Curious to hear what others are thinking in regards to buying 2011 Barolo. Frankly, I am surprised at the lack of good deals given the publicity over 2010 (which should have soaked up dome demand) and the strength of the USD. I would have thought we would see some interesting deals come to market.
I understand 2011 is no slouch and might be ready earlier. Having trouble pulling the trigger when prices seem 10% higher. Why am I not seeing deals? Do I need new glasses?
KJF
Personally, I will only buy a few producers that I go with every year. No point in going deep when you can backfill 2007/2008 for less money.
I’ve been sticking to 2010. I figure, since I’m gonna go long on Barolo anyway, might as well get a variety from a great vintage. Especially since prices seem to be really good for quality Barolo.
I have been buying B&B on release strategically for 15+ years. Very good to great vintages only with certain out-performers in lesser years (I.e. 2002 Monfortino). I drink them usually with a minimum of 15 years of age but mostly 25+. Most of what I drink now from my cellar are older vintages I have aggressively purchased over the years. Given that, I have no desire to purchase wines such as the 2011s that I will have to cellar until my waning years for comparably questionable enjoyment.
If you actually want to drink the stuff (i.e. while your 2010’s age), and aren’t hung up on points it seems to be a very promising and consistent vintage. I’m going long especially in the $40-50 range.
This was my initial thought as well. I am just surprised by the pricing - I thought a less hyped vintage might be cheaper. I am keeping my eyes open for the back-fill opportunities when I see them.
Fortunately, it looks like the wines that really popped in price for the 2010s are back at their usual levels for the 2011s. I haven’t seen any for much less than their usual levels, but that’s to be expected. Regardless, with Barolo you almost always have the opportunity to backfill for release price or less for at least a decade. People get over-eager when the wines are all shiny and new and then just lose patience when they see how very unfriendly they get for so very long.
Save wipeout vintages like 2002 (and as Kelly noted, even that vintage produced a good Monfortino), handicapping Barolo vintages within 10 years of harvest is something a fool’s game, as is projecting longevity. Those that drink a lot of Nebbiolo now find that the once well-regarded 1998 vintage produced some real dogs that have already faded, while the too-hot 1997 vintage has produced some utterly brilliant wines (the Sandrone CB being as classic and fine a Barolo as one could want) and the perpetually lauded classic 1996 vintage perpetually waiting to deliver on its promise. There are a few vintages of undeniable promise in the new millennium, like 2004, 2006 and 2010, but also a host of others whose ultimate potential may be clouded by climate change and a move to a cleaner style at many important addresses. There were clearly great wines made in both the 2009 and 2011 vintages, and a wide range of stunning wines made in 2007. I find Marta Rinaldi’s 2011 Tre Tine to be one of the most impressive young blended Baroli that I have tasted in years, one with explosive aromatics (upon release, anyway) that are something of a throwback to her grandfather’s wines. Both of Sandrone’s 2011 Baroli are top-drawer. And since M-T Mascarello took over, it seems that EVERY vintage of Bartolo Mascarello Barolo is worth having some of for most palates. I suspect that Nebbiolo has finally arrived at Burgundy’s “buy the producer, not the vintage” place, at least for now, although buying both producer and vintage when possible remains the winning ticket. As a long-time buyer of only blue-chip Nebbiolo vintages, I now find myself putting away some 2009s and 2011s (more 2009s, truth be told), and at the same time, coming to understand how badly misjudged some earlier vintages such as 1967, 1970, 1974 and 1979 were…
My take is that mid-range 2011 Barolo is a decent buy for early drinking, but I’m not spending over $100 on anything from the vintage since I can still find truly great Barolo from 2004 and 2006 and still-good-drinking 2007s and 2008s below that threshold. Also, Barbaresco supposedly did quite well in 2011 (better than Barolo, at least at a high level of generality). I’ve grabbed a few 2011 Barbarescos already and will probably grab at least a mixed case of the Produttori Riservas.
Gonna buy my usual ones. Bartolo Mascarello, G Rinaldi, Cappellano (If I get an offer!), Sandrone ‘CB’. The ‘big gun’ offering prob comes towards the end of 2016, the 2010 Monfortino offering. Haven’t been this excited about one of these since the 2004 release. Funny, as I have zero hope of drinking this as a reasonably mature wine in my lifetime. Hope the kids like Monfortino!!!
One other stray point in all of this (which may well go to across-the-board reviewer score inflation rather than to vintage quality) is that, despite not being at the same median score level of vintages like 2004 and 2010, the median scores of the 2011, 2009 and 2005 vintages are surely very close, and the 2000 and 2001 vintages are not of much greater overall quality, being lifted only by a few high scores awarded to popular wines. The 2006, 2007 and 2008 vintages could be a cut above perhaps, but still not on the same overall level as the 2004s and 2010s. If you look back, 1999 does not have anything close to the median level of consistency and achievement of ANY of the above-mentioned vintages, but a very few heavy hitters from that vintage have led many to believe, quite mistakenly in my view, that 1999 is a great vintage.
