If one is going to assume that a blend is going to produce a better wine than a single variety, then it would be logical that the blending grapes are compensating for inadiquacies of the primary variety. California was doing this for a while adding Syrah to less than steller Bordeaux varieties. In regions such as Bordeaux, where the unpredictability of fully ripened grapes was the norm until fairly recently, earlier ripening varieties could save a wine that would otherwise be produced by using a less than optimally ripe single variety. There are examples perhaps where this is not the case such as Côte-Rotie. I think the quality of the Syrah would certainly stand on its own. And other than for the sake of aromatics, I don’t know what it is that they think the Viognier adds. A winemaker can create a Conundrum and it certainly can be a tasty drink with mass appeal. But who would ever consider adding 5% Viognier to Montrachet?
I’m not sure you have to see this as compensating inadequacies. The grapes may just complement each other and add complexity: syrah and mourvedre adding structure and color to the roundness of grenache; semillon and sauvignon blanc combining oiliness with acidity.
(One of the reasons I don’t understand barbera-nebbiolo combos is that both grapes have very high acid levels.)
The aromatic contribution shouldn’t be minimized. In addition, I think viognier is seen as giving Cote Rotie an elegance, though there are lots of elegant CRs with no viognier. There is a long tradition of including some white grapes in reds, such as Chianti (under the old rules), where trebbiano lightened up the inky sangiovese.
Also, as I recall, when viognier is co-fermented with syrah, it helps fix the pigments so that, surprisingly, the wine ends up darker than it would be if it were pure syrah.
One of the interesting things related to the classic GSM blend was that Grenache has a tendency to oxidize easily whereas Syrah and Mourvèdre usually have a tendency towards reduction. Blending these together makes Syrah and Mourvèdre more approachable young whereas fighting off Grenache’s tendency to oxidize. The resulting wine is thus more open and accessible than a pure Syrah or Mourvèdre would be, but also longer-lived than a varietal Grenache would be.
(One of the reasons I don’t understand barbera-nebbiolo combos is that both grapes have very high acid levels.)
Probably the possibility to tone down the stern tannic structure of Nebbiolo without diluting its acidity? After all, Italians seem to love acidity in their wines (and that’s why I love Italian wines).
Also, as I recall, when viognier is co-fermented with syrah, it helps fix the pigments so that, surprisingly, the wine ends up darker than it would be if it were pure syrah.
I remember reading an article related to the co-fermentation of Syrah and Viognier, debunking some myths related to the co-pigmentation. However, it might have been that the myth was that by co-fermenting these two varieties would result in a darker color due to co-pigmentation, which weren’t true. However, fixing color pigments (i.e. lending persistence to the color) could be possible.
I need to check out if I can find that article somewhere.
I recall a wine maker here (someone from the Central Coast, I believe) saying that in a post a couple of years ago. But perhaps they were just repeating common wisdom that has been debunked. It didn’t seem crazy since oak barriques fix pigments in nebbiolo – again, counterintuitive since the barriques allow more micro-oxygenation than big tanks.
Roger Boulton at Davis thinks that some varieties at least when co-fermented lead to more stable color in the finished wine. It wouldn’t be interesting if it weren’t persistent, presumably.
We have a traditional Chianti Classico producer who makes both a CC (all red varieties) and a Tuscan Red that’s 20% white varieties, just like the old days. I would say the two wines are very similar in color despite the lower amount of pigment in the latter…
John,
I have been known to drink riesling…lots of it.
Just started trying Barbera, and for low $20s per bottle it certainly wins the QPR award for how I like to drink wine. Never feel bad about opening it up on a weekday night with my go to foods (Italian, Mexican). Plenty of acid and a long finish to drink on its own as well. Just a ton of fun to drink.
Pairs best with Scooby Snacks!
Who’s have you been drinking? I think I’ve only had Vajra.
That’s what Barbera is known for, and it can definitely deliver in that way. It’s also a great by the glass option at Italian restaurants if you are looking for that.
The thread was wondering what heights it can reach beyond tasty QPR food friendly wine (not that being that is at all a bad thing), and I’m not sure the answer. The best ones I’ve had are pretty well short of the best examples I’ve had of most reasonably well known red varieties, but maybe I just haven’t had the right ones or at the right age.
I’ve never had one I liked more than Cappellano’s, though it seems to be getting dearer and dearer. Shows well young with air. IME, that’s the best way to drink it.
For me, a middling variety that produces mostly workmanlike table wines. Fortunate to ride on the coattails of Nebbiolo and the Piedmont.
Would not be bothered if I never drank another Barbera. Can’t say that about most of the other major grape varieties.
Vive la difference…we can’t all like the same wines.
This.
I own a few vintages of Giacomo Conterno Barbera which I bought on impulse in Rome and brought home (and I see now looking on CT that those are climbing in value – so probably my last few bottles of that).
I’ve had them a couple of times. I don’t think any of us would recognize them as barbera in a blind tasting. They are blackish fruit, with some tar, olive, black pepper, that kind of profile, and pretty stern (this is just me going from memory). You might guess Northern Rhone? I don’t know.
So they’re interesting in that they show me that barbera can be something quite different than the bright purple fruit and high acid quaffer. But it doesn’t show me that any of them reach (in my personal opinion) the best examples of other grapes. The Conterno, once you take the label prestige out of it, is a pretty good and interesting wine, but I wouldn’t go farther than that.
Guilty as charged on the thread drift. To bring it back to the discussion, I think seriousness means wines that age and develop tertiary flavors, and I am increasingly becoming disillusioned with chasing these with ever escalating prices. I’ve started to look a lot more for value wines (varietals) that I enjoy knowing that the odds are low of finding wine for sub-$50 or $100 that are “serious”.
Vajra too, although I know little about them. Are they one of the larger producers?
Recently opened a Pio Cesare, it was good but not great.
I do like Barbera but think of it more as a pizza wine.
I have had some great barbera from CA producers, Palmina being one that comes to mind.
Recently dabbled with the Vietti Barbera d’Alba and the d’Asti (prefered the d-Asti) - nice red fruit, dry, crisp acidity, and soft tannins. Good weekday wines at $20ish price point.
When I visit or speak with Piedmontese producers I always get the impression that they view Barbera as a secondary but still serious grape. Dolcetto is always the beloved table wine.
I have had great barbera wines that depending on the occasion I would have high on my pick list. The only one with age is a 2004 G. Mascarello Santo Stefano di Perno had in 2019 - and can say that this was drinking really well. For a Barbera I enjoy drinking young and is just a terrific wine I can recommend F. Principiano’s Barbera (Laura) - it is pure joy to drink.
It is quite easy to forget that Barbera and Dolcetto (love good examples of Dolcetto and I don’t agree that it’s only a simple table wine - it can be much more than that) of course these days are not grown on the prime spots. The situation was a lot different in the past, the value of the 3 varieties is not what they were then.