I often read tasting notes on Nebbiolo-based wines - particularly Barolo and Barbaresco - that offer up advice of not touching the wine for “decades” in some cases in order to let the tannins resolve. It seems to me that one of the key defining features of good Nebbiolo-based wines are the oft-“haunting” aromatics that marry refined fruit, spice, tarry, and floral notes. As the wine ages, it loses some of those more exotic aromatics and becomes more “generic” in its profile. Also, I doubt there are many cases where the wine is so structured that the fruit can be in balance by the time the tannins actually resolve; if you don’t like tannins, don’t drink Nebbiolo. So, for those with experience with the wines of Piedmont, when is Nebbiolo “best”? And, more importantly, does the wine actually get “better” with bottle age or does it just become “softer”?
HEAVILY producer and vintage dependent. The wines do become quite a bit more interesting, but really comes down to the individual bottle that might in your hand. A 96 Bricco Roche from one producer may still be a bit shut down, where another one could be firing on all cylinders. The sub zone comes in to play a lot for the flavor profiles as the wines get older as well. Wines from La Morra taste totally different than Castigilione Falletto, and so on.
First, see this:
Young barolo tasting is brutal- tips? - WINE TALK - WineBerserkers" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
So, the simple answer is yes. Most serious Nebbiolo does need a lot of time to show its best. There is no simple rule as to how long.
To take some extremes, the 1978 Monfortino and the 1978 Giacosa Rionda are still quite young. Well-stored examples of these wines will continue to improve for at least 2 more decades. Can they be thoroughly enjoyed now? You betcha! And when I get a chance to drink them, I’m not waiting. ![[highfive.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/d/db21b9263a9105e51f6f8b11e61dd4de095611f9.gif "highfive"){kind=small}
OTOH many Barolos from 1993, 1995, and 1998 may be showing as well as they ever will right now.
Not only do wines and vintages vary widely, so do palates. My Italian friend who really got me started on Nebbiolo decades ago, once said of a Barbaresco that I was thoroughly enjoying “It’s nice, but it still has fruit left. It’s not ready.”
Part of the controversy over new oak in Nebbiolo is that to some people this makes the wine drink well earlier. For me, this may be true for Cabernet, but for Nebbiolo, I have to wait for the oak to fade.
Having said all this, I don’t think Nebbiolo is all that different from any other serious red wines. Much of what I said above, could certainly be said for Bordeaux. I was organizing a 1990 Bordeaux tasting for my group up here. I knew that one guy has a case of 1990 Latour. I asked him to bring it. He said “It’s too young.” I said “You’re in your 60s. It will be too young until the day you die. Bring it, Bitch!” He said “Yes, Sir!” He double-decanted it for 24 hours and it was simply amazing. Too young? Yes, but a glorious wine none the less. We also had the 1990 Margaux under similar circumstances. This and other first and 2nd growths were so impressive. But for me, the wine to drink that night with dinner was the 1990 Raussan-Segla. It was ready.
Not only is it producer & vintage dependent, but the other important variable is the taster’s own palate preferences. I’ve seen laudatory TNs on wines that I think are way too young to enjoy, but if you are a fan of fruit-forward wines, then maybe you’ll like your nebbiolo young. But I can tell you based on literally hundreds of bottles over the past 25 or so years that when you taste truly mature nebbiolo in all its glory, there are very few things that can compare to that experience. Wines from classic vintages like '78 and '89 were very tannic, awkward and closed in their youth. Is there a taster out there that might have enjoyed the '89 Giacosa Rionda Riserva in 1995? I guess it’s possible, but if you had, you would only be experiencing a fraction of what the wine ultimately will have to offer (and this is a wine that while glorious today, still gives every indication that it will be better in the future).
Of the varieties I drink often, Nebbiolo is the ONLY one that needs age, IMHO. To me the secondary notes that develop with time are what make it great, whereas other varieties can be fantastic with a mostly fruit profile. I’ve had plenty of good young pinots, syrahs, and cabs. Never have I had a good Nebb <10 yrs old that I thought wouldn’t benefit from more time in bottle.
That said, I like some fruit, so I often like Nebb best in its second decade.
Note: I am not saying that other varieties don’t improve, nor that there aren’t examples of each that require time.
