Clearly there are different types of vintages with some more accessible early and some more classic/built for the long haul. But how do you believe these last 10 (released) vintages will look 10-20 years from now? Particularly interested in how people would place the first 5 listed.
Main surprise for me is the 2007. Its a ripe vintage, but got blockbuster reviews from many of the critics. Would most others put it behind 2000, 2005?
Nobody else wants to give this a whirl? Would love to hear some more opinions…I guess many year to year comparisons have already been done, but would love to see a broader comparison, early as it may be.
It’s really hard for me to rank wines from 2002 or younger, it’s just so early. Of the rest I’d say (descending):
2001
1998
1999
2000
I’m optimistic that 2004 and 2006 will eventually show really high on the ranking. I’m lukewarm on 2005 and 2007 but I don’t have any confidence in my ability to take the few bottles I’ve tried and predict where they’ll land in 10 years.
Loren – That looks pretty good to me, though naturally one could debate the precise rankings. I think 04 and 06 might equal 99 (though 06 seems much more 96-like), and maybe 98 and 05 deserve more credit. But overall your list accords pretty much with my takes.
I’ll second this, but would rank it more like this, grouping into tiers of quality:
2001
1999 2004 2006
1998 2005
2000 2003
2002
2007 not ranked because I haven’t had any yet. I think 2005 is mostly underrated: there are some fresh and lovely drinking wines from that year. They won’t be ones to age necessarily.
I am not sure I can exactly rank them all, but roughly
Excellent - 2001 1999 2004 2006
Very good - 1998 2005
Mixed - 2000 2007
Poor - 2002 2003
2005 may well belong in the Excellent category, I think it’s as underrated as some vintages are overrated.
2007 is hard to call yet but I’m not terribly impressed thus far. FWIW, for bay area folks, Belt’s has a decent Nebbiolo tasting coming on Saturday that features many 07’s.
2005 is tricky, there was rain at the very end of September or beginning of October that lasted a week; those who harvested first did well, those who waited, not so well.
Perhaps I’ve just had very good luck but most of the wines I’ve had have been excellent - Monprivato, Bricco Boschis, Guido Porro Lazzairasco, F Rinaldi Cannubi & Brunate, Giacosa Santo Stefano, Cappellano Rupestris and Franco, Vajra Albe and Bricco Viole, Produttori Normale. The only poor wines I’ve had were Cascina Francia (controversial topic there, I think it’s overripe and lacks any charm, detail or elegance) and two wines that were notably bretty (Burlotto Monvigliero and Bartolo Mascarello).
To my thinking this is a premature exercise. You can talk all you want about vintage characterics, harvest conditions, etc., but ultimately it’s what’s in the bottle that counts and all of the vintages from 2004 coming froward are simply too young to truly show their long term potential. And of course, ageworthiness is just one metric for judging greatness of a vintage. Everyone remember how underated 1999 initally was, but how dramatically the wines have blossomed in the bottle?
What Rico said. It takes a long time to properly evaluate vintages in Piemonte. I mean, at this juncture does anyone even know whether '99 is better than '96?
Re: 80’s, I would say that '89 is the best vintage hands down, with '82 coming in second.
The greatest nebbiolo I have ever consumed have come from the '78 vintage - there may be better vintages prior to that, but for my drinking experience, '78 stands alone.
I agree with Rico, but at that same time, so what. its fun to do now. For that matter, when would be the right time? The only answer is when you are going to open a bottle. The answer will never be static IMO.
I like 01 over 04 as they seem to have better structure and still the fruit than the 04’s. Who knows if that holds up or not and that is based on the few I have consumed young. Both are great vintages IMO.