Is there anything–within the realm of possibility–that could cause this to happen?
Do the top barbarescos beat any of the top barolos? They seem comparable if you pick well at the lower to mid tiers, but I’m not so sure at the highest levels. I think if that happened, the reputation would probably spread to the lower tier wines from the region as well.
If social media influencers starts pumping Barbarescos?
IMO, no.
1 Like
Well, Gaja has higher prices for their single vineyard Barbaresco than Barolo. Some Giacosa Barbaresco is similarly more expensive. So it will come down quite simply to… supply and demand 
!
1 Like
Well, Barbaresco is roughly one third the size/production of Barolo, so it’s possible that if worldwide demand continues to increase it might be harder to get Barbaresco than Barolo. Also, Barbaresco is usually harvested earlier, so in a vintage that has rain like 2014 they are often better than Barolo. So if we get a few vintages in a row with poor weather around the two harvests, Barbaresco could be more desirable. I also think that Barbaresco has a higher percentage of quality producers, so maybe in time the Barolo name will get downgraded by things like:
Some good replies in this thread…I think I need to learn more about how they got to this position. Awhile back, I think I read that at one point years (decades) ago, Dolcetto was considered a more important grape than Nebbiolo. Not sure if the claim is actually true though…But it got me thinking about Barolo vs. Barbaresco and if there could be a change in pecking order.
Firstly I must say hello, as this is my first post (having been a reader for perhaps 6 or 7 years). I live in the Langhe so of course this subject is of interest to me.
Firstly as Fred states, Dolcetto was indeed a more valued commodity than Nebbiolo in days gone past. But that has to be put into perspective. To this day still, Dolcetto is the wine of the working man, the daily drinker than a vast amount of the Piemontese population drink with most lunch and dinner meals. Fruity, simple and works with many food types. Historically Nebbiolo has had many guises. Go back far enough and it was a sweet wine, and a sparkling wine, before finding its present day guide as a Noble ageable red. This was around the mid 1800’s when Langhe was a popular ‘second home’ location for notable Royals and Aristocracy. During this time the Falletto and Cavour families are credited with spawning the concept of modern Barolo, when they brought a respected oenologist from Burgundy to advise on how to make what eventually became ‘Barolo’. This new style of wine became fashionable and representative of royalty and wealth, hence the moniker ‘King of wines and Wine of Kings’.
Of course this was only available in small quantities and probably very expensive, so to get back to the original point, Dolcetto was the grape for the working folk. The vast majority of local farmers were making demijohns of Dolcetto and selling it locally, and of course didn’t have the reach or knowhow to supply higher end wine to higher end folk. Add to the equation that Italy and Europe in general for the following 100 years or so experienced various wars and resulting poverty, and of course the industrial growth of Turin and Milan (vast numbers of the local population moving to the cities to work in factories), and you have an extremely small market for high end Barolo. Dolcetto is drunk at almost every lunch and dinner around Langhe, so many farmers stuck with a steady income of an everyday product, and hence Dolcetto vineyards were more in demand. The demand for Barolo didnt really start to take off again until after WW2 and the growth of the middle class.
So coming back to the original question. Barolo has a deep rooted history with Royalty and Aristocracy, and within Italy is regarded as their finest wine. Whether the quality of wine is higher or lower in Barolo or Barbaresco is not the point here. Barolo has the history, the prestige.
A simple analogy could be Bordeaux, and the 1855 list. It holds weight to this day, even if perhaps some wines should be higher or lower on the Classe of Cru. Few will argue that the left Bank has a peer, even if some of the wines are questionable next to their prices. You pay for the name.
In the same vein, consider the right Bank of Bordeaux. Not included in the original 1855 list of great Chateau, it has still managed over time to develop highly regarded vineyards and villages such as St Emillion and Pomerol, and within them you have some world class wines (and prices) in the likes of Petrus and Cheval Blanc, La Fleur, VCC. However despite some of these wines being more expensive and more sought after, they haven’t a chance of getting their name onto that 1855 classification.
So in a long winded way, Barbaresco for me is the right bank. You have Gaja, Bruno Giacosa, and Roagna, whose wines are often more expensive and arguably better than the vast majority of Barolo; but they are from Barbaresco, not Barolo. They don’t have the same relationship and history of vineyards being once owned by Royalty, of Kings and Queens imbibing their wines in royal houses.