Can’t get on board with this - the aromatics you’re describing aren’t there in young wines and only come around with age, and I’m not sure I’ve had a nebbiolo no matter how decrepit or past its prime where the aromatics have become “generic.” “Gross,” sometimes yes, but “generic” never. “Decades” may be overstating the aging requirement, however. You can start drinking some vintages at 10-15 years and the more structured ones at 20. I have had better experiences with '85s and '82s than with the great vintages of the '60s which might have benefitted from earlier consumption.
I’m following you here, but I’m running my own long-term ‘experiments’ to form my opinions (and will be until I die, I figure). Ideally I’d say buy 3 bottles–one for now, one for later, and one for much later. The only problem being that many of the best regarded Nebbiolos are so expensive that few would want to risk opening one outside its optimal drinking window. Personally, I tend to like wines younger as they are fresher and less likely to be oxidized. But at the same time, Nebbiolo is so tannic that it seems to demand age. I’m going to aim for a mix of primary fruit and tertiary bottle aromas, personally.
I do think some of the ‘common knowledge’ is a bit overstated at times. When tasted blind, people tend to confuse old wines from one region with another. This is definitely a sign that they are converging, though clearly there is something to any wine having the aging capacity to go out several decades. Also, it seems many recommendations for Nebbiolo concern the best producers in the best vintages. I cannot guarantee this 100%, but I’d bet that most vintages and producers have a shorter aging trajectory than the ideal one.
It could also be a sign that most people have vastly more experience with younger wines than older wines and their ability to identify wines blind reflects that imbalance. Perhaps people who are more experienced drinking older wines than younger ones are more likely to confuse young wines?
Hmm… good replies. I tend to check in on Barolo and Barbaresco at about age 15. Before that it’s simply not interesting enough to me - if I want young Nebbiolo I drink entry crus like the Produttori regular cuvee, etc. Depending on how the wine is showing, I might let other bottles of that wine sit for 5 years or 10. Waiting 30 years to even try the wine is pointless though, as what some critic likes might not be what you like.
I think many people have missed the OP’s point - almost all red wine will go past the tertiary stage into what I think of as Old Red Wine land. It’s still good, but it tastes more generic, with the aromatics that define the variety not there. Some wines will take 50 years to get there. Others, 20. So yes, you can overage a wine, but what that means will vary a lot. AS generic advice, I’d say check in around 15 years after vintage. If you feel the wine is ‘too expensive’ ask why you bought it. Wine is for drinking.
Mark–I hope this doesn’t scare you. You can enjoy nebbiolo and even Barolo at a much younger age in many cases. I’m in the minority in that I’d much rather drink a Barolo too young than a serious Bordeaux too young. I think many of the comments here, while correct, relate to the most serious producers in the most serious vintages.
Currently, I think many of the 98’s are drinking beautifully. Some 99’s are very enjoyable, even if you know that in 10 years they will be better. 2000 was a softer, less serious vintage at many estates, so wines like A. Conterno Bussia, and clerico Pajana are drinking just fine now. When drinking these wines early, you many miss the sublime fireworks later, but they can still be very enjoyable. (I would, as noted in another thread, avoid trying the better wines from better non-soft vintages in the first 8-10 years, other than perhaps at release).
I agree, this is likely an important factor. I suppose people tend to confuse young wines as well when they don’t have full information at their disposal. Still, if Nebbiolo’s imposing tannic structure is resolved, that is one big missing clue that would make identification harder. That leaves behind mature aromatics as a key identifier, which are less familiar to most people as you pointed out.
Good answers so far.
No, nebbiolo wines don’t lose their nose or have it become more generic as they get older at all, quite the opposite.
If you open a bottle and you got it too early (a frequent occurrence with nebbiolo, unless you have a very mature cellar), it generally responds very well to extended decanting time, or better still, to extended slow oxygenation in an opened bottle.
I’m not saying that a young Barolo with extended breathing time equals the experience of a fully mature one, but a wine that is too tannic or astringent at first may become gorgeous in its own way several hours later or a day or two later. You’ll notice over time that the last few drinks from a bottle of Barolo or Barbaresco are usually the best ones from the bottle.
I think some younger vintages are approachable now, 2003, 2000, 1998, 1996, 1995, particularly for some of your lower and middle-tier wines, or relatively earlier-maturing wines, provided you’ve allowed for proper advance aeration.
Wow, great responses.
Just to frame my initial point, my cellar and my palate are very much aligned with Burgundy (both for red and dry white). The vintages of red Burg that I’ve been drinking recently are '76, '78, '83, '85… so, I do love my wine with a big tertiary profile, and I love my wine delicate and refined. I’m not looking for “big fruit” so much as I am looking for “elegant” fruit; fruit that doesn’t steal the show but that contributes to the overall framework.
