Well, the fact is that I truthfully need to drink all the other vintages and have a bigger picture on it. On the spot…same as I said before to you for what I’ve tried. But it can be read in a different key as you teach me my friend! Great article
I've been lucky enough to try a fair amount of 2017's and 2018's and the biggest difference I've noted is the lack of depth in the 18's. 2017 might ultimately shake out to be a better vintage than some pinned it for. I recall most critics deeming the vintage a huge letdown in large part to the weather. From what I've tasted, the wines are rustic, structured, but just not as ripe and focused as 2016.
With 2018, I've been told by many that this is a "restaurant vintage", a term I consider to be a nice way of saying the wines aren't particular thought-provoking.
Nonetheless, I'm eager to taste more 2018 and continue to mold my opinion.
I agree with everything you are saying. I feel like sharing a controversial view that I am currently battling with and a better definition of a term:
1. Does Nebbiolo need depth? If we think about the structure of Nebbiolo it could be fair to say that most of the wines made from the 80's till the late 2000s are somehow destroying the nuances of some MGAs. If we are thinking of depth as body and overall structure the game is more open than ever. The wines made by Gian Luca Colombo (Segni di Langa, Reva, Garesio, Diego Conterno, Monchiero, etc, etc) are shaping a new different world (we call it Neoclassical) for Barolo where the wines are not made for extensive long ageing and mostly already great do drink as they come out. Exiting the provocation, I agree with your reading of 2018 compared to 2016.
2. Restaurant wines. When a critic says "restaurant wine" there's the problem that most likely he/she never worked in a restaurant. For this reason, it is indeed used as a despicable term most of the times. I worked enough as a sommelier to know that vintages like 2018 in Barolo could be incredible for a restaurant setting if used properly (I would suggest you drink the 2018 from Crissante at lunch as it will make your day!). A restaurant wine needs just two things: to have a reasonable price and to be ready to drink. Unfortunately, most of 2018 Barolo has not been priced down.
Thanks a lot for your comment. Talking about these things is incredibly beneficial and helpful.
Good questions, I'll do my best to give decent answers!
1. I guess I use the term depth in terms of tannic structure and not so much body or weight. I think the idea of Neoclassical Barolo is both exciting and somewhat refreshing, but there is always going to be demand of classical, long-lived, powerful Barolo (just look at the insane pricing for traditional producers). I think as a consumer, I like 2016 as a vintage to sit in my cellar for a bit, perhaps 5-7 years before touching, and 2018 as a vintage to sit for a shorter period and drink sooner. I think in both cases there are wines that demand time and wines that can be drunk now. Barolo, in some cases, can be somewhat forgiving if you open it a bit sooner than you should. Which leads me to the next question...
2. I think one of the biggest issues with the term "restaurant wine" is the idea that some vintages are deemed lesser and thus more drinkable sooner. Of course, there is some truth to this, but I think the focus should be on producer style, area of production, and to a lesser but certain extent, vintage. Not all of this vintage is readily available to consumers, which is why it's so important to have informed sommeliers and retail buyers. There are loads of wines from vintages such as 2016 that are plenty approachable now and would be a great wine to open today.
Barolo is a wild ride. A few producers I usually gravitate towards are Brovia, Luigi Oddero, Roagna, Fratelli Barale, and Marengo. I'm not sure what that says about what camp I fall into in terms of Barolo styles, but it gives you an idea of where my palate is.
I agree on all of that but there's one point that you make that can be ulteriorly investigated.
I think that producer's style is the weakest point in Barolo. I say this because every time we do single vineyard tasting the producer style is what ruins most bottles. Is not because the ideas are bad, but producers are not interested in studying their crus because in order to do so they will have to speak with their neighbours. And they don't like that, at all.
The vintage should be the most important part but only when the terroir is completely explored (e.g. Burgundy). My 2019 Barolo report would be mostly based on this, and it would be PURELY COMMUNAL for this reason. Hopefully it will come out around late January/early February.
