1997 Prunotto Bussia

Really a great bottle with one obvious misstep. Beautiful medium ruby color and a old-world classic nose of dusty leather shoes (maybe some mint) leading one to think the fruit may have faded. Thankfully that is anything but the case as this bottle is bursting with cherries and plums while exhibiting a classy mouthfeel. Tannins easy to find but manageable now and clearly in the background of the fruit. Only problem was a very short finish, perhaps under 10 seconds. Doubt this wine is fading any time soon but not getting any more enjoyable than last night.

Had this with Mel’s poached King Salmon, farmed - not fresh. Barolo is wintertime Pinot Noir after all!

Great year, nice wine…but WHEN are you going to get a new camera??? [wink.gif]

LOL, one day man. New bottles or new cell phone is an easy decision.

Glenn,

Nice review. I have a 90 that I have been saving (for what I don’t know) and will look to open it sooner vs. later to see how it has survived (or thrived).

Glenn, I would think that with another 5 years or so, it might show more length.

Alan, the 90 should be singing with a few hours of air.

I would agree
With Dr. Ken V.

How would that occur Ken?

Don’t know. When it comes to wine, I’m an empiricist, not a scientist.

Sadly me too!

I love disparate bottles like this when the nose makes you think something completely unsupported by what your mouth judges in the end. Previous Bussia Vineyard wines had impressive finishes for me though.

I’m not Ken,but I think we would agree that Barolo/Barbaresco is notorious for seeming either at peak or damaged,and yet with air or more years development, emerge as a completely different wine.Parusso Bussia from 78 is still coming around…and the disparity between nose and palate is but one aspect of this empirical data…and Glenn,wines sourced from Bussia come in different incarnations from different winemakers,so…

Tonight,we’re comparing an 05 Santo Stefano Giacosa to the same vineyard and vintage Castello di Neive…and it is verrry interesting.

I am aware Bussia is about as far from a Monopole as things get across the pond, I was wondering how does additional bottle age lead to a increased finish.

I think I’d find 05 Barolo tough.

As would many,but this was just to create some empirical data as to the similarities of both SSs going forward.I won’t touch them again for another 8 years or so.
With air,they provided some interesting and spicy aromatics…but enough of that,as to your wondering why more bottle time adds length of finish:I don’t think this is particularly specific to barolo,but IMO absolutely necessary in Nebbiolo based wines designed for age ,to obtain the tertiaries,complexities and,in the end,a finish that leaves its mark.The 05 SS we had last night had wonderfully arranged aromatics of cinnamon spice and rose,but the finish was quite short and clipped,and onkly improved marginally with air.I’m dead sure that this will not be the case in 10 more years.
I have found the same situation with drinking the 98 Haut Brion and Cheval Blanc at the same age,but at 12 years now they have begun to lengthen out and stretch their fruit and spice together into something…marvelous.

If I have done the math properly, no coffee yet so who knows, you plan to check in on The Santo Stefano Giacosa ~ age 14 again. The Prunotto Bussia I had this week was ~ that same age which is why I found the short finish noteworthy and a bit surprising. Antinori owns Prunotto now right? Any recent experience with teenage Barolo from that Italian giant.

How much air is the “right” amount of air. How many hours should you give a bottle to come around. I know that is a loaded question, but a guideline would be helpful to me.

A few weeks ago, I was fortunate enough to share bottles of 45 and 57 Rinaldi. The 57 was dead, nothing left it appeared , we let it sit for hours, but it seemed nothing would bring it back to life. The 45 seemed considerably younger than the 57, a couple of us wondered if it was fake…it did not appear it’s age. If it was a woman, I would say she had a face lift and some other corrective surgery to make it appear younger…

Both wines seemed over the hill, but the 45 was still enjoyable enough as an educational project.

If we let that wine sit for 12 hours, would it have improved further? Its like shooting a target with a blind fold on…you just don’t know what to aim for… any thoughts or input?

I have some seriously old (60’s) Barolo coming in the spring and want to try to maximize my chances of having positive experiences with these wines. I also picked up some 82’s and have high hopes based on my own , limited research.

Input from those who know more than I do would be greatly appreciated. I am still a “youngster” learning when it comes to old Barolo.

Glenn,Different wines made with different aging philosophies,cellar strategies and practices create wines with varying windows for enjoyment…but I’m sure you know that…and,to paraphrase an old Texas politican,“I know Santo Stefano,and he’s no Parusso…”


Is this your wine?
.

That said,you can try 2 of these Parussos side by side,and one may show,possibly like yours that needs 5 more years to sit,and one could show open for biz and showing all the delights of the 97 vintage.Not much help,eh? [cheers.gif]

From whom?Antinori,Parusso,Giacosa?

Alan,it’s more than a loaded question,it’s entirely dependent on the wine and its age,but generally speaking Nebbiolo based wines from earlier than 19885 are best enjoyed,IMO,with a slow O of varying amounts of time from 4-12 hours,followed by gentle decant and into the glasses they go.

I think the bigger issue (especially with Alan’s wines) is provenance - older Barolo will by definition have a lot of bottle variation, and assuming Alan didn’t buy these Rinaldi’s on release, who knows how they have been treated over the last 50 years. God only knows why, but I have mags of the '01 Rinaldi Brunate/LeCoste that I truly hope my daughters develop an affinity for, because I know I will never get to drink them in their prime. [truce.gif]

I can’t speak directly to Glenn’s '97, but I can tell you I still have the '90 Prunotto Bussia & Cannubi in the cellar, and the last time I tried either, theyt were still drinking as if they had plenty of time to go.

What I can say about the 45 and 57 is that Serge picked them up from Chambers St. and was kind enough to share with our wine group. I have bought many old wines from Chambers and have been quite lucky. Which is the reason I go back for more.

A few of us looked at the 57 and even Serge felt that it was going to be a problem. It was probably the “deadest” wine I have ever had. Nothing was less, absolutely nothing. The 45 was much more youthful and who knows if it truly was a 45…it sure did not look it.

You are right about provenance. Considering I start buying wines in the 90’s, I have no choice if I want to experience some of these gems. One bad apple won’t sour my view on buying old wines from reputable sources such as Chambers. I have had some incredible experiences from wines I purchased from them. My AH-HA moment for Barolo was a bottle from 1967…I said , SO THIS IS WHAT GOOD BAROLO is supposed to taste like. It completely changed my thought process on Barolo. I have had some great wines from Bordeaux this way as well, if I don’t stick my toe in the water, I never find out.

My concern has been the wide variety of recommendations on how to properly prepare an old Barolo for consumption. Anything ranging from 14 hours of air to , pop and Audoze for a few hours and then right into the glass… So I am still confused on really what to do and usually default to my old Bordeaux method of Audozing the wine and then decanting right before serving.