It is also quite plausible with a relatively new winery that new botti were used for this wine. I will review the info posted here recently and adjust position if warranted.
Yes.
Dan Kravitz
Do most people agree with this - that wood regime is the critical parameter to distinguish between modern and traditional wines for Barolo. I ask this because in other regions I have found that a lot of other things can be as or more important than oak in making such a distinction - things like how late the grapes were picked, alcohol levels, other methods of concentrating the juice, ways to make the wines more accessible early, etc. I know that when I taste Barolo I think I can tell the difference in the taste as the more modern wines are rounder and plumper - easy to drink with excellent flavor - and the more traditional wines have more character - not as simply, more complex. But, I do not know as much what is being done in Barolo as in some other areas so I thought I would ask whether wood really is the distinguishing factor. Thanks.
By the way, Patās list is a wonderful resource. I love the one on Bordeaux and I am sure I will use this one as well. I would love to have something like this for all regions (Spain for example). Then, it would be great to have the lists all in one easy to find place on this board with one person (say Pat here) in charge of making changes for each region.
Our palates will vary wrt oak tolerance. Whilst some hate even a hint, Iām more tolerant, but struggle with obvious influence. Unusually I seem less tolerant of aggressive French oak, than US oak. Iām not sure if Iāve ever tasted aggressive Slavonian oak. Overall though, a āhint of seasoningā is often a good level for me.
Other factors are certainly important for me. Richness and high alcohol are fair enough for Amarone, but if I want rich/luscious then other grapes appeal more than nebbiolo. I also enjoy a good backbone of tannin and acidity. Even when fully mature, having a decent spine of acidity and some faint tannins gives a better canvas for me to appreciate the wine, than something softer and easier.
For me, techniques (in vineyard or winery) to soften the wine for early drinking are more frustrating, as (to steal a phrase) it ends up a bit like eating the icing without the rest of the cake.
Howard ā No, I donāt think the oak is the only key factor, though itās the one thatās usually most conspicuous. And I think the oak flavors make young Barolo/Barbaresco seem sweeter and rounder.
Maceration time is a key differentiator. Some modernists leave the skins in for as few as four or five days, versus the 21-30 (and sometimes substantially longer) for more traditional wines. If thereās anyone who is considered a traditionalist who uses less than 21 days, Iām not aware of them. (There ā thatās a dare to someone here to prove me wrong.)
Those with short macerations almost invariably use barriques, so itās hard to know which is which is more important in the texture of the wine. (Does a short maceration with new barriques substitute wood tannin for grape tannin?)
New barriques also fix the color of nebbiolo, so modern-style wines tend to be substantially darker in hue.
Iāve heard rumors that some wineries are using micro-oxygenation to soften up their wines, but I donāt know that for certain.
Some traditionalists allow fermentation temperatures to go higher. For instance, Giacomo Conterno doesnāt limit the fermentation temperature at all for their Monfortina Riserva. That ā and the extended tank aging that the Monfortino and many other riservas get ā no doubt makes for a less fruity wine.
I donāt think that ripeness or alcohol is a differentiator; there are lots of traditional wines with pretty high ABVs.
Hereās an interesting outline of some of the factors from Sandroneās website. He is somewhere in the middle, using 500 liter barrels instead of barriques, and only 25% new:
Much has been made of the changes in Piedmontese winemaking over the last 30 years. Beginning in the late 1970s, young winemakers started adopting techniques to lessen the severity of the tannins of Barolo and Barbaresco; in essence, to make a wine that could be enjoyed earlier in its life, one that did not require 25 years of patience for the tannins to soften. As Luciano was coming of age as a winemaker in these times, he could pick and choose which new techniques to adopt and which old traditions to maintain.
Though he has been labeled as a member of the āmodernistsā by portions of the worldās wine press, his methods and philosophy hew toward a middle ground. Luciano realized that the new methods ā rotofermentors, short macerations, new French barriques ā would make more approachable wine, but something of the uniqueness of Barolo was lost.
In his immaculate modern winery, he makes clean and polished wines using essentially old methods: open-top vertical fermentation tanks, moderately long macerations, larger casks, and throughout the process a gentle handling and respect for the fruit that is the hallmark of artisanal production.
On the first page of this thread, I set out examples of the wide range of macerations times. Thereās a fair deal of discussion there of the various criteria.
As John has pointed out, I personally feel that oak usage and maceration times tell you the most about nebbiolo producers. I also agree that ripeness levels are not especially informative as many producers across the spectrum allow pretty serious ripeness.
I didnāt mean to say that the wood regime is the only parameter whereby we might want to distinguish between āmodernistā and ātraditionalistā Barolo. What I meant was that among the parameters on which we have some information and might use to make that distinction, I find the wood regime to be the most important for determining how much I personally am likely to like the wine. As I indicated, this doesnāt mean that I think maceration/fermentation parameters are unimportant. But as I also indicated, I donāt think fermentation/maceration time alone tells us a whole lot about how much of what is being extracted and thereby about the characteristics of the resultant wine. Thereās a number of other parameters related to fermentation/maceration that must also be taken into account such as crushing, temperature, and agitation.
