Accessible Barolo Vintages

Tasting notes, varietals, grapes - anything related to wine
Message
Author
Mich@el Ch@ng
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 2640
Joined: March 31st, 2017, 9:57 pm

Re: Accessible Barolo Vintages

#51 Post by Mich@el Ch@ng » January 3rd, 2019, 12:49 pm

Guess the 07 was sold out, I got the 09s so I’ll give them a shot.

User avatar
John W Osgood
Posts: 257
Joined: January 13th, 2013, 4:52 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Accessible Barolo Vintages

#52 Post by John W Osgood » January 3rd, 2019, 8:37 pm

Some good advice here in terms of drinkability of recent vintages.

I had the 2013 Fratelli Alessandria Barolo (base) for NYE and it was fully open and expressive. I just love this vintage.
IG: vins_rouges

CT: JOsgood

User avatar
Jeff Vaughan
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 1267
Joined: January 22nd, 2013, 9:42 am
Location: Kennett Square, PA

Re: Accessible Barolo Vintages

#53 Post by Jeff Vaughan » January 4th, 2019, 5:48 am

John W Osgood wrote:
January 3rd, 2019, 8:37 pm
Some good advice here in terms of drinkability of recent vintages.

I had the 2013 Fratelli Alessandria Barolo (base) for NYE and it was fully open and expressive. I just love this vintage.
Interesting. I had a bottle of this about 6 months ago, and I thought it was very tight and closed. I buried my bottles in the cellar. For recent accessible vintages, I think it is more dependent on producer and bottling. I've had some 09, 11, 12 and 14's that I thought were accessible.
CT: outplaying

R0$$ M 0 R R 1 $ 0 N
Posts: 80
Joined: December 30th, 2018, 8:08 am

Re: Accessible Barolo Vintages

#54 Post by R0$$ M 0 R R 1 $ 0 N » January 4th, 2019, 6:16 am

Lots of good comments above. It does vary depending on your personal preference. Here's my take on recent vintages:

2014 - Needs time - mixed results - some great wines, some producers faced massive loss (e.g. 70% at Rinaldi) which appears to have affected quality. Some (e.g. Brovia) blended their Cru grapes into a single Normale (which may be excellent)
2013 - Needs significant time but great vintage
2012 - Very accessible.
2011 - Some report it as drinking well. Better examples need time (e.g. L. Oddero Vigna Rionda in fall - WAY TOO YOUNG). Entry level wines may be more accessible. Not as early drinking as 2012 imo
2010 - Big vintage, needs time
2009 - Ripe, fruit dominant, fast aging, accessible and drink up - some showing signs of early advancement, e.g. 2009 Bruno Giacosa Barolo le Rocche del Falletto
2008 - Classic vintage - Starting to drink really nicely. Opened a 2008 Azelia Margheria last week - just starting into drinking window
2007 - Ripe, forward, fast ageing drink up, some already past prime.
2006 - Good but tannic, needs time
2005 - Some past prime, some excellent but not one destined for long aging. Drink if you find a good one.
2004 - Great vintage - hitting prime drinking now. .e.g 2004 Paolo Scavino Bric del Fiasc (3 weeks ago) beautiful.
2003 - Super hot, all mine were gone long ago - avoid
2002 - Drink a Monfortino if you can - only good one
2001 - Great vintage - in prime window
2000 - good vintage, some past peak, some holding up well

Cheers,

User avatar
Sh@n A
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 750
Joined: July 9th, 2018, 8:21 am

Re: Accessible Barolo Vintages

#55 Post by Sh@n A » January 4th, 2019, 6:25 am

Ross, can you please expand more on the comment, "some showing signs of early advancement, e.g. 2009 Bruno Giacosa Barolo le Rocche del Falletto" -- I have two bottles. Was considering opening the first next week or delaying for many years. Giacosa is not my favorite Barolo producer, as I find a caramel note in the limited ones I have had... 2009 probably not up my wheel house either given the comments here on this board. Conversely, I am quite keen to try a 2009 Alessandria Monvigliero I picked up... perhaps the north may have benefited in such a warm year?
/ @ g r @ \

R0$$ M 0 R R 1 $ 0 N
Posts: 80
Joined: December 30th, 2018, 8:08 am

Re: Accessible Barolo Vintages

#56 Post by R0$$ M 0 R R 1 $ 0 N » January 4th, 2019, 7:06 am

Sh@n A wrote:
January 4th, 2019, 6:25 am
Ross, can you please expand more on the comment, "some showing signs of early advancement, e.g. 2009 Bruno Giacosa Barolo le Rocche del Falletto" -- I have two bottles. Was considering opening the first next week or delaying for many years. Giacosa is not my favorite Barolo producer, as I find a caramel note in the limited ones I have had... 2009 probably not up my wheel house either given the comments here on this board. Conversely, I am quite keen to try a 2009 Alessandria Monvigliero I picked up... perhaps the north may have benefited in such a warm year?
Hi Shaun, Giasoca is on my short list of favorite producers. There is some context in terms of preference that may help. I am not a fan of the dark, soy/balsamic tones that develop as a result of oxidation in red wines, especially in warm/hot vintages. This goes for Bordeaux as well as Burgundy. I first recall encountering this phenomenon with 2003 Bordeaux. The were drinking beautifully, then suddenly and prematurely appeared to fall off a cliff (Actually I had experienced it previously with Amarone but figured it was particular to Amarone); the colour was heading towards brown and those dark bitter flavours emerged. Time in the glass or decanter does not help, but only expedites the transition to dark, bitter, oxidized. I have never seen a wine come back from this. With further cellar time, they only head further down this path, at an accelerated pace. A very knowledgeable agent who deals heavily in CdP explained it at at 2003 horizontal tasting (2013) that the culprit is insufficient acidity in the warmer years. 2003 was an extreme example. All that said, there ARE excepetions. Everywhere I mention this issue, someone chimes in about an exception that showed well. I am speaking about the majority or at least significant portions of wines in given years. I had 2005 Barolo that were already heading south a few years back but also had GLORIOUS 2005 Oddero Vigna Rionda and Aldo Conterno GranBussia Riserva in 2017. A 2005 Cappellano Rupestris 2 weeks ago as ok but showing signs of these dark bitter tones and was not the most memorable bottle of Rupestris, nor would I seek it out again. In these years, the fruit tends to be forward and dominant. I have found they drink well and are enjoyable young but need watching between 7-10 years. I DO love older Barolo and opened 1961, 1964, 1970, 1971, 1982... in the last year with some great results (these were wines that had the balance to age effectively). Two bottles of 1964 Terre del Barolo Riserva Speciale had bright red colour still and presented Burgundian tones. One friend with an excellent palate said "Beautiful, is this a Burgundy" when served blind.

