I have not purchased all 9 cru but have had the opportunity to taste the 9 cru side by side on two occasions. On those occasions, which were not blinded, the Asili and Rabaja looked better than others. May be I was biased by the label and was also influenced by Giacosa making better wine from those two sites. So I always go for the Asili and Rabaja. Similarly, i have purchased Verduno Rabaja and Roagna Asili. Occasionally I have purchased Pora and Paje from Produttori.
Recently, with 2009 vintage, a warm one like the 2011, I purchased few bottles of the Montefico and Montestefano in addition to Asili and Rabaja. I have tasted those four cru from 2009 albeit not side by side so comparisons will be confounded by recall bias. I found the Asili to more substantial with earthy notes, but it lacked finesse and structure. It also had a jube like sweetness which was a bit distracting. I felt the Montefico and Montestefano to be also quite powerful but they have savoury note and nice tannic structure. Rabaja was well poised, forward and drinking well with good balance of fruit and tannins. As a vintage 2009 lacks the classicism of 2008 ( which i adore). Perhaps for this reason I have not purchased any 2011; I will wait for the 2013.
I don’t recall if I ever tasted any of the Produttori '09s, but the '11s did not seem to suffer from the warm vintage, and my palate runs toward 2010 and 2012 rather than years like '07 and '09.
Which classy Nebbiolo cru doesn’t need a period of aging before it really shows what it’s good for? It’s all relative right? Here’s what Galloni says:
“Pora is one of the vineyards in Barbaresco that lies in close proximity to the Tanaro River. The warming influence of the river leads to early ripening and supple, generally open Barbarescos best suited to near and medium term drinking.”
Then there’s of course the Pora of Ca’ del Baio, which is their best Barbaresco, riservas aside (priced above their Asili). Promised life is 15-30 years as compared to 10-15 for their Asili (where their plots are interspersed with those of Giacosa). I know both bottlings and wouldn’t protest their judgment. Both are very nice at five or so years though.
I was at the tasting at John’s and found it hard to rank them as they were all showing well (except for the Rio Sordo and the Montestefano IMO). The hardest part was trying to decide whether to rank on most approachable now or on structure for the long-haul. I tried to aim for the latter. I was afraid that there would be no consensus among the group on how to rank (now vs later), but surprisingly there was some consensus at the top and bottom.
I’d divide up the wines into 3 groups, but the overlap with John’s isn’t perfect. We both put Pora in the top tier and both but Rio Sordo in bottom. I’d add the Paje to the top tier and Montestefano to the bottom with the rest in the perfectly delicious middle tier. Ranked in my order of preference:
TOP TIER
Paje: This was the most elegant of the wines we tasted and plenty of tannic structure to hold up over the long-term. Pora: Bright floral nose, with great acidity and a touch of bacon fat at the end. It was a close 2d to the Paje.
MIDDLE TIER
Rabaja: Powerful ending, but just not quite up to the top tier wines. Montefico: Ready to drink now with touch of tar. I did not find this to be austere. Ovello: Smooth and less structured. Lighter than most but very drinkable now. Moccagatta: Fresh nose, but again less structure. Drinkable now.
**Asili:**The nose would put this in the top tier, but I found tannins too strong. If I had to guess where I’d be most wrong, it would be here: this one might belong in the long-term aging group.
DISAPPOINTING
Rio Sordo: Tannic, but lacked much depth. Montestefano: A hot and musty wine.
It still does not seem that you corrected it. You wrote, “Pora a standout, far ahead in the group’s ranking. The Paje’ in second place was well ahead of the rest, and the Rabaja’, 3rd, was out ahead of the rest, which were tightly bunched.” which would make one thing that Pora, Paje and Rabaja would be the top 3, but you have Asili, Pora, Montefico, and Montestefano in the first group and Paje and Rabaja in the 2nd group.
Any other Montestefano truthers out there? I was under the impression Rabaja is about the hottest site, and somewhat suffering from Climate change, with Asili a bit more protected from heat.
