1999 for sure. The most powerful and structured vintage of the three, and those are traits I look for in Barolo. Some exceptional wines were produced and across the board the quality was the highest it had ever been.
2001 is quite fine, more elegant and certainly prettier than the 1999s with a shorter horizon and probably about the same 30 year drinking window.
2000 is a still a very good vintage in many ways, round, relatively friendly, soft tannins and richly fruited but without the cooked quality of a 2003 or 1997. I think if it hadn’t been rated 100pts by the Suckling it wouldn’t get the abuse it does. Lots of bashing because of that but the wines remain fun to drink and while they aren’t dazzling complex nor won’t make old bones for barolo 20 years of evolution is nothing to sneeze at. A real producers vintage. Try Monfortino or Giacosa red labels to understand what was possible.
+1 Like German Riesling, Barolo has been on a roll, save a year or two, for many years now. Each year is a little different. How many have complained that certain riesling years did not have the acidity to last for the long hall, but no one had a problem pulling the cork on a Selbach-Oster Rotlay? Enjoy them all for what they are worth.
Fortunately, I have a pretty fair representation of both '99 and '01 in the cellar, but haven’t popped enough to come to any conclusions. I do like Gregory’s summary though. (I didn’t buy much '00 other than Giacosa and a few others).
Ken is wrong,but I can’t say by how much…
99 is not necessarily best,just another facet of a beautiful diamond…but it does tend to produce wines that are more to my liking in nature.
I think it’s really interesting to see that 2001 is ahead of 1999 in this poll. I takes me wonder if many voters are effected by the media’s take on these vintages, over their own palate.
IMO, '99 is truly the better vintage, with 2001 not far behind. 2000, not even close.
Eric, I think 2001 is drinking better now than '99, which to my palate is only slightly less reticent than '96, so that may also be a factor. I do think the poll’s results properly reflect 2000 in this trio, though.
I think it has to do with how more open and approachable the '01s were on release and have been in comparison to the '99s, which, to me and some of the others here, have more to them, but have been a lot less generous and forthcoming from the get go. More patience is needed for the '99s, but I think there will be more and higher highs in that vintage than with the '01s, but they’re both terrific vintages.
I’ll serve first. Barolo - 1999, 2001, 2004, 2006, 2008 but very hard to stack rank the last three given their youth. These are the best 5 vintages of the lot.
Then the warmer years: 2005, 2007, 2000, 2003.
2002 omitted as it was a washout.
Wish I knew more, wish I had tasted more, but for me '99 by a hair over 2001, give me balance over power.
2000? Don’t make me laugh. Overall a bland vintage.
I like to rate vintages by making a chart of the previous 10 in order of quality, without numerical ratings. I do it for Chateauneuf, Cotes du Rhone and the various Roussillon and Languedoc regions I deal with. I simply can’t do it for Barolo and/or Barbaresco as I don’t have enough experience.
And 2000 as well…One reason may be that the publishers of said vintage charts have a bend towards warmer years & more stylistically forward wines approachable young (which to me are not classic Baroli).
On release, it seemed like it might have had more structure, but I found the Langhe wines are now ponderously heavy and lacking vitality. I don’t think this bodes well, and I greatly prefer 2005 (or 2000, for that matter).
With this big exception: I’ve found that the Alto Piemonte wines from 07 are quite nice so far. I’ve tasted a good number of Antoniolos and Ferrandos, as well as two bottlings from Caves Cooperatives de Donnas from 07 that are all very nice and perhaps even the better for the warmer vintage.
The brother and sister team from Vallana were in town last weekend and I was able to taste a few of their wines (Boca, Campo Raudii, sadly not the Gattinara - or any 07s for that matter). I asked them about warmer/cooler vintages, and they said they didn’t believe an overall warmer vintage was necessarily better for their wines and suggested instead that there was less climate-induced variation in vintages in the Alto than, say, down in Barolo. I dunno. But after the initial wave, I’ve purchased little 07 from the Langhe. On the other hand, I haven’t change my buying strategy for the Alto at all (which is to buy up whatever manages to dribble in!).
![[drinkers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/8/82916bed5ad74ac8470bc04089d9758b0c80c9fa.gif "drinkers"){kind=small}