Within a wine loving community such as WB, people have a far greater understanding of terroir, producer, vintage etc. However there is still a multitude of folk out there who go to a restaurant and choose a name they know. And here that name is Barolo. I would expect in France that someone who enjoys wine but perhaps doesn’t geek out over it, would be far more comfortable choosing a 3eme Grand Cru Classe over an unknown Chateau, as it is seen as a seal of quality, and of course a status symbol. Likewise here. Of course wine aficionados differ, but from my experience here a very very small percentage of people recognise different producers, vintages or Cru. But everyone knows that Barolo means quality. It’s the wine for that special sunday, birthday or anniversary.
Barbaresco can be and sometimes is more expensive than Barolo, but they are outlier wineries, and I dont see that changing. Barbaresco only really has 2 recognised ‘Grand Cru’ vineyards in Asili and Rabaja, whereas Barolo has Cannubi, Brunate, Rocche Annunziata, Rocche Castiglione, Faletto, Francia, Ornato, Vigna Rionda, Ginestra, Cerequio, and probably more which are regarded as Grand Cru. The terroir changes in terms of soils, altitudes, humidity, winds and this gives so many expressions of wine complexity. Barolo just has more in its armory.
Having said all of that, we live in such a bizarre media circus of a world that I can imagine that if Jay Z and Beyonce, or the Beckhams bought a winery in Barbaresco and all the celebs started drinking it then perhaps we would have a whole different scenario!
Cheers
1 Like
At several trade tastings, I was surprised that various Barbaresco producers more or less acknowledged the superiority of Barolo, if not in so many words. I’m generally happy with either.
Alex, What an insightful post. This board at one time had an ongoing, dynamic discussion about Barolo. Unfortunately that is no longer the case. Hopefully you will contribute here on a regular basis. Salute!
Alex Jarvis, thanks for sharing your thoughts, beautiful !
Alex, thank you for this excellent explanation and your analogy with Bordeaux–it’s very helpful and provides a good framework to think about the future. Also, I would be remiss not to mention how wonderful your region (Langhe) is, including the friendly people, scenery, food, and yes, the wine.
I feel that Barolo & Barbaresco are currently valued pretty similarly on an apples-to-apples basis in terms of quality level. Produttori Riservas are one of the great bargains of the wine world in my opinion but so are G.D. Vajra and Elio Grasso in Barolo. With the exception of Gaja, which I have never gotten into so I don’t have an informed view, I’m not aware that there is a Barbaresco produced today that quite approaches the level of quality of the very top wines from Barolo. And with rare exception, ex-Gaja, there are not Barbarescos that reach the height of pricing that Barolo does (exceptions I suppose being Giacosa and certain wines from Roagna). It seems pretty fair to me.
Looking back, Giacosa red label Barbaresco are every bit as coveted and pricey, if not more, than the Barolo on average. Wines like the 89 or 78 Santo Stefano Riserva fetch more than the majority of red label Barolo besides the 89 Collina Rionda. Giacosa remains pricey now but quality is just not there to justify the price - I say that having tasted only a few of the recent wines, i.e. 14 Asili red label, 11 Asili red label, but nothing intrigued me enough to spend the $$ to taste more of them.
The punchline is I think the market, +/- a bit, shows a willingness to pay just as much for great Barbaresco as great Barolo. There just isn’t as much really top-tier Barbaresco as there is Barolo right now.
One factor going against Barbaresco I do think is the history, sort of what Alex is saying. I think the romance of buying wine from a great estate with 100 years of history does contribute to something being very highly priced, and that is in the favor of Mascarello, Rinaldi, G. Conterno, and not in the favor of most Barbaresco producers as Barbaresco was very much an ignored region, even more so than Barolo, until beginning to take shape in the 60s or 70s.
Excellent points here, thought it should be noted that Barbaresco is quite a bit smaller, which could lead to a greater demand dynamic as consumers become more and more aware of its quality. Plus, as someone discussed above with the Kirkland photo, the continuing rush to produce more value Baroli could cheapen the regional brand faster than in Barbaresco. I have had far more bad Barolo at <$40 than I have Barbaresco.
It would be interesting to compare not just total hectares and production between Barolo and Barbaresco, but total hectares of vineyards that are actually considered primed. The best Barbaresco vineyards are heavily concentrated in the village of Barbaresco (pretty much the list of Produttori crus). Santo Stefano and Gallina are in Neive, but most of the village’s land is devoted to barbera and dolcetto. Pajore is generally seen as the one first-class vineyard in Treiso. By contrast, every commune in Barolo except Novello has a number of first-class sites, and Novello has the large, mostly good Ravera.
