Had a few last night and was really surprised by a few of them being a tad hollow and surprisingly lacking the depth I expected. Who else has been trying any 97 barolo’s ?
tried a 97 Conterno Cicala and that was my impression too. I didn’t buy heavily in the vintage. The nose was lovely, the palate not up to the nose. I didn’t buy heavily in 97 because I didn’t like the vintage in Piedmont.
So far my 96’s and 98’s have crushed the 97’s I have had in last 12 months! I would say I have had 6-10 of each of the 3 vintages
I don’t think 97 has lived up to the hype, and some of the more modernist producers really had the oak dialed up… 97 Bartolo Mascarello is a darned fine bottle, however
Hi Gary,
The '97s I have had in the last few years have been perfectly acceptable, short-term quaffers, but this is a vintage that was very overrated in my opinion from the get go. They had decent puppy fat fruit out of the blocks, but not a whole lot in reserve at the core, as well as rather modest grip for Piemonte and I never saw much upside potential for even the best examples that I have tasted. They are a perfectly pleasant lot, but I would rather drink the better 1993s in a heart beat than a comparable 1997. To be fair, I have not tasted really broadly in the vintage (maybe it would be a fun article to work on for a future issue), but I have had very consistent results with yours.
All the Best,
John
JG I agree and you it’s funny you brought up the 93’s they maybe some of the most overlooked wines of the decade in the region!
1997 has always been an odd year in my book. The 1996s are consistently structured tannic and will age a very long time. IMO a great vintage that ranks with 1989 and 1978. The 1998s are generally very forward and ripe in an appealing way that makes most of them quite drinkable now, even from old-style producers like Mauro Mascarello. The 97s seems to be either/or or something in between. Some forward and ripe like 98 (but in some cases, maybe over-ripe). Some more structured with potential, but not very appealing now. Some are just a mess and seem for now like they were way over-oaked (as Henry mentioned).
A 1997 horizontal could be a fascinating but frustrating experience.
Hi Ken and Gary,
I think it would be a lot of fun to organize a 1997 horizontal- we might want to skip a few of the really superb efforts of the vintage (like the Giuseppe Mascarello Ca d’Morissio) in the name of not committing infanticide, but I would think that this would probably be a good time to assess a wide range side by side and see which are already drinking well or should be drunk up before they cave more (or get more pruney), and which could still be held onto for a few more years. But I think that we would probably find a very small percentage that will still demand extended cellaring. After the tasting we could drink '93s with the dinner to increase the odds of a pleasurable evening if the '97s end up showing poorly.
Best,
John
Recently had Giuseppe Mascarello’s standard bottling and it was gorgeous; stunning length and depth. Then I read a dialogue on James Suckling’s blog in which he claimed that GM is prone to VA and is wildly inconsistent. That has certainly not been my experience - anyone else know why James might say so? The obvious answer is that GM has not fallen in line with the new school, but I don’t want to make assumptions.
I had the '97 Marcarini Brunate earlier in the year. I had decanted it for 4 hrs in an open wide bottom decanter prior to bringing to the restaurant. Itt seemed to remain somewhat closed over the whole evening with the structure on the forefront and the fruit underneath. Just hints of what it might be. It was very correct, but just a tad underwhelming. The wine was certainly enjoyable, but after reading above, I might agree that this bottle could be representative of the vintage. I have a bottle of the '98 Marcarini La Serra I’ve been eyeballing, so maybe I’ll try one soon.
loved the 1997 Vietti Castiglione i had recently with Amy & Bruce but the bottle was open 6-8 hours and then decanted. thought the Andrea Oberto earlier this year was still really primal.
My tasting group just did a vertical of the Monprivato and they were all fine in technical terms thought the 2000 and 2001 are in an odd place and I didn’t care for them. The 99 had tons going on on the nose and the palate, the 96 likewise, but the 96 was starting to show some caramel and open up (the 99 was just beginning to open back up after a dumb phase). The 95 is fairly evolved and more of a drink now to 3 years wine - after that I think it will start to go into ‘old red wine’ land where it’s fine, but less obviously Barolo. The 200 and 2001 were closed… they’re both in a place where they aren’t giving much and should be left alone for 3-5 years. The 2004 was lovely, spice and flowers and light red fruit… and was very different from all of the other wines. The 1990 was on point, into its secondary phase (though still with a good fruit background). I didn’t have the 97 or 98, but unless the vintages had faults not evident in others, Suckling is off the deepend again.
