And it looks like you’re “faddish.” 
My conclusion from blind tasting was that subregionality massively trumped winemaking technique. Obviously it would be better if you can eliminate this variable.
I know this goes against the majority of discourse on this topic. When you go looking for oak you’ll notice it when its there, but when I’m trying to differentiate between terroirs, it isn’t a major obstacle. 
Ha, we ain’t letting you off that easy. Us brilliant wordsmithers knew it could go both ways.
Awesome conversations…thank you for starting it.
Certainly there are Barolos where the oak is used judicially and the terroir shines through, but there are others where the oak dominates. I’m not sure whose wines you’re thinking of. Having tasted through the Scavino '13s this year, there are some cases where various modern techniques obliterate any terroir!
Over 100 Barolos. One from each producer.
Separately, I tasted the Scavino 2012 range and found each one totally different.Terroir was clear. Maybe 2013 isn’t the best vintage to do such comparisons? YMMV.
OK–I’m going to try to beat Matthew at it. Maybe all the attorney talk has twisted us a bit, but I think that using oak judicially could be a far different thing than judicious use of wood.
Oops! The lawyer in me got the better of the editor in me.
I agree, it is possible to learn something about “the essence” of a particular locale by tasting a lot of wines, even if the winemaking styles are different. That’s how I first got a handle on Burgundy, tasting in many cellars over many days, where most producers made wines from several communes. In Barolo, I had the good fortune to show up at Vietti in 2002 the day after Steve Tanzer had visited, so I got to taste all their '98s and '99s, and got a feeling for the differences village to village.
But I can’t agree that “subregionality massively trump winemaking technique.” You think that’s true with Voerzio or Scavino or Rocche dei Manzoni? I sure don’t.
With the Scavinos, the question is not whether there are some differences between their bottlings, but whether there’s any similarity between their bottlings and those of other producers from the same vineyards. In the case of Monvigliero, for instance, I don’t see anything in common between Scavino’s version and those from Burlotto and Frat. Alessandria. None at all. And Scavino’s Cannubi certainly didn’t have anything in common with the Fennocchio rendition when I tasted them side by side. I haven’t had the Brovia Garbelet Sué (aka Fiasco) next to the Scavino Bric dei Fiasc, but I think one would be hard-pressed to find a common strand.
It would be very odd if a book written only about Barolo and Barbaresco didn’t cover this, but Kerin O’Keefe’s book does indeed discuss the predominant styles in the different villages of Barolo. I couldn’t find a brief ‘cheat sheet,’ but village style, and the reasons for it, are discussed in great detail in each of the village chapters.
John, glad we agree on the first point. On the second point I’m not sure if it matters if producer X’s vineyard A wine tastes like producer Y’s vineyard A wine. That would actually be a bit boring IMO. Also, having more variety can actually be a good thing, giving the consumer choice.
If the producer’s stamp made all their wines the same that would, of course, be a bad thing. I think we can all agree on that point.
Not saying she doesn’t cover it, more that reading didn’t give me the overall sense that I needed. Cheat sheet would have been nice.
When it comes to the Mod v Trad issue - let’s say that tasting a modern wine young is less likely to reveal terroir because of the oak. How long does it take most of these wines to subsume their oak before the terroir differences manifest, or does it never happen?
+1
The organization of her discussion of geology makes it fairly unhelpful.
I went to the book before responding to Noah in post #2 above. I couldn’t find any section on the differences between the character of the wines from the different villages and its relationship to soil types. Later, I stumbled on a very brief discussion of geology in her Barolo chapter. Just now, after your query, Oliver, I found her much more extensive discussion of the complex soils of Castiglione.
Unfortunately, because she discusses soils only commune by commune, there’s no overview of the geological differences across the DOCG. And even when she does discuss it, she doesn’t tie it into particular vineyards. In the Castiglione discussion, for example, she quotes from academic studies outlining the great variety of soils in the commune, but she doesn’t discuss specific vineyards (e.g., how is Villero different from Rocche? do the upper portions of vineyards like Fiasco and Villero differ from the lower portions?). She discusses the soils in individual vineyards only in the sections on specific producers’ crus.
So, while she does discuss geology at a number of points, it’s quite piecemeal. She includes lots of geological facts, but doesn’t connect them to wines in a coherent way.
[Spelling corrected]
John,
I just looked at the World Atlas coverage of the same subject and I agree with you, having it all in one discussion is useful. (I used to use that book all the time when I was first in the business, I need to get back to it, so helpful to see the maps.)
Paul, differences between soils may be coincidental, but I do notice a clear difference between the two areas. I guess it is to do with soil, but can’t be certain at all.
Which part are you point to? When I click on that link, I get some random excerpts from a very old edition of Parker’s Buyer’s Guide with a few Danish notes in blue.
Parker’s credibility with respect to the Langhe is somewhat undermined by this hilarious quote, which I found via that link:
Barbaresco: > Often better balanced and lighter than Barolo (less tannin, more fruit), with the same aromas and flavors, Barbaresco frequently has more intensely jammy fruit, sometimes more cedar and chocolate; like Barolo, it can be sublime.
So Barbaresco is Barolo lite with more jammy fruit, cedar (!?) and chocolate (?!). Sounds like the definition of Parker’s ideal wine!
Sorry, page 912
Thanks for the pointer.
I’m not sure what that adds to our discussion. That book is just a rehash of accepted wisdom, clearly written by some assistants to Parker. I don’t think it reflects any direct knowledge – particularly about the Langhe, where Parker was never an expert.
Daniel Thomases?