At a big tasting of '16s sponsored by Chambers Street and Jancis Robinson last fall, the quality of the wines from the village of Barbaresco were markedly better overall than those from the other communes. And that was a top vintage.
I would take issue with the bolded parts. The rain and hail that plagued Barolo in 2014 was in the summer, I believe – well before the harvest. But you’re right that an earlier harvest can sometimes avoid problems. The flip side is that altitudes tend to be lower in the Barbaresco vineyards, which is likely to be a negative as warm vintages are increasingly frequent.
And I’m not at all sure that Barbaresco has the same proportion of really high quality producers. I really don’t know how to measure that, but I’ve heard people say just the opposite. Impressionistically, it seems to me I’ve had more surprisingly good Barolos from obscure producers than I’ve had great Barbarescos from little-known winemakers.
Thanks Michael. Indeed it was those types of discussions which led me to this board. If I recall correctly I was searching for some information on Gaja at the time and stumbled across a thread featuring Bill Klapp. (Although his style was not embraced by all, I do think his input helped those types of discussions thrive). Anyhow I look forward to further discussions! Cheers
Ofer and Fred, you are welcome, thanks for the kind words. Indeed Fred that wonderful scenery, food and friendly people is exactly the reason I relocated here. And of course the wine!
Regarding the talk of 2014, it’s very hard to summarise, as the weather here can be so varied between communes, and even vineyards. (As an example, last summer a hail storm came from La Morra in the west, heading almost due east. It was a couple hundred metres wide strip of devastation. Fontanafredda in Serralunga lost something like 80% of their crop. The neighbouring vineyards in Baudana were completely untouched).
2014 Barbaresco on a whole saw 1/3 the amount of rain as Barolo. Add to that a violent hail storm which tore through many vineyards. Serralunga however evaded much of the storms. Also take into account that some soils are sandy, some are clay. These absorb more/less water when it rains, and retain less/more water after rain. So many variables. 2014 is very tricky, but yes in general Barbaresco fared better and Serralunga in Barolo did ok.
On the subject of producers, this is so subjective that it’s hard to qualify. In general I see more young producers willing to experiment with modern/traditional techniques, so the landscape is constantly changing. In the last decade or so a huge amount of wineries have seen generational change, with many wineries now influenced by children who attended the Oenological school in Alba, and often worked overseas for experience. The old way of " this is how my father did it, and my father’s father…" is slowly being overtaken by educated knowhow. Of course with this you lose something nostalgic, but at the same time the new generation are bringing new levels of hygiene. The dont have such a bias towards modern or traditional, instead understanding through education the benefits and pitfalls of both worlds. And they also know more about communication, marketing, and social media.
As a result it seems that the quality of wines and wineries are constantly improving, and the qualitative gap between Barolo and Barbaresco is getting smaller.
I enjoy all villages’ wines, and find it very difficult when people ask me which is best. It is so subjective, everyone has a different palate. However my simple rule of thumb is, if drinking young, Barbaresco & La Morra. Bottles with some age, Barolo Novello and Castiglione. And finally Serralunga and Monforte, often heavy bold wines which need decades.
Interesting that John mentioned Ravera, as for me this in a vineyard that is really gaining attention recently. Other than the aforementioned 2014 vintage, we have had a string of solar vintages in the last decade. 2015 and 2017 in particular were searing hot. Historically the ‘best’ vineyards are south facing, of medium altitude, often a sheltered hillside. However to my taste in those very hot years, the vines that are facing south are perhaps in danger of taking too much sun, and overripeing the fruit. If weather patterns continue in this pattern of warmer hotter summers, vineyards like Ravera will surely benefit from the higher altitude and exposure. And again as John mentioned, Barbaresco being lower altitude will sometimes be too hot.
It is an ever changing situation and it is fascinating to observe.
Obviously this is a choice of taste, but I find a lot of mediocre Barolos (at least releases over the last 10-15 years) from places like Fontanafredda, Marchesi di Barolo, Prunotto, Cesare, etc. And I really dislike modernized, oaky Piedmont wines, so producers that go in that direction just don’t interest me. Obviously there are modern Barbaresco producers, but it seems there are more modern producers in Barolo…but maybe that’s just what I see around? I think Barbaresco’s co-op makes better wine, year in and year out, than a lot of Barolo’s bigger names. Aldo Conterno, for example, has rarely rang my bell yet seems to get a lot of praise.
All the above producers you name make Barbaresco as well. Not saying I disagree with your point, but I find at least 3 of the above to make very uninspiring wines from Barbaresco also. Have not had a Prunotto wine in many years