I’m not surprised. I remember tasting in the region in 2000 and being struck by their hollowness and lack of grip. I was also told that it had been hot at harvest time and some people (always the other guy) had problems with stuck or runaway fermentations (I can’t remember which). Even though 1997 was the current release in Barbaresco at the time and the 97 Baroli would be released the next winter, the winemakers were not talking up the 97s. They saved their enthusiasm for the 96s. On later visits, no one touted the 97s – or the 2000s, after WS billed that as the greatest vintage of all time.
Having never bought many, I have little experience with them in aged form, but I haven’t had any regrets.
The perception that it was a strong vintage traces to Parker’s initial report, I think, in 1999. But he hedged a bit the next time he reviewed the region.
Issue 124 (August 1999):
“The 1997 vintage produced wines unlike any I have ever tasted from Piedmont. Extreme in style, these are wines that I loved. The finest examples are low in acidity, with huge, mammoth, gloriously fruit-laden personalities, gobs of glycerin, fabulous concentration, and lofty alcohol. Many old-timers say 1947 was a vintage with similar characteristics. Lovers of hedonistic, luxuriously-flavored wines will find them compelling. Not all producers have been successful. It appears that the top wines [were made] in and around La Morra… Barolo and Monforte d’Alba are considered slightly less successful, but … there is no shortage of profound wines from these area.”
Hmmm. Sounds like he was taking dictation from Marco de Grazia, doesn’t it?
He recycled much the same language in issue 135 (June 2001), but his enthusiasm seemed more qualified. He referred to the “opulent/exotic freaks of 1997” and said that “for readers who finds nebbiolo too firm, backward and intimidating in its youth, 1997 is well worth a look… The vintage appears more irregular than 1996… The finest examples are thrilling, but hardly typical.” It read like he’d had some second thoughts or had been warned that many people would consider his initial take off-base.
I’ve had a few good 97’s lately including Marengo Brunate, Vietti (Rocche?) and Ceretto Brunate.
Impossible for the wines to live up to the hype of the vintage. Also, it is a hotter vintage and less structured than a number of other recent vintages.
I think JG’s idea is a good one that these wines should be checked in on.
Al
'96 baby!
A BIG problem lately is that the venerable concept of a “Restaurant Vintage” (meaning fatter, lower in acids and drinkable sooner and selling for a LOWER price because of that) has been lost as a new generation of critics and drinkers WANT that so they give the high scores and pay the big bucks for what turn out to be inferior wines if aged like normal Barolo (Bordeaux, Brunello, ect).
I still like the 97’s but never found them to be the vintage Suckling thought they would be. OTOH, they drink up front and very easily. Like any vintage, some producers handled the vintage beter than the others. More a problem of expectations than the quality of wines for many of these.
I have only one '97 in my cellar - E. Pira & Figli (Chiara Boschis) Barolo Cannubi - and quite a few '98’s and '96’s, as I’ve heard the same, regarding those vintages actually showing better lately than '97.
I’m reading a few notes here and there, however, that the '98’s are still babies, so I’m not planning to open many more, and my experience with them has been widely varied - one wine was quite ready for business, another, by another winery, completely shut, even after 3 days in the fridge.
Cursed Barolo!
I have no explanation for this, but have always found Mauro’s wines to be hard to judge young. They are often much lighter than they turn out to be later. Having done a few verticals, I tend to buy on faith and wait.
I’m game. I think the trick to making it a fun experience would be to keep the group small relative to the amount of wine. My suspicion is that after tasting through say 15 or so wines, there would be some that many would want to go back to and others that no one would want more of.
Another option would be to include some 93 and 97 pairs and do it blind. But that may be a little unfair since I think almost all 93s are ready to drink while the best 97s are not.
I would love to do it so if you guys are serious I can plan it.