Florida Jim
Florida Jim
The active word being 'may.'
Best, Jim
2004 Francesco Rinaldi Barolo?
- Thread starter lars makie
- Start date
The active word being 'may.'
Best, Jim
Jeff Grossman
Jeff Grossman
How many are you? I think there were two in this thread.
More than two experienced people voted for Hitler, you know.
Other people's taste experiences are opaque to me, of course. Their words should not be.
If you say you don't like the taste of caramel in your wine, great. No quibble from me and I have no information to offer about the caramelling of wine.
If you say you don't like the taste of oak in this wine, also great. And I can google up some info about the oaking of this wine. And I can render an opinion that, on paper, it ain't much.
Are you and FLJim saying that it's what's in the glass that counts?
Florida Jim
Florida Jim
In case you missed it the first time:
"I do not think of wine making vis-a-vis wine tasting/enjoyment as a simple cause and effect relationship. It appears to me to be much more complicated then that."
Best, Jim
I think I was counting MarcD's wife, Jim, and slaton in the "oaky" camp and Marc in the "good but a little caramel" camp. You're right, that's not enough samples to get us into the normal curve, but I'd tend to think there's a reasonable chance I'd end up agreeing and wish I hadn't bought so much. I place more credence in a couple people with a good deal of experience telling me "the wine tastes oaky" over some website information, or maybe over even some information from some winemakers (not all) as to barrel regimen, as to whether the wine tastes oaky or not. And two barrels with a certain toast and age might make a wine taste oakier than 6 barrels of another type, right?
I've also been round and round with people before over wines I thought were too oaky and have had people cite website information to me and say I couldn't be tasting something, and then later meet a rep for the winery or another winemaker from the region who confirmed that the website information was more a simplification or approximation of a particular wine's elevage. Sandrone comes to mind.
The website blurb does not tell me the tasters were wrong.
There are plenty of wines that others taste and like and don't describe as oaky, and I read about the barrel regimen and I think, "well, doesn't sound like too much new oak," but I repeatedly don't like the wines, and then don't buy them anymore.
I'm not really sure what that whole "it's what in the glass that counts" argument is all about, so I'll reserve my right to argue about that half-a-dozen times elsewhere.
Jim Hanlon
Jim Hanlon
It wouldn't surprise me if one of the large foudres used for the 2004 Normale was relatively newish. I'm not saying first year, but maybe second or third. With a heavy char, that could be the source of the caramel. As I said, even large foudres are new sometime, and didn't Oddero make a move back to foudres (from a daliance with more barriques) in the past few years. I guess my objection to Jeff's deduction from the web site is the assumption that foudres never impart oak character.
This wine is still on the shelves locally for about $35. I may pick up another bottle to open over the weekend. I'd love to find a $35, traditional, 2004 Barolo. I thougth the Oddero might qualify, which is a large part of why I was so put off by the oaky/caramel aspect.
BTW, Slaton tastes an awful lot of Nebbiolo, so even if I'm nuts, I know he's got a good palate on such things.
This wine is still on the shelves locally for about $35. I may pick up another bottle to open over the weekend. I'd love to find a $35, traditional, 2004 Barolo. I thougth the Oddero might qualify, which is a large part of why I was so put off by the oaky/caramel aspect.
BTW, Slaton tastes an awful lot of Nebbiolo, so even if I'm nuts, I know he's got a good palate on such things.
At its most extreme, it's not caring about anything but the yum/yuck factor in one's mouth (that is: not caring if it's the most natural or most fucked-with adulterated illegally-labeled concoction, as long as it appeals to the taster). The less extreme version is that anything up to the point the wine is consumed doesn't matter enough to trump the organoleptic experience.
The extreme version of the other side is that philosophy and techniques matter as much as or more than the taste, and the less extreme version is that they matter to some degree or another.
As you can see, the least extreme realms of each position are capable of intersection.
Anyway, that's the executive summary.
I admit to not understanding why this argument (the one over wood in a particular wine, not the one I just explained) is so important to Jeff. It strikes me as an xkcd-ish "Someone is wrong on the internet!" jihad, complete with a very much unearned shout-out to Mike Godwin, but apparently I just don't care enough.
Jeff Grossman
Jeff Grossman
I'm snickering at Godwin's Law. Brad Kane declared it dead, you know.
