Rating the Barolo/Barbaresco vintages since 1931.

This is very subjective, based on actual bottles tasted and for the older vintages a lot based on reading and other opinions, like Wasserman.

1931 - VOTC according to Wasserman and Aldo Conterno.

1947 - great vintage.

1955 - excellent. Only bottle tasted was Monfortino thanks to GdP.
1958 - great vintage, Monfortino my “best Barolo ever tasted”.

1961- excellent.
1962- good.
1964 - excellent
1967 - good (but Oddero Barolo and Barbaresco excellent).
All others mediocre to truly horrible (although 69 G. Conterno was very tasty)…

1970 - excellent
1971- great
1972 - no Barolo made, a disaster.
1974 - good to very good.
1978 - excellent, some great
1979- good to very good. (Monfortino a standout).
All others mediocre to awful.

1980 - good (Monprivato, Tenuta Carretta “Cannubi” excellent)
1981 - poor, (although a double mag of Pasquero Barbaresco was beautiful)
1982 - great, my favorite of the 80’s.
1983- good, some excellent (like the Giacomo Voerzio “La Serra”, made before the sons broke up the winery).
1984 - weak
1985 - excellent, some great (like Castello di Neive “Santo Stefano” Riserva).
1986 - fair
1987- fair to good (the Corino “Giachini” was an eye opener for me)
1988 - very good, some excellent (Grasso “Casa Mate”)
1989 - excellent, some great

1990 - excellent
1991- fair to good
1992 - weak
1993 - good to very good, great QPR
1994 - weak
1995 - very good.
1996 - excellent, some great.
1997 - good, some very good.
1998 - good to very good, some excellent. (“Maria di Brun” Barbaresco from Ca’ Rome).
1999- excellent.

Just my subjective opinions. I guess I have had more 82’s than any other vintage, followed closely by 78 and 93.I have had bottles from all the vintages listed except for 1931. [basic-smile.gif]

I did not do the 2000’s since I have had very few of those.

I left room for disagreement, and am not averse to being convinced to raise a rating or two. [cheers.gif] dc.

Dave,

Always a blast looking back through the lense of perspective.

In the 50s - my birth decade, just about every 55 & 58 I’ve had have been memorable, although well along on the journey of tertiary evolution. Had a number of 56 Rinaldis (my birth year) that were, well, shall we say, rather sherried, but still not without some allure. :~)

Ditto on the 60s…61 perhaps being my favorite followed by 64 & I must say that I’ve had some terrific 67s.

In the next decade 78 and 71 are clear winners, but I’ve had some surprisingly lovely 79s.

89 is my all time favorite in the next decade (will it rival 78? maybe!) followed by 82, then 86 and 85. There are a number of 88s that are currently showing very well.

Of the 90s - and the jury is still out in the final hierarchy - 99 right now is shaping up to be my fave, followed by 96 & 97 (I’ve had more “enjoyable” 97s to date, some truly profound, than 96s, but we’ll see over time). Then probably 95 and 98.

I like the '58s, 64s, 67s (even more than 64 - my birth year), 71s, 78s (best I have had across the board), 82s, 86s (very strong IMO), 88s, and 89s (alot, but not as much as Rico). The 1990s are still a bit young in my opinion. Getting ready to start on the 95s soon. 96s will remain buried deep for 5-7 years at least. Still waiting on the 99s, but will begin popping a few in 2-4 years time.

I just wish I could find more well aged, good provenance Barolo and Babaresco.

My goodness, I failed to mention the stunning 1990 vintage. Love it!

Steve and Rico,

Thanks for the inputs! It is so subjective… that is what makes it fun.

And what about dem 74s?No love for them?

97s are certainly underrated,aside from the WS bullshit.
97 Sperss and Bartolo are super as well as,to a lesser degree,Oddero Rionda,Giacosa Rocche,Asili,Rabaja.
61 is,of course,the standard bearer,but 64 and 67 are nearly equal for me.
Had a 64 Cappellano last year that was superb,absolutely superb!
Nice compilation,Dave. [cheers.gif]
Thanks.

Great list and summary Dave. I’ve been tasting a lot of older Barolos in recent years, and these descriptions of the years basically align with what I’ve experienced.

Bill and Richard,

Thanks for your opinions.

