Excellent points. Barolo is one that really tests the definitions. Usually, we think of single vineyard as the way to reveal terroir, yet the most traditional producers blend grapes from multiple vineyards. We frown on a modern machinery like roto-fermenters, yet Cavallotto is considered by most to be a Traditional producer.
It’s also a moving target.
Producers who used to do short macerations and employ a lot of French Oak are cutting back on the oak and extending their macerations…
So Cavallotto uses roto-fermenters? That explains a lot. Everyone puts them on the traditional side of the aisle because Galloni said so, but they have always had a suppleness, gloss, and fruit intensity to them that I don’t associate with old-style Barolo. Still, the wines are beautifully put together.
Nice to see this thread back.
I only wrote this brief note. Sorry, no fancy taste descriptors. For someone with a Burg/pinot-centric palate, this was right up my alley. Paired it with grilled veal chop, blanched and grilled artichokes, and my pasta dish that can only be described as spaghetti alfredo alla carbonara e pinoli. Would love to learn of other Barolo producers that make wine in this “style”.
Posted from CellarTracker
I would agree with intensity and with fruit intensity but I don’t usually think of suppleness / gloss when I think of Cavallotto. We did a huge 04 traditionalist tasting a while back and Cavallotto’s Bricco Boschis finished near the top of the pack. It showed a lot less gloss than the Vietti Castiglione and was arguably a little chewier and had more and coarser tannin than many of the supposedly more traditional producers. Just one bottle on one night.
I also visited them and they claimed to just use the rotofermenters because they had bought them, programming them to turn over 2-3 times a day for just one or two rotations, and leaving them as open as possible, and doing a 20+ day maceration.
However you slice it or whatever impressions different folks have, to ME the wines from Cavallotto are wines that I like a lot and that I would lump in with other traditionalists… I’d also say they’re one of the best deals going in Barolo.
To me the hallmarks of (poorly) rotofermented wines are coarseness and extraction. Typically these are then put in enough new oak to show oak tannin and lots of overt wood on the nose, making for wines that I don’t like on many levels.
I really like the Cavallotto style but there has always been something about them that makes it difficult for me to put them in the same bucket as a Rinaldi or Cappellano or Mascarello. They remind me more of G.D. Vajra, another producer I really like.
I’ve had a lot less Vajra but also like the wines, and I would agree with the comparison. I’d call both a bit chewier / coarser perhaps, when compared to G Rinaldi, G Mascarello or B Mascarello…
FWIW, I had my first 06 F Rinaldi recently, the Cannubio, and I found it to be wickedly tannic. I had seen your note a while back on an 06 and agree it’s not the softer suppler wine that the 05 and 04 were. However, I also think the 04 and 05 are far superior, as the 06 is wickedly ripe, borderline overripe. An 06 Brovia was similar. Thus far I’m not a huge fan of the vintage…
Following up on “wickedly tannic” 06 G. Rinaldi, I’m sitting on a pile of magnums of the 1996 Le Coste Brunate. When do the barolisti here think these will come round, or lose even just a little of their wickedness?
The 78 from 3-liter was pretty backward recently. Does that help? ![[wink.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/04707e6a7bbb03e0153e349d8a9270d30e1e9525.gif "wink"){kind=small}
Good post. I would like it to be simpler and less subjective than this, but it is not.
At the recent La Festa del Barolo afternoon tasting of current releases, we started with some clear modernists (Altare, Sandrone, Voerzio). I really enjoyed these wines. These are delicious wines and very well made. But after tasting the 2007 Vietti Rocche in the next flight, I went back to the first flight and found that I perceived the wines quite differently. They had a thickness, concentration, and extract that seemed less natural. The 2007 Sandrone CB was almost sickly sweet.
Having so many of the top producers in one place, esp. with the rare appearance of the iconic traditionalist Giuseppe Rinaldi, the issue of new oak and other winemaking techniques was a persistent undercurrent in the commentary. Over and over again, the modernists said it’s not about the technique or the oak, it’s about the vineyard, showing the vineyard. At the end, during the Q&A, I asked a very simple question: “In what way does new oak help show the vineyard?” While I waited for an answer, I got a good pat on the back from Greg dal Piaz who was sitting next to me. After a while, when it was clear no one wanted to touch this question, Luca Currado (of all people) got up and played peacemaker. He talked about how this issue is not as important as it once was and how modern techniques have helped everyone and many people are using less and …
Albino Rocca does not belong on the list, Barry, nor does La Spinetta (except for its Moscati d’ Asti!). Oak bombs all, and middle of the pack quality at best. The A. Rocca wines do not hold up well over time, either. Not surprising that nobody mentioned Gaja, and yet, Giacosa and Gaja are the twin peaks of Barbaresco, with everyone else scurrying around the foothills. That is why “traditionalist vs. modernist” will not meet all of your needs. You cannot go wrong embracing traditionalists that you know, but there are many more making tannic, rustic wines that suit few palates. On the other hand, if you taste Gaja’s great single-vineyard Langhe Rossos (which are Barbarescos or Barolos that may or may not have a touch of Barbera that nobody can taste anyway) with a little age on them, you will not come away thinking that you just drank a “modernist” wine. same thing with Sandrone’s Barolo Cannubi Boschis. It has shown varying degrees of new oak over the years as Sandrone searched for the right balance, but 20 years down the road (and probably sooner), like Gaja’s wines, his is a pure expression of Nebbiolo…oak resolved, tannins resolved, good acid and perfect balance in the great vintages.
