Produttori d B - Cru 2000's

Right; I thought Joel was making the same point, essentially, by implication.
Click to expand...
I thought he was wondering about the reason for the differences out loud. Since people have suggested other things (levage, growers) as the source of the differences, I was just suggesting (more to the room than to Joel) that while those differences may matter, I think -- and I think that the winery concurs -- that, given most of the other variables are as controlled as they can be, the principal difference between the crus is still site, no matter how similar-seeming they are on paper. Everything I know about the winery makes me strongly doubt they'd bottle them separately if they didn't think that they weren't expressing something site-derived by that separation.
 
Right, I hate to quibble and realize it is particularly frowned upon to do so in Wine Disorder.

Do you know if the coop uses large wooden fermenting vats? If so, would my suggestion perhaps contribute to variation among the crus?

Cheers.
 
originally posted by lars makie:
Might be.
originally posted by Joel Stewart:
Pora and Montestefano are the last 2..whaddya think? After last night, I did think maybe holding one bottle till 15 or so might be worth it.

It is interesting how the wines vary, given their raisin'.
Click to expand...
I was lucky enough to have been poured a glass of 1967 Pora a couple weeks ago. I couldn't believe how amazingly fresh and alive it still was. Didn't seem anywhere near over-the-hill or fading. Fruit, tannins, balance; it was all there. Of course it seemed aged, but it was a very classy, graceful sort of aging. Even more surprising was that my glass was from a bottle that had been open for a day. It was a great match for what was probably the best beef tartare I had ever had. Very subtle flavors that intermingled with and didn't overwhelm the wine.

On the other hand. There was a bottle of 1970 Rabaja(?) that we had back in April that hadn't aged as nicely. What's the saying? There's no great wine only great bottles. Or something like that.
Click to expand...

Had 1970 Pora Riserva a week ago. The nose after being opened and double decanted two hours prior was reminiscent of soy sauce with some nice herbal notes, not particularly my favorite, but not toast. Over the next four hours it changed back and forth from this "Soy Vay" nosed slightly muddy wine into something mature and beautiful. Don't know if it would have settled further, but in the group of old nebbiolos we were tasting, this was a B. Nothing was wrong, but not as inspirational or surprising as wines from this vintage have been and as the other wines we tasted that night. The winner of that evening was surprisingly 1984 Bartolo Mascarello Barolo, which was wonderfully expressive and true to B. Mascarello's style and pedigree.
 
Do you know if the coop uses large wooden fermenting vats?
Click to expand...
Concrete, then moved to steel, I think. Looking at photos from visiting this spring, all I see is concrete (both buried and standing) and INOX.

(Correction: read your damned notes, Thor. Barbarescos ferment in steel. Casks later.)
 
My notes from the visit say: fermentations take place in steel (Barbarescos) or cement (Langhe Nebbiolo), with temperature control (max 30C) for 24 days until the malos are over. Then single vineyards then spend 36 months in large wooden casks, followed by 8 months in bottles.
 
The large wooden casks make me think of Kermit's discussion in his book, when he's tasting Vieux Telegraphe from foudre, of the distinct variations in development of the same base wine attributable to differences in the wooden storage vessels, and how these differences affect the wine's interaction with oxygen over time. If certain vats are assigned to particular crus year after year, there could be some corresponding consistency in the cru variation.

So this line of thought is strictly conjecture, anyway. Probably Thor is right, and small differences in the terroir are what really account for the significant differences in the final wines.
 
The link I posted shows the exposure and soil composition of each cru, so comparisons are available to those who would rather not speculate.
 
Right, but that link shows no specific information on the large wooden casks used, which seems reasonable to consider alongside the available information on the sites. I always wondered about "barrel variation" actually, and find it just as interesting to read Ian's comment about Kermit's observation, as to read Thor's summary of the micro-diffs in the sites. (Secretly though, somehow, I feel if indeed PdB is going this far to keep their controls essentially the same across the board, that if the barrels presented a possibility of skewing those controls, they'd try to neutralize that variable as much as possible....but that's just me, in terminal speculation mode.)
 
We had the Pora last night...and I finally decided I can spend my money elsewhere. Think about it...$40 goes a long way in Loire wines. Of course this wine was standing up against Pichler, RLdH, Musar blanc and rouge, Munjebel 1, Donati et al, so it seemed to me, watching that one bottle last and last over the evening (ie. nearly zero evaporation rate)...that an era has been passed. Despite decent, or even good, winemaking. Main complaint?: Too sweet, in an aspartame kind of way. Not enough acidity to even imagine a nice progression 5 yrs from now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top