what will all the hype do for 2007 Barolo?

WINE TALK
1

I’ve documented how depressed sales have been in the past couple of years and if you look, there is a ton of good juice from earlier vintages (esp 2006) for the taking right now from folks like Brovia, Rinaldi, and of course, Germano Angelo and Bosco Agostino ( [snort.gif] …

Galloni is all over 2007 and having just traded some correspondence with Suckling, he’s going to call it the best vintage in “a long time” (I’m not sure he’s made it public yet, so I don’t feel like I can say exactly how long, but to me, it’s surprisingly long…)

Anyway, here in Cali, the buyers have been resistant to buy much Barolo for “the masses” (as opposed to those who will always buy Barolo)… Given that we we are coming off back to back uber-vintages in Brdx and similarly with '04 and '06 Brunello, I’d be interested in hearing from folks that are merely “curious” about Barolo on whether the huge press for 2007 will make them jump in and explore Barolo more fully?

And just for the record, the best way that I can describe the '07s that I’ve tasted so far is “juicy” and “great restaurant wine”… For better or for worse, these are unlike any other vintage I’ve tasted in that they have the fruit of '97 and '00, but the fruit is really, really fresh. Are they “the best” I’ve ever tasted? Hard to say 'coz they are so damned different, but I think I still prefer '01, '04, '06 for “classic” barolo…

Love to also hear from others that have tasted '07 baroli…

oh, and forgive the shameless self-promotion, but Tanaro landed the '07 Germano Angelo and Bosco Agostino about 6-weeks ago and they are select shelves.

2

Hopefully push down 06 prices

3

I don’t know for sure. Haven’t had enough of the wines to opine. Barbaresco last year showed very ripe, but coming in earlier they perhaps didn’t benefit from the cooling trend that marked the end of the season.

But then again it’s really all so much bullshit after-all. People telling us what is great, and we continue to listen.

Just a point worth remembering, the powers that be were lukewarm on 1996 upon release and fawned, and in some cases, continue to fawn over 1997.

I tasted through 15 1995s this past week, a vintage I have always liked quite a bit, more than 97 and 98 for example. I know some writers have given the vintage a middling B grade, and done so grudgingly. Depends what you like I guess but there were many excellent wines to be had from that tasting.

Once again it is the best ever, or nearly so. Wines need more points, everything is getting stupidly compressed between 93 and 99 points. Wines that are essentially the same as previous vintages are scoring 3, 4 or 5 points higher, eclipsing the greatest wines of previous vintages. You have to be crazy to pay attention.

This is all a game. High scores get placed on shelf-talkers and are a vital element to getting one’s name out there as the authority. They certainly don’t do the consumer any favors when they jet off into fantasy land, though eventually all wines worth buying will merit either 98, 99 or 100 points so presumably at that point some of the demand pressure might come off of a few of these producers. Prices might even return to sane levels.

4

If Suckling is going to push it as best vintage in a long time, we should all run for cover. The man has an incredible knack for miscalling vintages. His last 2 big calls were unfathomable–97 and 2000. I actually think he’s from a different planet.

5

Great response, Greg! As you know, the whole points game is such a Catch-22… I “hate” them but it sure does make it easier to sell the juice.

I don’t admit it in public (smile!), but I love 2005s from producers that got their fruit in before the rains, again Brovia comes to mind.

See you in Alba? Coming with Jamie? Hit me with a PM if you are free Friday, Saturday or Sunday (5/6 - 5/8) and I’ll make the same offer as last year. Anyone else in your posse?

6

I don’t know for certain, but I think there is going to be a general consensus re: the “quality” of 2007. That being said, I’m only willing to say that it’s “different” from anything else and I can easily see how some might find delicious and approachable, esp. for a young nebbiolo.

I will make go out on a limb and say something silly that I’m sure I’ll regret - 2008 tasted from the barrel a year ago is the best vintage I’ve ever tasted! Fruit and structure of '04 only better… can’t wait to taste again in less than a month.

7

Can someone explain more generally what the release of great vs. poor vintages does for the prices of prior vintages still on the shelves?

I can never really keep it straight. Does a spectacular new vintage mean the scores and prices will be high, and those will draw up the prices of prior vintages? Or does adding yet another great vintage wine of that type push down prices in a typical “increased supply = lower prices” sense? (I sense the former has been the case in Bordeaux, but maybe the latter has been true in Piedmont and Montalcino? Maybe because there have been so damn many good vintages in Piedmont, essentially now 11 or 12 of the last 13?)

Although prices are high for good Barolo, there do seem to be a lot of bargains and discounting out there as well if you have your ear to the ground. It’s not necessarily on the specific producers and vintages that you most covet, but if one is flexible and wants “good to very good Barolo,” a lot of bargains pop up out there.

8

we are a tiny importer/distributor and our baroli retail b/w $30-$60 for the 04-06 vintages… Prices for 2007 are basically flat and will continue that way assuming that there is at least a SMALL correction in the Euro-USD exchange rate. I’ll get killed if the exchange rate stays above $1.40, so i’ll have to raise prices in about 30 days. The quality of vintage and press will have zero effect on my wine prices for either the 07’s or the few 06’s I still have in stock. I’ll start cutting prices on '06 only to move the stock, not because 2007 is “better.”