Re: 2009 Barolo Vintage: I tasted a lot of 2009 Barolo on release in Piedmont (2013 IRRC). At the same time we were being served a lot of 2008s. My takeaway was that 2008 was a Classic vintage, loved it, and it would take some time. 2009 impressed me as fruit dominant and lacking the acidity & structure to balance it. I made note to load up on 2008 but only get a few of my favorites for 2009. I bought 4 bottles of Scavino Cannubi 2009. First 2 were wonderful. Last couple (2018) showing early signs of advancement and while good, not as good as a year or two earlier....

Getting back to your 2009 Giacosa. I've had the Rocche previously, haven't opened the Falletto yet. In June 2015 my notes on the Rocche were: "Tar at first, then strawberry, rose. Light brick colour. Signs of ethereal. Soft but grippy tannins. Beautiful right out of the cellar. Hard to wait for this to open up! BUY MORE!!!!" In Sep 2018 I opened a 2009 Rocche along with a 2011 Cappellano Rupestris at a restaurant. Both got 1.75 hrs in decanter as we took a longer time than planned with the whites. While the Cappellano was singing all night long (Clouds parted, angelic choruses sang) the Rocche started showing soy, balsamic and only went further that way during dinner. My note was HOT VINTAGE - Drink sooner. So, my takeaway is to a) Drink sooner than later and b) Pop n pour or decant JUST as serving).

Hope this is helpful.
Attachments
20180728_214546.jpg
20180728_182802.jpg
20180629_205516.jpg

R0$$ M 0 R R 1 $ 0 N
Posts: 80
Joined: December 30th, 2018, 8:08 am

Re: Accessible Barolo Vintages

#57 Post by R0$$ M 0 R R 1 $ 0 N » January 4th, 2019, 7:07 am

Regarding the Monvigliero, it might do better, but I'd still open sooner than later.

User avatar
Markus S
Posts: 5653
Joined: May 20th, 2010, 7:27 am

Re: Accessible Barolo Vintages

#58 Post by Markus S » January 4th, 2019, 7:10 am

R0$$ M 0 R R 1 $ 0 N wrote:
January 4th, 2019, 6:16 am
Lots of good comments above. It does vary depending on your personal preference. Here's my take on recent vintages:

2014 - Needs time - mixed results - some great wines, some producers faced massive loss (e.g. 70% at Rinaldi) which appears to have affected quality. Some (e.g. Brovia) blended their Cru grapes into a single Normale (which may be excellent)
2013 - Needs significant time but great vintage
2012 - Very accessible.
2011 - Some report it as drinking well. Better examples need time (e.g. L. Oddero Vigna Rionda in fall - WAY TOO YOUNG). Entry level wines may be more accessible. Not as early drinking as 2012 imo
2010 - Big vintage, needs time
2009 - Ripe, fruit dominant, fast aging, accessible and drink up - some showing signs of early advancement, e.g. 2009 Bruno Giacosa Barolo le Rocche del Falletto
2008 - Classic vintage - Starting to drink really nicely. Opened a 2008 Azelia Margheria last week - just starting into drinking window
2007 - Ripe, forward, fast ageing drink up, some already past prime.
2006 - Good but tannic, needs time
2005 - Some past prime, some excellent but not one destined for long aging. Drink if you find a good one.
2004 - Great vintage - hitting prime drinking now. .e.g 2004 Paolo Scavino Bric del Fiasc (3 weeks ago) beautiful.
2003 - Super hot, all mine were gone long ago - avoid
2002 - Drink a Monfortino if you can - only good one
2001 - Great vintage - in prime window
2000 - good vintage, some past peak, some holding up well

Cheers,
I think you paint with too broad a brush and must have a low tolerance for aged nebbiolo or a tolerance for strong tannin. Many of the vintages you say are "past peak" are drinking well now. Even 2003 had some nice wines at the top which are drinking nicely and no slouches. Even in an early maturing vintage, many can last 20 years no problem.
$ _ € ® e . k @

R0$$ M 0 R R 1 $ 0 N
Posts: 80
Joined: December 30th, 2018, 8:08 am

Re: Accessible Barolo Vintages

#59 Post by R0$$ M 0 R R 1 $ 0 N » January 4th, 2019, 7:47 am

Markus S wrote:
January 4th, 2019, 7:10 am
R0$$ M 0 R R 1 $ 0 N wrote:
January 4th, 2019, 6:16 am
Lots of good comments above. It does vary depending on your personal preference. Here's my take on recent vintages:

