I think I’d side with that latter comment, after finding the Scavino Bric Fiasc that I had a year ago to be charmless, aged, pruney and oaky.
The thing is, there Are some nebbiolos that can be fine drunk on the young side. Some Roero’s, Donnas, Lessona are very nice young. A recent 2005 Vajra Albe is splendid right now.
For people spending 90-125$ for a good Barolo, you really don’t want want to waste it by opening it so early that you only have future hope to say nice things about it, unless you are a lawyer or Steve Jobs.
I don’t get this either. I learned the hard way that anything <10 years from vintage is a crapshoot that is not in your favor. 10-20 years old depends a lot on knowing your vintages (e.g. you can usually drink 1993, 1997, 1998). 20 plus years has always been safe for me but those things costs a ton of money so it’s easy to say but hard to execute on that plan.
I did some barrel tasting in Piedmonte and I came away convinced it’s pretty pointless even for most wine nerds to predict where these things will be in 10-20 years so I personally don’t open a 2005 or 2006 to “get a read” on how it will mature.
When I drink a 20 year old Barolo I don’t think about how great it will be in another 20 years time. It is so hard to come by a well stored 20 year old wine that I’m going to savor it for what it is.
Greg,
In my case, I either drink young barolo when I have multiple bottles of a fuit-forward vintage to try one, or somebody brings it to a tasting or dinner.
Like today, we had two 04s and an 05 at our wine lunch. They drank pretty backward, to my taste, as expected.
A few years ago, a friend brought the newly released 97 Ceretto “Prapo” to dinner. It was fairly suave and lush, typical of that vintage. So I knew then that I could open some 97s on the young side.
In most cases, though, I prefer to wait 15-20 years after vintage.
I think you have to take into account that a lot of people who post don’t have deep cellars of older wines and, let’s face it, Barolo and Barbaresco are, for most people, less pleasant to drink young because they’re so tannic and acidic. So it’s probably not surprising that the focus is often the potential.
Also, for me anyway, what makes nebbiolo such a wonderful grape is the aromatic complexity it develops with age.
As for immediate pleasure, off the top of my head, a couple of bottles drunk in the past year that gave great, great immediate pleasure come to mind: a 99 Produttori Barbaresco and a 95 Burlotto Barolo Neirane.
I found a lot of the 01s and 04s surprisingly drinkable young. The 01 Conterno Cascina Francia comes to mind. It didn’t deserve to be so luscious young! It was positively chuggable on release.
You might take it into consideration that Barolo that was made 50 years ago was made in completly different style (longer maceration times, grapes were not destemed, spent long time in botti and so on). Barolo that’s made in past 20 years is completly different beast and I doubt, for majority of producers that will last as long.
I drank the 2004 Attilio Ghisolfi Barolo over the past two nights. Apparently the WSJ rated it a top Barolo value in a recent tasting.
For such a young wine it was surprisingly approachable and held, if not improved in the bottle overnight. Drinkable on its own and even better with a big plate of pasta. And even better that it was under $20 at a Binnys closeout.
I would add a couple of others that I have derived great pleasure from already, though they should age: 99 Ghisolfi Bricco Visette and 98 Brovia Rocche.
Aged or not, but I prefer to reach back a few years.
And Leo is absolutely correct, virtually all modern wines are quite different from the wines made only 20 years ago. Will they last as long? Who cares. The question should of course be will they be as good, and only time will tell.
And the only way to find out is to taste, taste, taste. Tasting these wines young and through out their lives helps one understand the vintages, as well as the changing styles of many producers.
The only difference in my buying strategy over the last 15 years,is that I have bought more bottles of my favorite produces so I don’t fear to enjoy a few at release…but then I let them sleep,depending on their character,for at Least 10-15 years.There are of course exceptions.
Good point, Leo, though the 96s still seem like babies to me. The thing is… even if I want to age a wine 20 years (and remember, I’m liking even things from the mid-90s at 15), 'm 52. A wine just hitting its peak as I turn 72? Meh…
However, it has cooled here and I could pop some Barolo tonight…
I’ve had many a ‘declassified’ Barolo/Barbaresco for the here and now at a fraction of the price, i.e., simply labelled nebbiolo, from producers of both the old and new guard, yet even those coming from reportedly ‘young vines’ would have greatly benefited from 5-8 years cellaring…ugh!
Maybe it’s just me, but I thought it was a stupid question. Is it any dissimilar to fine Bordeaux or Burgundy? It’s okay to comment on when I think the '96 Leoville Las Cases will be ready to drink, but you don’t want my input on the '98 Bartolo Mascarello?
You’re entitled to your opinion, of course, but I wanted to provoke discussion and see what folks thought. It could apply to any number of regions known for aging capacity. I chose one in particular that was of interest at the moment.
I’m partial to young Barolo, but it does require a side of roast swine to cut back the acid and tannins.
I haven’t touched my 04 Vietti Rocche, but the Castiglione is delicious and relatively supple.
![[stirthepothal.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/f/f40faec63ca1018898a40805efbf9f0066a3d205.gif "[stirthepothal.gif]"){kind=small}