Decanted about four hours ahead and then drunk over several hours with filet mignon and mushrooms and ratatouille, then bread and cheese. The bottle had stood upright for a week.
There was virtually no sediment when it was decanted, and a small sample then gave off lovely nebbiolo scents of rose hips and sour cherry. It was also surprisingly open even then. You could pop and pour this.
The wine didn’t change that much with the time in the decanter or from the glass. It is very elegant – structurally more like a Burgundy (think Nuits St. Georges) than a Serralunga Barolo. And it’s quite drinkable now. It wasn’t terribly complex, though. I didn’t find myself intrigued or challenged; I didn’t return with each sip, seeing different facets of the wine or wanting to probe it. This was true even seven hours after the decant.
Will it become more interesting with time? Probably a bit, but given the structurally evolution (relatively soft tannins, moderate weight), I don’t see this as a really long-lived wine or even that special.
So… a nice tipple but a bit disappointing. Not a “Wow!” wine. More “Nice stuff.” I’d say 89.3 points.
My only experience with Cascina Francia is the 1996, where I bought half a case for 62 euros a bottle back in 2008 (a very good price not only by current standards but also back then). The first bottle I tried showed a lot of VA/vinegar on the nose as well as on the palate and, alarmingly, the second bottle was just the same. The wine didn’t have a lot to recommend it apart from that either. It struck me as rather tired as well as rather one-dimensional although it was of course difficult to judge what the wine was really good for under the circumstances. At any rate, I made an agreement with the seller to return the remaining four bottles. I have no way of knowing whether this experience should be chalked up to improper storage (although it was bought from what I think is a reliable source), my sensitivity to acetic aldehyde and acetic acid (I know I am far more sensitive to this than the average person, at least to the first of the two) or something else.
What surprises me in your case is that it was a 1998 and still didn’t show well. In my experience, 1998 is a very reliable year and virtually all B&Bs I have had from that vintage have been very good to excellent. While the surrounding years (1996, 1997, 1999, or at least the first and last of these) are commonly thought to be even better that doesn’t square so well with my personal experience. While my acquaintance with 1996 and 1997 is only skin-deep, I have had quite a few 1999s. And while the very best of these may surpass any 1998 I have had, there have also been quite a few disappointments. 1998, by contrast, seems to me like a year where the wines were consistently on a high level.
Quite a few of the 1998s that I have enjoyed were bought some 10 years after the vintage, when they could often be had at favorable prices due to the neighboring vintages (1996, 1997, 1999, 2000, 2001) all being hyped (although 2000 only to begin with) combined with a certain market slack at that time. All but one (a Boglietti Casa Nere) have now been happily consumed. Although, like most people, I prefer a bit of bottle age on my B&B, I have found it a good rule (based on my taste) not to wait more than 10-15 years.
John–hopefully just a phase. I bought 1/2 case (stupidly didn’t buy more) during the fire-sale several years ago out of Binny’s. Your description sounds similar to what I experienced when trying them too young. I saved a couple and am hoping for a late positive evolution.
I’ve had a number of 98s over the years that I’ve liked. They tend to be fairly approachable. But I wouldn’t remotely put it ahead of 96, 99 or 2001. I think you’re the exception in that view.
As for aging, I’ve had a number of B and Bs that I’ve liked after 12-15 years, but they don’t come close to those with 30+ years in terms of complexity of profundity.
I had a very different experience with a Giacosa 98 Asili I served ~18 months ago. Even with many hours of decanting, it was extremely backward. Some liked it more than I did, but I don’t think anyone there (including Jay Miller, Claude Kolm and James Wright) would have described it as approachable.
I slow ox’d 12 hours prior (pouring off 2 oz) and we gave it probably another 2-3 hours in the decanter. I treated the first bottle back in 2013 the same. Trying very hard to hold off on my last one.
It was decanted three or four hours ahead and drunk over a long evening with several whites first. So it effectively had six or seven hours, as I recall. (I don’t think time in the bottle, even with a little wine taken off the top, will do anything to open a nebbiolo of this age.)
My college chemistry is a bit rusty so here is a site with a calculator that calculates how long it takes for oxygen to diffuse across water. The below calculator is for water at 25 degrees C.
The interesting thing is that 12 hours of slow ox will get you about 1.3 cm of oxygen diffusion across water.
The surprising part is that it takes 165 hours (almost 7 days) for oxygen to diffuse across 5cm of fluid (depending on what kind of decanter you use). So really you could say that even 3-7 hours in a decanter doesn’t do much in terms of “oxygenating” a liquid such as wine.
Obviously temperature plays a factor, we’re talking wine vs water, wine containing alcohol that will evaporate, etc. but it’s interesting when you bring science into it.
It compares two static volumes of water. It doesn’t take into affect the act of decanting which, even if gentle, I think will introduce much more oxygen into the wine than simply exposing it to air.
