TN: 1990 Giacomo Conterno Barolo Cascina Francia (Italy, Piedmont, Langhe, Barolo)

Wait, wait, wait on the remaining bottles. I did 12 hours of slow ox in my wine cellar. Then a decant. Left in the decanter for a few hours. Started to smell great. Put back in the bottle and corked it up. Then at the restaurant into the decanter and we drank it 2 hours later. It’s just not in balance. Too much acid still and the fruit is hiding. I’m thinking 2020 earliest for the next one and maybe 2025. Makes me wonder when the Monfortino will be ready???

(91 pts.)


Posted from CellarTracker

Is it just me or is it just unreasonable to wait more than 25 years for a wine to mature? Disclaimer: i have a 3L bottle of Cheval Blanc 1986 that i may never open. a secondary question…will the ACID actually integrate after 25 years?

Peter, quite possibly just not a great wine. Until recently, the greatest virtue of Cascina Francia (now Francia) was its price, but save for a very few vintages, I have always felt that this is a wine that largely rides on Monfortino’s enormous coattails and reputation. One would think that common grapes between the two wines should guarantee CF quality, but it never has. People also choose to believe that Roberto’s failure to make a Monfortino in a given vintage means that all that great juice will go into the Francia and make a great wine. That, also, is not true, and Roberto said so. (That the juice is not good enough for Monfortino means that it is not by definition great juice. I think that people badgered him at last weekend’s La Festa until he mumbled something like, “Yes, it is possible that the Francia could be better if there is no Monfortino.”) Of course, I am also the guy who puts all but a few of Bartolo Mascarello’s inconsistent, often flawed wines on the second tier where they belong! (And point to the fact that his daughter has produced three of the greatest wines in the history of that winery as further proof.)

Lastly, while I am being crabby, the 1990 vintage in Barolo has proven to be among the most overhyped and overrated ever. (Thank you, Bob Parker. There are no 1947 Cheval Blancs among the 1990 Baroli.) Many of the 1990 modernist wines were never any good or have been shot for a while (try a Manzone Gramolere if you do not believe me), and even Giacosa’s 1990s are proving to be mid-term wines (the Barbareschi, even the 1990 SSR, are already on the downslope). I drank most of my 1990s earlier, and sold most of the rest (including most of my 1990 Monfortino, by the way). That is not to say that I was unhappy with my experience with the 1990 Nebbioli; far from it. I had good fun with the Giacosas, the Sandrone CB, even all of Aldo’s wines. It is just that, in retrospect, I find that almost every producer whose wines I loved in the 1990 vintage made better 1989s. Of course, we have no 1989 Monfortino, but it will be interesting to pit the 1989 Cascina Francia (probably the best ever) against the 1990 Monfortino one day. That could be the one case where no Monfortino did mean a better CF! :slight_smile:

Bill. All very sensible. I’m going to bury my remaining bottles for another decade or more and hope for some magic! But I’m sure you’re right and the magic will never come…

I have some agreement with Bill’s point of view on the 1990s in general, which would say aging them longer won’t make them better. My 2 most recent bottles of this wine: one was corked and the other (in 2011) had a great nose but was soft and flabby in the mouth. Good, but disappointing.

I would add that I am really not happy with this state of affairs, as I bought and occasionally backfilled the 1990s as so many others have, so I feel that I am pissing on my own parade here as much as anyone else’s. And to be perfectly honest, I begin to wonder about a few other vintages as well. For example, there has always been a split of opinion on the 2000 vintage, which suffered Suckling’s 100-point hype much in the same way that an ignorant Parker hyped and mislead by telling us that 1989 and 1990 were great, pretty much interchangeable vintages in the Piemonte. Giacosa tells us that his 2000 red labels are among the greatest that he has ever made, and while I think that we are now coming to a point where we will be able to see for ourselves whether he is right or not, I have also come to understand that delicate, perfumed, perfectly balanced medium-term wines can be just as great as massive 50-year wines for Il Maestro, so it seems to me that it may be a better use of our drinking exercises to monitor the 2000s rather than the 1999s, 2001s or 2004s. It could be that there is greatness in the 2000 vintage that was not there in 1990; I hope so. But I am also prepared to accept that I may need to drink up my 2000s within a 20-30-year time frame. And speaking of 1999, there is another huge question mark, going in the other direction: some huge, tannic wines whose fruit masked the tannins early on. Are the 1999s as balanced as many of the 1996s? Will the tannins outlive the fruit in some or many cases? Or is 1999 a bit like 2010 seems to be, producing a few early drinkers, some lighter, medium-term wines and some classic wines, all in the same vintage? These, my friends, are the questions, and but a few of the thousands that must be asked and answered. These are the times that try men’s Nebbioli!

If we only had a Virgil to guide us.

So many questions. All will be answered with the fullness of time…

I miss white truffle season. And it’s 10 degrees in New York.

