Knowing very well it was too young, I Coravined a bottle of this I purchased recently for around $40 in the name of science, trying to build my palate up and start developing my appreciation of what ages and what doesn’t and what ageable wines taste like in youth.
It was a dark garnet with some muted red fruits and some nice violet and floral tones. It was immediately recognizable as Nebbiolo. It operated somewhere between the overripe but pleasantly drinkable Altamura Nebbiolo I tried last week and the still-a-fierce-wall-of-tannins 2005 Produttori Barbaresco I also tried. A review on CellarTracker called this “serious Barolo”. It’s a 14.5% wine and tasted like it. Some oak is there but it’s not full of vanilla.
This was interesting. I don’t know if I’ve been enlightened or edified by drinking it. Not altogether pleasant nor satisfying.
I have no fu@king clue how the Gallonis and Parkers of the world can sit in a room and taste 100 of these nearlyundrinkable closed down tannin monsters and rate them. I imagine it to be like multiple punches to the face.
Noah, I had a similar experience recently working my way through a bunch of 2010 Brunellos at an in-store tasting. I bet these are even more tannic than similarly young Barolos. While the experience was really interesting, I had a really tough time connecting what I was tasting to what is enjoyable BdM for me. I adore BdM but generally age it at least a few years, if not ten or 15, depending on the wine and vintage. I didn’t buy anything that day – I just couldn’t really like any of these wines. Maybe I’ll try some 2010s again in a decade.
Sure seems like it would take a long time to develop a palate that can connect hideous undrinkably young wines to their long-term potential.
Most serious wines are open 1 - 3 years and shut down after that period of time. When wines are shut down as the 2003 Borgogno certainly is, it is indeed very difficult to rate them. It is not as difficult earlier and much later.
BTW: Borgogno is known as one of the most traditional producers of Barolo. As are the Produttori for Barbaresco. Even the 1990 Borgogno is still a young wine. How much sense this wines style makes today is another question. But you have to know that Borgognos always need a very long time to develop a charming drinking experience.
I’m no expert on BdM but the highlighted statement runs contrary to what I would expect. I find young nebbiolo far, far harsher than young sangio. Just a much more tannic grape, or at least so I’d always thought. Please correct me if I am mistaken though, as I find this interesting.
I might expect more of a wood signature with BdM but I’d expect harsh tannin and very little fruit from young nebbiolo. There are, of course, nebbiolo or nebbiolo-blends made in a fruitier style, but typically young Barolo is all tannin in my experience.
I’m interested in opinions on recent Borgogno Barolo wines. There has been plenty of disquiet about a slipping of standards in favour of better marketing / leveraging the link with Eataly.
Previously they’d be wines that wouldn’t be particularly appealing early on, even on release. However they’ve been very able long-distance athletes, and unlike some here, I’m a fan as (genuinely) older vintage can be picked up at decent prices in Italy.
As for anyone tasting 100 of these, I really can’t see it. I recall tasting about 25-30 mostly new release Barbaresco wines at the Festa del Barbaresco, and frankly my palate was badly dried out after those. It became hard work. Mix in some Barbera, Arneis, Dolcetto or Pelaverga and I’m sure it would be a lot easier.