Produttori del Barbaresco Riserva and Riserva Speciale

Did they bottle 2 or 3 different bottlings in for instance 1964?
On Produttori del Barbaresco @ Fine Wine Geek you can see a Normale, a Riserva and a Riserva Speciale but it also says that Before 1980, the riserva was officially called "Riserva Speciale".
Did anyone taste any of the 64’s recently?

Ken V is obviously the man on this subject, but I have all three bottlings and, earlier this year, sent him a picture of the “Riserva” because I couldn’t find it on his site (at the time, he had the regular and “Riserva Speciale”). The picture of the “Riserva” on his site is the one that I opened.

I’m sure that Ken V will have more information on what might be different between the “Riserva” and “Riserva Speciale” inside the bottle as opposed to the labelling. Perhaps the contents of the two bottles are the same. In any event, I opened the “Riserva” 1964 and had the following note. I have not opened the others yet, but truffle and cep season are in full force in Europe and perhaps it’s time to try the others!

Fill…2cm above base of neck
Pale+ mahogany-garnet, pale bricky rim, clear, bright
Very aromatic…licorice, tar, roses, undergrowth, damp earth, classic
Bright acidity on impact
Very fresh
Tannins fully resolved
Tart and ripe black cherries with a bitter licorice edge
Seamless
Long, scented finish

I’ve also just sent to Ken V pictures of the front and back of the 1964 regular and Riserva Speciale bottles that I have, the latter has a red neck label that says Riserva Speciale.

Many thanks for your info Ken
For how long was your 1964 open before tasting it?
Looking forward to try myself.
I think that the old label is way cooler than the present btw

I opened it about an hour ahead of time. Based on the advice that I’ve seen on this board, I’ve started opening Barolos/Barbarescos even earlier, but this particular Produttori bottle opened up very nicely.

I took the '64 normale to a Nebb night last Fri. I think it had most people’s vote for WOTN

1964 Produttori del Barbaresco Barbaresco
Pretty pale color. Perfumed, still good cherry fruit, tar and violets. Lovely and long. At end of night nose was still gorgeous but with a little volatility, palate not quite as long but still holding on. A-

This was double-decanted for sediment about 6 hours before dinner

Thanks Dale. I have a bottle standing up with a fill into the lower neck and will try it this week. Perhaps I’ll double decant 3-4 hours ahead given the bit of volatility that you noted as time went on.

Thanks for additional info
What is the difference between the Riserva and the Riserva Speciale?

There were 3 levels at one time and I believe that Riserva Speciale required one additional year before release, but I’m not sure how clearly codified that was. I’ll have to look into it more carefully when I have time.

AFAIK G. Conterno and Giacosa never used the Riserva designation when the Riserva Speciale was available, but it looks like Produttori may have.

Ken, thanks for those labels. Once I figure this all out, I’ll update my site.

Thanks for all the feedback and pix from my fellow wine geeks!

I have updated my main Produttori page with this:

Before 1980, Riserva and Riserva Speciale were distinct designations. All Barbaresco required (and still requires) one year in wood. Barbaresco Normale requires a total of 2 years of aging before release. Pre-1980, Barbaresco Riserva required 3 years of aging before release and Barbaresco Riserva Speciale required 4 years of aging before release. See 1964 for a year when all three designations were made.

Post-1980, Riserva Speciale ceased to exist and Barbaresco Riserva took on the requirement of 4 years of aging before release.

And I have created separate pages for the 64 Riserva and 64 Riserva Speciale.

I have looked through all my other Produttori pix and do not see another example of this. Let me know if you do.

Ken,

The latest “disciplinare” for Barbaresco has lowered the wood-ageing requirement from one year to nine months. Analogously, it is down from two years to 18 months for Barolo. Not that this is all that important in this context but I thought I should mention it anyway.

How long before we have 6 weeks roto-ageing in barriques allowed…

A Barolo producer told me the rule was changed to allow shorter aging times for weaker vintages after '02, but I will be curious to see if producers really do start to use shorter aging times. The bigger ones may well do so, for cash flow.

I don’t know why the regimen for Barbaresco is half that for Barolo, which is a different point. Nine months is really short.

Do you recall what year this took effect?

For Barbaresco, it took effect beginning with the vintage 2007. This change of the “disciplinare” was also the one which introduced the MGAs in Barbaresco. You find the 2007 “disciplinare” via the link below. See p. 1 for information on when it takes effect and pp. 5-6 for regulations about aging in wood.

http://www.enotecadelbarbaresco.it/images/pdf/disciplinare.pdf

And as you can see from the link to the current “disciplinare” below (first page), the modification in 2007 was the first modification of the original DOCG rules from 1980 so it couldn’t have happened at any earlier point in time:

http://www.langhevini.it/pdf/download.lasso?img=/pdf/disciplinari/2014/DOCG-Barbaresco.pdf

Thank you, Anders, but isn’t it like 4 in the morning where you are?

I don’t claim to know what the real motivations are, but FWIW here’s what O’Keefe says about the matter in her B&B book:

With respect to Barolo (p. 321): “It is generally believed the reduction in wood is to accommodate younger wines and the use of barriques. Most producers tell me, however, that they will continue to age a minimum of two years in wood.”

With respect to Barbaresco (p. 324): “It is generally believed the reduction in wood is to accommodate younger wines and the use of barriques. Most producers tell me, however, that they will continue to age between one and two years in wood depending on the cru and the vintage.”

Like you, I have always wondered why the rules on aging prior to release with regard to total time as well as time in wood differ so much between the two DOCGs. To my mind, it would be a good idea for Barbaresco to change to the same rules as Barolo, both because this would elevate their status a bit and because those Barbareschi that are released as early as the current rules tend to be too rough around the edges in my opinion when they first become available. By comparison, the Baroli tend to be noticeably smoother immediately after release. Of course, such a change of the Barbaresco rules would cost the producers a year’s income from their Barbaresco in the short run. But as things currently stand, they shouldn’t have much difficulty to get decent loans to make up for that if necessary.

Yes. Depending on how you see it, I am a night owl or an early bird.

I think that would depend on whether you have just woken up or are now heading to bed. I am doing the latter.

I love the book, but I doubt her argument about the reason for the change; if anything, the use of barriques is on the wane, it would be an odd moment to change the rules to accommodate that style.

The same producer (Sergio Germano, of Germano Ettore) confirms that ‘The reason [for the change] came from difficult vintages like 1994 and 2002, when the tannins weren’t that strong in some areas. With two years of wood the wines would age too much, so it was thought that the minimum time in wood should be lowered, in lesser vintages, to maintain freshness. Obviously it’s an option, not a requirement, and I think that 99% of the producers will age for at least 24 months…In any case the wine needs to be tasted by the commission, and must therefore respect the character of Barolo. Above all, the period before sale has not been changed.’