2014 - Needs time - mixed results - some great wines, some producers faced massive loss (e.g. 70% at Rinaldi) which appears to have affected quality. Some (e.g. Brovia) blended their Cru grapes into a single Normale (which may be excellent)
2013 - Needs significant time but great vintage
2012 - Very accessible.
2011 - Some report it as drinking well. Better examples need time (e.g. L. Oddero Vigna Rionda in fall - WAY TOO YOUNG). Entry level wines may be more accessible. Not as early drinking as 2012 imo
2010 - Big vintage, needs time
2009 - Ripe, fruit dominant, fast aging, accessible and drink up - some showing signs of early advancement, e.g. 2009 Bruno Giacosa Barolo le Rocche del Falletto
2008 - Classic vintage - Starting to drink really nicely. Opened a 2008 Azelia Margheria last week - just starting into drinking window
2007 - Ripe, forward, fast ageing drink up, some already past prime.
2006 - Good but tannic, needs time
2005 - Some past prime, some excellent but not one destined for long aging. Drink if you find a good one.
2004 - Great vintage - hitting prime drinking now. .e.g 2004 Paolo Scavino Bric del Fiasc (3 weeks ago) beautiful.
2003 - Super hot, all mine were gone long ago - avoid
2002 - Drink a Monfortino if you can - only good one
2001 - Great vintage - in prime window
2000 - good vintage, some past peak, some holding up well

Cheers,
I think you paint with too broad a brush and must have a low tolerance for aged nebbiolo or a tolerance for strong tannin. Many of the vintages you say are "past peak" are drinking well now. Even 2003 had some nice wines at the top which are drinking nicely and no slouches. Even in an early maturing vintage, many can last 20 years no problem.
I paint with the brush that suites my own palate. Coincidentally, it correlates with multiple producers with whom I've discussed various vintages. As I mentioned above, someone ALWAYS chimes in with the'But there are some wines drinking really nicely and no slouches....' Today, you're that person, which is fine if that works for you. I prefaced my comments with the note that there WILL be exceptions. You are way off in thinking I have a low tolerance for aged Barolo. I have a low tolerance for bad Barolo or Barolo that is ageing poorly. There is a BIG difference. The 1964s I opened in the summer were among the best wines of the year. Also, read what I wrote rather than scanning and filling in the blanks for yourself. I didn't say the Vintage were universally past peak but rather sad some (examples/wines) are already past peak. As suggested in my preface, SOME may also be drinking well (hence my comment about the 2005), so I think an more apt decription of the reply would be nuanced rather than 'too broad'.

User avatar
Sh@n A
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 750
Joined: July 9th, 2018, 8:21 am

Re: Accessible Barolo Vintages

#60 Post by Sh@n A » January 4th, 2019, 8:09 am

Appreciate the thoughtful dialogue. Thank you. Gonna pop the 2009 Giacosa perhaps Monday.
/ @ g r @ \

User avatar
Claus Jeppesen
Posts: 1551
Joined: April 27th, 2010, 2:42 am

Re: Accessible Barolo Vintages

#61 Post by Claus Jeppesen » January 4th, 2019, 8:12 am

R0$$ M 0 R R 1 $ 0 N wrote:
January 4th, 2019, 6:16 am
Lots of good comments above. It does vary depending on your personal preference. Here's my take on accessible vintages:
1989 - Some past prime, but excellent vintage
1982 - Some past prime, but excellent vintage
1978 - Some past prime, but excellent vintage
1971 - Some past prime, but excellent vintage
1970 - Some past prime, but excellent vintage
1964 - Some past prime, but excellent vintage
1961 - Some past prime, but excellent vintage

Cheers,
FIFY
Last edited by Claus Jeppesen on January 4th, 2019, 10:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
Claus

Riesling and Slate

Brian King
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 371
Joined: May 1st, 2010, 6:37 pm

Re: Accessible Barolo Vintages

#62 Post by Brian King » January 4th, 2019, 8:39 am

Most of the key points have been covered already. Personally I'm more a fan of '11 and '14 for early drinking than '09 especially. Even the '12's just aren't my favorite - they have absolutely lovely noses, but the wines I've had (15-20 of them) have lacked a bit on the palate. With the 12's I worry they won't drink great young, but when you check back in 10 years they will already be tiring out.

Most of the traditional 13's have been drinking really well early and don't seem close to shutting down year. I had 2013 Cappellano Rupestris and G. Rinaldi Tre Tigne on a recent trip to Piemonte, and both were drinking fabulously well. Not sure when they'll close down, but definitely can be popped now. Conversely the more modern style wines are just tight and tannic, so would lay those down for a while

One last point is that nearly every winemaker in Piemonte will tell you they drink their Barolo's with ~10 years of age, even in big vintages. Not sure I agree, but I've heard the comment MANY times over the years

Justin S
Posts: 238
Joined: November 30th, 2017, 9:38 am

Re: Accessible Barolo Vintages

#63 Post by Justin S » January 4th, 2019, 9:45 am

Brian King wrote:
January 4th, 2019, 8:39 am
One last point is that nearly every winemaker in Piemonte will tell you they drink their Barolo's with ~10 years of age, even in big vintages. Not sure I agree, but I've heard the comment MANY times over the years
You hear that from Vacca at PdB too (8-12 years is his recommendation, with more for certain vintages). I've never been able to tell whether that's a pure marketing statement or they simply don't mind a bit of tannin.
$ ! n g h

Brian King
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 371
Joined: May 1st, 2010, 6:37 pm

