A Decade of Barolo/Barbaresco - Vintage Ranking

[dave_cuneo]

@Rico Thompson

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?

Dude, what a buzzkill! It may be premature but it’s fun.

[Rico_Thompson]

You got me Dave! OK, in the name of fun I’ll play, in approx. order of personal current preference:

The Best
2001
1999
2006
2004

Very Good
2000 (our recent 2000 retrospective revealed a number of superb wines)
2005
2007
1998

Quackers
2003
2002 (excluding Monfortino)

-Dr. Buzzkill!

[Bill_Klapp_deactivated]

I agree with the greatness of 1978 and 1989 noted above, and agree with Bob that, given the impossibility of being able to accurately measure the quality of a Nebbiolo vintage before, say, 20-30 years, 1978 is, so far, the best that ever was (and continues to be, harboring a bunch of still-young wines that will probably go another 30 years). I am a bigger believer than Rico on the 1996s, but I would agree with his take above, with two caveats: I don’t think that you can say which of 2001, 2004 and 2006 may end up being “the best”, but I would put 1999 fourth of four in the “best” category, and would add Bruno Giacosa’s 2000s to that tier as well…

[Bill_Boykin]

I think the quality of 78 is nearly Indisputable,passing the test of elevating exponentially the “lesser” wines and carrying the standard bearers to heights raely seen.
That said,and staying away comfortably from trying to foresee the relative values of great Nebbiolo without at least 20 years in the bottle,I will say that my personal favorite for challenging 78 would be 89.

Playing the low percentage game of comparing relative values of other vintages brings me to really appreciating the 99s,with not a clue as to separating at this time the 01s,04s and 06s…other that I love them all for their individual character.
96 is still a question mark for me,although I appreciate its stature,just not to what extent.
These 5 seem solid throughout their respective vintages with the aforementioned 00s,05s,98s,97s providing great pleasure from selective Houses,just not uniform across the vintage…and people still overlook the 95s…