097 that I had was an early lot always intended to be normale. Naturally, I’m curious to try the later lot(s) composed of wine originally intended for the single-vineyard designations. I’ll try to track down 9.125 and 9.105 on the assumption that those are the ones to which Jamie refers.

Thanks everyone for all the intelligence gathering!

It looks to me as though the lot numbers follow a pattern commonly used in Italy, giving the year and the day (expressed as a sequential number) of the bottling. If so, 9.105 would have been bottled on the 105th day of the year, or May 15, 2009. Has anyone actually seen a bottle with lot L9.125? If not, the only reference would be Galloni’s review, and possibly it was due to a misreading or a mistranscription? Such things have been known to happen.

[Claude_Kolm]

It’s also possible that although Galloni tasted Lot L9.125, that lot was not sent to the U.S. – see above where Oyvind in Norway has Lot L9.113.

[O_H_a_u_g]

@Claude Kolm

It looks to me as though the lot numbers follow a pattern commonly used in Italy, giving the year and the day (expressed as a sequential number) of the bottling. If so, 9.105 would have been bottled on the 105th day of the year, or May 15, 2009.

This could be a good explanation on the lot numbers. I just checked a few of my other PdB´s in the cellar, and here is what I found:
2005 PdB standard: 8.080
2000 Moccagatta Ris: 4.142
2000 Paje Ris: 4.140

[John_Morris]

Claude – Those sound like very sensible possibilities. But if there really was a lot # 9.125, as Galloni reported, and you’re right about their using the day of the year in the lot numbers, regardless of whether 9.125 was brought into the U.S. or not, then what the winery told Mark – that # 9.105 is the most recent bottling – can’t be correct.

So we’re still left with an inconsistency!

[Claude_Kolm]

@John Morris

Claude – Those sound like very sensible possibilities. But if there really was a lot # 9.125, as Galloni reported, and you’re right about their using the day of the year in the lot numbers, regardless of whether 9.125 was brought into the U.S. or not, then what the winery told Mark – that # 9.105 is the most recent bottling – can’t be correct.

So we’re still left with an inconsistency!

I’m assuming that L9.105 is the most recent bottling that Produttori sent to the U.S. is what they meant. It’s rare, even in these gray market days, that producers understand the exchanges of information that go on across the web.

[Ian_Dorin]

@Claude Kolm

@John Morris

Claude – Those sound like very sensible possibilities. But if there really was a lot # 9.125, as Galloni reported, and you’re right about their using the day of the year in the lot numbers, regardless of whether 9.125 was brought into the U.S. or not, then what the winery told Mark – that # 9.105 is the most recent bottling – can’t be correct.

So we’re still left with an inconsistency!

I’m assuming that L9.105 is the most recent bottling that Produttori sent to the U.S. is what they meant. It’s rare, even in these gray market days, that producers understand the exchanges of information that go on across the web.

They lurk

As John mentioned, great discussion. I’m curious if the 125 and 105 are the “Riserva Blends”. Might explain why the 105 that I tasted yesterday almost perfectly matches the notes that Antonio posted for 125.

[Mark_Cooney]

FWIW the lot number for my bottles from garagiste are 9.113.

[John_Morris]

Thanks for that data point, Mark.

So that makes five lots in the U.S.: 9.097, 9.099, 9.105, 9.113 and 9.125. Assuming Claude’s correct about the numbering convention, these were all bottled in April and May last year.

I’m going to do a little scouting around NYC to see who’s got which lot now!

[John_Morris]

@Mark Cooney

FWIW the lot number for my bottles from garagiste are 9.113.

I’m curious… Can you tell if those were gray-market imports?

(This is all beginning to have shades of the Sierra Carche sleuthing. Except that this wine is terrific!)

[Mark_Cooney]

@John Morris

@Mark Cooney

FWIW the lot number for my bottles from garagiste are 9.113.

I’m curious… Can you tell if those were gray-market imports?

(This is all beginning to have shades of the Sierra Carche sleuthing. Except that this wine is terrific!)

I would doubt it as Garagiste prides themselves on provenance, but, the importer label is Bordeaux Wine Locators out of Tumwater, WA.

[John_Morris]

Mark –

VIAS is the U.S. importer, so that is a gray market import. That isn’t necessarily risky, so long as the importer uses care (refrigerated containers, warehouses, etc.).

The fact that the Garagiste lot is 9.113 lends support to Claude’s surmise that 9.113 was a bottling for the European market. That was the lot that Oyvand (above) purchased in Norway.

I’m curious what Garagiste charged.

[Doug_Milch]

@John Morris

@Bill Boykin

@Frank Smith

Thanks for the information, Jamie. Do you know when the previous bottling (the first one with the Riservas blended in) was done?

I’m thinking it was 9.097…because that’s the case I have…

I had a bottle of the 9.097 tonight. It was lovely and quite approachable after a little initial sternness. I wouldn’t call it primary, though. Nothing tertiary, but no grapiness whatsoever (which is usually what I think of when people say primary).

If this is declassified wine that would have been bottled as crus were not it not for the market, I’d be a bit surprised because it is relatively light and approachable. But, then, I’ve been surprised by the approachability of a lot of Langhe wines in recent years – from 2001, 2004 and 2005, in particular.

Hey would you be kind enough to post the results of your nyc sleuthing. Id like to pick up a bottle or two as i got dinged from garagiste. I think chambers street has some but dont recall.

[O_H_a_u_g]

@John Morris

The fact that the Garagiste lot is 9.113 lends support to Claude’s surmise that 9.113 was a bottling for the European market. That was the lot that Oyvand (above) purchased in Norway.

Just to have the facts straight; I actually bought these in Denmark as they are way cheaper than in Norway - the price in Denmark was only about $14,- (USD) on sale

[Mark_Cooney]

@John Morris

Mark –

VIAS is the U.S. importer, so that is a gray market import. That isn’t necessarily risky, so long as the importer uses care (refrigerated containers, warehouses, etc.).

The fact that the Garagiste lot is 9.113 lends support to Claude’s surmise that 9.113 was a bottling for the European market. That was the lot that Oyvand (above) purchased in Norway.

I’m curious what Garagiste charged.

$19.99

[Mark_Cooney]

@Mark Cooney

From the recent Garagiste offering of this wine:
“I will let you look up other TN’s and accolades (the WA review is below) but the price speaks for itself. This wine contains almost all the Riserva wine from the single vineyards as well. A crazy deal on traditional Barbaresco. (As far as I know, little or no Riserva was made in 2006 – only this bottling – JR)”.

And now from a retailer newsletter/weekly offer (Vinopolis);
"Some of you may be wondering about the inclusion of the Lot Number 9.105 in the wine ID. Well, this wine is bottled in several lots. And, some time after the Wine Advocate published the above review, the Produttori decided to not bottle the single vineyard cru riserva wines which were mentioned in passing, and these barrels were blended back into the base Barbaresco. Thus a more superior Barbaresco in the making. Some of the earliest lots supplied in Europe and the USA do not included the back-blended reserve level wines; Lot 9.105 does include this premium vineyard blend, IE, all the Rabaja, Asili, etc wine is now in this base wine. "

Sooo the garagiste wines were lot 9.113 and sounds to be part of the earlier lots for the European market. Getting pretty sick of JR insinuating one thing in the offer and delivering something else in bottle (another example would be the Cote Rotie mystery). Seems silly to even mention it if not 100% certain of the lot make-up.