I don’t know. Reviewer consensus would be that all three vintages are pretty close in overall quality, despite being so different in style, with a slight nod to 2001 over the other two, and with all harboring plenty of so-so wines. (That would be free of the Suckling hype taint on the 2000 vintage, as well as Thomases’s equally ludicrous, raving slap-down of the vintage in reaction to Suckling, the extreme influences of both having been eradicated by other reviewers in the intervening years.) Giacosa’s Le Rocche killed it in all three vintages, as did Monfortino (but with 2000 arguably the weakest of the three). The 2000 Bartolo is the strongest of the three vintages on paper, the 2000 Monprivato the weakest of the three. Vietti’s 2000s are slightly weaker than their 1999s and 2001s, but only slightly. Sandrone’s 2001 CB is dramatically better than 2000 and 1999, but I think that he was still experimenting with oak and technology in 1999 and 2000, and found his current winning style in 2001. Wines like Gaja’s Sperss, Elio Grasso’s three, Cascina Francia and Aldo Conterno’s wines are a toss-up for all three vintages. On the Barbaresco front, 2001 is the clear winner, along with Giacosa’s 2000 Asili Riserva. 1999 was a lousy vintage in Barbaresco, decidedly the worst of the three.
I suppose that I do not have much of a dog in this particular hunt, as I bought Giacosa Le Rocche in quantity in all three vintages, Monfortino in 1999 and 2001, a couple of cases of 2001 Sandrone CB and a double magnum of 2001 G. Rinaldi Brunate-Le Coste, but only a few assorted bottles otherwise, choosing to backfill 1996, 1989, 1982 and earlier instead, but I drink a fair amount of all three in restaurants when I get the chance. Even more than these three, I am looking forward to 1996 notes starting to roll in in paying quantities. Like 1999, you see the occasional speculation that some 1996 Baroli may outlive their fruit, but not much hard evidence of that. You also have the problem that 1996 was in the middle of the modernist heyday, and it is reasonable to expect that wines lumped in that style may perform inconsistently.
To my mind, 1995 is the last Nebbiolo vintage “in the clubhouse”, so to speak. (That would be throwing out 2002, and not expecting much from the hot years, 1997, 2003 and 2009, but wines from all three still have the capacity to surprise and exceed modest expectations, sometimes by wide margins.) By “in the clubhouse”, I mean that there is enough collective experience with wines that are mature or far enough up the path toward drinkability that we can make reliable judgments about vintages and their individual wines. We now know, for instance, that 1989 and 1978 are among the all-time best. We know that 1964, 1967, 1978 and 1989 are among the toughest, most long-lived vintages ever. We know that 1985 was a strong vintage, but not built for the long haul. We know that 1958, 1961, 1970, 1971, 1974, 1979, 1982, 1986 and 1990 can all claim places on the Barolo short list with 1964, 1967, 1978, 1985 and 1989. We know that many of the vintages not mentioned above have provided some wonderful wines and great drinking experiences. And so it goes. However, as heavily as I bet on 1996 Nebbiolo, and as excellent as some of its wines have been so far (the 1996 Sperss really stands out in my mind), the jury is still out on too many important wines to hang the 1996 vintage in its rightful place in the Nebbiolo firmament…