As I read that site and calculator, it’s measuring the distance of dispersion from the surface on a given surface. It seems that, by that method, when you have a much larger surface, such as in a decanter, the calculations would show much more exposure of the wine to oxygen than when it’s simply exposed to air in the neck of the bottle. The surface area on which dispersion can occur is an order of magnitude larger in a decanter.
Decanting isn’t just about introducing oxygen. It’s also about releasing volatile elements in the wine.
The slow oxygenating was promoted by Francois Audouze for very old, delicate wines, as a way to let any unpleasant aromas evaporate off without over-exposing the wine to oxygen.
I don’t know if you’ve ever killed a delicate old wine by decanting it. If you have, it certainly brings home the point that there’s a big difference between pulling the cork a few hours ahead and decanting.
Agreed. But once in the decanter the liquid volume would take much longer to oxygenate significantly assuming you don’t swirl the liquid in the decanter. Even 2 cm of liquid would take 26 hours to reach equilibrium. I’m guessing very few of us use such a wide based decanter where there is only 2 cm of liquid
As I read that site and calculator, it’s measuring the distance of dispersion from the surface > on a given surface> . It seems that, by that method, when you have a much larger surface, such as in a decanter, the calculations would show much more exposure of the wine to oxygen than when it’s simply exposed to air in the neck of the bottle. The surface area on which dispersion can occur is an order of magnitude larger in a decanter.
The dispersion coefficient is dependent on the partial pressure of oxygen and the temperature of the liquid. The partial pressure of oxygen would be the same regardless of surface area and would still take a molecule of oxygen the same time to traverse a given distance. Yes, more surface area of liquid is exposed to air in a decanter, but it would still take a significant amount of time for oxygen molecules to traverse the depth of the wine in the decanter. Much longer than you would think. Again, assuming no swirling.
Point being that 12 hours slow ox in the bottle may not do much. But perhaps the same can be said of just 3-7 hours of air in a smaller decanter if you don’t swirl the wine.
Decanting isn’t just about introducing oxygen. It’s also about releasing volatile elements in the wine.
The slow oxygenating was promoted by Francois Audouze for very old, delicate wines, as a way to let any unpleasant aromas evaporate off without over-exposing the wine to oxygen.
I don’t know if you’ve ever killed a delicate old wine by decanting it. If you have, it certainly brings home the point that there’s a big difference between pulling the cork a few hours ahead and decanting.
Agreed. Planning on opening a 72 Dujac Echezeaux on Friday. Torn between decanting for sediment and just popping the cork.
I think you misunderstood me. I am not putting 98 ahead of any of these years as far as peaks are concerned. And I am not putting it ahead of 2001 in any respect. But I think 98 is a more reliable year than both 96 and 99. It may not have as many and pronounced peaks but not as many troughs either.
The only 30+ B&B that I’ve tried was in my view destroyed (Giovanni Moresco, Barbaresco Pajoré 1971) although that may of course be nothing but purely coincidental. Individual bottles, in my view, start to become quite unpredictable already at age 10 or so (even if coming from the same batch and stored under identical conditions). Possibly, some 30+ B&Bs are nice if stored at a temperature of 10C or so degrees. I don’t have those cellaring conditons (it’s more like 18C on average) and under those conditions, I think 15 years is about the limit (for my gusto). The Burlotto Monvigliero 1999 eventually came around after approximately 15 years (of which about 10 in my “cellar”). That’s the record so far. At the other end, Castello di Neive Santo Stefano 2006, acquired recently from a very reliable source, is perfectly ready at this point (quite a few bottles tried so it’s not a matter of the individual bottle). It will last a few years more but no further positive development can be expected as I see it. I find this somewhat remarkable as I tried this wine when it was just released and it was very austere then, as the vintage suggests. In the end, it’s all about gusto. I am not saying that everyone has to share my taste, but I like it with a bit more teenage character still around.
Right, Barry. The dumb phase in my household can apply to a lot of things, and seems to last forever at times. With regard to this wine and 98’s, I think they have been odd in that they have seemed to fade in and out of showing well and being dumb, much like 2001 burgundies did for quite a while. I think it will be interesting to see what happens with this wine with a little more time, even though it already seems like it should have enough age.
I have a fairly narrow decanter where the surface area would have about a 3" diameter. Compared to a 1/2" surface in the neck of a bottle, that’s about 10 times the surface area. I have other decanters where the surface area for 750ml would be somewhere between 4" and 6". Even if you draw a little off the bottle for slow OD’ing, so the fill is in the shoulder, that’s a large difference in surface area. (At shoulder level with, say, a 2" diameter surface area, that’s still about 1/10th the surface area of a decanter with a 6" diameter surface area.)
And, again, the act of decanting will greatly increase the oxygen exposure throughout the wine. The oxygen is not simply penetrating from a still surface.
![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}