2013 vs 2016 Barolo

I am a big fan of 2013, but 2016 received so much more hype as a vintage (although admittedly I was not around when 2013s were getting released). At this point enough have tasted 2013 and 2016 to perhaps have a view, which is the better vintage?

My own speculation (which I hope to tighten with the aid of this thread) is that 2013 is a more structured, lower alcohol, and somewhat less fruitful vintage than 2016 (while still having enough fruit). And conversely, 2016 is big fruited with big alcohols, yet balanced. I have concerns for how the high alcohol 2016s will age and assumed they would peak much earlier than 2013s (say 15 years from now), and be very delicious at that time. But it seems consensus is not to be worried here and the wines will be multi-decade wines that won’t peak for 20+ years. More importantly, I wonder if the high alcohol will just be more perceptible in 2016s versus 2013s, which to me would suggest 2013 as the better vintage.

Curious for your views (or that of any winemakers you may know)! [cheers.gif]

I never thought of the '16s being particularly high in alcohol. Having attended tastings of both vintages on release, I had the impression that the '16s had somewhat more tannin and concentration.

I remember Walter Speller of Jancis Robinson’s team said at the big Jancis/Chambers St. 2016 tasting a couple of years ago that '16 was really the vintage to go long on. He liked the '13s a lot, I know, but he made it clear he was even more enthusiastic about the '16s.

I haven’t opened anything from either vintage in a while. They would be at very different stages now, and hard to compare, I suspect.

2 Likes

I would give a slight edge to 2016. I think the wines are bigger, more concentrated and yes higher in alcohol, but have the necessary structure to keep everything in check. I’m super impressed with how consistently outstanding the 2016s are across the board. The Barolo Classico wines from 2016 maybe display this best. While 2013 is also a tremendous vintage, I sensed a tad less consistency. Just my 2 cents

1 Like

You have a lot more experience with Barolo than I do John, so everyone should take my views from that perspective, but I’ve generally found it the other way round. I also think the 13s are mostly past their early charming stage, so any comparison today (as you say) is very hard to do. Both great vintages, hard to go wrong imho.

This.

Although I’ve had a small handful of wines with very high alc%, some curiously even higher than in 2015! But as a whole, 2013 and 2016 seem to be pretty much at the same level - most producers either at 14% or 14,5%.

Quality-wise I think 2013 and 2016 are pretty much on par, the main differences are in age - 2013 showing a bit better now than 2016 (although 2016 has been pretty lovely from the get-go). I love both vintages as both are high in acidity with very ample and firm tannins, both definitely built for the long run. I haven’t registered any noticeable differences in acidity, tannins or abundance of fruit between these two vintages.

My assessment is based on a fairly grueling tasting of 40+ 2016s that Chambers and Jancis put on. That was a gum-curling experience, even for a nebbiolo lover.

But I find my impression of tannicness, particularly in nebbiolo, is very situational. The same wine can seem powerfully astringent one day and not so much another. One’s perception of tannin depends a lot on your mouth at the time – saliva levels, food, and so on. (A friend at the '16 tasting had the same impression, but he doesn’t have the same history of palate flagellation with young nebbiolo.)

1 Like

I wasn’t able to go to that, but I had a fair amount of 16s in Piedmont and found them very charming for young Barolo (and not too alcoholic). Honestly, in 20 years I’d be delighted to drink either.

Ditto

Been there re: tasting multiple young nebbiolo’s. Would love to see where the 13’ and 16’ progress in 20yrs also but just hate to wait til I’m in my 60’s to see.

You can drink other vintages in the meantime! We had a 12 Brovia Villero on Monday which was in a pretty happy place!

1 Like

2013 is a stunnig vintage…but
big edge to 2016.
Time will tell.

Yes! (to the original poster, meaning, I’ll take BOTH)

Totally agree. I am drinking '12s and '14s, I love the different flavors you get with the cooler vintages.

For me 2016 is simply outstanding, powerful and fresh both, whereas 2013 is very good but tastes a bit warmer.

Definitely agree that the normales are better in 2016 than 2013. I’m curious which vintages hit higher highs with the single vineyards/more expensive cru.

I would definitely agree that 2016 seems to have higher quality for entry level cuvees. But I’ve had more “top” 2013s than 2016s and so my experiences with that vintage currently has higher highs. A bit more structured than the more fruity 2016s, even considering the age of each. I’ll hopefully try more top 2016s with time and can more directly compare the two vintages, though most of my 2016s will stay buried for a while…

Does anyone care to add perspectives on 2010 to the discussion?

So far 2016 is the greatest Barolo vintage I’ve ever tasted. I don’t think I’ve had a wine that has been poor. Nothing is over the top and the purity of fruit and freshness has been amazing.

For anyone new to wine and collecting I can’t recommend more than to go to vinous and CellarTracker and buy 5-10 cases of 2016’s of what you can still find. For $5-$12k I promise if you buy wines from $50-125 you will be a happy person in 15 years.

For some reason I’ve mostly have had bad experiences with 2013. There has been a flatness to them that makes no sense to me. I drank them at a tasting in Barolo when released and about 5 more since then. I could easily be wrong on this as it makes no sense to me.

2010 is a really good case study versus 2016. I just opened a 2010 canonica pagiaello that was awesome for about 3 hours before oxygen slightly turned it a bit worse. A real 93-94 wine for me which was awesome. I should of bought a case when I could then when it was $85. I find 2010 to be less fruit and more transparent of a vintage. I wonder with age if 2010 will fill out with the tertiary flavor making it the ultimate year for me or if 2016’s with the full fruit with time will become better just because of more substance making a great thing better.

In Barolo seems to be a bit more varied. I think the best are even better than 2013s and 2016s (if one likes Nebbiolo’s brooding fruit and tightly-knit structure), but some have been less impressive. So in by books 2013 and 2016 are more of even, very high quality, whereas 2010 has higher highs and lower lows. At its best, 2010 can challenge the wines of 2006 (a vintage I currently consider the best post-millennium).

Unlike 2013 and 2016, which were terrific in both Barolo and Barbaresco, 2010 seems to be a lesser, more restrained vintage in Barbaresco.

1 Like

Just because two vintages are different does not make one better than the other. 2013 and 2016 could well be vintages of similar quality but with very different characteristics and different people having a different favorite. Think 1999 vs. 2010 Burgundy or 1989 vs. 1990 Bordeaux.

2 Likes

I think it is too early to tell, 2013 is perhaps the more classical vintage; both are very serious and outstanding vintages. This is thrown into sharp relief when you throw a 2014 into the mix in a Barolo vertical.

I think 2010 is about - or almost - on the same level too as 2013 and 2016. Since 2010 we are getting a really great year every three years. Roll on the 2019s.

But I have a lot more 2016 (Barolo and Barbaresco) than any other vintage (about 175 bottles) but slightly more Barbaresco than Barolo.