So, how long are you cellaring your Barolo/Barbaresco?

WINE TALK
21

In the interests of full disclosure, Klapp does not drink wines from the 50’s and 60’s five to six times a week. He will in fact slum it on occasion and mix in a '74, '85, '71, and '82, and will also throw caution totally to the wind and grab an '86 Giacosa or an '87 Monfo every once in a blue moon [cheers.gif] .

1 Like
22

I stand corrected on Klapp! Second hand knowledge and all that…

Michael, you pushing this paradigm idea or agenda won’t make it reality [wink.gif] To a certain extent it’s a question of semantics. I see it as small continuos change, nothing is ever really static, less so today than 20-30 years ago.

Reading through this other thread of yours some good points were made. I mostly agree with Steve Goldun

First to Steve’s last point: soil and mesoclimate matter. The wines of La Morra, Verduno and to a lesser extent Barolo are lighter, more elegant and quicker developing than those of Monforte and Serralunga, with Novello and Castiglione Falletto in a middle position. In fact the former are often difficult to tell from a Barbaresco tasted blind. Then, a Neive is different from a Treiso or a Barbaresco. No lines are clear cut, producer trumps a lot and none of this is new.

At the risk of repeating myself and others, a quick summary of what has been going on:

The biggest development the last two decades has been climate change, or unseen weather patterns if you prefer. Hotter summers and an unprecedented string of ripe and good vintages.
Viticulture has improved somewhat across the board and the better producers manage to juggle phenolic- and sugar ripeness with balance even in hot years. Others not quite.
Some traditionalists have improved cellar hygiene and/or reduced maceration times. In fact we’ve been seeing a convergence of the two ‘camps’ to a degree with the strongest trend lately being many modernists moderating their approach, moving towards the middle or somewhat back to tradition. Less new oak, more use of botti, less rotofermenters or extreme(hot n quick) use of same. The problem of the consultants and manipulative winemaking persists, not only among traditionalists. (See my rants on the Sandrone thread if interested.)
Generational change continues, the young ones are generally more open to global trends and wines. Many daughters are now in charge, stereotypically (if not misogynistically) they might lean towards lightness and elegance?
The best traditionalists have not changed much and their wines are still massively tannic. Riper tannins maybe, a little more fruit, somewhat more approaxhable perhaps. I always found them drinkable before maturity anyway. Monfortino '90 (long before last generational change) was eminently drinkable in 2000. An infanticide of sorts, but fantastic wine over a slow meal.

Well made wines, be they from good traditionalists or enlightened modernists are drinkable young, as they were, but maybe more so now. Tannins are still big and to get the fantastic, complex tertiary aromatics and floavors one still needs a lot of patience. The less enlightened modernists’ wines, particularly those targeting a market craving big sweet and oaky, have no real drinking window to me. Young they’re either way too oaky and/or manipulated. Even if the oak integrates, which it never really does, they do not evolve well. They’ll never be beautiful, mature expressions of Nebbiolo.

23

Just to add one more well known nugget to the discussion.

For the Nebbiolo lover there’s lots of good stuff in the Northern Piedmont. The best ones will develop aromatics as enticing as a Bar/Bar and possibly outlive them. Still I find them generally more open earlier and quicker to reach maturity. Value can be interesting too. And they usually show less impact of the hotter years.

24

Nebbiolo is a big fraction of my cellar. In my experience:

  1. People who insist you have to wait 30+ years are full of it. It’s a form of showing off for the few among us who have very deep cellars. I’ve asked many, many producers in Barolo and their feeling is there are few cases where they think there is big improvement happening in that 3rd or 4th decade.

I’ve tried bottles as far back as 1967 that were quite nice but mostly you are just impressed the wine is still alive.

  1. An approximate formula for me might be 15 years, adding 3 years for a traditional producer and another 3 years for a classic vintage like 2004. I’m willing to subtract 3 years for a modern producer or a warm vintage. For example 2003 Clerico is probably just fine right now.
25

I would tell you to not worry too much about it. I think Charles is basically right. If you have a deep old cellar or access to old wines, you can be a purist, but there is a lot of enjoyment out there in the midrange. I think most wines in the 98, 99, 2000, 2001, 2004 range can be sampled and enjoyed now. they aren’t all “ready” but there aren’t that many where you will be punished severely. (for those few, look at cellar tracker or this site). we’ve recently done 2001 and 2004 tastings and a number of even quite traditional wines were enjoyable, although a few (G conterno CF and mascarello monprivato) were dead and shut down. Recently opened a 2004 A Conterno Romirasco and it was remarkably delicious (slow oxed for 12 hours, double decant 2 hours before).

That all being said, I try to age them as long as I can. I tend to use “lesser” barbaresco to drink early as cellar savers.

By the way, I thought 2003 Clerico was just too raisiny to buy.

26

I started buying Piedmont in 1993 with the '89/90 vintage with a little back buying of some '78, '82 and '85’s. Was probably 3-4 cases to see if I liked the wines. One of the wines that I was lucky enough to acquire was 3 bottles of '78 Giacosa SS Riserva. I had my first one of those in the winter '97 and it was an epiphany.

