I once planned to put together a blind tasting of “international style” wines. I figured I could include the right California wines with others from Bordeaux, the Rhone, Barolo, Tuscany, Chile, Argentina and Ribero del Duero. Sorry I never got around to doing that.
You could get certain critics to host!
For what it’s worth, I just checked on CT and the 2016 Bric del Fiasc has a significantly better average score than other vintages back to 2004 – 94.8 versus a a previous vintage high of 93.4. Most vintages have averaged 91-93.
2 Likes
I had a half bottle of the 2017 Paolo Scavino [Barolo] last night over some 4 hours. It was not decanted; this particular example came over via Henry Wines of Benicia, so not sure if they have a different selection / treatment than Skurnik or other importers. Overall, I thought the classico was in the middle of the road style wise. Perhaps that’s a function of being a multi vineyard blend, or the house dialing back techniques of a different era. It’s medium bodied, 14% abv, lighter colored, with dusty tannins and a good line of acidity. I found some licorice and citrus peel on the nose, as well as cedar. I think this was a warm, dry vintage but I find the tannin to be ahead of the fruit at age 8; it feels like this is the very early stage of drinkability. One moderniste concession was that it was closed under DIAM10 and I detected no traces of particulates/sediment etc. so perhaps there was tidying up during bottling? Anyways, I’ll slot this into the B+ zone but it seems like it still has upside.
I don’t drink a lot of Barolo, but for my tastes this doesn’t come across as too new wave, nor overly old school.
1 Like
Thanks for the note.
Paolo Scavino, like most ‘modernists’, have really dialed it back a ton. I personally still prefer the ultra ‘traditionalists’ but I have since found these wines to be very drinkable.
1 Like