Got an offer on this. More than info regarding this particular vintage of this wine, I’d like to know (especially from those who have no tolerance for perceivable oak) does the oak integrate well from this producer. Thanks.
Anyone have experience with past vintages of this wine?
2000 Domenico Clerico Barolo Ciabot Mentin Ginestra - This is a very modern style Barolo with dark reddish-brown in color, with an advanced nose of leather and some tar. This is very hard to identify Nebbiolo on the nose. On the palate, this wine showed very good concentration (though marred by a lot of wood), with dried cherry and a floral note that started to emerge after 4 hours. Very good structure and balanced with drying tannins, vibrant acidity and good length. Though a well made modern Barolo, stylistically not for me.
I have consumed numerous bottles of the 1990 Clerico CMG over the past 20 or so years - I like the wine, but am not an oakaphobe like some folks, and will also drink a Scavino and Altare from time to time, so I might not be the best person to comment.
I’ve had and still have the wines from 98, 99, 2000, 2001, and 2004. Just also had the 96. Please note that the winemaking style purportedly has changed recently to less oak, but not sure how much of a change.
My main message is that only part of the issue is oak. The other is degree of extraction–these tend to be very extracted wines. during the period that I own, there is quite a bit of oak. It does integrate somewhat so if you are oak tolerant, less of an issue, but the extraction bothers me just as much. I will say that the 96 was interesting and less oaky and extracted than the later wines, so maybe. For me it just took me a while to realize that I would have been much happier buying giacosa, Bartolo, Cappellano, etc, during this time period.
I popped and poured on release and could only taste potential
I visited Clerico back in 2001 and do like both traditional and modernist style but do have a soft spot for the Ginestra vineyard
its funny that I struggle with abundant new oak in many young wines but not with Clerico, interesting to hear Domenico is changing his way and its great to know that you can teach an old dog new tricks
I plan to be back there early May
YUM
MT
I’ve had the 2004 and 2008 in the last year, and my observations mirror John’s. The oak is there, but is not bothersome. Both wines showed great flavors, but the tannins were just overwhelming, even for a Barolo.
A bottle of 88 Ginestra two weeks ago drank very good with no offensive oak left. A bottle of the 2001 Ginestra 2 years ago should have been aged at least another 5-8 years.
Thanks to all for the feedback.
I tend to lump Clerico, Voerzio, and Altare in the same basket of producers who make more oaky/extracted wines. (NB: I have difficulty teasing out the oaky component from the extracted element). They have their followers who would report that after extended bottle ageing the wines show good integration and finesse. I have not had extremely mature examples to ascertain if that is so. Nevertheless, I prefer other styles of Barolo.
Clerico Mentin’s have a lot of oak but I find they do integrate pretty nicely but at 15 years or more. These are built to last but I wouldn’t open one before 15 years of age and above. My 2 cents!
How much new oak was Clerico using in the '80s?
That’s a good point. I don’t think a lot with 90 and before, although I don’t have specific knowledge. So comparing wines from 90 and before for several producers (eg Aldo Conterno, Clerico) to the wines since, is difficult.
Anyone have an idea on drinking window for the 2007?
It wasn’t ready in May. I’d give it at least 3 more years, and it will not decline in the next 20.
Michael,
Last Saturday a friend paired the 1990 Clerico Ginestra with the 1990 Altare Arborina.
My palate is more to the traditional Barolo side but I thought the Altare was lovely, cleaner, lots of bright fruit with the oak well integrated. The Clerico however was over-oaked, a bit dank seeming, with the fruit on the back palate dried out by the oak. I appreciate that this is only one data point and perhaps other bottles of 1990 Clerico Ginestra or other vintages show greater integration and better balance.
A couple of years ago I tasted at Domenico Clerico and was not impressed by the wines, finding them too oaky. At that time the oak regime for the Ginestra was 60% new barriques, 40% second year. No doubt there’s presently regime change going on at Domenico Clerico but, if it was me, wanting a modernist, I’d prefer comparable Elio Altares.