Jim Hanlon
Jim Hanlon
I opened a 2004 Oddero normale at a dinner on Sunday. Slaton was there, and can give his own thoughts. This bottle did not have the caramel/oaky character of the bottle I drank a few months ago. For a young Barolo, the wine was quite open, which is not to say that tannins were lacking. I'm not sure the wine is a standout (even among normales), but this bottle was not oak flawed. Ben, back away from the ledge.
I also opened a 2004 Francesco Rinaldi normale last evening. It was more disjointed than the Oddero, but I think that in a couple years it will likely be the more interesting wine. I thought the fruit to be deeper and more varied on the Rinaldi. The wine may not integrate enough to be harmonious, but I think it will be well worth drinking at $30. The Rinaldi drank with less tannin than the Oddero, and I think their drinking windows may be a bit different, with the Rinaldi drinking earlier. I don't see either aging especially long though. The Rinaldi probably lacks the structure and the Oddero the fruit depth. Still, each is pretty good for low oak, under $40 Barolo.
I also opened a 2004 Francesco Rinaldi normale last evening. It was more disjointed than the Oddero, but I think that in a couple years it will likely be the more interesting wine. I thought the fruit to be deeper and more varied on the Rinaldi. The wine may not integrate enough to be harmonious, but I think it will be well worth drinking at $30. The Rinaldi drank with less tannin than the Oddero, and I think their drinking windows may be a bit different, with the Rinaldi drinking earlier. I don't see either aging especially long though. The Rinaldi probably lacks the structure and the Oddero the fruit depth. Still, each is pretty good for low oak, under $40 Barolo.
Ok, this may sound weird but, Jim, sorry you were right the first time. Or at least the wine I am having tonight is just a little too oaky for me.
I bought the first one six months ago, from a common WD source, and bought this wine much more recently. I would swear there was no oak on the first one. This one is just a little bit too oaky for me to really like tonight (but still drinkable). On the 1-to-10 wine scale, with a "1" being being unoaked, this is a 3.5 tonight, which might be just fine in 1er Cru Burgundy but it does bother me a little more here. But probably ok in a year or two?
I remember when I visited Oddero several years ago being surprised just how much normale Oddero sold. A fairly large amount. Maybe lot variation? I know that sounds lame.
I do hereby appoint Jim Hanlon and Marc Davis's wife as my Barolo buyers from here on out.
There was a rumor going around Philly in the early eighties that Kenny Linseman was traded away to Hartford because he was dating the daughter of Flyers owner Ed Snider, and Daddy didn't approve.
It is a good story, but I think the Flyers getting Mark Howe in the deal might have had something to do with it.
Sorry about the injured Preds, jb. Maybe they can get that Radulov guy back now that the Russian league is going broke.
It is a good story, but I think the Flyers getting Mark Howe in the deal might have had something to do with it.
Sorry about the injured Preds, jb. Maybe they can get that Radulov guy back now that the Russian league is going broke.
Levi Dalton
Levi Dalton
I think the Oddero Barolo '04 is being judged here a bit early in it's development.
I understand that it is perfectly reasonable to pass comment on something that is currently offered for sale. However, I think taking somewhat of a long view in terms of this particular wine might be of some help. It is just disjointed at the moment. Time will tell the tale for those who wait.
I understand that it is perfectly reasonable to pass comment on something that is currently offered for sale. However, I think taking somewhat of a long view in terms of this particular wine might be of some help. It is just disjointed at the moment. Time will tell the tale for those who wait.
U
Unknown
Guest
Francesco Rinaldi is a checkdown pass if there ever was one - buy it if it's on sale, otherwise stick to the obvious.
Levi Dalton
Levi Dalton
Francesco Rinaldi's "Roussot" Dolcetto d'Alba 2006 was tremendous, and a great pour while it lasted.
I sold the '04 Barbaresco likewise, like water. I loved that stuff. Perhaps my favorite '04 Barbaresco at this particular moment of my brain activating my fingers into typing black and white text. I'm a big fan of a number of '05 Barbarescos, btw. Haven't tried F. Rinaldi's yet.
So, uh, I disagree.
U
Unknown
Guest
I will always have a soft spot in my heart for F. Rinaldi. The first red wine my wife tasted was the 1961 F. Rinaldi Barolo 8 years ago. I will never forget that night or that wine.
However, despite returning to quality, they are far from the wines of Beppe.
However, despite returning to quality, they are far from the wines of Beppe.