John, are you suggesting that there could be some doubt about it being a 100-point wine? 
Just of point of information. Just trying to inform the discussion.
Steady reduction all the way down to 80% new?
I think it was last winter (but it may have been two winters ago) I participated in a tasting that primarily focused on the '07 & '08 vintages of Clerico with Luciano Racca, who I believe was the export director, but I may be getting his job title wrong.
At any rate, he and I had an extended discussion about the oak regime, and the short story is that it really can vary by year and cuvee at Clerico. He also emphasized that one of the things they have been “playing with” (my paraphrase) in the last few years would be the toast on the barrel itself, just to see how that impacts certain barrels before the ultimate blend.
I have always been an agnostic when it comes to the whole modernist vs. traditionalist debate. I think at the inception of the modernist movement (say the '89 & '90 vintages), guys like Scavino, Clerico and Altare were all crafting decent wines. I do agree (and think many of them do as well) that as they pushed through the 90’s, they began to get more and more extreme with both oak and shorter macerations, and Altare was probably always in the forefront in that regard.
I think the '98 vintage was probably the straw that broke the modernist camel’s back, at least in terms of a rigid adherence to doing things the “new way”. To mix a metaphor, Jean-Marie Guffens-Heynen from Burgundy said that a wine was not over-oaked, but merely “under-wined”, and I think in a vintage like '98, the underlying fruit was not sufficient to carry all that new wood.
But I still have bottles of the Scavino Bric del Fiasc, Altare Arborina and Clerico CMG from the '90 vintage in the cellar, and they all still drink fine (although of those three, the Altare would be my least favorite).
Interestingly enough, if Bill is correct in saying that 2004 was the “high water mark” for oak at Clerico, I can say that in at least one case, it has certainly integrated - the 2004 Perchristina (also tasted with Luciano Racca at the above gathering) was flat out gorgeous when I tried it, and a six pack now rests comfortably in the Hughes cellar ![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}
.
Bob, that was the fall of 2012. I missed you that day but had the good fortune to sample a 90 Clerico CMG that you had brought to the tasting. I remember it being still fresh and young and just starting to develop some secondary notes of mushroom and earth.
Good memory, buddy - and that '90 CMG was drinking nicely that day .
What did you think of the '04 Perchristina (and I guess specifically in terms of how it handled the oak)?
Second night: the nose has gotten more high-toned, and there’s a bit of sickly sweetness to it. Reminds me a bit of diethyl ether. The tannins have picked up a little bit of heft (the (in)famous Klapp/Burton wall?), but that’s actually a good thing, since it does provide more of a backbone to the amorphous blob that this was yesterday. The acidity is still lacking and the oak still obnoxious. Here’s hoping it’s better on day 3.
I’ve been opening some Mid- to late-90s Barolo that I purchased when the modernists were more in vogue, including some highly-rated Scavinos. Even nearing two decades from the vintage, they have remained perfumed with as much oak as grape. It does not surprise me to learn that they used a uniform oak treatment on the wines. The basic Barolo from that era was always overwhelmed by oak, while the Cannubi and others sometimes could at least show some fruit.
I did not encounter the wines between 01 and 05, and somewhere around there the overt oakiness receded. They are still more of a Cabernet-lover’s wines than a Pinot lover’s wines. I have tried every recent year except 08, and they are much better than they were at the height of the modernist era, if not exactly"classic" or “transparent” expressions of Nebbiolo. The Monvigliero 07 and 10 are both very good.
Sadly, I just missed Ms. Scavino passing through town, otherwise I might have more to add.
I will suggest it. I can see being impressed by it, but “perfect?”
You are not a real wine critic till you drop your first 100. I am not a big fan of modern Barolo. But I purchased two 6pks of Clerico’s 2008 Aeroplan Servaj and a mag of 2010 Bricotto. I guess we will know if I made a good purchase in about 10 years.
