Opened without high expectations as the last time I had this it was in a blind “1997 wines from around the world” and no one picked it as Italian much less Barolo - a fair chunk of oak and a lot of ripe fruit. But that was a few years ago.
Tonight I popped and poured it from cellar temp and drank it before, with and after a steak dinner. A bit closed on the nose at first this opened out into a very nice nose of dried red roses and a hint of tobacco. It went through an odd phase where it had a slight cola note too but that went away .The nose has been consistent for a few hours (ok, 3). Lovely nose.
The palate doesn’t quite measure up to the nose being mid-weight, a bit lean and slightly on the acid side. It might be at an odd phase where the fruit’s left and the secondary things aren’t there yet (the note of dried roses vs a fresher nose) or it might be that the fruit’s leaving and that’s it. It’s fine, but not as good as the nose which is really quite lovely.
interestingly, there’s none of the heavy handed oak noted in the A Conternos of this period. I’ve heard the sons started using barrique around this time, b ut that does not match with what Aldo told me during a 1998 visit and what I saw in the cellars. At that time they were playing with the Quartetto but not the Barolos. I’m inclined to write off the oak notes as something else - but I don’t know. Certainly not oaky now though.
They still claim (or did when I was last there four years ago) that they don’t use barriques on the Barolo, though they do for barbera. One of the sons attributed the oak notes in the 99-01s to the installation of a new wood tank, but I’m not sure I believe that. It doesn’t really explain why oak was apparent over many vintages and vineyards.
Interesting that the oak would have integrated this early, or, in this short a period of time. If it does have a big oak treatment, one would think it would take much longer.
I’ve never heard of ‘Cicala’ before, but with a quick look, I see that there are a few Barolos out there with that designation. Must be a tiny block.
Todd – It’s been one of Aldo Conterno’s three crus (Romirasco, Cicala and Colonnello) from the very beginning, or close to it, judging by the Wine Searcher listing for a 1974. (See also: Poderi Aldo Conterno - VINEYARDS" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)
The vineyard lies between Romirasco, Bussia Soprana and Colenello in Monforte, near the winery, and is smaller than the first two but a bit bigger than Colonello, judging by the maps in the Slow Food Wine Atlas of the Langhe (where it is referred to as Bricco Cicala). Conterno is the only producer they list for Cicala, so perhaps he owns it all. I don’t ever recall seeing a bottling from anyone else.
Vineyard designation is a bit hard to understand wholly in Piemonte, but I thought Cicala was like a monopole portion of one of the other vineyards? I’ll have to go researching, I assume the Slow Food Atlas didn’t shed light on that?
I’ve never had an A. Conterno Barolo (the base wine, the three crus or the Gran Bussia) that I thought showed oak, or if I thought it showed oak, it was certainly not anything that I minded or that I thought detracted or that I could positively point at new oak. I’ve never been fully clear on their oak regimen through the 90s. Certainly their website and what I’ve heard lately point towards no new oak these days, but I’ve heard conflicting things about the late 90s wines, but I’ve never run into one of these “oaky disasters” that people decry.
Well, when i was there in 98 Aldo showed me around the cellar and there was no barrique - just older foudres. There was barrique where the made the Quartetto ( a blend of 4 grapes sold, basically, as a cash flow thing). The sons were definitely aware of oak - but were not then making the wine. I’ve never had an oaky Conterno either and am inclined to dismiss claims of them.
What was interesting to me was that this wasn’t tasting typical at the 1997 tasting I mentioned above because of the ripe fruit - it wasn’t extracted or overdone, but was riper and more fruit driven at that point. Now it’s all about the nose with the palate density being just good+.
Thanks for the note Rick, and intresting observation regarding A Conternos use of oak, or lacktherof. I have three bottles of the 99 Cicala (havent opened one yet), and after really scouring CT notes, as well as Tanzer’s, no one yet as mentioned oak as a flaw or otherwise, just an excellent, masculine Barolo seems to be the common theme Might have to try one soon.
The atlas lists it as a separate vineyard under the name Bricco Cicala and Conterno refers to it as one of his three crus. Conterno blends some of it into his Gran Bussia and into his Barolo normale, which might be what you’re thinking of.
Many other people have noted what seemed to be oak notes in recent years. I’m not saying they’re using new barriques on the Barolo – I simply don’t know – but it’s odd for so many people to have picked it up in multiple vintages. New botte doesn’t seem to explain it all.
The 99s and 01s I tasted there in 2005 also seemed uncharacteristically soft and approachable. In part that’s probably because they have relatively short macerations (15 days according to web site, compared to 20-30 more typical of the real traditional folks). A friend of mine in the trade in Italy told me that he had heard they were using micro-oxygenation, too. I don’t know if that’s true but the wines have an unusually soft texture for a Monforte Barolo.
They weren’t disasters, but it was puzzling that they seemed to have oak notes. Giacomo, Aldo’s son, acknowledged when we asked that there was some oak flavor but attributed it to a new botte. But that didn’t really explain why it popped up in many of the wines.
Perhaps not John. Remember this was 11 years ago too.
Here’s the thing that I dislike about wine geeks though - we will read that they use barrique on the Il Favot and take that at face vlaue… but when they explicitly say they they use “big Slavonian oak barrels” for the Cicala we doubt it. Um…
Also note that barrique does not mean 100% new oak - it simply means small barrels. Some of all may be new, but you cannot take this statement from the Il Favot page:
the new wine , after spending from 5 to 6 months in stainless steel vats and being transferred several times, is poured onto “barriques” (barrels), where it remains for about 18 months and, finally, it will be bottled.
and read 100% new barrels. Some or all may be new, but reading that statement as necessarily being 100% new oak is a mistake and, unless you have information from elsewhere you’re imposing your expectations.
The oak was very pronounced on the 2001 Bussia at the cantina in 2005. I probably would have accepted Giacomo’s botte explanation at face value if I hadn’t later detected similar things in the 96 Cicala and a couple of other bottles. I’m not alone. There were posts on eBob a couple of years from other people who also had picked up oak-like elements in the wines there.
As for new oak on the Favot, you didn’t read far enough. The paragraph right after the one you quote says: “The barrels (“barriques”) used are 100% made of new wood.” http://www.aldoconterno.com/modules/coreCatalog/?linea=6&l=en" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (“Notes”) So I wasn’t extrapolating or assuming anything! The pages about the chardonnay and the barbera use the same language. The take-away is: They have lots of new oak around the cellar.
![[dontknow.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/2/259bbc27e64baab255bbf586025626180d3e97e8.gif "dontknow"){kind=small}