Re: Accessible Barolo Vintages

#64 Post by Brian King » January 4th, 2019, 10:49 am

Justin S wrote:
January 4th, 2019, 9:45 am
Brian King wrote:
January 4th, 2019, 8:39 am
One last point is that nearly every winemaker in Piemonte will tell you they drink their Barolo's with ~10 years of age, even in big vintages. Not sure I agree, but I've heard the comment MANY times over the years
You hear that from Vacca at PdB too (8-12 years is his recommendation, with more for certain vintages). I've never been able to tell whether that's a pure marketing statement or they simply don't mind a bit of tannin.
Justin - two of the ones who told it to me recently were Alfio Cavallotto (of Cavallotto) and Fabio Alessandria (of Burlotto) - who seem like two of the least marketing-oriented winemakers out there, so I give them a lot of credence [cheers.gif]

Brian

User avatar
John Morris
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 16090
Joined: June 21st, 2009, 2:09 pm
Location: Gotham

Re: Accessible Barolo Vintages

#65 Post by John Morris » January 4th, 2019, 11:15 am

Brian King wrote:
January 4th, 2019, 10:49 am
Justin S wrote:
January 4th, 2019, 9:45 am
Brian King wrote:
January 4th, 2019, 8:39 am
One last point is that nearly every winemaker in Piemonte will tell you they drink their Barolo's with ~10 years of age, even in big vintages. Not sure I agree, but I've heard the comment MANY times over the years
You hear that from Vacca at PdB too (8-12 years is his recommendation, with more for certain vintages). I've never been able to tell whether that's a pure marketing statement or they simply don't mind a bit of tannin.
Justin - two of the ones who told it to me recently were Alfio Cavallotto (of Cavallotto) and Fabio Alessandria (of Burlotto) - who seem like two of the least marketing-oriented winemakers out there, so I give them a lot of credence [cheers.gif]

Brian
Back in 1998, I was invited to dinner with the Currado family of Vietti and Alfredo Currado served a '94 Lazzarito. Now, that wasn't a great vintage, but still.... By the way, it was lovely, though I probably wouldn't have had the nerve to open it if I'd owned it.

Many winemakers in France prefer their wines much younger than we'd usually expect.

This is such a matter of personal preference. I know a lot of people who have oohed and aahed about Barolos from the '60s that to me see just seemed like generic old tannic wines. Similarly, I was served a '61 Ch. Talbot a few weeks ago. It was very fresh, but the fruit had thinned so the acid was showing. Others loved it, while I found it a very pleasant curiosity and nothing more.
"The Internet has resulted in an exponential increase in the number of instances in which humor must be explained." - me, 2019

"It's hard for a $35 zin to compete with a $100 cabernet that tastes the same." – me, 2018

User avatar
Jeff Vaughan
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 1267
Joined: January 22nd, 2013, 9:42 am
Location: Kennett Square, PA

Re: Accessible Barolo Vintages

#66 Post by Jeff Vaughan » January 4th, 2019, 11:23 am

John, I am with you. Sometimes old wines are amazing. Often they are just old. Everyone's sweet spot is different, I guess.
CT: outplaying

R0$$ M 0 R R 1 $ 0 N
Posts: 80
Joined: December 30th, 2018, 8:08 am

Re: Accessible Barolo Vintages

#67 Post by R0$$ M 0 R R 1 $ 0 N » January 4th, 2019, 5:20 pm

Claus Jeppesen wrote:
January 4th, 2019, 8:12 am
R0$$ M 0 R R 1 $ 0 N wrote:
January 4th, 2019, 6:16 am
Lots of good comments above. It does vary depending on your personal preference. Here's my take on accessible vintages:
1989 - Some past prime, but excellent vintage
1982 - Some past prime, but excellent vintage
1978 - Some past prime, but excellent vintage
1971 - Some past prime, but excellent vintage
1970 - Some past prime, but excellent vintage
1964 - Some past prime, but excellent vintage
1961 - Some past prime, but excellent vintage

Cheers,
FIFY
I agree with you 100% on these vintages. The question IIRC was ...and available to buy now.. hency my not refering to these, wheihc are a list of 'go to' older vintages. They ARE available here and there, but not as available as the OP suggested. I look forward to opening every bottle from one of these vintages with both anticipation and trepidation!

R0$$ M 0 R R 1 $ 0 N
Posts: 80
Joined: December 30th, 2018, 8:08 am

Re: Accessible Barolo Vintages

#68 Post by R0$$ M 0 R R 1 $ 0 N » January 4th, 2019, 5:25 pm

Brian King wrote:
January 4th, 2019, 8:39 am
Most of the key points have been covered already. Personally I'm more a fan of '11 and '14 for early drinking than '09 especially. Even the '12's just aren't my favorite - they have absolutely lovely noses, but the wines I've had (15-20 of them) have lacked a bit on the palate. With the 12's I worry they won't drink great young, but when you check back in 10 years they will already be tiring out.

Most of the traditional 13's have been drinking really well early and don't seem close to shutting down year. I had 2013 Cappellano Rupestris and G. Rinaldi Tre Tigne on a recent trip to Piemonte, and both were drinking fabulously well. Not sure when they'll close down, but definitely can be popped now. Conversely the more modern style wines are just tight and tannic, so would lay those down for a while

One last point is that nearly every winemaker in Piemonte will tell you they drink their Barolo's with ~10 years of age, even in big vintages. Not sure I agree, but I've heard the comment MANY times over the years
I've heard the stock answer '10 years' from many producers during tasting visits as well. I get the feeling this is their canned answer as they see many many visitors. When I've discussed vintages over a dinner with producers and their representatives, they tend to give responses that fit with the list I wrote above. My impression is one of context. When asked in the general vein they give the stock answer of 10 years which is a good starting point. When in an extended dialogue they tend to comment on how they are experiencing the various vintages. 2 different questions if you think about it.

