Barolo and Barbaresco vs. Burgundy

I have noticed a lot of love for Burgundy on this board from people who have the same passion for other regions like Loire, Jura, Rhone and even Germany. But I don’t read too much about Barolo. I have read from Jay McInerney that Barolo is one of the few wines that can inspire the kind of fanaticism that animates Burgundy lovers. Some people even compare Nebbiolo to Pinot Noir and have said that “Barolo is the Burgundy of Italy”. I have yet to be wowed by Barolo or Barbaresco. In a matter of fact it was a bottle of 1961 Giacomo Borgogno Barolo that led me to seek French wines and ultimately Burgundy. What am I missing out on?

Thanks for any input

Antonio,

I’m pretty much the opposite (right now, at least). I have yet to be “wowed” by a Burgundy, as most of my purchases seem to be aimed at Bordeaux, Cali Cabs, and Barolos.

As for Barolos & Barbarescos, they’re a recent passion of mine. The “Ah-Hah” wine for me was a '96 Gaja Barbaresco that I had at an offline earlier this year.

If I could offer a few suggestions that won’t break the bank:

• Anything from Aldo Conterno (Regular Barolo, Cicala, etc.)
• Anything from Renato Ratti

If you’re enjoying these young to get a feel for the region, keep in mind that these Nebbiolos can be tannic beasts. That seems to turn a lot of people off of these wines, who aren’t willing to wait 20+ years.

There are great wines from both regions. Personally I lean toward Burg but are drinking more Barolo and Barbarescos than ever before. Structurally the wines are not too dissimilar… saying Nebbiolo is the Pinot of Italy is a fair enough comment. The difference is in the tannin/fruit ratio, I would suggest that Barolo is weighted more on tannins, typically fine and not overbearing, whereas burg expresses more fruit. I guess it depends on what you feel like opening… Barolo/Barbaresco is more tar and roses while red burg is more berries… Cheers Mike

Hi Antonio,

I’m a Burgundy producer who is off to Piedmont at the end of the week. I had a hard time seeing the connection for the longest time, other than some obious cultural similarities (small wineries, owner/winemaker/grower are the same person, importance placed on vineyard work and on terroir, etc.). Part of what I did not see was a similarity in the wines and I think that came down to the fact that I am very much a textural taster rather than aromatics. Both red Burgundy and Barolo or Barbaresco can be powerfully aromatic, but they are two very different animals texturally, Nebbiolo having considerably drier tannins.
With that said, more recent vintages have been riper and softer than those pre-2000 and while boozier, I think many wines are more approachable in youth.

In terms of affordable producers that have generated plenty of genuine excitement with young wines, Sottimano has been the most relatable to Burgundy. Produttori del Barbaresco’s “normale” Barbaresco never disappoints. I’ve also really liked the wines of Brovia (the Rocche in particular is approachable in youth). There are, of course, plenty of others.

And of course, all these wines call for something rather toothsome and protein rich. In Piedmont, even the pasta (tajarin) has high protein.

I love both, and find excitement in both for similar reasons, and as Jeremy says, for me it is all about the haunting, beguiling and endless aromatics.

Piemontese wines do take a while to come around, but can be enjoyed young if you know where to look, like burgundy as well. The wine that actually did it for me with Piemonte was a 2001 Monprivato; Mascarello… it was so fresh and zippy! I love freshness and it just blew me away. Since then there has been no turning back. I think another problem with pre-2000, is that other than the traditional producers, many used too much new barrique and this gives an impression of too tannic. Modern vintages have better balance of fruit and more texture rather than wood tannins. Obviously I did not try things from the 70s and 80s when young, so I do not know if this is general or to do with more modern winemaking techniques during the 80s and 90s from some select producers.

Dear Jeremy, if someone could remove a few degrees of alcohol from some of the Barolo’s they would pose an intriguing wild card in a blind burgundy tasting.

Antonio – I think it’s the aromatics (as others have said) plus acidity that links them. Also, both pinot and nebbiolo producer wines with a lighter color than grapes such as cabernet and syrah. (If the wines are inky, something is funny.) Also, the wines of both regions have a way of fleshing out with age: Wines that can seem tart and thin young take on flesh and fruit with age.

