I don’t think that is true at all. I’ve found top winemakers in France and Italy are usually pretty honest about the challenges of vintages. And I know when I tasted in the Langhe in 2002 people were dumbfounded by Suckling’s proclamation that 2000 was the vintage to buy. Producers were honest about the shortcomings of 2000, and of 1997, which Parker initially was positive about. I also had one winemaker downplay 2009 on a visit in 2011 even though 2009 had lots of critical support.
Greg’s been going to the region for years, so I doubt this will affect his reception at even one cantina.
It used to be a thing for critics to call out producers for always trumpeting the vintage currently for sale. That doesn’t happen much anymore. Now it’s the critics (two in particular…) who are always pumping the latest gotta-have-it thing. You can be sure that sells more subscriptions than a lukewarm “wait till next year” report.
FWIW, I was with Greg for several of these tastings. I think he was pretty spot on. As much as I would love it to be great (my son’s birth year), 2012 is for me is a difficult vintage, and for me highly irregular, with the strong showings for the vintage for me being Burlotto, Brovia, Maria Theresa Mascarello, and Beppe Rinaldi. I missed Elvio Cogno this year, but the 12 Ravera was one of my favorite 2012 wines tasted last year, especially at the tariff. It was beautiful a year ago.
I would never think of putting words into Greg’s mouth, and this is from me. 2012 was very irregular with many more low points and misses than 2011, a vintage I admittedly love less that Greg, but one that was more homogeneous and consistently pleasing. I think of it (2011) as a pleasing B+ vintage that doesn’t reach heights for me, but is consistently very pleasurable. 2012 had a few beautiful wines, but not many and it was very hit and miss. For me to name namesI thought excelled: Burlotto’s Monvigliero and Cannubi, Beppe Rinaldi Tre Tine and Brunate to a lesser degree. Brovia’s Ca Mia, Villero, Rocche. I liked MT Mascarello’s 12 more than her '11. I’m probably forgetting a couple others here, Regarding the comment about the difference in the highest scores being only one point, I think this misses the point that a vintage success isn’t a generalization, and you can’t base anything just at the top or the bottom. You have to look at the overall distribution of quality and the character of the wines as a whole. 2012 has many more lows and a few highs, not a consistent level of success. 2012 is the most irregular vintage I’ve tasted on release in the Langhe. Full disclosure, the '06 vintage is the first I have tried extensively at release in the Langhe, so add a fair amount of inexperienced salt to this opinion. I applaud Greg for a breath of fresh air.
Lots to appreciate in a very well-written and detailed piece (even if my soul curls with the use of the word ‘Baroli’ to drag up that old chestnut). Well done Greg.
Cascina Ballarin is a good shout. There is plenty of interest in the Barolo wines, and they are decent value IMO. However for me their shining light is the value for money offered by their Langhe Nebbiolo, with plenty of complexity for a fraction of the price.
Far from being a problem, it’s great to see a good cross-section of producers, rather than just the big names. Indeed proportionately this is still a little stacked towards the top end of the scale IMO, so such a criticism would be misplaced.
Am I wrong to be concerned that ‘more flesh and fruit’ in 2013s (than the 2010s) might be a case of too much, rather than just right? I get a bit grumpy about rich fruit and higher alc % in my Barolo (and Barbaresco) - how else can you explain my interest in Ghemme and Gattinara?!
AG says, “Quality is uneven across the board, so readers will have to be selective in order to enjoy the best the vintage has to offer.” I don’t see him saying it is a great vintage either. I guess you could take issue with his score inflation but that isn’t limited to 2012 Barolo. So people can’t agree on which of 2011 or 2012 is better. Best to taste them and form your own conclusions.
I find that good producers are if anything self-critical about their wines, including the quality of the vintage. I don’t find Rinaldi’s comment atypical.
Brady, I think it’s fair to say that Greg’s chart should best be viewed as his “current forecast/projection” given the fact that none of those vintages are truly mature at this time.
Ten years from now, he would probably have a few changes from one tier to another as the vintages mature.
I applaud Greg for this report. As a consumer I appreciate his honesty. The next time he says a wine or vintage is great, I’m much more likely to listen.
Brady - if you start at post 42 of this threat, the now-departed (and missed by some, me included) Bill Klapp gives his detailed assessment of vintages since 1996. Worth the read if you hadn’t seen it: Barolo buying strategy re 2011. - WINE TALK - WineBerserkers
Yeah, and my mental ratings chart corresponded closer to Klapp’s. Of course, he also said that all these vintage judgements were very premature. Both he and Galloni seem to hold 2004 a step above the others though, whereas Dal Piaz rates it third tier. Curious. I haven’t touched any since release, and don’t plan to for a while.
Brian, thanks for reminding me of that thread. Bill and I had our run-ins over the years, but I appreciated his content when he wasn’t in bulldog mode. Deactivating his account makes his posts harder to search for.
I’m weak on 2004 experience (even more so on 2005s and 2012s). 2008s impressed me more than I thought they would, and I happily buy from the vintage, so I’d support the placement. 2007s and 2000s have often been friendly, approachable so I buy the ‘good’ designation, though decent-good might be the words I’d use. I’ve not tasted too many 2009s but would put it about the same level as 2000 & 2007 but with a ‘beware - variable’ warning. 1999 and 2006 I like, no argument from me here. Great 2010s tasted fantastic on/soon after release, but there too I experienced some variability (a small few felt overblown), so a small warning there as well. Lower level 2011s have often overdelivered on enjoyment, but I’ve not tasted anything upscale. 2003 I generally disliked but some generally foursquare trad producers seemed to manage it well - but up in Northern Piemonte I’ve had wonderful success. 2002 I enjoyed the few I tried, perhaps because they would have been closer to maturity on release and I’d rather have a lighter, bonier nebbiolo than one that got too ripe.
Anyone who drinks Barolo regularly is going to have differing opinions on the relative caliber/rankings of the various vintages that is “colored” to some degree by what they drink.
For example, the Klapper is the only person I know that at this point in time thinks '97 is a better than average vintage, and that is primarily due to the fact that Gaja (one of his “go-to” producers) did very well that year. Likewise, he has a similarly elevated opinion of 2000 because of Giacosa’s portfolio.
OTOH, if you have ever had the chance to drink Conterno’s CF from '98, '99, 2000 and 2001 side-by-side it is pretty clear that the 2000 is the “weak sister” in that line-up.
That doesn’t necessarily mean that either Greg or Bill are wrong - I don’t think any of us have enough wines in our respective cellars to exhaustively revisit any vintage like a critic might at the 15-20-25th anniversaries, but it does provide us with interesting data points.
I haven’t tasted any 2012 so I have no opinion on that matter.
But what makes a good or great vintage? Is it how the top most producers perform- Giacosa, G Conterno, Gaja in that vintage taken as a bench mark. Or the performance of the middle or even the lower tier taken as a yard stick? Does the absence of Giacosa in 2006 or 2010 or G Conterno’s Monfortino in 2007 change the rating? Lastly, it all depends upon what you drink. If you just drink the top producers you would care rats ass if the bottom tier did well (or not) in any vintage.
I really love 2004. Especially at the top but this also percolates down to the middle tier.
I alos genuinely like the 2008. Its aromatics, purity and feel is very sensual. And also it was perhaps the last great vintage which was available at a reasonable price that I could stock up before the prices rocketed with 2010.
Thank you for posting this, Brian. It sounds like my kind of vintage. It looks like he was remiss in not including the Brovia Ca’Mia in his baker’s dozen. I am surprised that Brovia does not get more attention as I find it to be Barolo that most Burgundy drinkers would like a lot.