I came across a Produttori Montestefano tech sheet that stated the elevation as 885 ft., or about 270 meters, a good cut above the 200-250 range, but would like to see a recent quote. Anyhow, elevation is scarce in Barbaresco, so it makes a difference.
Calcium rich limestone.
One of the Nothermost of Produttori’s Cru’s, just south of Motefici, which appears Northermost of Produttori’s cru’s, and within Barbaresco.
The mostly south facing is correct, though they are all at least south-southwest facing it seems.
I believe that John’s opening line referred to the group’s consensus, which differed somewhat from his own ranking. I had ranked top 3 in order as Paje, Pora and Rabaja. The group’s top 3 ranking was Pora, Paje and Rabaja.
Don’t know anything about the Slow Food folks, but I would agree with Anders. Pora is “down by the river” and when you hear Aldo Vacca talk about the crus, he lists it as an early accessible wine, and lacking some of the complex elements he sort of likes. Hard to know which cru he likes the best, but I think he likes the cooler sites a bit (eg Montefico). Also, I think he likes Ovello, as I believe he basically grew up in the vineyard.
Yes, Vacca tends to say about the same thing as Galloni about Pora, and what they say is in line with my own experiences as well. Here’s a quote from Produttori’s web site about Pora:
“Soil fertility is slightly higher here and this gives to the wine a smoother character, tannins are soft and the aromas always tend to open up in the early years of life.”
I was looking at Masnaghetti’s 3D-map and associated info. He says 175-265 meters for Montestefano. Produttori themselves say 230-280 meters on their web site. Rabajà is higher (235-315 according to Masnaghetti, 240-300 according to Produttori) and open to winds from the west and the cooling effect the river might have during the hottest part of the season.
Here’s what Produttori themselves say about the climate of Montestefano:
“The extra heat of the South facing slope is responsible for the Montestefano full body and almost meaty texture. It is deep flavored wines with massive tannins, but quite ripe and well integrated in the wine because of the warm exposure.”
Ovello is actually furthest to the north although I don’t think it really matters from a climate point of view exactly how far north or south the crus are.
No, not really. Ovello, for example, is to a large extent facing east and west.
Agreed RE: 2011 Barolo, most that I tasted lacked freshness and structure and were often too ripe or showing alcohol heat. I think 2011 Barbaresco carried the vintage somewhat better, but the wines I would actually buy are few and far between.
I am somewhat perplexed about the lack of single cru wines from produttori in 2012, however its a great opportunity to go large on the standard Barbaresco which is excellent.
There was a lot of wine left over from this tasting because we had a small group, and they have held up very well in the fridge. We finished off the Paje last night, and it was still drinking very well after four days – lots of fruit and the tannins were relatively (for nebbiolo) soft.
I think someone posted the explanation, but I don’t remember what it was. In some post, Aldo Vacco was quoted as saying the first priority is to ensure the quality of the torre/normale because that’s the bulk of their production and revenue. I can see how that could have been a factor in a lighter year.
Also, the coop rules are that they must bottle all or none of the crus, so if some didn’t turn out as well, that might explain it. And in some years where the quality was good, like 2006, they nonetheless opted to blend them because they thought they’d be hard to sell given past vintages in the distribution pipeline. Since there are still a fair number of 2008s and 2009s around, and the 2011s are recently released, perhaps that’s an issue this time.
I think the point you mention about protecting the quality of the “normale” might be a pretty important one. Judging by the pattern we see, it seems that the Produttori are more likely to release the Riservas in good and “warm” years than in good and “cool” years. And it might simply be that some of their lesser vineyards (those whose grapes are always destined for the “normale” or Langhe Nebbiolo) have difficulties ripening the grapes properly in at least some cooler vintages.
Not to be obnoxiously insistent or repetitive, but I think they would be better off to close out the Rio Sordo Riserva. Then they’d have a more consistently stellar group, and perhaps be able to declare in more vintages (although there are clearly other considerations–how much wine is in the pipeline, and whether the Torre has enough concentration and character without the riserva juice mixed in.
