POLL: Best Barolo Vintage of the three: 1999, 2000, or 2001?

WINE TALK
1

POLL: Best Barolo Vintage of the three: 1999, 2000, or 2001?

  • 1999
  • 2000
  • 2001

0 voters

Nebbiolo Nerd and Barolo Brats, vote on what you think is the best of the three vintages listed, and tell me why…

2

Haha! Nice.

I vote 2001 for stuffing wise and 2000 for opulence and drinking nice. My limited Barolo experience :slight_smile:

3

You didn’t vote, Fu!

I voted '99 due to the structure and depth, though I’d also put '01 ahead of '00 for the same reason. The '00s are sexy and flamboyant, but don’t have the depth or structure of the other two vintages, imo and using a broad brush.

4

2000 is nowhere close to the other two-not in the same league. I like 2001 quite a bit, but ultimately I think 99 may take it by a hair.

5

I can’t choose between 99 and 01. No one but WS put the 2000 in the same league as the other two – certainly not the winemakers.

6

Call me a heathen but the 2000 Aldo Conterno Granbussia was gorgeous on the nose tonight and drinking very nicely. Hard to believe it’s only 13 years old but gorgeous nonetheless.

7

'99 and '01 on par.

8

Suckling was the one who gave the 2000 a ridiculous 100-point rating. When Sanderson came in, that changed. Spectator quietly corrected the vintage charts; now both '99 and '01 rank ahead of '00.

9

Agree that 2000 was way overrated. Franco Conterno even told me as much a few weeks ago. They prefer 2001, great fruit, lots of perfume and great structures. But I agree with the poster that said its on par w/ 1999.

10

The winemakers were all shaking their heads when Suckling made that pronouncement circa 2004.

11

2001 for the quality of the fragrances, depth of fruit, and solid structure. I’d say it is the most balanced of the three. Some folks may value more of one aspect over another and that personal preference is probably the deciding factor between '99 and '01.

12

It’s hard to vote as I have not had a 2001 yet. A few months ago I had a '99 Sandrone la vigne that was sublime. Didn’t Suckling seem to judge the vintage (2000) on Giacosa’s wines, which are an exception? Anyway, I have a 2000 Vietti Lazzarito standing up for my birthday dinner on Sunday. Should be in a good place.

13

It’s a little hard to decide because I think the 2001’s had a funk for a few years that they now seem to be coming out of, but not all are coming out at the same rate (we just tasted about ten of them). I’ve been avoiding most 99’s as well. I bet a number of us haven’t sampled widely since release on the 99’s and the 2001’s, so I bet a lot of folk’s will be basing things on their impressions on release, rather than what the wines are doing now.

14

Suckling lives in Tuscany, not Piedmont. That’s probably why.

15

Or perhaps because he’s a bozo?

16

I’d say the ‘99 vintage just because there are better values. For instance, no Ca’ di Morissio from G. Mascarello, instead, all that juice went into the Monprivato - which I had a couple months ago. Excellent juice.

17

With a smile on their face, though, knowing they’d probably get a bump in sales. Suckling. What a joke.

2001 for me. Great structure, soaring aromatics. Smidge better than 1999, and I think the gap between 01 and 00 will increase more and more with time.

18
19

All three vintages are good to great depending on the producer.
1999: Great structure, darker fruit, long potential
2000: Earlier drinking, expressive, softer tannins
2001: Fragrant, balanced, some drink well earlier but have great foundation
My favorite of the 3 is likely 2001, but only if you put a gun to my head [thumbs-up.gif] )

20

1999 over 2001 but it’s pretty close.
IMO 2000 doesn’t even deserve to be in the same sentence.