I look at what I have just written, and I see little certainty about the ultimate future of any of these vintages, save the classic greatness of 2004 and the high overall quality of 2010 (which may or may not play out as a classic Nebbiolo vintage). I have tasted enough potentially great wines during the first decade of the new millennium to feel comfortable cautioning against reliance on reviewer vintage judgments based upon their robo-tastings from barrel or newly bottled wines, with little or no meaningful follow-up even possible. What we seem to have is a decade-long very, very attractive shade of grey, rather than black and white, which is why I think what Peter is doing makes the best sense, PROVIDED that he finds what he wants of the 2011s at reasonable prices. An important corollary of any discussion like this one is that wine collectors as a group (even some mailing-list clients for Napa’s highest-priced Cabs) are getting smarter about unjustified price inflation, and are increasingly quick to turn to backfilling when current-release prices disappoint. (Here’s looking at you, Bordeaux!)
Mr. Klapp, thank you for your comment on the Tre Tine. It’s one of the few 11s I’ve managed to try so far, and was very impressed by the quality. I might add that it was a Premier Cru purchase.
Have you had a chance to taste the Giacosa wines?
What is “dome demand”?
I thought the received wisdom was that 2011 was quite strong in Barbaresco, if less strong in Barolo. Am I misremembering that?
Are you putting 2000 on roughly the same level as 01?
My sense is that people who like 06 and 08 will generally not be fans of 07 (allowing exceptions for individual wines, of course).
I have not, and I have heard nothing about the 2011 Asili Riserva since Tanzer gave it a 96(+?). With Larner something of a part-time employee, Sanderson tasting only what is sent to him in NY and Galloni banned from the premises at Giacosa, I could have a long wait before hearing anything else!
Hadn’t heard this. How come?
Aparently, they were not happy with his assessment of their 2008’s.
You are not misremembering at all. I am just flatly stating that the received wisdom has not proven to be wise, and has not proven so for some time now, because it is being dispensed by people with insufficient age and experience to make such judgments, and it is all too often subject to groupthink. As to 2006, 2007 and 2008, your sense again seems to be received wisdom, the convenience of generalizing about even-numbered vintages and the like. (To be clear, I am speaking always of “received wisdom” and not your personal views here, John.) I rather think that the individual wine exceptions eat up any attempt at rule-making for those vintages. I can all but guarantee that anybody who likes Nebbiolo-based wines is going to like them from all three vintages. Many of the best 2007 Baroli have shut down with a vengeance, and the 2008s have not. Giacosa made two butt-kicking Riserve and the last strong Santo Stefano in 2007, but only a very good, but possibly not great (using only the Giacosa yardstick), single Riserva in 2008. No Monfortino in 2007 (but with the reason, as always, having little to do with vintage quality), but a so-so (by Monfortino standards only) Monfortino in 2008. Vietti made a Villero Riserva in 2007 as good or better than its 2006. G. Rinaldi, both Mascarellos, Sandrone, Gaja, Cavallotto and pretty much all of the modernists made comparable quality wines in both vintages, and there were fistfuls of wines from both vintages that were accessible upon and shortly after release. I cannot see how 2008 can possibly be a classic vintage, what with half of the production of traditionalists like G. Rinaldi and B. Mascarello already down the hatch because of the soft, perfumed, easy-drinking quality! 
(The new paradigm, don’t you know.) Surely 2008 should not be mentioned in the same breath with 2006, which would seem to have a good chance to be the successor to 2004 in the classical line. I could go on, but obviously, the exceptions have already pretty much devoured the rule.
As to 2000 and 2001, I cannot possibly make that call with any certainty yet, but yes, there is enough evidence out there to suggest that those who started tasting the 2000s 5 years ago and found them wanting, including Galloni, GOT IT WRONG. One puts an ear to the ground, and you have guys like Angelo Gaja suggesting that the 2000 vintage has commonality with the 1978 vintage in the early going. All of us know 1978 as the monster vintage that it has proven to be, but few of us were tuned into what its wines were like in the first 2-3 years after release. Gaja has been making wines since the 60s, so I am inclined to listen. (Sanderson was dreaming of becoming a male model and Galloni was earning Boy Scout merit badges at that juncture.) Giacosa tells us that he believes that his 2000 Riserve are some of the finest wines that he has ever made. Many people know what his 1978 Riserve taste like. They are the finest set of wines ever made by a single Nebbiolo producer, full stop, no room for debate or discussion. If he thinks that his 2000s may find their way into that company, I am all ears. Comparable quality Monfortinos for both years. Two Giacosa Riserve in 2001, with only Galloni going ga-ga over the Rabaja’ and the consensus view being that the 2000 Le Rocche Riserva trumps the 2001. Of course, then Sucking declares 2000 to be a 100-point vintage, that old sot Daniel Thomases at WA does the equal and opposite reaction thing, both were necessarily wrong at the time, and Galloni comes along and decides that the 2000 wines do not inspire him, but upgrades a bunch in his pointless 10-year tasting anyway. (Subsequent events give us ample reason to question Galloni’s abilities as a taster of young Giacosa wines.) 2001 has none of that going for it. It rests only upon some vague reviewer notion of “classic vintage”, which it may well be. The bottom line, however, is that both vintages appear to have a sufficient number of winners and losers to conclude that, received wisdom be damned, one cannot be said to be better than the other by ANYONE today.
