TN: the roses died long ago.

[JonoB]

I picked up this bottle of Barolo because I have enjoyed the Chiarlo Barbera and was intrigued to try a mature vintage of Barolo from this estate having heard good things from friends.

The label at the shop read that the Cerequio is only made in great vintages and who were they to argue! Well... They should have argued because this wine is utterly disappointing with little charm.

The wine isn't dead and was probably impressive when young probably because it was lathered in new barrique and if it wasn't, brand new, heavily toasted botti! "Death by barrique". I've never understood the term of "burnt rubber" being levelled at South African wines, because not one was ever as rubbery and as stewed/confected as this!

Perhaps this was a bad bottle and I think I have been generous with the score, but it just got worse and worse in the glass with that rubber note dominating more and more. The problem was that I could find no fault with the wine! It really felt like the winemaker's hand had dominated and stripped the wine of any class. Modernism gone wrong!

Don't get me wrong there are some wonderful modernist producers and based on R. Veorzio (who I don't really like) making good 95s I had hoped for something similar here. In fact I think that generally good modernist producers make balanced wines that are soft and maintain a classic flavour profile; but when they adhere to heavily toasted barrique they end up with leathery, rubbery flavours that can be quite unpleasant. Anyway, here is my note!


1991 Barolo Cerequio; Michele Chiarlo
tar, roses, white truffle, sandstone, minerals, fresh, clean and lifted. Nice balance, a hint of leather, herbs and meat. Underbrush, stewed plum, a touch of rubber, burnt sugar, clearly a modern wine, but with hints of classic aged Nebbiolo. Nice length, with soft rounded structure, chard wood, vanillin and sweetness, Some blood and black pudding, almost a hash brown caramelisation, it almost feels as this is a poor vintage saved by wood... Nice complexity and length, I'd rather a good vintage without the hand of the winemaker! Worcester sauce, nice freshness but it lacks lift and that haunting, beguiling nature. Fully mature and resolved, but somehow it just doesn't live up to expectations. That is probably due to modernity rather than anything else. Mushroom Soup, chlorine, wet soil, decaying leaves. Oloroso esque. Confected. 66-/100 at first sip, the longer it sits, the more leathery and rubbery it gets. 59-/100 The tar became rubber and oil and left the roses behind  

Jono Beagle's hundred point scoring system.
0-29/100 not worth bothering with
30-49/100 good wine but I wouldn't buy a case
50-59/100 very good showing grape and terroir character
60-69/100 excellent example of a wine from this country/region/grape
70-85/100 one of the very best wines that the region has to offer.
86-100/100 one of the very best wines you are ever likely to drink

[Nicklasss]

It is sad to read this, as Barolo is supposed to age well.

Does that means I need to open my 2004 Pio Cesare Barolo soon?

Nic

[JonoB]

No not at all.
I wouldn't call Pio Cesare strictly modern, and I have tried numerous old Barolo/Barbaresco that have been magical.

So there is no need to worry and this wine aged, but just not in the way I would have liked.