14 years sounds about right to me to start checking in on wines. I started buying heavily once the '96’s hit the market. So after buying in aggressively for the past 12-13 years, I finally feel that I have sufficient B&B with enough age to be able to consume the qty I’d like to drink on a consistent/regular basis. I’m really excited as I just pulled a bunch of '01’s that I’ve have yet to try. 2006 was the last vintage I purchased, as I feel that at 51 I’ll probably never see the peak of the wine if I bought subsequent vintages.

27

For the base Barolo I start drinking around 6-8 years. For the cru wines 8-10. But many factors can influence it. The producer and their style, type of vintage, how many bottles I own, storage conditions etc…

28

I recently had a 2001 Mauro Veglio Barolo Vigneto Gattera that was way too austere for my tastes on day 1… it showed signs of life on day 2, but it needs more time. Isn’t Mauro Veglio a modernist? Half-bottles of 1996 Roagna Barolo are still begging to be left alone. Many 1993 Barolo are still tough work right now.

From a good vintage, I think most high quality Bordeaux need at least 20 years (e.g. the 96s and 98s aren’t ready) and Barolo is pretty much in the same boat. Barbaresco might be a different story, many drink well much younger (even if they will improve much longer).

29

2006 was the last vintage I purchased, as I feel that at 51 I’ll probably never see the peak of the wine if I bought subsequent vintages.<<<<<

Was just nodding my head as I read this from Jeff - I’m 58, and the last vintage I bought in a big way was 2001, so he and I have similar views of our ultimate mortality [cheers.gif] .

That’s not to say I haven’t had the odd bottle of 2004, 2006, 2008 and 2010 land in my cellar, but I haven’t bought broadly in a vintage since 2001.

As I’ve gotten older, my purchasing patterns have shifted south to Tuscany, as I generally find both Chianti and Brunello to be more rewarding younger/sooner than Barolo.

30

As I have made clear, the idea of a new a paradigm for Barolo is Antonio Galloni’s. Anyone referring to the idea as being “stupid” is referring to his idea. My anecdotal experience of test bottles from say 2005 onward supports his idea.

There are two primary non-economic reasons for collecting wine: accessibility and tertiary development. No one participating in these threads needs convincing that the optimal drinking experience with many of these wines would be at 20+ years.

The new paradigm is not that these wines offer the optimal experience with less bottle aging, but that they can be enjoyed at a significantly younger age than would have been possible, not so very long ago. This is not limited to those producers of the so called modern style of winemaking.

31

Gary, are you referring to years from the vintage, or years from release?

32

Vintage.

33

AG’S palate has gone off the deep end ala Parker. He no longer seems to notice, be bothered by, or even mention in his notes oak influences. The concept of drinking 2006 mascarello right now is crazy. Just because a wine can be consumed and you can get ‘some pleasure’ doesn’t mean it is a logical thing to do. If you are going to drink it before it has a chance to become a great wine, why bother spending that much money? Buy something cheaper that will also offer some pleasure at 8 years old.

34

Do you really think your palate and judgement regarding wines from Piemonte is superior to Galloni’s, Mr. Scientist? Hubris!

35

I don’t subscribe to Antonio Galloni’s site so I can’t comment on anything he might have said. But with maybe one or two exceptions I can think of, critics have a persistent habit of exaggerating the drinkability of young wines and understating the time they need in the cellar, for a variety of reasons. They’re in the business of selling their opinions on wine, so it’s not an option for them to say, “Sorry, this wine is so closed up I really can’t say anything useful.” They also need to promote themselves by getting their reviews posted on shelf talkers and retailer emails, and a review saying that a wine is going to be undrinkable for two or more decades isn’t going to be the retailer’s first choice to post. There is more money to be made in telling people what they want to hear than what they don’t want to hear. Older buyers with more disposable income are still the bread and butter of many a wine retailer and wine publication, and they are not going to be subscribing to anyone who says, “Don’t bother buying this, you’ll be dead before you can drink it.”

I would say 25+ years, softer vintages sometimes OK with as few as 20. I am not showing off and I do not have a deep cellar. The oldest Barolos purchased on release in my cellar are some late release 1996s, but mostly they start with 1998s. If I could drink and enjoy those wines it would be great! But every time I open a Barolo in that zone I regret it. I’ve opened close to zero of my purchased-on-release bottles so I practice what I preach, I’m not just throwing words around on a wine board. If there are people enjoying 1999 and 2001 Barolos right now, then good for them, but it’s not something I can wrap my head around. If, on the other hand, there are people who admit those wines are too young but nevertheless insist that 2010s will pay off in as little as a decade, well, do the math.

36

If you wait 25+ years, outside of a few wines from the serious traditionalist, you are going to be drinking a lot of dead wine. And you better have great storage.

37

I trust my palate, don’t you? If you look at AG’S scores over his final years at WA, there is obvious inflation. If you then examine his scores compared to other critics for 2010 Piemonte, his scores are almost always higher and often obscenely so. Now he’s got this new theory about drinking these wines younger. These two events correlate nicely with the founding of Vinous.

38

That’s just silly.

39

?!

I think that’s just flat wrong.

You think the modernists’ 89s and 90s are on the verge of death? They may not be interesting, but death?

40

Many would claim that those wines were never “alive” in the first place. And if the wines aren’t at least “interesting” or at their best, why wait? And I am speaking more on the wine being made today. You have to take it producer to producer, maybe even wine by wine.