That said, the recent love given to “rising star” Luca Roagna in Barbaresco and the re-discovery of Rindaldi in Barolo has apparently moved the new vintages out of the “great wine/great value” category for some retailers… hopefully more shelf space for my boys! smile…

9

Greg: “Prices might even return to sane levels.”

Not as long as Professor Ben “Bubbles” Bernanke is head of the FED and printing dollars like it’s going out of style. However, priced in silver, Barolo goes for one third what it did three years ago. :~)

10

George: “That said, the recent love given to “rising star” Luca Roagna in Barbaresco and the re-discovery of Rindaldi in Barolo has apparently moved the new vintages out of the “great wine/great value” category for some retailers… hopefully more shelf space for my boys! smile…”

George, is Luca Roagna associated with the old school winery of Roagna? Also, what do you mean that Rinaldi was “re-discovered”? Which Rinaldi, Giuseppe or Francesco? And who re-discovered them? I have been out of the Piedmont loop for awhile. dc.

11

Yes - Luca is the twenty-something, 5th generation Roagna wine maker… Francesco Rinaldi flies way under the radar and makes great “big barrel” baroli, in my opinion. I can’t remember who it was, (perhaps Asimov or Galloni) that in the last several months lauded these two wines specifically. One of my customers said that after the favorable press, the Rinaldi were now priced beyond what they like to carry.

12

While both F. and G. Rinaldi generally get favorable reviews, I think it is the G. Rinaldi wines that have gotten raves and higher prices in recent years. Both are very traditional in style, but F. Rinaldi’s wines are perhaps the most old school in all of Barolo. If you like that style, his single vineyard wines can be found for ~$50. Most of the G. Rinadli Barolos are over $100.

13

I feel like 2007 will bring a lot of new Barolo drinkers into the fold… But that many of us who have been drinking and loving Barolo for it’s structure and ability to age, will likely snub the vintage. Then, when the next structured vintage comes along, those same “new” Barolo drinkers will likely stop buying because they won’t enjoy the bottles young. 2007 appears to be all about sex appeal. I don’t buy Barolo to drink tomorrow, I buy it for the qualities that arise in 15+ years. If anything, all this press may be a sign to buy light of '07 and backfill more on previous vintages.

I agree with the Suckling comment as well, if he’s all over 2007, it’s just another sign that people who love good classic, should avoid 2007. I look at the 2000’s in my cellar… I don’t even know what to do with them.

14

Signor Guido is correct. Some outstanding wines in 2007? Absolutely, like vintages such as 1997 and 2000 before it. Classic vintage? Not a chance. It would be hard to explain in so many words, but I have tracked scores and tasting notes for all major critics (and then some), including every score and tasting note Antonio Galloni has ever written. 2007 will prove not in the same league as 2004 or 2001, and probably not 2006 either, so the “best vintage in a long time” business is pure hyperbole. Have I tasted through the 2007s? Absolutely not, and had I done so to arrive at these conclusions, this would have been a wasted post, as I am not a professional critic, much less a comprehensive database of critical concensus. But history, and that concensus, do not lie. Antonio will back off the 2007 hype sooner or later, so pick your wines carefully and you will be rewarded. But 2007 is NOT a vintage to go deep and wide on when there are still 2004 Giacosa red labels in the marketplace (albeit out of the price range of many, but the price is still coming down!)…

15

Interesting to see comments from the Barolo veterans. I started buying in 2007 so I’m relatively inexperienced.

However, I’ve had some of the same thoughts as you based on AG’s qualifiers for 2007 like “…ripe, flashy wines…” and “The differences between sites, which is so marked in cooler years such as 2005 and 2006, is less obvious in 2007…”. I find those comments reason for caution. His comments about 2008 make that vintage sound more interesting.

I’m also wondering whether I should buy Produttori del Barbaresco '07 Riservas. AG’s comment, “The nine single-vineyard Riservas are different, but not as distinctive and transparent to site as they were in 2004 and 2005.” leaves me wondering whether I’ll end up with 9 different wines or 9 wines that largely taste the same. Tasting those before buying is usually not an option in these parts.

16

Revelation of Barolo tasting at VinItaly last week was A) how good the 1999s are now and B) how many producers had commercial quantities left.

17

Chris,

the highest scoring wines get jacked up in price, but that creates opportunity for grey marketeers so expect offering below the stupid levels many wines rocket to.

After that it’s anybody’s guess as to where the prices for individual wines go. Some tend to drag the back vintages up with them, others have little to no effect. On one hand it depends on the score. A 99 point score will usually effect only that single wine since it is no being bought up more by point whores than amateurs.

If a winery is getting progressively higher scores year after year, either because they are producing incrementally better wines year after year or equally possibly, critics either start to learn something or else pay attention to what general emerging consensus is then the back vintages tend to see some price lift.

Having said that, the Nebbiolo pipeline is jammed. Packed full, and with a very few exceptions. I’ve bought some early offerings of 2006 since the prices were so attractive but with the hype machine in over-drive I’m in no hurry to try the 2007s.

One thing is for sure. There are other vintages to come and the powers that be will screw up another call like 96, or 99.

In all honesty I am excited to try the wines.