Just enjoyed a fabulous dinner of some top nebbiolo served blind matched with quality dishes from Piedmont. Is there a better wine and food pairing than sliced fresh white truffle on Acquerello carnaroli risotto funghi with a mature Barolo or Barbaresco?
Top vintages were rarer in the old days with 58, 61, 64, 71, 78, 82 & 85 all memorable. Since the trio of 88, 89 & 90 there has been a pretty good run of better years starting with 96. I tend to prefer the classical balanced often late season vintages like 08, 04, 01, 98 & 96 – and even the colder more tannic years like 06 & 99. Certainly the three Barolo 1996 just tried (Cavallotto Bricco Boschis; Burlotto Monvigliero; and Claudio Alario) showed well that styling and no rush to drink up! Some North Americans often prefer the more forwardly, rounder, richer fruit of warmer vintages like 07, 00, & 97 – and even the over the top hot 03.
With global warming and final classifications still evolving a question can be asked whether the full facing south slopes in both Barolo and Barbaresco are still the best ones? Depends – another story!
Thought provoking comments by Bruno Giacosa’s daughter Bruna in a recent interview reported at www.thedrinksbusiness.com 2013/03/barolo-not-better-than-barbaresco. “It is wrong to suggest that Barolo makes better and more age-worthy wines than Barbaresco. Why do you say Barbaresco is more feminine? Maybe because you think it’s more elegant- and yes, in Barbaresco you find elegance, but you find it in Barolo too.” Excellent point made!
What are your thoughts today on the old distinctions that used to be made between Barolo vs. Barbaresco? Are they still valid?