Beware!
You don’t know the peril that lies beyond that door to…Nebbiolo… ![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}
I must say that the circumspection with which you Worthies approach the 1996 vintage is impressive, and a good thing to have in print for posterity. If any of us old farts (well, Rico being something of a Junior Leaguer of old farts, I suppose) has learned anything over the years, it surely must be that it takes at least 20 years, if not longer, to be able to take the measure of a great Nebbiolo vintage with any degree of accuracy. Indeed, it is not clear to me that one can be certain about vintages judged mediocre or worse much sooner than that…
Surely.
Certainly…but I still bought some 06 and 07 Barolo,but only Burlotto,F&G Rinaldi…and Bartolo.
1947 is considered exceptional. I’ve had only one wine from the vintage, the Borgogno, but it was quite an experience – a good one.
1945 is also viewed as outstanding. I’ve not tried any wines from that vintage.
My own experience with wines from the 50s is about nil. At a memorable dinner I had the pleasure of trying Cappellano Barolos from 52, 55, 57, and 58, as well as the B. Mascarello 54, but that’s not enough of a sample to really judge.
Getting into the 60s, I would rate the decade more or less as follows -
61
64
67
68
69
With the rest, experience is too skimpy. And I would qualify that 67 rating with the caution that I’ve a number of 67s that were holding up far less well than either 61s or 64s. I no longer look to buy 67s. Personally, I really like 64. Both the Bartolo and the G. Conterno can be mind-blowing wines. I still keep an eye out for well-stored and well-priced 64s and 61s.
In terms of more recent vintages - 70s forward - not too much to add. 71 and 74 are both lovely vintages, but are so far eclipsed by 78 that comparisons really aren’t entirely fair. 79 saw some very nice wines - a Prunotto Montestefano Riserva we’ve had not too long ago was very nice.
I am coming to appreciate 82 more and more, along with 86 and 87 for top tier producers. There is a bit of uncertainty about 85. Some I’ve had in the past few years were still on the upswing (the Cascina Francia, for instance). Others were at or past peak. We did an 85 horizontal about, maybe 3 years ago, and the wines probably underperformed, as a group, similar bottlings from 89 or 90. I’ve found 88s to be enjoyable but they are frequently on the downside, and in general I’m not adding any 88s to my cellar.
And then there’s the 90s. Both 93 and 95 are terrific vintages for drinking now. A 93 Marcarini La Serra just blew me away a couple of years ago. Led me to go out and buy a case of the 04, hoping it will be just as good in 10 more years. 90 is a special, outstanding vintage, fun to compare to 89. I am still leaving my 96s alone for the most part, have very few 97s in the cellar, have begun drinking 98s and finding them still youthful overall, but not developing the depth or structure of the truly great vintages. Every time I open a 99 I ask myself why.
Wait a minute.
Hold on.
You bought a case?
Surely it was done in multiples of 3?
How are you Steven?
Impossible to generalize, but how many are subscribing to the notion that there has been sufficient change in climatic conditions, winemaking techniques, etc. in the past couple of decades that Nebboli are drinking well earlier? That is often presumed with “modern” barrique wines, and surely true of some, but the impact upon traditionalists seems more difficult to know. One hears that the recent Monfortino vintages are accessible much earlier because of the present generation’s updating of technique. I look at the 1996 vintage, and find that the Sandrone Cannubi was drinkable upon release (and had an intense blueberry nose, as I recall), but that Bruno Giacosa’s magnum opus (bottled in 750ml also, by the way), the Falletto Riserva, remains monolithic even today. (It gives pleasure, to be sure, and its greatness is assured, but it has not found the drinking window yet.) I do not have sufficient trust in that notion, at least among the producers whose wines I collect, to have purchased any more than a handful of bottles post-2004 vintage…
Sadly,I have bought more than a few post-04 Nebbioli,but only from a handful of producers…and certainly no Sandrone…
Looking forward to your notes on the 1997 Giacosa Santo Stefano. Just scored 2 bottles of this.
I don’t know about climate change, but it’s clear that even the traditionalists have learned about tannin management and work to retain more fruit so the wines are more balanced young. I doubt that anything in the last 15 years will need the time that, say, 78s have required. I can’t imagine that the 71s, 78s, 89s or even 90s were anywhere near as approachable as the 01s and 04s from traditionalists were.
The skepticism about 96 is interesting. I certainly had conviction after tasting them in the cellars in 2000 and 2002, particularly after tasting prior vintages there in 96, 97 and 98. They seemed to have extraordinary depth, fruit and structure.
I think there may be questions about the De Grazia producers in that period, however. I tasted a 96 Sandrone seven or eight years ago that was cracking up, and I’ve mixed luck with Silvio Grasso’s Bricco Luciana, which seemed so promising early. Given that 96-98 was the high tide for all of the De Grazia techniques – short macerations, roto-fermentation, malo in barrel, heavy barriquing – I’m not sure what to expect from that group of producers.
But I don’t have that much experience because I’ve had no urge to touch my 96s. I’ve assumed they would need many more years, like the 89s.
nice stuff!
1997 Bruno Giacosa Barbaresco Santo Stefano - Italy, Piedmont, Barbaresco
Right out of the bottle, this wine was singing. I believe Faryan decanted it for some time, which helped it open up and show aromas of dried flower potpouri, fresh cherries, and hints of mushroom and meat. The palate is gorgeous, a combination of gritty tannins and lush fruit. The meaty, leathery aspect of this wine is just great, and it went so well with venison steak. The wine was still vibrantly young, with fresh fruit and strong tannins, not to mention superb acid. This wine is amazing right now, but I’d love to revisit this in five years. It has the stuffing to go for a very long time. (93 pts.)
Turns out the 75 Produttori Barbaresco was still going strong. The bottle was in pristine condition and there were no problems with the cork. Still very much alive, showing more dark fruit flavors than the 1967.
Notes: The second Produttori Barbaresco of the evening was much darker in the glass. The nose showed a plethora of aromas. The fruit was more vibrant than the largely fruitless 1967, showing plum and ripe cranberry aromas, as well as smoked meat and roasted lamb. The palate is dense with fine tannins. My initial reaction was that this wine seemed much younger than it is. High acid. Flavors of plum pits, smoke, a little beef. While the 67 showed more stewed meat and drippings flavors, the 75 tended toward more rare red meat flavors.
Isaac,
Thanks for that note. I admit I am surprised at how well that bottle showed, but it is a testament to the overall excellence of the Produttori del Barbaresco. dc.
I was, too! I was expecting some acidic, dead wine, but no sir. Prouttori is a cooperative, no? I’m amazed at the caliber of the wine they put out.