Well, the fact is that I truthfully need to drink all the other vintages and have a bigger picture on it. On the spot…same as I said before to you for what I’ve tried. But it can be read in a different key as you teach me my friend! Great article
Great analysis and write-up.
I've been lucky enough to try a fair amount of 2017's and 2018's and the biggest difference I've noted is the lack of depth in the 18's. 2017 might ultimately shake out to be a better vintage than some pinned it for. I recall most critics deeming the vintage a huge letdown in large part to the weather. From what I've tasted, the wines are rustic, structured, but just not as ripe and focused as 2016.
With 2018, I've been told by many that this is a "restaurant vintage", a term I consider to be a nice way of saying the wines aren't particular thought-provoking.
Nonetheless, I'm eager to taste more 2018 and continue to mold my opinion.
Hi Eric, thanks for reading my report.
I agree with everything you are saying. I feel like sharing a controversial view that I am currently battling with and a better definition of a term:
1. Does Nebbiolo need depth? If we think about the structure of Nebbiolo it could be fair to say that most of the wines made from the 80's till the late 2000s are somehow destroying the nuances of some MGAs. If we are thinking of depth as body and overall structure the game is more open than ever. The wines made by Gian Luca Colombo (Segni di Langa, Reva, Garesio, Diego Conterno, Monchiero, etc, etc) are shaping a new different world (we call it Neoclassical) for Barolo where the wines are not made for extensive long ageing and mostly already great do drink as they come out. Exiting the provocation, I agree with your reading of 2018 compared to 2016.
2. Restaurant wines. When a critic says "restaurant wine" there's the problem that most likely he/she never worked in a restaurant. For this reason, it is indeed used as a despicable term most of the times. I worked enough as a sommelier to know that vintages like 2018 in Barolo could be incredible for a restaurant setting if used properly (I would suggest you drink the 2018 from Crissante at lunch as it will make your day!). A restaurant wine needs just two things: to have a reasonable price and to be ready to drink. Unfortunately, most of 2018 Barolo has not been priced down.
Thanks a lot for your comment. Talking about these things is incredibly beneficial and helpful.
Good questions, I'll do my best to give decent answers!
1. I guess I use the term depth in terms of tannic structure and not so much body or weight. I think the idea of Neoclassical Barolo is both exciting and somewhat refreshing, but there is always going to be demand of classical, long-lived, powerful Barolo (just look at the insane pricing for traditional producers). I think as a consumer, I like 2016 as a vintage to sit in my cellar for a bit, perhaps 5-7 years before touching, and 2018 as a vintage to sit for a shorter period and drink sooner. I think in both cases there are wines that demand time and wines that can be drunk now. Barolo, in some cases, can be somewhat forgiving if you open it a bit sooner than you should. Which leads me to the next question...
2. I think one of the biggest issues with the term "restaurant wine" is the idea that some vintages are deemed lesser and thus more drinkable sooner. Of course, there is some truth to this, but I think the focus should be on producer style, area of production, and to a lesser but certain extent, vintage. Not all of this vintage is readily available to consumers, which is why it's so important to have informed sommeliers and retail buyers. There are loads of wines from vintages such as 2016 that are plenty approachable now and would be a great wine to open today.
Barolo is a wild ride. A few producers I usually gravitate towards are Brovia, Luigi Oddero, Roagna, Fratelli Barale, and Marengo. I'm not sure what that says about what camp I fall into in terms of Barolo styles, but it gives you an idea of where my palate is.
I agree on all of that but there's one point that you make that can be ulteriorly investigated.
I think that producer's style is the weakest point in Barolo. I say this because every time we do single vineyard tasting the producer style is what ruins most bottles. Is not because the ideas are bad, but producers are not interested in studying their crus because in order to do so they will have to speak with their neighbours. And they don't like that, at all.
The vintage should be the most important part but only when the terroir is completely explored (e.g. Burgundy). My 2019 Barolo report would be mostly based on this, and it would be PURELY COMMUNAL for this reason. Hopefully it will come out around late January/early February.