Cellar size is also a factor.
Will update op when i have a moment.
1 Like
Philosophical question: How can a Barolo (or Barbaresco) winemaker/winery be considered traditional if they fuck around experimenting with small, new oak, shorter maceration times, and other āmodernistā interventions for any of its wines?
Thatās a different question. I believe the thread is about traditionalist/modernist Barbaresco and Barolo wines, not wineries. Most producers usually stick with either a modernist or traditionalist style, or somewhere in-between, so itās easy to list them just by the winery; but if some producers make all sorts of styles, including both modernist and thoroughly classical in style, Iāf be happy to see them listed under āvariable by wineā.
1 Like
Thatās quite the question Mark. Iāll give a stab at an answer.
The list at hand isā¦
So, more than about the producer, itās about the wine. Many businesses have product lines in the same category that are stylistically divergent. Hotel chains with all sorts of brand concepts come to mind.
To me, the relevant categorization forum readers need is based on what theyāll find in the glass, and if an otherwise modern producer makes one or some cuvĆ©es traditionally, then that should be noted. I could be wrong, but I donāt think youād object to categorization if they split the product lines into two different brands, one traditional and one modern, even if behind the scenes the same people were doing all the work in both. (Iād probably do that if I were them.) So, itās not about the who, itās about the what.
Also, experimenting shouldnāt be completely ruled out of traditional Barolo/Barbaresco winemaking. While wood (especially relatively small new wood) is the hallmark of modernists, surely there is some leeway in tradition as to other matters. Maceration times have traditionally been 21 to 30 days, but some did up to 50 or 60 (not sure if this was an innovation or not), and modernists did 14 or fewer? Where do we draw the line? Why?
How about punch-downs or pump-overs? At Bartolo Mascarello they only to pump-overs. Burlotto (on the list as traditional though there was some debate) actually varies. They use ālargeā French oak (unclear how large) instead of Slavonian for maturing the Castelletto, the Cannubi and the normale, and Allier oak for the Acclivi. (Until apparently 2015 their Cannubi was even more modern with smaller barrels, as Anders pointed out back then.) All are destemmed. Pump-overs and ādelicateā punch downs are used. And temperature is controlled during fermentation. But in the Monvigliero they press whole clusters by foot, have a 60 day maceration, no temperature control noted during fermentation, no mention of either pump overs or punch-downs but I presume at least pump-overs, and use Slavonian and Allier oak. Thatās as traditional as it gets.
If I were to classify Burlotto, Iād say Lean Traditional or maybe even Median, but then Iād note that the Monvigliero is the most traditional of any Barolo wine. Others might say that, especially given the Cannubi tonneaux experiment seems to be over, that they are traditional in their soul because they produce the Monvigliero but that they need to sell wines and some accommodation is needed. The latter seem to have won here.
1 Like
As prefaced, mine was a philosophical question, which both Guillermo and you acknowledged then answered by discussing what the thread topic is about, which was not my question.
So, Iāll ask again: can Barolo/Barbaresco PRODUCERS be traditional when they fuck around with small barrels, new oak, short macerations, rotofermenters, and other modernist interventions with some of its wines? Yes or no?
To me, the answer is a resounding NO. I donāt trust modernists who would put a drop of Nebbiolo in small/new wood, let alone subject their grapes and juice to those other non-traditional methods of wine making and raising. Whatās next? Wood chips to obtain a Nebbiolo chocolate milkshake texture?
At the risk of forcing people to scroll too much, the truth is I tried to give both answers in one. Here is the excerpt with the answer you perhaps wanted.
In short, I agree with you that certain practices automatically move a producer from the traditional camp even despite producing one or more traditional wines. What is unclear to me is exactly where to draw the line because some level of experimenting should be allowed.
Isnāt Vietti a case of a traditional producer who has experimented with modernist techniques (barrique) with some of their crus?
You also answered a question I didnāt ask.
Is Vietti properly considered to be a traditional producer when it makes (some) chocolate milkshake wines in small, new oak?
Allow experimentation all you want. Just donāt call the experiments Barolo or Barbaresco. Call them Langhe Oakjuice Milkshakes or something. Yes, Iām absolutely in favor of changing the DOC rules.
No unsuspecting consumer should be subject to uncertainty whether the Barolo/Barbaresco they are considering buying is contaminated with that filth.
Yes, Iām being hyperbolic. But we protect all sorts of cultural icons, why not protect the nectar of the gods from new/small oak and other winemaking/elevage shortcuts?
1 Like
Your question presumed an internal differentiation within Barolo and Barbaresco producers.
Now youāve shifted to kicking them out of the appelation.
But that would be a first to my knowledge because appelation rules apply to wines and not to entire producers. As long as the individual wine complies, it doesnāt matter if other wines in the stable donāt.
So youāve changed your philosophical question about producers to a very impractical rule not only about producers but about wines that would otherwise qualify under your criteria except for the person who made them.
How much leeway in your view does a Barolo producer get in each winemaking step specifically?
1 Like
I feel like you are one of those Japanese soldiers stuck on a Pacific island, never told the war is over.
The war is over, you won around twenty years ago.
1 Like
I donāt think so. If a producer makes a wine in a zone that doesnāt meet the DOCG qualifications, the producer can label that wine something else while the wines that follow the DOCG regs can be labeled as such (Barbaresco/Barolo). Like what Roagna does with its Langhe Rosso and its Barbarolo and Barbaresco.
1 Like
I lost and Iām still pissed.
So why make such a fuss about your āphilosophical questionā being about producers not wines; about not trusting anyone who āwould put a drop of Nebbiolo in small/new wood, let alone subject their grapes and juice to those other non-traditional methods of wine making and raisingā?
Because as a consumer, I should be able to go into a wine shop and buy a bottle of Barolo or Babaresco without the risk of poisoning.
Call that other barrique-aged crap something else, so that simple consumers like me can safely buy a nice bottle of Barolo or Barbaresco.
Producers use the DOCG names Barolo and Barbaresco to trick unsuspecting consumers into buying their experimental short cuts.
1 Like
If we ever do a big Berserker convention, one of the sessions will be you on stage getting blinded on wines and reacting in real time while the person pouring slowly reveals what the wines are supposed to be.
1 Like
My mind is not ready to process a deeper philosophical discussion at the moment, however I feel there are worse offences that can be made within the DOCG. Quite neutral (used) barrique aged with limited wood imprint but with terrific focus, energy and top quality juice is is a more neglectable crime in my book. Compare that to poorly farmed grapes, and/or many other abuses in the winemaking (not vessel related).
Why does a winemaker need ālimited wood imprintā to make a wine with energy and focus? They donāt!
I love wines with energy and focus. And I would add refreshing, as that is a wineās first duty. In my opinion, of course.
Just omit the wood imprint and we mostly agree.