R0$$ M 0 R R 1 $ 0 N
Posts: 80
Joined: December 30th, 2018, 8:08 am

Re: Accessible Barolo Vintages

#69 Post by R0$$ M 0 R R 1 $ 0 N » January 4th, 2019, 5:40 pm

Brian King wrote:
January 4th, 2019, 8:39 am
With the 12's I worry they won't drink great young, but when you check back in 10 years they will already be tiring out.
This was my feeling about the 12s on release. However, over the last 2 -3 years they have shown much better than I imagined they would on release. I don't see 12 as a long lasting vintage but rather one to enjoy young (7-13 years) while waiting for other vintages for the most part.

Michael_H
Posts: 18
Joined: December 28th, 2018, 10:29 am

Re: Accessible Barolo Vintages

#70 Post by Michael_H » January 4th, 2019, 7:56 pm

Brian King wrote:
January 4th, 2019, 8:39 am
Most of the key points have been covered already. Personally I'm more a fan of '11 and '14 for early drinking
Agree on the 11s and think some are already drinking well. When I talked with Carlotta Rinaldi of G. Rinaldi this spring she mentioned that for her wines she was drinking ‘09 and ‘11 were already drinking nicely.
Michael H endon

User avatar
M.Kaplan
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 4761
Joined: April 18th, 2009, 9:10 am
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Accessible Barolo Vintages

#71 Post by M.Kaplan » January 7th, 2019, 3:19 pm

While not Barolo, 2014 Giacosa Nebbiolo d'Alba Valmaggiore is absolutely delicious right now and punches way above its mid-$30s weight.
---Mark

User avatar
Pat Burton
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 1289
Joined: February 17th, 2011, 2:41 pm
Location: Indianapolis, IN

Re: Accessible Barolo Vintages

#72 Post by Pat Burton » January 7th, 2019, 4:00 pm

R0$$ M 0 R R 1 $ 0 N wrote:
January 4th, 2019, 7:47 am
Markus S wrote:
January 4th, 2019, 7:10 am
R0$$ M 0 R R 1 $ 0 N wrote:
January 4th, 2019, 6:16 am
Lots of good comments above. It does vary depending on your personal preference. Here's my take on recent vintages:

2014 - Needs time - mixed results - some great wines, some producers faced massive loss (e.g. 70% at Rinaldi) which appears to have affected quality. Some (e.g. Brovia) blended their Cru grapes into a single Normale (which may be excellent)
2013 - Needs significant time but great vintage
2012 - Very accessible.
2011 - Some report it as drinking well. Better examples need time (e.g. L. Oddero Vigna Rionda in fall - WAY TOO YOUNG). Entry level wines may be more accessible. Not as early drinking as 2012 imo
2010 - Big vintage, needs time
2009 - Ripe, fruit dominant, fast aging, accessible and drink up - some showing signs of early advancement, e.g. 2009 Bruno Giacosa Barolo le Rocche del Falletto
2008 - Classic vintage - Starting to drink really nicely. Opened a 2008 Azelia Margheria last week - just starting into drinking window
2007 - Ripe, forward, fast ageing drink up, some already past prime.
2006 - Good but tannic, needs time
2005 - Some past prime, some excellent but not one destined for long aging. Drink if you find a good one.
2004 - Great vintage - hitting prime drinking now. .e.g 2004 Paolo Scavino Bric del Fiasc (3 weeks ago) beautiful.
2003 - Super hot, all mine were gone long ago - avoid
2002 - Drink a Monfortino if you can - only good one
2001 - Great vintage - in prime window
2000 - good vintage, some past peak, some holding up well

Cheers,
I think you paint with too broad a brush and must have a low tolerance for aged nebbiolo or a tolerance for strong tannin. Many of the vintages you say are "past peak" are drinking well now. Even 2003 had some nice wines at the top which are drinking nicely and no slouches. Even in an early maturing vintage, many can last 20 years no problem.
I paint with the brush that suites my own palate. Coincidentally, it correlates with multiple producers with whom I've discussed various vintages. As I mentioned above, someone ALWAYS chimes in with the'But there are some wines drinking really nicely and no slouches....' Today, you're that person, which is fine if that works for you. I prefaced my comments with the note that there WILL be exceptions. You are way off in thinking I have a low tolerance for aged Barolo. I have a low tolerance for bad Barolo or Barolo that is ageing poorly. There is a BIG difference. The 1964s I opened in the summer were among the best wines of the year. Also, read what I wrote rather than scanning and filling in the blanks for yourself. I didn't say the Vintage were universally past peak but rather sad some (examples/wines) are already past peak. As suggested in my preface, SOME may also be drinking well (hence my comment about the 2005), so I think an more apt decription of the reply would be nuanced rather than 'too broad'.
I would strongly caution anyone from following the advice of someone who thinks any barolo from 2007 and 2005 are past their peaks. I would also note that you are apparently using a Scavino wine as a bellwether for 2004. Scavino is an extreme 'modern' producer and should never be used to generalize about a vintage.
CT - Prof B

Oliver McCrum
Posts: 1777
Joined: August 5th, 2010, 11:11 am
Location: Oakland, CA; Cigliè, Piedmont

Re: Accessible Barolo Vintages

#73 Post by Oliver McCrum » January 7th, 2019, 5:23 pm

M.Kaplan wrote:
January 7th, 2019, 3:19 pm
While not Barolo, 2014 Giacosa Nebbiolo d'Alba Valmaggiore is absolutely delicious right now and punches way above its mid-$30s weight.
I quite agree; if the question is 'accessible Nebbiolo' the answer is often not Barolo.