Times that try men’s souls…

Have you sampled the wine during the long aeration time?
Could it be that it got too much air?

In my (admittedly limited) experience, old wines may start very acidic and with no fruit and body and put it up with air. But they also end up acidic and with no fruit if you give them too much air. I’m sure Bill will chime in and contradict me - or at least nuance my statement based on the many different experiences he had with old wines…

I will be stunned if 2000 ever amounts to anything more than an okay vintage. Much like Bill alluded to with the '89/'90 comparison, try a 2000 next to virtually any '99 or 2001 from the same producer and the flaws of the vintage become all to apparent.

According to CT, though, I do have a lone bottle of the '90 le Gramolere somewhere in the cellar.

I will have to track it down one of these days to see what gives.

Gilberto, I agree with you, but traditionally made Nebbiolo will take much more air than most people believe, so in this case, I doubt that what Peter did was nearly enough to get him acid and no fruit. (I find that, for sound old bottles with plenty of life left, it takes days in a decanter, not hours, to reach the acid and no fruit point.) Some might say that this one seems like a flawed bottle, but I am betting that it is just at the end of its useful life. Here is hoping that Peter posts again in 5-10 years and tells us that the wine is brilliant, but I am doubtful…

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…

I keep looking to find something here with which to disagree…and experience tells me I can’t…so I can only inject a few personal preferences.I have great love for assorted 99s,especially Giacosa Rocche,particularly Monfortino,along with Bartolo,Rinaldi,Cascina Francia and Monprivato.

As the years pass by,more than a little doubt seems to creep in the back door for various wines from 96…The rising tide has lifted many smaller boats,and yet,still…I try to breathe and remain patient and balanced…

As to older and general CF talk.Aside from the framing of CF as lesser Conterno, whether made in years with or without Monfortino,it was/is absolutely superb in 82,89,maybe a notch or three down in 85,96,99 and 01…but still,a lovely wine.
90,as with many others,not so much.

It seems to me that CF’s greatest strength is its consistency. However, I agree that the list of great CFs starts and ends with 1982, 1989 and a wait-and-see attitude on 2010, and I also think that some of the older, purchased-grape G. Conterno Baroli equal the best CFs. I see a clear analogy here to what the sprouting CdP luxury cuvees did to the various base CdPs at many addresses. That, of course, is not at all the history at G. Conterno, but it may well be the end result…

Bill, if you think the 2000 Cascina Francia is the equal of the 2001, you are drinking significantly better bottles than I am. I’m through half a case at this point, and haven’t had one yet that I would even put in the neighborhood of the 2001.

Can’t speak to any comparisons with the '99 yet, as all of mine still have their corks.

Mssrs Bill,

I have been lucky enough to have had the 82 & 85 CF and Monfo side by side 3 times, admittedly from a great cellar. The difference on all 3 occasions was so trivial, I would not have noticed a difference had they been served blind. So I would add 82 & 85 to the best vintages of CF. And I happen to like CF a bit better than you Bill K.

As you noted, Peter’s 90 CF is not representative of the wine. I had it recently and it was a terrific wine, showing vintage characteristics, which are the opposite of Peter’s experience. It is definitely a lower acid wine with dark prominent fruit. So I think he did not have a good example. And to take a mild exception with what Bill K said, Conterno’s decision to bottle Monfo is based not only on the quality of the juice, but also a difference in the juice. I have to do a little research, but I am reasonably sure his decision to not bottle an 89 Monfo is because there was no noticeable difference in the 2 selections.

And I mostly agree with you on the 90s, but there are still a fair number of very fine 1990s, Monfo, CF, Monprivato, Giacosa’s Asili, Falletto and Villero, including some modern wines like Corino’s Giachini & Bussia and Prunotto’s 3 Crus. But many wines have had a rapid (d)evolution. Manzone’s Gramolere was Bill K like (over the hill) 4-5 years ago. And I take exception about SSR, but mine have been stored at below 50 F, so they may not be a good indicator.

And finally 2000. I am fully in Bob Hughes’ camp. Except for a handful of producers, it is a mid tier, overly ripe vintage. Giacosa’s RLs are superb. Monprivato and G Rinaldi’s wines are also very very good. Most modernists had not turned the corner and produced dreck. In general, 99 and 01 are much better, with 99 turning out a bit riper than I originally expected.

Bill B you need to get to Bmore. Bill K, I’ll see you in May.

I’ll be there on Tuesday morning…but I’ll only be in the airport for an hour… [cheers.gif]

That’s not what I meant.

I don’t know how one leaves the 85 out of the list of great CF’s, as it’s behind only the Monfortino and perhaps the G Rinaldi, while certainly better than the Bartolo, the Monprivato and any of the Giacosas in a pretty strong (if not the strongest) vintage. What standard is being applied–not as great as the 82 or the 89? Seems pretty strict to me, particularly as it’s absolutely my favorite CF for current consumption.