Bill, I have some love for 74, have had some very memorable bottles from that vintage. My experience with 86 is very limited so maybe Rico’s evaluation of it is more accurate. And of course, lumping Barolo and Barbaresco together does not recognize that there can be differences between the two within the same vintage, so these ratings should be considered “ballpark” or an average of the two. There are always exceptions to the rule, both for better and for worse. Perhaps most important, I would rather have a good producer’s wine in an average vintage than a mediocre producer’s wine in a great vintage. That being said, I do not think there are many weak producers left in B&B, definitely not as many as there were back in the day when I first discovered these wines. [basic-smile.gif]

Dave, I quibble, but I see no chance that 1971 is “great” and 1978 is “excellent, some great”. Both are “greatest of the great”, with 1978 having greater longevity and far more great wines to choose from than 1971. It just costs an arm and a leg to drink enough ones of each vintage to reach that conclusion! The 1971 vintage produced 3 of the top 10 best Nebboli that I have ever tasted: Giacosa’s Barbaresco Santo Stefano Riserva Speciale, the 1971 Monfortino and Gaja’s Barbaresco San Lorenzo. The 1978 vintage produced what may be the best Monfortino ever, Giacosa’s longest and greatest lineup ever and so many more. I understand that your take is purely subjective and based upon your particular experiences, which is cool. Personally, I believe that 1989 and 1996 are most likely to join 1971 and 1978, with 1982 a contender. Despite the great Monfortino, 1958 does not offer enough first-quality wines to make the top tier, and I suspect, VOTC or not, 1931 would suffer even more from that disability. It is a real shame that the marketplace has never been awash with bottles from the 1931 vintage so that we could have a strong read by somebody in addition to Wasserman and Aldo. I have a single bottle of the 1931 “Monfortino that wasn’t” that Wasserman tasted with Aldo Conterno and described in Italy’s Noble Red Wines, which came from a brenta that Aldo received at the time of his divorce from his brother and subsequently bottled with hand labels and wax capsules and seals. I have probably waited too long to open it, and who knows what the quality might be at this late date, but it is the only 1931 other than Borgogno’s that I have ever seen offered (although a Marchesi di Barolo cru might have shown up lately).

Bill,

It’s cool to quibble and I appreciate your inputs. Wasserman had a number of terrific 71’s in his stash so I got to try quite a few, one that stands out in memory was the Tenuta Carretta Barolo Riserva, “Cannubi”, among others. Also, when I first discovered B&B in 1981, 71’s were still around in the market and could be had very cheaply compared to today. I still think the Gaja “normale” is an amazing bottle, which was $40 when I bought one in 1985.

Wasserman also had many 78’s, and even more 82’s, so I got to try a number of those as well, along with my own purchases, and will not argue about 78 being great. That also seems to be the majority opinion here among the Barolo/Barbaresco heads.

I am astonished that you have that 31, although I think you have mentioned this before. That should be an interesting experience no matter what shape it is in.

I sure do hope all the high praise for '96 pans out. Based on the multitude of things I’ve tried to date I’ve got very mixed feelings about the vintage, not to mention the mixed bag of wine making styles could skew things a bit.

Rico,

I finished up a 96 Giacomo Fenocchio “Cannubi” yesterday, it was beautiful! TN to come. I can now renew my vows of love to Barolo, which I hastily retracted after the oxidized 96 “Cannubi” from Serio and Battista Borgogno two weeks ago! dc.

Dave, I’ve had such completely mixed results with just about everything I’ve ever opened from Serrio & Bastista Borgogno…funky wines with a plethora of old style winemaking issues (i.e. - VA!). Had a few 78 Cannubi Riservas from them a while back that just plain sucked.

I hear you cousin,and I generally don’t warm up to all the hype that has surrounded the 96s,but I just haven’t had all that many,mostly due to the stern nature of the vintage.I didn’t touch many 89s this early,either.

I will say that my experience with some of the “lesser”(or at least less expensive) wines has been very satisfactory…such as the Roagna Paje,Cappellano,Oddero,and so at 1st blush,it seems that 96 has fulfilled one of my major requirements of vintage greatness:to elevate mightily the “lesser” House wines above their usual pedigree…and as for dealing with confusing winemaking styles,I never have to worry about that… neener

Interesting discussion. I know little about Barolo and Barbaresco vintages, but I enjoyed reading this because I have a tasting coming up that includes a flight of four Barbarescos, including vintages 67, 75, 97 and 01. I didn’t see anything on 75. Anyone have any experience with that vintage?

specifically, this is what we’ll be drinking:
1967 Produttori del Barbaresco
1975 Produttori del Barbaresco
1997 Bruno Giacosa Barbaresco Santo Stefano
2001 Bruno Giacosa Barbaresco Santo Stefano

Isaac,

75, 76 and 77 were a trio of very weak vintages whose wines should have been drunk up many moons ago. I will be interested to hear what your bottle is like. dc.

yeah, it’ll be an experiment. i’ll post notes for sure, but i’m hoping there’s still some life left.

Isaac,

Hope for the best and prepare for the worst!

there will be plenty of wine at the dinner in the avent of a bad bottle, so no worries.

This dinner may be my gateway drug into Barolo/Barb…

Appreciate all of the vintage info on the thread.

yeah, i’ve dabbled in both, but never made the full plunge either. it’s hard enough keeping myself from spending all of my money in regions i’m already obsessed with.