I used to work with Roagna’s importer following de Grazia. Had plenty of vintages from '93 through 2001. If Melvin was offended by tannins in Cavallotto, those earlier Roagnas would have felt like a firm punch in the mouth making Cavallotto feel relatively soft. But I loved those wines and thought they had a ton of soul. Haven’t had much since Luca took over but I do understand that he’s cleaned them up a bit and worked on tannin management. I saw a couple of the Roagna vineyards again back around 2014 and they were still wild as ever, and I mean that in a very positive way.
3 Likes
I’ve only had 2 from that era, but 100%. Did a dinner in the fall with '96 Pira Riserva, '00 Crichet Paje, '04 Crichet Paje, '06 Pira Riserva. A lot of wineries improved over this timespan in Piedmont, but the side by sides were wild. The '96 and '00 were super rustic and tannic, not a lot of freshness, but enjoyable. The '04 and '06 were much purer, much better tannin management, much more fruit / freshness left.
With the Cavallotto, I suspect this was one of those situations in which a bottle goes bad for a variety of reasons, and the fruit / good aspects of the wine are gone, but the tannins remain but without the fruit to balance them.
1 Like
Those 96s were fierce. There was always the hope they would soften up but I eventually gave up and sold my bottles.
So I should give up hope for my one bottle of '96 La Rocca & La Pira? I remember how brutal it was young, even among '96s.
Never give up! I sold partly because I needed to reduce my cellar and I’ve been living outside the US so don’t get to drink from it as much as I would like. The price of Roagna went up quite a bit since I acquired them, especially compared to the wholesale price I paid, so figured the 96s were worth unloading. Not an easy call because I like them and they were the last of my Roagna, which I love. I like aged Nebbiolo a lot and remember the '93s drinking very nicely once they had some age. Pretty ethereal. So it may be that the 96s will eventually be even better since 93 wasn’t exactly stellar. I would give it lots of air and pair it with something that will help melt the tannins.
John, I can’t speak to that exact bottling, but the one I had ('96 Riserva Pira) last October was very high acid, searing tannins, yet the flavor profile was quite rustic IMO and didn’t have a ton of fruit. I think the '96 Riserva is a more recent release from the winery than the bottle you have.
Honestly, I’ve had few great experiences with '96s across the board. My favorite has probably been the Giuseppe Rinaldi Brunate, which was quite savory and still tannic but had a sense of sweetness that I generally get from Rinaldi that was really attractive. I’ve had good '96 Giacosa, but plenty of bad bottles too. Other '96s I’ve had even from top producers have never been inspiring. Honestly, the Vajra Bricco '96 is one of the more enjoyable wines I’ve had from the vintage, a bit of a lighter but fresher wine than most '96s.
Yep. That was my experience with Roagna 96s. High acid, austere, ripping tannins. And those are generally positive things in my book but I can only take so much. Like the Wendy’s lady wanting more beef, I was left saying “Where’s the fruit?!”
1 Like
Speaking of selling, I also sold the last of my Cavallotto Riserva BB San Giuseppe 2001. Had a bottle a few years ago that was great but then noticed current prices. I bought at retail on release and want to say they were around $50. I Think I got over $200 for it. Worth it to clean out some cellar space.
1 Like
A Roagna 96 Barbaresco Paje was excellent a few months back, and one of my favorite wines of the night among some big names.
https://www.cellartracker.com/event.asp?iEvent=53260&searchId=4CA171F5&UISource=list
1 Like
and the vintage itself typically encouraged firm ‘built to last’ wines, where there was always a doubt as to which would emerge from the slumber (and which never would). Definitely my sort of vintage.
1 Like
A '96 Giacosa Falleto Riserva two weeks ago was singing. Not sure if that’s just Giacosa or whether '96s are entering an open-stage in general.
1 Like
Thanks all for your insights, have learnt a lot! Interesting comments on tannin management, I met Luca in Hong Kong and he said that was exactly the difference when I asked about the change in style.
2 Likes
In my limited experience, 96 Giacosa is drinking very well right now, especially the 96 Santo Stefano white label that I had recently. The red labels are still tight and tannic but do open up after extended aeration. I think the red labels are built to last another 20 years easily. I like the 96 Asili red label more than the Falletto red label.
2 Likes
This.
