During a tasting at Cantina Bartolo Mascarello, our host Allen mentioned that there are only two wineries making truly traditional Barolo anymore. He said that the traditional method was to blend grapes from multiple sites to achieve the best result, rather than focusing on single cru bottlings. Other houses certainly blend multiple vineyards, generally for their “normale” bottlings. However, B. Mascarello uses a technique he called “assemblaggio”, which he described as co-fermenting the vineyards rather than blending separately fermented lots. They believe that this more tightly integrates the blend.
The second winery that Allen mentioned is Mario Fontana Barolo, who is of course somehow related to Maria-Theresa. I don’t see this Barolo on wine-searcher. Has anyone heard of this house?
-Larry
I know Bartolo was always an advocate of blending. I suspect part of that was that few people had large holdings, and in the past many people bought much of their fruit from vineyard owners. So it may have been a matter of necessity in part. (Michael – I think the point at B. Mascarello was that blending was part of the tradition, not just long ferments and aging, a la Monfortino.)
Giuseppe Rinaldi bottles a Brunate-Le Coste. Is that the other producer they consider to be carrying on the same tradition?
Sandrone blends vineyards for the Le Vigne bottling, which carries the same price as his Cannubi, so he plainly doesn’t consider that a normale. But it seems the lots are fermented separately. And he’s not in the traditional camp.
The idea that a Barolo needs to be blended from different vineyard sites to be considered traditional is absurd. Giovanni Canonica, as one example of many old school producers, owns only one 2.5 ha parcel in Paiagallo and it’s as traditional as Barolo gets.
I do not know this 2nd producer. Maria Teresa is making wonderful wine, but all the other traditional houses like G. Rinaldi manage to make equally great wine without co-fermenting.
They used to make two blends because they wanted to stick to the tradition: Brunate-Le Coste and a Cannubi San Lorenzo-Ravera. Now the law forbids mentioning the vineyard if the grapes don’t come from a single vineyard (a law which was strongly fought against by all the traditionalists, but to no avail).
As a consequence, starting from the 2010 vintage they bottle the Brunate separately, and the blend of the other three vineyards is called “Tre Tine”.
By the way, the new law will not change the blend in B. Mascarello’s Barolo, but the label: the vineyards were all mentioned on the label until 2009, but starting with 2010 this will not be allowed.
From my understanding Beppe rinaldi’s 2010 brunate has le coste blended in, just an amount permitted to be blended in and still be called brunate. There is CSL, Ravera, and the balance of le Coste in the Tre Tine. I think Allen’s comments are about taking all the vineyards and cofermenting from the get go.
Either way both producers 10s are brilliant.
Gilberto is correct re Bartolo’s 2010, The wine is the same, it just says Barolo instead of Barolo with fine script underneath with the vineyards compromising the wine.
I don’t think it’s that absurd. From Sheldon Wasserman’s book I think he quoted Renato Ratti that single cru bottlings did not occur until the 50s (or something like that). So, prior to that time (I guess 70-90 years) the “modern” barolo was typically (ie traditionally) blends of different vineyards.
That said, you raise a good point about producers who don’t purchase fruit but only have a small amount of land from which they produce their juice. Saying those producers are not “traditional” does them a disservice. Canonica’s 2006 barolo was the first time I tasted that producer, and it is an awesome wine. Wish I had more…
Also blended fermentation, from a lay person’s perspective, seems kind of practical. And there may be some truth behind the claim that the wine is more integrated, if the yeasts and vats are the same.
Has anyone heard of a comparable belief in Burgundy, I wonder? Some of these vineyards are the equivalent of Grands Crus, Brunate for example; have such vineyards ever been blended with the idea that it makes better wine?
In the Slow Food Wine Atlas of the Langhe, there are lots of quotes from past generations about how fruit from this plot or that plot was valued because it lent X or Y to a blend. Again, that may have been of necessity, and there was no developed market for single vineyard wines. But it does suggest that in the past there was an appreciation of the art of blending.
I can’t think of anyone in Burgundy who argues that blending different vineyards makes something better than the individual vineyards would produce alone. You do get “Premier Cru” blends without specific vineyard designations, but those are either cheaper than the single vineyards or are made where there isn’t enough of any one to bottle separately.
Of course I’m assuming you’re not including those who believed in blending in Rhone or Algerian wine…