With long-aging wines that are given to “phases” in the early going, like Nebbioli and Burgundy, I see the received wisdom being nothing more than trendy chit-chat most of the time. We had 1997 hyped all over Italy, and 1998 and 1999 ignored in the Piemonte at first for that reason. Then, oops!, 1997 was too hot for Nebbiolo and Gaja did OK, but it was probably luck. Then it was that the 1998s may not be built for the ages, but they will provide great medium-term drinking. Definitely better than the 1997s. Wait, we overlooked the 1999s! We did not listen clearly to what Giacosa told Tanzer about his 1999 Le Rocche Barolo, and groupthink has the wine as a Giacosa Riserva with a white label on it because Giacosa was broke and needed the money. The wine sports a Galloni 97 and a Tanzer 94(+?) at the moment. Put that one together with the 1999 Monfortino (again, a very good but by no means legendary one), and there you have it, a classic vintage for the ages. Well, you have it until I ask you to name the third consensus great 1999 Barolo. There is not one. Just a few more very good wines, and a slew of average ones. 2000 and 2001 both suffer from the same disease.
Let me stop there, having gone on far too long to make the simple point that generalizations about Nebbiolo vintages have become largely worthless in the Piemonte since, say, 1996…
I have to say that on 2006 and 2007, I go with the received wisdom: I far prefer the structure of the 06s. I haven’t had enough 08s to have an informed opinion.
I don’t think the 99s were every overlooked. Maybe a little underappreciated at first (like 99 in Burgundy), but they were generally perceived to be good, and better than the 98s and 00s.
Apart from Parker liking the 97s initially (sort of, with puffy language but a bunch of qualifications) and WS’s bizarre elevation of the 2000 to vintage of the century, I think the received wisdom has been pretty good since 1996.
My point is that, unless you enjoy drinking 2006s, 2007s and 2008s right now, do you really think that there is any way of knowing what your preference among these vintages is going to be 20-30 years from now? I do not. (I am more concerned about having the 20-30 years to find out!) There is no longer sufficient evidence to believe that cooler, more classic vintages are necessarily going to produce the best, most age-worthy wines. Some are already worried that the fruit will not outlast the structure in their best 1996s. That seemed somewhat true in an earlier time, when there was a greater dichotomy between years with good structure and balance and years that were either washouts or vintages where the winemakers lacked the tools to grapple with weather extremes. No longer the case. Of all things, the impact of moderately hot weather can be managed perfectly well in the vineyards and in the cellars of the better addresses. I am also saying that I do not believe that any vintage since 2004 has left such a large, clear footprint that one can even generalize with certainty about where the best wines of each vintage will end up. For example, I can all but guarantee you that the 2011 G. Rinaldi Tre Tine is destined to be the subject of positive raving on wine boards some day. And I can tell you that I cost myself some bucks because I tasted one bottle of the 1997 Sandrone CB, said not a chance, and then had to pay the tariff to gather in some of one of the best, most perfectly balanced Baroli that I have ever tasted.
I can say, well, you know, the 2006s are structured and the year was cooler, and the 2008s were perfumed, and the 2007s were bigger wines with plenty of fruit, and 2003, 2009 and 2011 were all “hot” years, whatever the hell that means. (In 2003, it actually did mean something…the hottest summer in 150 years or whatever.) Where does that really get me? It seems to me that there are too many currents rushing in too many directions. Hell, the slow death of the modernism vs. traditionalism debate is a creature of the past 15 years, as is the rise of squeaky clean winemaking, as well as the ascent of Gaia, Marta, Maria-Teresa, Bruna and Roberto. Against that backdrop, in the past 20 years so far, there has been one washout vintage (2002), one poor vintage (2003) and one weak vintage (1998), along with 17 vintages that have offered varying degrees of very good to world-beating wines. Unless one is buying strictly for resale, I believe that it is high time to focus on producer and vineyard at the expense of vintage and potentially irrelevant generalizations about the impact of climate. One size no longer fits all. Burgundy and the Piemonte have become a lot more alike in the 21st century.
What I am saying has no real impact upon your decision to buy one vintage and not another; it goes only to how one manages the available information to best advantage, if that is indeed the individual’s goal…