Now we are talking guys…
On the other hand, he may already be overstocked on those two vintages, as well as the 2006s…
I got involved in the 2004’s, have no 1999’s and ordered 4 mags of 2006…so I could always use more!
Get some 99s in your cellar ASAP…
If you have more bottles to sell from <2000, let me know.
I mean located in Piedmont, not in the US…
Too expensive…waiting for Bill to will them to me 
in the scheme of things the 99s are still not terribly priced!
Here is a bottle that recently made its way into my cellar. I can’t find much information about its quality or style—or even about the producer in general. Does anyone have knowledge to share? Thanks.
(Sure, I should start a new thread for this question, but this thread already has the attention of my target audience!)
This just in…the 1962 Cappellano was very good. Light color out of the bottle, but deepened into a rich, ruby-garnet color with a little time. The aromatics were subtle, floral and a little muddled, and on the palate, compared to the 1961 that I had a week ago, the 1962 was initially a tad one-dimensional and bone dry, while the fruit in the 1961 has an interesting candied note that Bill Boykin and I agreed that we had seen in a number of 1961 Nebbioli. The bottle was pristine. The tannins were completely resolved, and when paired (yes, AGAIN) with porcini fritti, the wine’s considerable fruit ushered forth, without the slightest hint of oxidation. What it lacked in complexity it more than made up for the tasty old Nebbiolo department. All in all, what James Laube would no doubt call it a “real mouthful of wine”! The bottle in question was given to me to try, but I will jump at the chance to pick up the other four bottles at roughly $189 each, and while I imagine that 1962 Barolo is a scarce commodity everywhere by now, I will be on the lookout for the 62s of other producers to try. Above all, this is easily a 60-year wine if well-stored…
Somebody needs to buy the 1962 G. Rinaldi Brunate-La Coste that Jamie has at Chambers Street and report back…
Kevin,
The wines were quite good through the 80s. I’ve had 82 and 89 in the past few years and they both were able to hang with some prominent names. Traditional wines back then, austere and medium bodied, certainly no powerhouse but with attractive fruit and real character. The wines are still produced in a traditional style, but I believe the current team had to do lots of clean-up work to get the wines back to form after a down period in the 90s.
Bill,
Since my only goal is life is keeping you happy, I will try the 56 and 62 on 11/1 and have someone other than me, i.e., someone with a palate, report back on the Rinaldis.
Tom
YOU DA MAN, Tom! And there are some mensches (menscHI, Bill B.?) left in this world, even if the one in question is Catholic. The owner of the enoteca who gave me the 1962 Cappellano to try, and also gave me a wildly generous sconto on, admittedly, a decent-sized parcel that I purchased from him, clarified today that all 5 bottles of the 62 were part of my discount. I think that the wine just got a lot better!
But Thomas, what of your assessments of the 1964s?
Thanks. That’s good news.
English is a horrendous language, made more obvious since it’s “universal”.
Finally having a chance to read the OP without falling asleep, I would mostly agree with this. My experience with 61, 64, and 67 says that today, the soundness of the bottle and not the vintage is the determining factor. I have had the experience with a few 1967s that they are unexpected ripe and youthful from very traditional producers like G. Conterno, Cappellano, and G. Mascarello.
I would have to rate 1978 right up there with 1989, though clearly there were more quality producers by 1989. 1958, 1971, and 1982 are perhaps only a bit behind those.
I suffered the extreme indignity of drinking a 1964 Produttori del Barbaresco Riserva Speciale last night, with what has become my seasonal house equivalent of ramen noodles, fried porcini and veal milanese, preceded by a variety of sliced pork products to keep the Lipitor from driving my cholesterol level dangerously low. It came out of the bottle light in color and body, and after the bottle funk blew off, the nose revealed not much and acid dominated on the palate. The first impression was of a wine that would be drinkable, but whose tannins and acid had outlived its fruit. After double decanting and several hours back in the bottle, it was a different beast. As typically happens with old wines in general and old Nebbiolo in particular, the wine darkened with exposure to air, settling on a beautiful clear ruby color with light bricking, some ultrafine sediment that I probably should have tried cheesecloth on (but which sat quietly at the bottom of the glass), and, while I am not given to poetic descriptors and bad poetry, a nose that could only be described as opening a oak chest with your grandfather’s expensive English riding boots stored in it, along with a sachet dominated by violets and cinnamon. (Neal Martin would be so proud of me!) The expected Nebbiolo tar/anise was largely absent on the nose and muted on the palate, completely disappearing as the wine spent more time in the glass, but the strong cinnamon presence found on the nose was dominant on the palate as well. When paired with the food, the acid faded and the fruit came to the front, with no detectable oxidation. Overall, the flavors were a bit muddled, but the wine proved perfectly balanced and probably has another 5 or more years to go. My last thought was that hey, not every wine has to be a Monfortino. (Reminds me of the retort of a former colleague who, when kidded about a somewhat plain girl that he had dated the night before, said, “Hey, Miss America doesn’t go out every night!”) This was drinking pretty damn high on the hog for a school-night dinner, and even with the lousy exchange rate, cost only around $135 for the experience. Probably more fun than a 2007 Sandrone Cannubi, or whatever the $135 would have bought me otherwise…
Nice notes,Bill,and a good reminder for those not accustomed to dealing with old nebbiolo,in that many will initially seem to be barking at you with either high acidity,acetone,grumbling tannins or all the above…but with some time and patience,good things happen and the wine morphs into something heretofore unrecognizable,yet pleasing,multifaceted with cinnamon,emerging fruit and yes,"drinking pretty damn high on the hog,"regardless of the night…
Impossible to generalize on something like this, really, but it has been my experience with Barolo and its French girlfriend, Burgundy (leaving aside for the moment any sexual imagery regarding Barbaresco, “the queen of wines” and Burgundy, as titillating as that might be for some), both may open in an ugly place and then morph into something fine as you describe, but Burgundies often fade more quickly than Nebboli, contributing always to that wine’s multi-faceted bum rap. Last night’s bottle was a good example of old Nebbiolo’s staying power, in that it was diminished this morning (having been left in an open glass with a napkin over it), but still quite drinkable and still pumping out the cinnamon. As I said, there are too many variables to ever sustain such a generalization, but I once had the pleasure of emptying a relative’s Burgundy cellar which contained a fair number of off-vintage and poorly stored bottles, and in many cases, a sweet whiff of better days was all that we got. My experience with old Nebbiolo has been far better. If a bottle is not completely and obviously flawed or shot from the get-go, I am a most patient man…