To answer the OP, on the other hand, my current favorites are '12 and '14. The best '14s are lovely wines, I have no idea why, given the weather.
Oliver McCrum
Oliver McCrum Wines

Justin S
Posts: 238
Joined: November 30th, 2017, 9:38 am

Re: Accessible Barolo Vintages

#74 Post by Justin S » January 9th, 2019, 1:04 pm

R0$$ M 0 R R 1 $ 0 N wrote:
January 4th, 2019, 6:16 am
Lots of good comments above. It does vary depending on your personal preference. Here's my take on recent vintages:

2014 - Needs time - mixed results - some great wines, some producers faced massive loss (e.g. 70% at Rinaldi) which appears to have affected quality. Some (e.g. Brovia) blended their Cru grapes into a single Normale (which may be excellent)
2013 - Needs significant time but great vintage
2012 - Very accessible.
2011 - Some report it as drinking well. Better examples need time (e.g. L. Oddero Vigna Rionda in fall - WAY TOO YOUNG). Entry level wines may be more accessible. Not as early drinking as 2012 imo
2010 - Big vintage, needs time
2009 - Ripe, fruit dominant, fast aging, accessible and drink up - some showing signs of early advancement, e.g. 2009 Bruno Giacosa Barolo le Rocche del Falletto
2008 - Classic vintage - Starting to drink really nicely. Opened a 2008 Azelia Margheria last week - just starting into drinking window
2007 - Ripe, forward, fast ageing drink up, some already past prime.
2006 - Good but tannic, needs time
2005 - Some past prime, some excellent but not one destined for long aging. Drink if you find a good one.
2004 - Great vintage - hitting prime drinking now. .e.g 2004 Paolo Scavino Bric del Fiasc (3 weeks ago) beautiful.
2003 - Super hot, all mine were gone long ago - avoid
2002 - Drink a Monfortino if you can - only good one
2001 - Great vintage - in prime window
2000 - good vintage, some past peak, some holding up well

Cheers,
Do you put 2011 in the same category as 2009, in terms of the wine developing that soy flavor you dislike with age? I take that your answer would be no, not as warm a vintage as the 2009s. A few 2011s I've had were drinking really well already last year, but they did seem to have some baby fat that may calm down in a few years.
$ ! n g h

R0$$ M 0 R R 1 $ 0 N
Posts: 80
Joined: December 30th, 2018, 8:08 am

Re: Accessible Barolo Vintages

#75 Post by R0$$ M 0 R R 1 $ 0 N » June 5th, 2019, 6:35 pm

Justin S wrote:
January 9th, 2019, 1:04 pm
R0$$ M 0 R R 1 $ 0 N wrote:
January 4th, 2019, 6:16 am
Lots of good comments above. It does vary depending on your personal preference. Here's my take on recent vintages:

2014 - Needs time - mixed results - some great wines, some producers faced massive loss (e.g. 70% at Rinaldi) which appears to have affected quality. Some (e.g. Brovia) blended their Cru grapes into a single Normale (which may be excellent)
2013 - Needs significant time but great vintage
2012 - Very accessible.
2011 - Some report it as drinking well. Better examples need time (e.g. L. Oddero Vigna Rionda in fall - WAY TOO YOUNG). Entry level wines may be more accessible. Not as early drinking as 2012 imo
2010 - Big vintage, needs time
2009 - Ripe, fruit dominant, fast aging, accessible and drink up - some showing signs of early advancement, e.g. 2009 Bruno Giacosa Barolo le Rocche del Falletto
2008 - Classic vintage - Starting to drink really nicely. Opened a 2008 Azelia Margheria last week - just starting into drinking window
2007 - Ripe, forward, fast ageing drink up, some already past prime.
2006 - Good but tannic, needs time
2005 - Some past prime, some excellent but not one destined for long aging. Drink if you find a good one.
2004 - Great vintage - hitting prime drinking now. .e.g 2004 Paolo Scavino Bric del Fiasc (3 weeks ago) beautiful.
2003 - Super hot, all mine were gone long ago - avoid
2002 - Drink a Monfortino if you can - only good one
2001 - Great vintage - in prime window
2000 - good vintage, some past peak, some holding up well

Cheers,
Do you put 2011 in the same category as 2009, in terms of the wine developing that soy flavor you dislike with age? I take that your answer would be no, not as warm a vintage as the 2009s. A few 2011s I've had were drinking really well already last year, but they did seem to have some baby fat that may calm down in a few years.
No, wouldn't put 2011 in same category as 2009. It's more approachable than 2010 and 2013 but I found 2009 to be very fruit dominant with ripe fruit. 2011 is much more balanced than 2009 but not as big in structure as 2010 imo.

User avatar
John Morris
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 16090
Joined: June 21st, 2009, 2:09 pm
Location: Gotham

Re: Accessible Barolo Vintages

#76 Post by John Morris » June 5th, 2019, 7:32 pm

Justin - I found a lot of '09 and '11 Barolo/Barbaresco to0 high in alcohol. The vintages were similar in that way. The exception among those I tasted was the '11 Produttori Barbarescos, which were excellent.

Has anyone tried any '12s of late? I haven't tried any of mine, and I'm curious if they've shut down or continue to provide pleasure.
"The Internet has resulted in an exponential increase in the number of instances in which humor must be explained." - me, 2019

"It's hard for a $35 zin to compete with a $100 cabernet that tastes the same." – me, 2018

Justin S
Posts: 238
Joined: November 30th, 2017, 9:38 am

Re: Accessible Barolo Vintages

#77 Post by Justin S » June 5th, 2019, 10:05 pm

John Morris wrote:
June 5th, 2019, 7:32 pm
Justin - I found a lot of '09 and '11 Barolo/Barbaresco to0 high in alcohol. The vintages were similar in that way. The exception among those I tasted was the '11 Produttori Barbarescos, which were excellent.

