One of my groups tasted all nine Produttori di Barbaresco single-vineyard bottlings from 2011 this week.
They showed very well, with the Pora a standout, far ahead in the group’s ranking. The Paje’ in second place was well ahead of the rest, and the Rabaja’, 3rd, was out ahead of the rest, which were tightly bunched.
The wines were poured into unmarked bottles for serving about an hour ahead. Some changed noticeably with air, but overall I’d say there was less change in the glass than I expected. They were tasted over 90+ minutes.
I’ve been a little unsure what to make of the 2011s. When the same group tasted ’11 Barolos last December, they were sort of meh. And tasting in Piemonte in August and September I felt some of the ‘11s lacked a little structure.
Some people felt Barbaresco fared better in this warm year, though, and the results here are certainly consistent with that theory. The Produttoris had ample tannin and acid, plus good fruit concentration in most cases. With the right foods, these are all drinkable now, but plainly have the structure to go for many years.
Of course, the differences here were subtle as the winemaking is the same for all nine. We had a small group this week so there was about a third of a bottle of each left over. When I resampled last night, my impressions were largely the same. I’ll taste them again tonight.
I’ve grouped them in bands since it’s kind of meaningless to attempt more precise gradations among such similar wines.
TOP TIER (92 points or more for me)
Asili: I think there was some residue in my glass or something, because I got some burned rubber in the nose which others didn’t get and I didn’t perceive out of others’ glasses – or on day 2. This had hard tannins but opened up with air and came into balance. Still, more tannic than most. At first I gave this 85, but after tasting it from another glass and with more air, I bumped it up to 92. My 9th based on the initial points/group’s 5th
Pora: A sweetness on the nose and floral perfume that reminds me of talcum powder (someone suggested violets). Good grip, a bit riper than some, with excellent fruit concentration. Lots of tanning at the back but enough ripeness that this is pretty drinkable now. My 1st/group’s 1st
Montefico: This was a little more austere at first, a little less ripe than some. But with air it really came together and my score rose from 89 to 92. My 7th based on the initial point score/group’s 4th
Montestefano: Beautiful nebbiolo rose hips on the nose, and ripish fruit. Tannic but enough concentration of fruit to keep it in balance. The fruit was on the riper side. “Oodles of backbone,” I wrote. Great length. My 2nd/group’s 6th/7th (tie)
MIDDLE TIER (90-91 points for me)
Paje’: Some heat on the nose. A tad more feminine and forward than most, but very good structure in the mouth in the finish. My 5th/group’s 2nd [corrected]
Muncagotta: That talcum floral perfume again. Good grip, with ample fruit to back it up. “A touch less ripe, but in a good way,” I wrote. Long, full, concentrated finish. My 4th/group’s 8th
Ovello: Nice nebbiolo scents with a bit of air. A tad less focused – a little less structured than most, though still a lovely wine with good concentration. My 3rd/group’s 6th/7th (tie)
Rabaja’: Lovely rose hips and flowers on the nose. “Lots of power” I wrote, but harder in the mouth, and there was something a wee bit tart on the finish – a greenness I didn’t get in the others. Perhaps this just needs time, but it wasn’t any more giving on day 2, so I’m not sure. Still, not a bad wine. My 6th/group’s 3rd. 90-ish for me.
DISAPPOINTING
Rio Sordo: Decent wine but lacks a little of everything – aromas, fruit and structure. Still the weakest by far on day 2. 86/87 for me. My 8th/group’s 9th. This would have been my ninth had I not initially dinged the Asili.