NY Times Barolo Article

[Chasse-Spleen]

Very interesting article on Barolo, OK, somewhat interesting but the main point is important. Surprised that he didn't babble a bit longer...

http://events.nytimes.com/2009/02/04/di ... ref=dining

[Houndsong]

Of course, members of BWE already knew this.

[JimHow]

The 2004s are approachable now, he says.
Reminds me of Suckling's quote from the infamous WS edition featuring the 1995 Bordeaux vintage: "Wines this young shouldn't be this good!"

[alchemeus]

I dunno about drinkable young Barolo. Even the cheap ones are expensive. But heck, you gots the money and likes the wines then pays up.

Now there ARE Nebbiolo based wines that are inexpensive and good that show the floral and tar notes of Barolo young. I do love the grape and look for Nebbiolo based Italians, just not Barolo. I mean, I don't even look for any wines needing 15+ years anymore.

[Comte Flaneur]

Of course, members of BWE already knew this.

Yes and he borrowed liberally from Antonio Galloni's spiel in the latest edition of the Wine Buyer's Guide.

Must admit I enjoyed reading it because I am going through a barolo fetish at the moment, especially after Roberto's notes.

[PappaDoc]

Alch, Look for Gattinara or Spanna from the likes of Vallana, Produtori d' Barbresco makes affordable Barbaresco, or wines from Valtellina, Sassella, Surfsat, Inferno etc

[alchemeus]

Pappa!

Yes, Gattinara is one which I refer. Even had 'second wines' from some Barolo producers, odd names. Under $20. There are several village named wines in Piedmont producing Nebbiolo wines, I suppose Spanna and Vallana are some.

[Chasse-Spleen]

He was right about Produtori d' Barbresco, I tried their basic 2003 Barbresco, and although I think it was declassified single site, grand cru or whatever they call 'em vineyards, it had tremendous stuffing and flavor. Mouth searing tannins, but it should be a great wine. Real good deal, too.

I have to say I agree with Hound and Compte, however. He was basically phoning it in. I just thought it was interesting that hee felt the vintage was approchable, because one of my wine sales guys warned me away from it recently for drinking now.

[Houndsong]

Approachable my ass. I've drunk more 04s than he did. You don't want to approach these babies with your ass because you will get did. You want to face them anteriorily, with full armour.

[JimHow]

Yeah, I was wondering, Hound, I liked those three or four '04 Barolos I've tried so far, but I'm still trying to pry my jaw open after the experience.

[alchemeus]

"Approachable my ass. I've drunk more 04s than he did. You don't want to approach these babies with your ass because you will get did. You want to face them anteriorily, with full armour."

Yes, Hound. I repeat.

Now there ARE Nebbiolo based wines that are inexpensive and good that show the floral and tar notes of Barolo young. I do love the grape and look for Nebbiolo based Italians, just not Barolo. I mean, I don't even look for any wines needing 15+ years anymore.

[jal]

Langhe.

I am a big Produttori fan. I also love Gattinara, a 2001 Antiniolo we tried a few months ago was delicious. I wouldn't drink 2004 Barolos now. Even the 1996 and 1997 are not ready yet imo. 2000 is a good vintage to try as I think the wines are on a lighter side. The 2000 Cortese Rabaja I just polished is wonderful but can improve a bit still.

[alchemeus]

Yes, Langhe is an excellent example.

[Chasse-Spleen]

A very interesting one is Vietti Perbaco Nebbiolo. The '04 was like a... young Barolo. But not as hugely structured, obviously. In lighter/less tannic vintages I'm told it is quite enjoyable young.