Has anyone tried any '12s of late? I haven't tried any of mine, and I'm curious if they've shut down or continue to provide pleasure.
Thanks both Ross and John.

John, I had the '12 Vajra BdV a few weeks ago. I would not say it was shut down at all, but needed a few hours in the decanter to open up. The nose wasn't flowing like the '11 vintage of this same wine was a few years ago, but it was still a very pleasant wine. Though I don't like high alcohol, I thought the '11 was more flavorful at this juncture. Still, the '12 was nicely lean and composed. Have 2 bottles left and plan to wait at least 5 years on the next one, but don't regret opening one now at all.
$ ! n g h

Tom Taylor
Posts: 277
Joined: February 24th, 2016, 10:08 am

Re: Accessible Barolo Vintages

#78 Post by Tom Taylor » June 6th, 2019, 2:49 am

R0$$ M 0 R R 1 $ 0 N wrote:
June 5th, 2019, 6:35 pm
Justin S wrote:
January 9th, 2019, 1:04 pm
R0$$ M 0 R R 1 $ 0 N wrote:
January 4th, 2019, 6:16 am
Lots of good comments above. It does vary depending on your personal preference. Here's my take on recent vintages:

2014 - Needs time - mixed results - some great wines, some producers faced massive loss (e.g. 70% at Rinaldi) which appears to have affected quality. Some (e.g. Brovia) blended their Cru grapes into a single Normale (which may be excellent)
2013 - Needs significant time but great vintage
2012 - Very accessible.
2011 - Some report it as drinking well. Better examples need time (e.g. L. Oddero Vigna Rionda in fall - WAY TOO YOUNG). Entry level wines may be more accessible. Not as early drinking as 2012 imo
2010 - Big vintage, needs time
2009 - Ripe, fruit dominant, fast aging, accessible and drink up - some showing signs of early advancement, e.g. 2009 Bruno Giacosa Barolo le Rocche del Falletto
2008 - Classic vintage - Starting to drink really nicely. Opened a 2008 Azelia Margheria last week - just starting into drinking window
2007 - Ripe, forward, fast ageing drink up, some already past prime.
2006 - Good but tannic, needs time
2005 - Some past prime, some excellent but not one destined for long aging. Drink if you find a good one.
2004 - Great vintage - hitting prime drinking now. .e.g 2004 Paolo Scavino Bric del Fiasc (3 weeks ago) beautiful.
2003 - Super hot, all mine were gone long ago - avoid
2002 - Drink a Monfortino if you can - only good one
2001 - Great vintage - in prime window
2000 - good vintage, some past peak, some holding up well

Cheers,
Do you put 2011 in the same category as 2009, in terms of the wine developing that soy flavor you dislike with age? I take that your answer would be no, not as warm a vintage as the 2009s. A few 2011s I've had were drinking really well already last year, but they did seem to have some baby fat that may calm down in a few years.
No, wouldn't put 2011 in same category as 2009. It's more approachable than 2010 and 2013 but I found 2009 to be very fruit dominant with ripe fruit. 2011 is much more balanced than 2009 but not as big in structure as 2010 imo.

I have actually had very good luck with 2005s over the last 2-3 years. Of course I am speaking about from top producers. I have not had any that I thought were in danger of fading and a few that I thing need another couple of years to hit their prime. Some of those I’ve enjoyed are Cappellano Rupestris, Brovia Rocche, Cogno Ravera, Giacosa Rocche Del Falletto, Conterno Francia, Massolino Vigna Rionda and some others I that slipping my mind at the moment
ITB

User avatar
John Morris
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 16090
Joined: June 21st, 2009, 2:09 pm
Location: Gotham

Re: Accessible Barolo Vintages

#79 Post by John Morris » June 6th, 2019, 6:12 am

Tom Taylor wrote:
June 6th, 2019, 2:49 am
I have actually had very good luck with 2005s over the last 2-3 years. Of course I am speaking about from top producers. I have not had any that I thought were in danger of fading and a few that I thing need another couple of years to hit their prime. Some of those I’ve enjoyed are Cappellano Rupestris, Brovia Rocche, Cogno Ravera, Giacosa Rocche Del Falletto, Conterno Francia, Massolino Vigna Rionda and some others I that slipping my mind at the moment
With the exception of the Cogno Ravera, those are all from sites that tend to produce quite masculine, dense wines. The Rocches are on the eastern side of Castiglione and the rest are from Serralunga. Perhaps that explains the strong showing.
"The Internet has resulted in an exponential increase in the number of instances in which humor must be explained." - me, 2019

"It's hard for a $35 zin to compete with a $100 cabernet that tastes the same." – me, 2018

Cristian Dezso
Posts: 142
Joined: February 27th, 2012, 8:02 am

Re: Accessible Barolo Vintages

#80 Post by Cristian Dezso » June 6th, 2019, 11:16 am

Has anyone tried the 2014 Produttori single vineyards? I am thinking of trying 3 or 4 of them and I was wondering if it is worth it or not.

User avatar
Sc0tt F!tzger@ld
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 2790
Joined: March 12th, 2013, 7:32 am

Re: Accessible Barolo Vintages

#81 Post by Sc0tt F!tzger@ld » June 6th, 2019, 6:33 pm

Cristian Dezso wrote:
June 6th, 2019, 11:16 am
Has anyone tried the 2014 Produttori single vineyards? I am thinking of trying 3 or 4 of them and I was wondering if it is worth it or not.
Haven’t tried yet, but definitely bought. Reviews are solid.