As Jeremy said, nebbiolo’s tannins are much harder, and that differentiates them. It also means that great Barolo/Barbaresco needs a lot of time before the fruit emerges from behind the tannin.

Because of their structures, they both need food. Nebbiolo really needs protein, as Jeremy pointed out, or fat. Hence, it’s drunk locally with meats, the very eggy pastas of the region or a rich risotto (which has protein from the stock, plus cheese plus lots of butter).

I agree that the Produttori di Barbaresco regular (non-single vineyard) bottling is a great place to start. Even young, with a little decanting and some hearty food, you’ll get a good sense of what these wines can be.

Either that, or you’ll decide they simply aren’t for you.

Funny you should say that. About five years ago, I served the following line-up blindly at a dinner:
–99 Monthelie-Duhairet Volnay-Champans
–99 Produttori Barbaresco normale/torre
–99 Mastrojanni Brunello
–99 Lopez de Heredia Rioja (I can’t remember which one)

The first three were remarkably similar structurally and very hard for people to identify. (The LdH stood out because of its oxidative note and lighter color.)

Of course, I chose the M-D for its backward nature and the Mastrojanni and Produttori for their elegance. But I never imagined how much affinity they would have.

I am in complete agreement with you. As Jeremy said Barolo and Barbarescos have tar, roses, riper dry fruit, higher % alcohol and dry tannins then Burgundy. IMO, Barolo and Barbarescos are bit more rustic. Both regions clearly show the expression of terroir.

The main question that I ask myself is :

Burgundy could replace Barolo; but could Barolo replace Burugndy ?

Both red Burgundy and Barolo or Barbaresco can be powerfully aromatic, but they are two very different animals texturally, Nebbiolo having considerably drier tannins.

I hear you.
Nothing, really.

Indeed

I certainly acknowledge a synergy between the two regions’ red wines, but as I think it through, Nebbiolo & Pinot Noir are quite different from each other.

There are some decent Pinot Neri in Piedmont, too.

And let’s not forget the increasing number of quality Nebbiolo bottlings being produced in Burgundy…

Like Jeremy, I definitely think that Sottimano is most “relatable” to Burgundy…both in the wines and the winemaker’s sensibility. They are amazing wines even to a Burgundy-fan’s taste. (Though no one will really confuse Sottimano wines with Burgundies…I tested that this spring in a blind tasting…with the winemaker.) But, as far a range of Barberesci that will, like a range of any villages’ premier crus owned by one estate in Burgundy, Sottimano’s range really respects and reflects the individual terroirs. (The Cigliuti Serraboella Barbaresco is a similarly finnesseful wine, IMO.)

Though I think that Barberesco is more likely to be “Burgundian”…the Barolos of Elio Grasso, IMO, rival the finesse and aromatics of Burgundy, though the mouthfeel is quite distinct.

If one is looking for a region and its wines to compare, the Piemonte/Bourgogne comparison is an easy one.

Having said that…I’ve had some seriously good pinot noir wines from Alsace, too…Had a 2000 “vielles vignes” (from grand cru “Hengst”) from Barmes-Buecher with our Thanksgiving dinner last week that , though clearly not from Burgundy…was not clearly unrelated. It was a delicious example of pinot noir from a defined terroir that is capable of long-aging and improving.

I love both regions, but Barolo and Barbaresco are a lot more work to make shine. You have to stand the bottles up (especially very old bottles, which is how I tend to like them). You must decant them (not decanting them more often than not ruins the wine). You typically must give them several hours of slow air.

While Burgundy also shows best if you do these things, not doing so, typically changes the resulting tasting experience much, much less than with Barolo/Barbaresco IMO.

YMMV.

Both regions have producers with “earth under the nails” and both regions work on a single red variety. It creates links. Many Piemont Producers speak or understand french, visit regularly Burgundy, and more and more Burgundy Producers spent time in Piemont.
Now, just try a Bepe Rinaldi 67 Barolo and you will find what makes the benchmark of the great Burgundy : FINESSE !