I’m heading back to Troquet for our second cellar clearance meal, this time with my wife and sister-in-law. Last week we supplemented the clearance selections with a '98 Gaja Barbaresco off the regular list. It was my first Gaja, very glad to have had it, an exceptionally well-made wine … and, as predicted, not exactly to my tastes.
This time, I’m getting back into my more usual wheelhouse, but haven’t tasted any of these specific wines and would love any recommendations!
The Giacosa:
1990 Bruno Giacosa Barbaresco
1998 Bruno Giacosa Barbaresco
1998 Bruno Giacosa Barolo
2001 Bruno Giacosa Barbaresco
The BDX:
1996 Château Léoville Barton
1996 Château Léoville Poyferré
All are priced the same at $129, except the 1990 Giacosa at $149.
Richard,
for an extra twenty bucks I would go with the 1990 Giacosa Barbaresco normale over the 1998’s or the 2001. I have had the 1998 but the not the 1990. The 1990 was a really good vtinage.
Of the two bdx, the 1996 L. Barton is just starting to enter to its early drinking phase. Probably best with a 2 hr decant. Lovely refined, slightly austere old style claret. Delicious.
Brodie
Frankly, I don’t see a contest: go the 1990 Giacosa. The '96 LB is still young and the LP a step down in my view; neither is “great” bdx (imho).
PS: seeing as there’s three of you and the prices are so darn good, how about you do two bottles 
I was leaning toward the 90 Giacosa on the simple arithmetic of producer+vintage, but couldn’t find a single tasting note. Not even a general impression. But of all these wines, it’s the one that makes my heart beat a little faster in anticipation
There’ve been some good threads here comparing the two Léoville, and I was leaning towards the more classical Barton over the more opulent Poyferré. But, again, my heart is in the Piedmont.
Rauno, we’ll definitely be getting 2-3 or more bottles, but pulling the balance from the cellar clearance bins. In fact, there’s a better chance of finding a good BDX with more age there than anything Italian, much less Giacosa. Such as the 1970 Pichon Lalande and '70 Calon-Ségur I found for $60 and $50, respectively, last summer - among other mature notables!
Just in case Jamie Manley might be peaking in… hi! ![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers")
I ran into Jamie last year one night at Troquet - both of us dining solo, early, in a fairly empty room, and suddenly realizing we knew each other from this forum. I still appreciate (and can almost still taste) that glass of '01 Yquem he sent my way!
![[thankyou.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/d/df165fe9c1593d19166ae7e1ffe5e272089cc07b.gif "thankyou")
Well,if you’re going to get 3 bottles,then go Giacosa:
1990 Bruno Giacosa Barbaresco
1998 Bruno Giacosa Barbaresco
1998 Bruno Giacosa Barolo and have fun comparing.
Only one btl off the regular list, Bill! (The others will be out of the clearance bins.)
But I’ll be back. I think we dined there 6-8 times during last summer’s cellar blowout - and this year it started a month earlier!
And it might be a nice play to go with the 98 Barbaresco and 98 Barolo the next time.
Thanks to all for the help! But I need to recap last night briefly, as it was one of those bizarre evenings when not a single wine showed well. Do I chalk it up to being a root night?
On paper, it was a fairly impressive lineup if not quite the '27 Yankees. In the glass, however, bearing a greater resemblance to the current Astros.
The '90 Giacosa Barbaresco turned out to be the Gallina di Neive. Out of the clearance bins came a 1990 Felsina Berardenga Rancia CC Riserva (!!), and a 1970 Guigal Cote-Rotie Brune et Blonde (the latter two were splits).
No taints or flaws. The Giacosa and Felsina looked exceptionally youthful. To the extent we could coax much at all from them, there were barely any maturing notes, and only faint streaks of very sweet dark fruit. Pristine bottles, as far as I could tell. And giving up almost nothing. Not even a tiny bit of charm, or even a glimpse of potential. The Guigal was in pretty good shape for its age, excellent fill, decent looking cork. If anything, this one showed best of all, at least to the extent that actual aromas and flavors were emerging. Not being much familiar with Guigal’s wines outside of their reputation, it struck me as having lost a bit too much fruit before getting close to resolving its oak which I think was the source of some fairly astringent tannin. But it filled out a bit with air and became at least interesting. The Giacosa and Felsina, on the other hand, didn’t budge at all over the course of about 3hrs. It wasn’t just my palate, as the whole table agreed.
Made me long for that sorta boring, but somewhat charming '87 Hospices de Beaune and the full-throttle if-not-quite-my-style Gaja from last week!