How bad is a wine if Suckling only gives it 92 points?

Asking for a friend.

Fontanafredda Barolo. I have a sweet spot for that winery because when the skylight at Zachy’s collapsed and almost killed two of us, the other guy was the Fontanafredda rep who was pouring their Lazzarito, which I like.

Two possibilities. One, I would actually love the wine. Two, the wine would give me botulism.

Given some of the 92s he’s given to various Italian table wines, probably pretty damn bad. Reasonable wine scoring that’s probably in the 87-88 range. Spend money elsewhere.

Suckling uses an eleven point scale between 90 and 100, so I would take a 92 from him as a warning.

However, I find his ratings rather randomly distributed.

Therefore, pay that rating no mind at all and you will have to see for yourself.

The basic Barolo Serralunga has a pretty good dose of oak on it (12 months in small French barrels). I wasn’t crazy about the '13, but some people like that. Haven’t tasted many recent vintages, though.

When did Suckling’s ratings become related to quality?

Suckling 92 is probably about like a Wilfred Wong 93.

Two possibilities. One, I would actually love the wine.

Probably would like it. Normally I seek out the Parker 92 point wines as they are balanced and not over the top hot wines.

Showing my age, but back in the day (mid-1990’s), that description was a Parker 89.

The basic Serralunga bottling is decently made but very much at the ’ commercial end’ of the the spectrum. Similar interest / staying power to some of the better (but not the best) Langhe Nebbiolo wines (IMO). If priced at the level of a good langhe nebbiolo, then it’s good to buy for short-medium term drinking and unlikely to close down in a tannic grip.

Don’t expect too much and shop around for a good price, and if priced competitively it can be a decent buy

Approximately 10.0 from the Russian judge.

Yes but since Parker doesn’t review and hasn’t for a few years, seeking out a Parker 92 is pretty much like seeking out a Chinese Lafite. They’re out there. No idea who they came from though.

A Suckling 92 means he didn’t go blind, go into shock, or break out into a rash. So it’s a drinkable wine. And you’re safe. At least until the skylight falls on you.

Maybe his entire olfactory system was blown out during the tasting from all the tobacco smoke he chugged at a prior cigar festival?

Our local Costco has the 2013 Fontanafredda Barolo Serralunga in the distinctive 1 liter bottle for around $33.

Ed

I buy this one in the 1-Liter bottle whenever I can find it, and $33 is a very good price (as the 750ml is often in that price range even at Costco)…it’s consistently a solid wine and a great “intro to Barolo” for folks who haven’t acclimated to Italian wine. While it may have a bit more oak than what most Barolo lovers prefer, I certainly find it quite drinkable and it still has the tannin and mouthfeel that are typical of Barolo. Plus the 1-Liter is a great size for situations where a 750 isn’t enough and a magnum is too much…And the QPR on this one is compelling, at last in decent vintages.

Regarding the OPs question, I think the answer depends entirely on what varietal you’re talking about. I find his ratings on Barolos in particular to be fairly meaningless, and to me the Fontanafredda Serralunga is consistently in the 90-92 point range in all but the worst vintages. I find his ratings on Sangiovese more reliable (i.e. if his score is 90-95, I generally view it as about 2 points too high. If his score is over 95 I assume its about 3-5 points too high, while also recognizing there’s about a 20% chance the wine may be terrible or even undrinkable…with that chance increasing as we approach 100 points.)

Is it? To my understanding, Fontanafredda has started to return back to the traditionalist roots in the late 00’s and to my understanding the post 2010-wines don’t see small barrels or any new oak. I’m looking at my recent tasting note on 2013 Serralunga and I have written nothing about oak - and I’m pretty allergic to noticeable oak character.

However, what slightly bugs me with many recent Fontanafredda Barolos and Barbarescos is that they are often quite dull and earthy with a musty character that makes me wonder if the wines are corked. They tend to open up a bit in the glass, but in comparative tastings they never really manage to perform well. Could it be that they have some kind of minor TCA problem in the winery or with some of the oak vessels?

The Serralunga spends a year in Allier barriques, then a year in large Allier oak casks.

The single-vineyard bottlings appear to be barrique-free now.

You’re turning into Craig Gleason, my man!

Suckling gave 89pts to the 2016 Carter Cellars OG Beckstoffer To Kalon. He said to drink now. Must have been smoking NorCal skunk that day. In 10 years, it’ll be drinking at 98+.

Righty! I remembered the Fontanafredda Barolo and Barbaresco wines being quite modern in the 2000’s (and they were, I had some 2006’s and 2007’s I tasted only a little while ago, and they were still quite oaky), but I guess I had those single-vineyard wines in my mind when I thought of the wines being barrique-free again now. However, all the recent tastings of the 2010’s Fontanafredda Nebbiolos have been consistently less oaky than those mid 2000’s of mine, so I guess that 10-15 years ago they didn’t use any botti even for the basic-level bottlings and they’ve dialed down the amount of new oak quite noticeably.