My sample set of older Barolo/Barbaresco, however, is not that big. I’ve had a '78 Borgogno Riserva about a year ago and found it to be very uninspired - overall, the fruit was out of balance with the rest of the structure, being far too thin. I’ve had some younger Barolos recently that already had striking aromatics with an attractive fruit profile but that were severely tannic; however, I think if you don’t like tannin, you shouldn’t be drinking Nebbiolo.
I have seen a lot of people make the assertion that older is better, and I think that only applies to the very best wines. So, in this case, I was just wondering: is older Barolo/Barbaresco actually “better”, or is it just “softer” with more tertiary notes which some people automatically equate to being better… Anyway, it seems like the vast majority is of the opinion that that’s not the case. I’ve purchase a few Barolos and Barbarescos in the last couple of years based on heresy, but not in a quantity that I can pop one every year to follow its evolution.
![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}
Antonio Galloni! Next question…
Mark, I third what Ken and Bob are saying. I would go further and say that I believe that hardcore Nebbiolo drinkers probably pay more attention to the tasting notes of kindred spirits (at least those whose palates they have come to know and respect, which even includes a professional critic now and again) for drinkabilty guidance than do drinkers of virtually any other wine. And back to your original post, assuming that we are speaking of good-quality, ageworthy Nebbiolo, no, it loses nothing for its first 10-plus years of life, the tannins ultimately smooth out or disappear, the fruit and sweetness reveal themselves in ways that rarely happen in young Nebbiolo, and profound secondary and tertiary aromas and flavors develop. Many find that old Nebbiolo is closest in nature to old Burgundy (I can confirm for you sometimes virtually indistinguishable), so, based upon what you wrote in your most recent post, if you buy good, ageworthy Barolo or Barbaresco, you should find the aging profile very similar to that of Burgundy of comparable quality and ageworthiness (again, subject to the producer caveat, etc. which would also apply with Burgundy).
There are Nebbiolos that are quite enjoyable young, either due to the style or the fact that the tannins may be smooth, well-integrated and hidden beneath the abundant fruit of the young wine (when that is the case), but in my experience, such young wines tend to be rather monolithic, whereas the same wine 10, 20 or 30 years later may be extraordinarily complex.
Finally, you can trust what you read on this thread. There are some folk on it that know their Nebbiolo shit…
I 
this thread
One of the smartest things I have done in my wine life (and no, it wasn’t buy enough Giacosa!) was to buy a case of very modest 1982 Bordeaux that I could afford at the time. It was from Entre Deux Mers and cost $2.99 before the case discount. Being such a modest wine of its type, it aged fairly quickly. I drank a bottle every 6 months or so until it was gone. That was pretty much its aging arc. I learned so much about wine and aging from that case.
If you really want a feel for Nebbiolo over its lifetime, buy a case of a good Nebbiolo d’Alba and drink a bottle every 6 months. If you can get a case of recent Giacosa Valmaggiore cheap enough, that would be ideal. They tend to be too tannic young, but not the ferocious tannins of their bigger siblings, so they’re still drinkable, but they will age fairly rapidly (relatively speaking) and you will get a feel for what you like. You can find the Produttori Langhe Nebbiolo 2008 for $16 in several place.
+1
Here’s a thoughts… Since more than one of us lives in SoCal (OC to be more precise), how about a Nebbiolo Diner? Jay of Grape Radio and I have been threatening this for a while. Hell, one idea would be to do a vertical of one of the Barolo producers I represent: germano angelo '97 - '06 (minus 02 and sadly no more '04 other than my own personal 4-pack).
I’d be just as happy to it BYOB as I have a few '97 that are ready to go…
Couldn’t do it before early January.
Thoughts?
This does not suck, as wine advice goes. It is made all the better by the absence of numeric scores on the wines mentioned, although I know Ken to be capable of such things (and probably worse)! The first time that I recall him giving that advice, I rushed out and bought five cases of the 1996 Bruno Giacosa Barolo Falletto di Serralunga d’ Alba Riserva, and I have opened one religiously (and what a religious experience it is!) every 6 months since. Locked in a closet where the lock is on the inside. By myself, or sometimes with a plate of steaming tajarin (the Piemontese angelhair pasta made with 30 to 40 egg yolks per kilo of flour), drenched in butter and covered in white truffles. But never with another human being, and DEFINITELY not with any wine board administrators. Even Mark Squires…
In!