For example, the ultra-traditional Barolo Monvigliero of Comm. G.B. Burlotto macerates for about two months. However, since the crushing is gentle (human feet), the agitation nonexistent (submerged cap), and the fermentation temperature low (probably as a result of the gentle crushing), this is certainly not a heavily extracted wine. And, to take an example from the opposite extreme, the Barolo Gattera of Fratelli Revello, which macerates for four days in a rotofermenter and is subsequently aged in ābotti grandeā, just like Burlottoās Monvigliero, does not strike me as a more weakly extracted wine.
As to the alternative parameters you mention (ripeness, alcohol level, other methods of concentrating the juice), I do not deny their importance but do not see them as something that distinguishes āmodernistsā from ātraditionalistsā. ā[W]ays to make the wines more accessible earlyā is a rather vague description but both the wood regime and the fermentation/maceration parameters are arguably things that can be used to that end. Early accessibility is also frequently mentioned as one of the āmodernistā objectives. Consequently, this is not really something distinct from the parameters that are already on the table.
As far as I understand, you consider Fratelli Alessandria to be a traditionalist producer. According to their website, their Barolo ānormaleā ferments/macerates for 12-15 days.
http://www.fratellialessandria.it/uploads/multimedia/227_barolo-ita.pdf
Many producers do not report fermentation/maceration times on their websites, let alone the additional parameters one would need to say much about the implications. This makes it pretty difficult to use it as a meaningful basis for classification.
1 Like
Interesting. Iām sure you noted that their single-vineyard wines are all macerated 20-25 days.
When I wrote that, I figured that if anyone could find a counter-example, it would be you, Anders. 
How long did it take you to find that one example?
Actually none. I already knew. ![[wink.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/04707e6a7bbb03e0153e349d8a9270d30e1e9525.gif "wink"){kind=small}
Another example among the eight traditionalist producers you visited during your latest stay in the region is Brezza, who report a total maceration time of 17-23 days for their Cannubi and less than that (without specifying how much less) for their ānormaleā.
Brezza does not say 17-23 days for the Cannubi. The website says a 7-8 day fermentation for the Cannubi, plus 10-15 days additional maceration. I donāt think we can assume the maceration could sometimes be at the short end of the latter range if the fermentation is quick.
If you average the two ranges, you get 20 days total maceration, which is in line with what I said about the traditionalists generally macerating for 21 or more days.
And, while the website says the normale has a shorter maceration than the crus, it does not specifically say that itās shorter than the Cannubi, as you imply. The Sarmassa page says that wine gets an unspecified longer maceration, but there is no information on the other two cru bottlings. The site is just too vague to infer specific details of the normaleās maceration time.
While we can quibble over whether any traditionalists have macerations of 18 or 19 or 20 days instead of 21-plus, I donāt think you disagree with my point ā that there is a big divide between those producers who limit time on the skins to (roughly) 7 to 12 or 14 days and those who are substantially longer.
Well, if it were not shorter for the ānormaleā than for the Cannubi, they should have replaced āshorter than for the crusā by āshorter than for some of the crusā, which they didnāt. So there is nothing wrong with my logic. As to your more general proposition, I am not sure what you mean by ābig divideā. Big divide in terms of what and by what means can we measure how big it is? Are you simply referring here to what you said in the post on the first page of the thread to which you referred?
Oh, come on. Your conclusion is consistent with what they said, but it not compelled or clearly implied. Youāve read that website ā itās completely vague, in both Italian and English. You simply canāt draw precise implications from it.
Now you want to quibble about the phrase ābig divideā?
I see nothing particularly vague about the relevant information on Brezzaās web site, which simply indicates that the ānormaleā has a shorter maceration than any of the crus, i.e., shorter than about three weeks. This pattern (shorter maceration for the ānormaleā), in turn, strongly resembles the one provided by the first example (Fratelli Alessandria). A likely reason in both cases is that the grapes that go into the ānormaleā are not quite as ripe as those for the cru bottlings, which in turn means that a longer maceration than the one actually used would risk extracting harsh and/or bitter tannins. However, since the Brezza example is just another example of the same thing, I find no strong reason to keep quibbling about it.
As to ābig divideā, my question about the meaning of that expression was not an attempt to quibble but a sincere question. I am simply not sure exactly what you have in mind.
I just talked to Enzo Brezza, and he said that total maceration times for the ācrusā range between 3 and 4 weeks, depending on the vintage. Brezza is absolutely an āenlightened traditionalā producer, very aware of Brett and oxidation but committed to traditional technique at the same time. (We just started importing his wines for our market.)
He also said that 2016 is an outstanding vintage for Nebbiolo, as good as 2010, which is exciting.
The precise measurement of the āBig Divideā (please note its correct usage is capitalized) is one that continues to elude the scientific community. Johnās casual reference to this as of yet unquantifiable distance between two points is a cruel reminder of just how little we really know about the universe.
When you look deeply into a medium-toasted barrique, you will see that itās full of stars.
1 Like
Which of course proves the corollary that when you gaze into a dark toasted barrique, the barrique also gazes into you.
For what its worth I opened the second bottle which I purchased at auction, it showed almost identically as the first one, modernist in both the oak treatment and soft tannin structure / sweeter darker fruit profile (by Nebbiolo standards).