From reading tasting notes on Barolo, I’ve noticed a pattern. It’s virtually a requirement that some comment on the wine’s future is included. It almost seems it’s more important to hypothesize on what a Barolo might be than it is to enjoy it for what it is in the present. Does anyone enjoy Barolo purely on its merits as it drinks on a given day, be it young, old or somewhere in between?
I guess what I’m getting at is if in most cases folks are certain the wines are on an upward curve, why drink them on the younger side just to confirm what is already a near certainty? Aside from that, projecting the future with wine, especially the exact peak, is a difficult task, and at best one only has perfect knowledge of one bottle on one day. I like over-analyzing wine as much as the next person, but maybe there is something to be said for living in the moment. Carpe diem!
My experience is limited but I only sorta enjoy them young. They are a bit brooding and the armotatics don’t wow me. Ive had aged Barolo that rocks my world though.
I have a bunch of Barolo and have had some great in-moment-experiences but …
Generally speaking, IMO, the big-name Barolo’s are not particularly enjoyable young or even middle-aged. If you try them before they “get good” then you have to talk about potential if you want to have something nice to say.
BTW, one recent counter-example is the 1990 Scavino, Bric del Fiasc which is luscious. However, Scavino is often accessible younger and I doubt that die-hard fans of traditional Barolo include Scavino in the ranks of great Barolo.
Why drink something on an upward curve? Because you’re curious about where it is or because you want a good Barolo experience (and will sacrifice the better future for the very good now).
Also, I think the idea of a singular upward curve is fallacious in the same way as scores are - for some people a Barolo from 1990 might, right now, be an amazing experience… others might prefer that same wine with another 10 years age. Neither is right, neither is wrong… but for one person the curve will be at a peak whereas the very same wine will, for someone else, be too young.
That said, I’ve discovered that I generally don’t like Barolo at less than ~15 years old or so. A few are very nice on release and I’ll try them to get an impression of what they offer since a wine can only age from where it starts - if the material’s not there young it’s not appearing later. But once I have a bead on a wine young, I let it sit for 113-15 years from vintage (so ~ 10 years from release), then check.
I’ve had a few from the 50’s that have changed how I think about wine in total. These wines need and deserve tons of time. So, here and now? Sure, 1968 and older should do the trick.
It depends. I usually don’t like the tannic nature of young barolo but will certainly open bottles to get a bead on the wine or the vintage. I’ll also open bottles from vintages where the wines are less structured and tannic.
I think that was a quite original and thought-provoking post by Mr. Dyer. I do very often find myself drinking Barolo and Barbaresco and having a substantial impression of how much more age the wine would benefit from. And air as well – the last sips from the decanter at the end of a long evening are almost always the best ones.
I guess I always figured it was function of being a younger guy and a relatively newer collector of wine, including Piedmontese wines, and that I’m always trying to fight my urge to sample my modest collection of these wines at too early an age, and when I do sample them, I tend to project forward to where the wine is eventually going. I think it is interesting and useful to do that exercise, but you are probably right that one needs to focus more on enjoying what is in your glass at the same time.
It would be interesting to poll nebbiolo fans about the ratio of bottles they think they opened too soon versus the bottles they think they opened too late. It would have to average 20:1 or 50:1 something. I am very hard pressed to think of a good Barolo or Barbaresco I have had where I thought “this was probably better a few years earlier than it is now.” Maybe one (a 1982 Fontanabiana Barbaresco I had in Piemonte last month – though it was still interesting and decent at that fairly advanced age for a modest bottle like that).
drank an 99 sandrone cb and an 03 azelia last night… both were lovely for the here and now…that sandrone will get better, but I had no truck drinking it
Yes, absolutely. Recent “here and now” Barolos included a forward, decadently rich 82 Monfortino, a completely mature, marvelously elegant 69 Giacosa Collina Rionda White Label, and an enormous, delicious 89 G.Rinaldi Brunate Riserva. But I will readily confess to a real nebbiolo lovers passion for “there and later” experiences as well! Last night’s young 86 Giacosa Falleto Ris–courtesy of Dan T–was a terrific example that plainly benefitted from a well developed “Barolo imagination” willing and able to look ahead to the magnificence which, with time, this wine is certain to achieve.
You’re forgetting your “here and now” '64 Bartolo Mascarello that fortunately the Evictor nixed for his party resulting in some of us being the beneficiaries at the Zachys auction.
With all great wines there is a possibility of an exquisite experience. With top Bordeaux, Barolo, Burgundy, . . . it is always interesting to ask “is this the maximum experience I can get from this wine?” People tend to ask this question a little less with great wines from the US and Australia I think because there is a perception that they drink well over a longer time window.
I recall a Montelena vertical a few years back in which many people were surprised that the 1977 was their favorite. IMO that was because from the 1978 up through the 2002, none of the others has yet reached it peak.
The problem for letting things age this long is that, sadly, we’re mortal. I’m 52… if I let a recent vintage like 2001 or 2004 hit 40 before I open it I might well be dead - at which point I don’t care about how good the wine is.
The follow up question is this: is Barolo great because it takes so long to (potentially) peak or is it great because it has such a long drinking window where it shows differently in different stages?
Ray, the Evictor, he’s the one who thought that mediocre 90 Mongeard-Mugneret Richebourg was unfairly maligned by you, right? And yes, he certainly got the 64 Bartolo Mag wrong, it would have been the Barolo of the night at the party. But wait–he ended up getting the 69 Rousseau Beze instead. Smart guy…
I drink em young, old, and everywhere in between. Like Burgs, sometimes young Barolo can be a bit overpowering with tannin and acid overshadowing fruit, so that’s where I see people talking about potential for the most part. Something like this isn’t great now but I think it will be. I also find Barolo evolves remarkably over time, probably more than most wines I’m familiar with, making potential more relevant.
Ray, the Evictor, he’s the one who thought that mediocre 90 Mongeard-Mugneret Richebourg was unfairly maligned by you, right? And yes, he certainly got the 64 Bartolo Mag wrong, it would have been the Barolo of the night at the party. But wait–he ended up getting the 69 Rousseau Beze instead. Smart guy…
![[wink.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/04707e6a7bbb03e0153e349d8a9270d30e1e9525.gif "wink"){kind=small}