User avatar
Sc0tt F!tzger@ld
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 2790
Joined: March 12th, 2013, 7:32 am

Re: Accessible Barolo Vintages

#82 Post by Sc0tt F!tzger@ld » June 6th, 2019, 6:33 pm

Cristian Dezso wrote:
June 6th, 2019, 11:16 am
Has anyone tried the 2014 Produttori single vineyards? I am thinking of trying 3 or 4 of them and I was wondering if it is worth it or not.
Haven’t tried yet, but definitely bought. Reviews are solid.

Greg K
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 574
Joined: December 21st, 2013, 3:16 pm
Location: New York

Re: Accessible Barolo Vintages

#83 Post by Greg K » June 6th, 2019, 6:39 pm

John Morris wrote:
June 5th, 2019, 7:32 pm
Justin - I found a lot of '09 and '11 Barolo/Barbaresco to0 high in alcohol. The vintages were similar in that way. The exception among those I tasted was the '11 Produttori Barbarescos, which were excellent.

Has anyone tried any '12s of late? I haven't tried any of mine, and I'm curious if they've shut down or continue to provide pleasure.
I had a 12 Rupestris recently - it’s a lot more brawny than the 11, but after a decant it was in a pretty good place. I wouldn’t rush to open them though (grabbed the wrong bottle).
Greg Kahn

R0$$ M 0 R R 1 $ 0 N
Posts: 80
Joined: December 30th, 2018, 8:08 am

Re: Accessible Barolo Vintages

#84 Post by R0$$ M 0 R R 1 $ 0 N » June 9th, 2019, 5:27 pm

Tom Taylor wrote:
June 6th, 2019, 2:49 am
R0$$ M 0 R R 1 $ 0 N wrote:
June 5th, 2019, 6:35 pm
Justin S wrote:
January 9th, 2019, 1:04 pm


Do you put 2011 in the same category as 2009, in terms of the wine developing that soy flavor you dislike with age? I take that your answer would be no, not as warm a vintage as the 2009s. A few 2011s I've had were drinking really well already last year, but they did seem to have some baby fat that may calm down in a few years.
No, wouldn't put 2011 in same category as 2009. It's more approachable than 2010 and 2013 but I found 2009 to be very fruit dominant with ripe fruit. 2011 is much more balanced than 2009 but not as big in structure as 2010 imo.

I have actually had very good luck with 2005s over the last 2-3 years. Of course I am speaking about from top producers. I have not had any that I thought were in danger of fading and a few that I thing need another couple of years to hit their prime. Some of those I’ve enjoyed are Cappellano Rupestris, Brovia Rocche, Cogno Ravera, Giacosa Rocche Del Falletto, Conterno Francia, Massolino Vigna Rionda and some others I that slipping my mind at the moment
Tom, I've had some great 2005s as well, including Giacosa Le Rocche a Vigna Rionda (Either Oddero or Massolino), Aldo C Granbussia. Last fall however a 2005 Cappellano Rupestris showed all the negative elements of 2005, without the positive attributes of the vintage. I'm sure some of these may continue to show well but am happy that I drank my better 2005s when they were singing. Only 2005s left are a Magnum of Brovia Le Rocche Villero and a bottle of Giacosa Falletto. No rush on the magnum but the Falletto will probably go soon...

Oliver McCrum
Posts: 1777
Joined: August 5th, 2010, 11:11 am
Location: Oakland, CA; Cigliè, Piedmont

Re: Accessible Barolo Vintages

#85 Post by Oliver McCrum » June 11th, 2019, 4:19 pm

R0$$ M 0 R R 1 $ 0 N wrote:
June 9th, 2019, 5:27 pm
Tom Taylor wrote:
June 6th, 2019, 2:49 am
R0$$ M 0 R R 1 $ 0 N wrote:
June 5th, 2019, 6:35 pm

No, wouldn't put 2011 in same category as 2009. It's more approachable than 2010 and 2013 but I found 2009 to be very fruit dominant with ripe fruit. 2011 is much more balanced than 2009 but not as big in structure as 2010 imo.

I have actually had very good luck with 2005s over the last 2-3 years. Of course I am speaking about from top producers. I have not had any that I thought were in danger of fading and a few that I thing need another couple of years to hit their prime. Some of those I’ve enjoyed are Cappellano Rupestris, Brovia Rocche, Cogno Ravera, Giacosa Rocche Del Falletto, Conterno Francia, Massolino Vigna Rionda and some others I that slipping my mind at the moment
Tom, I've had some great 2005s as well, including Giacosa Le Rocche a Vigna Rionda (Either Oddero or Massolino), Aldo C Granbussia. Last fall however a 2005 Cappellano Rupestris showed all the negative elements of 2005, without the positive attributes of the vintage. I'm sure some of these may continue to show well but am happy that I drank my better 2005s when they were singing. Only 2005s left are a Magnum of Brovia Le Rocche Villero and a bottle of Giacosa Falletto. No rush on the magnum but the Falletto will probably go soon...
In 2005 there was a rainstorm in very early October. Those who harvested before made some really good wines in a fresh style, those who missed not so much. Figuring out which is which is very hard, of course, but I love the best '05s.
Oliver McCrum
Oliver McCrum Wines

User avatar
Edward H. Earles
Posts: 727
Joined: January 22nd, 2013, 8:07 am

Re: Accessible Barolo Vintages

#86 Post by Edward H. Earles » June 12th, 2019, 8:58 am

We drank a 2010 Pietro Rinaldi last night that was delicious, tasting as if it had just entered its drinking window.

Mike Curran
Posts: 14
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 9:35 am

Re: Accessible Barolo Vintages

#87 Post by Mike Curran » June 15th, 2019, 4:45 am

Not sure that this speaks for the entire vintage but the 2011 Fenocchio Bussia was singing last Christmas.

Post Reply

Return to “Wine Talk”