I find that “rotofermentors” and “staunch traditionalist” do not belong in the same sentence. I don’t know all Piedmontese wineries but can’t think of any others seen as staunch traditionalists who use rotofermentors - are there examples you could share?
I am a Cavallotto fan and regular buyer, as I like their wines, have enjoyed my visits with Giuseppe and like that they are a noticeably different interpretation of wines that are also made with long macerations and ageing in botti.
In my opinion, trying to equate Cavallotto with “staunch traditionalist” wineries underplays their unique style.
Why not? Many staunch traditionalists have moved to temperature-controlled stainless steel tanks, yet they are not considered as modernists.
How modernists used rotofermenters was by employing high spin rate, resulting in a lot of agitation of the pomace cap, this in turn increasing the extraction rate. Thus modernists could get wines with a lot of extraction in a minimal time.
However, if you set a rotofermenter to spin very slowly - something like only once a day, it will turn over so gently that the agitation of the cap is minimal, but the paddles inside the rotofermenter will push the cap into the wine once a day. This is basically more or less identical to making a wine in a stainless steel with a daily punchdown - only the method how a rotofermenter pushes the cap into the wine is probably even more gentle than a normal punchdown, resulting even less extraction. And you can control the oxygen intake better than if you used pump-overs.
I have no idea how many wineries considered traditionalists employ rotofermenters, but rotofermenters in themselves are not a thing that would immediately make a producer “modernist”. It’s not the device, but how you use it.
However, I admit if “staunch traditionalists” include only producers who use large oak fermentors or lined concrete tanks exclusively, and not those who have turned to stainless steel tanks, then rotofermenter might be incompatible with the term.
4 Likes
I presume you meant to say “not considered as modernists”, which would make your comment make more sense!
As I mentioned above, a couple of reasons Cavallotto wines stand out immediately in a blind tasting is due to their dense, dark inky colour and heavy tannin profile which, I’m going to put out there, are as a result of using rotofermentors combined with long macerations.
This does not mean “bad” or that “Cavallotto is a modernist producer”; it means they use an interesting mix of “modernist” and “traditionalist” techniques that give a unique interpretation of their sites.
Keep in mind that Cavallotto produces wines that don’t resemble the other wines made from vineyards around them (Parussi, Montanello, Monprivato, Villero, etc, etc). Even accounting for different soils and microclimates, I believe the main reason for that is due to their winemaking techniques outlined above.
I don’t think that making them out to be something that they’re not helps anyone - celebrate what they are, how it makes them different
Indeed! I Amended the first line once, but forgot to add that one significant word! (edited it to include it now)
I did not comment anything about Cavallotto. I just explained that employing rotofermenter is not incompatible with the term “traditionalist”.
And I don’t really understand how a “heavy tannin profile” would be incompatible with traditionalist winemaking. To my understanding, avoiding heavy, tough and noticeably grippy tannic structure was the main reason why modernist producers limited the maceration times as they wanted to make soft, gentle and approachable wines. If I associate a heavy tannin profile with something, it is staunch traditionalist wines!
Dense, dark color, on the other hand, is something more associated with modernist wines.
1 Like
Indeed, the devil is in the detail, of not just the ‘what’ but also the ‘how’, and that’s especially true these days where it’s very much not a trad or modern binary classification.
It’s why I liked Pat Burton’s attempt to classify on a broader, more nuanced scale
1 Like
So many variables involved. Traditional means what? I tend to associate with the end result although surely some things such as small barrels with new wood don’t fit what I would call traditional.
As far as I know Cavallotto is not using the rotos to achieve some smoothed out, polished and artificially glossy wine in the way many of the “modernists” did or do. It’s more as a way to mechanically do what would be a pain in the ass to do manually.
As far as that tannic structure goes, that’s something I find fairly “traditional.” It was the “modernists” trying to smooth those tannins out that takes away from what are classically structured nebbiolo from Piedmont. Cavallotto’s structure feels in line with classical structure to me. The Barolo Boys were attempting to smooth those tannins for consumers who don’t like that classical structure or are not willing to wait for it to knit together.
Do long macerations necessarily lead to more tannic structure? Perhaps to an extent but if more maceration equals more tannin, Fenocchio’s 90 Di would be one of the most tannic wines on the market but it is not.
3 Likes