I have a majority of traditionalist Nebbioli in my cellar, but not at the expense of the handful of legendary winemakers who have been tarred with the modernist brush…
Bill,
What you say is generally true. And I have had some wonderful bottles of Sandrone, Altare, Gaja, Aldo Conterno, and Clerico at 15-20 years of age that show little or no sign of new oak. But I am still asking why do this? These bottles are certainly not better than similar bottles from either Mascarello, G. Conterno, Giacosa, or Cappellano.
Here’s my top 10 list from a recent blind tasting of 1990 Barolos:
Note that I gave 93 points to the last wine on this list, so I really liked all of these.
If you look at my notes from this tasting, you’ll see that I had no trouble picking out the Gaja, Voerzio, and Altare as modernist in style, but these are great wines even in this company.
Ken - in the 1995 tasting I did a few weeks ago the Altare was the best of the more modern producers and the Sandrone Le Vigne and Aldo Conterno Granbussia both showed very well. But to a person, the group really felt the ‘traditional’ producers were a step up in complexity and what we all loved about Barolo. It pains me to say that about the Aldo Conterno because a highlight of my only trip to Piedmont was an hour spent with Aldo in the cellars. Still lovely wines though.
I would add Schiavenza.
Why is Aldo Conterno considered modern? Everything I can find to read indicates that they use Botti for Barolo and barrique only for Barbaresco. We recently did a Barolo tasting with Giacomo Conterno, Giuseppe Mascarello and Aldo Conterno. The Aldo Conterno did not stand out as a modern interpretation. I’ve seen references to French Oak flavors in Aldo Conterno Barolo on CT, but I didn’t taste anything to tip off French Oak. I noted some hints of cedar, which can come from French Oak, but it was not accompanied by other usual markers like vanillin. On the other hand, the Giacomo Conterno had some strong vanilla notes, but it was not the kind that I normally associate with French Oak nor was it accompanied by other notes typically derived from French Oak. Both Aldo Conterno and Giuseppe Mascarello had the tar/truffle/forest floor funk while the Giacomo Conterno tasted, for want of a better word, clean.
I’ve also seen notes on CT where guys go off about the French Oak they taste in some white wines, but if you check, you find out they were raised in stainless steel and saw no oak. So, I just wonder if some folks aren’t a little hyper vigilant on the French Oak issue, calling it out at the slightest hint. Sometimes a wine will have some components that have something in common with effects derived from French Oak, but doesn’t come from using it. It can come from the fruit. French Oak gives a pretty distinct set of markers.
So, I just wonder if Aldo Conterno’s Barolos have been unfairly painted because, like some other producers, he has barriques in his cellar for his Bararesco and maybe that sets off a chain reaction where people hear barrique and it’s off to the races.
Other producers like Vietti & Massolino have barriques in their cellar, too, but still produce some of their wine without them. Giacosa uses Botti, but I believe they are made of French Oak. I believe Brovia uses a similar approach. Somehow, this has not caused them to be painted into the modernist camp. Not saying it should. Just saying these issues can get complicated and sometimes it takes some investigation to separate fact from fiction. Also, you have to dig into some other issues and make appraisals based on which decisions compromise the expression of terroir and which more readily reveal it.
To do that, you have to get around the marketing and PR, get first hand accounts of what really transpires in the vineyard and cellar – or you can base it on what ends up in your glass, which – in the end – is probably the best way.
There are some producers who are definitely and proudly in the modernist camp. If you’re trying to avoid modernist Barolo, it’s probably easier to decide what to avoid. After that, there is some gray area with Traditional producers adopting some modern approaches and modernists backing off the French Oak and extending macerations.
To me, the things happening in Piedmont are very hopeful. IMO, tradition and terroir are winning out.
Modernism is losing.
Here is a region where some staunch traditionalists, for the most part, held their ground and waited for the wine drinking world to circle back to them – and it did.
If it can happen there, maybe…?
That may be just a difference in the vintages. 1990 was bigger and riper and may have stood up to the oak a little better. Also (using my awesome math skills here), 1990 is 5 years older! It also seems there was a general trend toward more and more oak until the late 90s, so perhaps more oak was used by some producers in 1995 than in 1990?
Yeah 95 was a good vintage, but no 89 or 90 and, of course, as you point out using that advanced math stuff, it’s 5 years younger. 
It wasn’t just the oak, though (or at least that’s what I tell myself), the modern wines seemed less of the place. It was certainly a matter of degree - all of the wines were very good.
Clerico has reduced his % of French Oak.
Vietti only uses barrique on their Lazzarito, but they have reduced the time in barrique from one year to five months. Then it goes into Botti.
Massolino’s Vigna Rionda Riserva has always been made traditionally. As of 2004, only their Parafada was still seeing some new oak. As of 2007, Massolino is now doing all of their malolactic in cement and all of the wine is raised in large neutral casks.
Thanks!
Modernism is losing.
Here is a region where some staunch traditionalists, for the most part, held their ground and waited for the wine drinking world to circle back to them – and it did.
I think Parker affected this region more than people realize. With his lavish praise and scores for the Gajas and Spinetta’s of the world, it seemed like the modern revolution of Piedmont was fueled by Parker’s influence. A lot of producers chasing after the high scores changed their style. I think it also has to do with some of the newer generation being more willing to experiment with different techniques. At any rate, the product of some of these ultra modern wines, IMO, has not stood up to the test of time. I think the movement back to traditional techniques is a good thing.
Don’t have time to read the whole thread, but IMO fine producers too often ignored, and also IMO pretty traditional:
Prunotto
Vietti
Einaudi
Spinetta
Pio Cesare
Produttori Barbaresco
Dan Kravitz