I recall time in barrique as well, but possibly not. No matter to me, as I neither buy nor drink Clerico wines, save a single bottle of 2004 Ciabot Mentin Ginestra that I bought recently, for the sole purpose of seeing what has become of a height-of-excess Barolo-Boy Barolo. (Availability and affordable price NO PROBLEM in these parts, there being no buyers!) I am also no apologist for the modernists, but it makes sense for the good of the order to report on those who have seen the errors of their ways and tried to do something about it. It is not sounding like Altare is going to be among them. The 2010 sounds like tragic abuse of the lighter-weight La Morra juice least capable of taking the abuse…
How wasd the Modernists wines made in pre-modernist / pre Barolo Boys times?
E.g how was a 1982 Scavino Bric de Fiasc made? Traditional?
Claus, the older wines are usually traditional and often the wines of an earlier generation of the winemaking family (or the first generation to bottle wine, rather than just raising and selling grapes), but it takes a lot of research to determine when a given winery changed winemaking techniques. It should also be said that many of the modernist wineries of today were not making legendary wines before they changed techniques. Indeed, in some cases, adopting the new techniques was a son’s direct reaction to a father’s poorly made traditional wines. Truth be told, Gaja’s father was not much of a winemaker, for example, and I would never recommend that anyone seek out his wines. (Of course, Angelo was making his own wines by the late 1960s, and is not really a modernist anyway.)
I have kept a record of noteworthy old Barolo and Barbaresco, as measured by wine reviewers (since I do not collect, drink nor seek out older wines from the modernists), and the only potentially traditional wines of now-modernist winemakers that fall into the noteworthy category are the 1978 Ceretto Bricco Asili, the 1982 and 1985 (maybe) Altare Barolo Arborina, and the 1982 and 1985 (maybe) Clerico Ciabot Mentin Ginestra. That is not meant to be a definitive list, but I suspect that it is close. (As noted above, I do not consider Gaja to be a modernist, nor do I consider Sandrone to be one, although I concede that neither is a hard-core traditionalist, either. In those two cases, I would have long lists noteworthy wines going back to the first that each made.)
Bill makes an excellent point, especially as it related to both Altare and Scavino - the previous generations wines were middling at best, and the sons were reacting in many ways to what they saw as flawed wines.
A few months ago I was fortunate enough to taste with Maria Teresa and Alan at Bartolo Mascarello. Maria Teresa made the comment as part of a broader discussion that “as they age, I think my family’s wines and the “modernist” wines become closer in flavors…”
Unless I eventually sell them, my plan is to keep my 2 lonely bottles of Altare ('96 Vigna Arborinia) buried for at least a decade and then see if MT’s statement is at least directionally correct. I’m not violently opposed to the modernist side - Sandrone in particular I enjoy - but they make up < 15% of my Piemonte wines so not a big risk.
Brian, there is no question that well-made modernist wines can shed the oak and meet traditional wines in the middle. WS and a guy named Ed Behr both did experiments with older Sandrone that proved that such oak as his wines showed young dissipated with time (and not a lot of time, less than 10 years), and the wines became outstanding traditional wines (save a few vintages in the 1997-2000 era, when Sandrone was experimenting, but I think that his 1997 is now on the “A” list of many people). That is why I do not view Sandrone as a modernist, but rather, a producer who has improved upon the formula of most (but surely not all) traditionalists. However, the flip side is that a lot of modernist wines, unfortunately most of the lesser ones, break up and become undrinkable with time. I still shudder when I think of the last 1990 Manzone Gramolere that I tasted (and poured out). Shame, Marco De Grazia, shame!
Great info - thanks Bill!
Bob, this is what my note said about the 04 Percristina. “Of all the wines tasted, this seemed to be the most concentrated. Very deep, very structured with the red fruits and that orange peel note again. An infant. This wine and the 08 Ciabot Mentin seem like they would last forever.” No specific mention of oak.
Thanks Bill
I just finished the 1982 Scavino Bric del Fiasc, and it was actually very very good (however far from being in the same league as the best, IMO)
It tasted far too young, dark red, had only a very narrow brick-colored rim, and I had to inspect the capsule and cork again…
Pronounced tannins, but almost balanced with sweet fruit. Very enjoyable. Tasted even better day 2.
Does anyone know the winemaking techniques at that time? Was that even barriqued? That is pre-roto-fermenters, isn’t it? And when did Enrico take over from his father?