TN: Two Rinaldi Baroli and Pisca Port with Oliver

Giuseppe Rinaldi Barolo Brunate-Le Coste 2006
Thanks to Oliver. About 75% from Brunate and 25% from Le Coste. Medium ruby. Rather closed on the nose. Dried rose petal, ethereal, pretty plum, herbs such as dried oregano, soft brown spice, faint tar. Faintly dry tannin only, nicely favourful, on the whole, the 2006 is still quite traditionally-styled. Lovely depth. More Burgundian than the 1996. Balanced, long. Beautiful wine, and promising, this should evolve well in bottle, and quite a long time. Wines like this are becoming rare. Fair QPR. Rating: 93+/94

Giuseppe Rinaldi Barolo Brunate-Le Coste 1996
Thanks to Oliver. Similar colour, slightly more evolved. Tougher/harder, a bit less concentrated and intense in terms of backbone, if firm enough to seem more sizeable than it is. No more complexity or length. A bit grainier, saltier even, with a touch of dried walnut skin to the tannin. A bit dried-meatier/beefier perhaps. Still outstanding, of course, but a 1996 that emphasizes the vintage’s backbone more than the density of the best. Rating: 91(+/-?)

Niepoort Vintage Port Pisca 2007
Sample half bottle thanks to Dirk. From a single vineyard whose fruit has formed the backbone of the house’s Vintage Port (e.g. of the 2003) for years, and which now belongs to Niepoort. Of 12’000 liters total production in 2007 (a yield of 22 hl/ha), 3’500 liters were bottled separately. The idea, Dirk says, is to make a more traditional style of Vintage Port, less reductive, bottled later than is the norm today. He believes the 2007 is not quite there yet, and that the 2008 (which is aged in 100% pipes the 2007 only partially) should measure up to the concept even better. Also, he is convinced a lesser amount of primary fruit to be a fair tradeoff given he expects this “controlled-oxidative” style to retain its fruit longer, and age more finessefully. Virtually opaque ruby-black, slight purple hue. Tiny bit hot with alcohol. Coffee-tinged chocolate and marzipan. Relatively firm, cocoa-flavoured tannin. Rather oaky, even more so with airing, albeit along with a little more florality/violet, and sweetness, too. Medium length. More chocolatey than fruity, as Oliver noted, who much prefers e.g. the fuller-flavoured, fruitier, sexier, more accessible Graham in this vintage (which I remember as less overtly modernistic perhaps only fractionally, but noticeably than some 2007s). Unique and different, if not in style, then in flavour profile, from the Niepoort Vintage Ports we know (have not tasted the standard, that is the blended, 2007 Vintage Port). Oliver felt this should be drunk young, whereas I am curious to see (more so perhaps than confident) what will become of it with bottle age. Rating: 89+/90?

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

"J'ai gaché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ Roger Conti
 
originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
Woof. Sounds like that 1996 needs more sleepy-time.

As do all the better Piedmontese 1996s. Wish vintages like that came along more often.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

J'ai g“ché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ Roger Conti
 
So speaking of of 1996 and Rinaldis, anyone had the 1996 Francesco Rinaldi Cannubio recently?

I picked up one of the magnums from Chambers (since I still can't get a beautiful 1995 out of mind from last year). It now makes up the majority of my Barolo and surprisingly some Cellar Tracker posts say it's drinking reasonably well now.
 
There is a good chance it is more ready than one might think.

We had 1996 Francesco Rinaldi Cannubio from magnum for a good price at C, when I was there. I always steered people off it, because I figured it would be hard as nails. One time someone didn't listen to me and ordered it anyway, and it wasn't bad at all. I sold the other one we had the next day.

It might have just peeped its head up for a second, and perhaps has now (2 years later?) gone back under. Hard to know. But it might still be open for business, too.
 
I have to admit I don't really understand your use of the 100 pts scale.
Not long ago you described the Domaine de Marcoux Ch“teauneuf-du-Pape Vieilles Vignes 2007 as a very alcoholic, Port like (is Chateauneuf really supposed to be port like?) and finally ending with a 95+, about 1.5/2 more pts than the apparently superb and unique Giuseppe Rinaldi Barolo Brunate-Le Coste 2006, that you rate at the same level than Deus ex Machina 2007, a modern, very ripe, very high alcohol, pruney Chateauneuf.

Should we understand that "traditionally-styled" wines are not supposed to reach the same highs than modern style (high ripeness oriented) wines?

I always read your very sharp and precise tasting notes with a lot of interest even though I don't always share your opinion. But frankly these pts...

Cheers

Eric
 
Eric, I remember the time when David suffixed his notes with a vigorous defense of his use of the 100-pt scale. Let's not start now...

Anyway I have a wine for you which is off the 100-point scale. A bientôt.
 
originally posted by Yixin:
Eric, I remember the time when David suffixed his notes with a vigorous defense of his use of the 100-pt scale. Let's not start now...

Anyway I have a wine for you which is off the 100-point scale. A bientôt.

Sorry I missed this...
 
originally posted by Brézème:
I have to admit I don't really understand your use of the 100 pts scale.
David has been through this once before, or perhaps more than once. Here's one of them:

I imagine that everyone is about in the same positions in which they were last posed.
 
originally posted by SFJoe:
originally posted by Brézème:
I have to admit I don't really understand your use of the 100 pts scale.
David has been through this once before, or perhaps more than once. Here's one of them:

I imagine that everyone is about in the same positions in which they were last posed.

And of course back in the days of wldg he converted them into word ratings (Outstanding, etc.) because so many people complained about numeric ratings.

Ah, memories...
 
originally posted by Brézème:
I have to admit I don't really understand your use of the 100 pts scale.
Not long ago you described the Domaine de Marcoux Ch“teauneuf-du-Pape Vieilles Vignes 2007 as a very alcoholic, Port like (is Chateauneuf really supposed to be port like?) and finally ending with a 95+, about 1.5/2 more pts than the apparently superb and unique Giuseppe Rinaldi Barolo Brunate-Le Coste 2006, that you rate at the same level than Deus ex Machina 2007, a modern, very ripe, very high alcohol, pruney Chateauneuf.

Should we understand that "traditionally-styled" wines are not supposed to reach the same highs than modern style (high ripeness oriented) wines?

I always read your very sharp and precise tasting notes with a lot of interest even though I don't always share your opinion. But frankly these pts...

Cheers

Eric

My stylistic preferences, as everyone who reads my notes with regularity, are so strongly in favour of traditionally-styled wines that we need not go into that. What concerns rating, it's tempting to say anyone should feel free not to rate - but then everyone I've ever known does (whether numerically, with stars, in words etc. is not the point). To become experienced as a wine drinker means one will learn to appreciate, judge, in short: quantify quality - it's inevitable.

Maybe you've read to post/reply Brézème included a link to: being a teacher, I treat style as a given and thus a matter of personal preference (in other words, modern CdP tends to sport high alcohol levels, like it or not, the question as far as a numerical rating is concerned is not do I like this characteristic but how good the wine is. - Without paradigms, it would be impossible to rate: is a Chardonnay a good red wine? Guess not.).

As a teacher marking papers, the question I've always asked myself is not, does a student echo my opinion, but rather: does he or she get his or her point across? Obviously, if someone's able to argue in favour of something totally preposterous (such as one student I once had who wrote a National Socialist pamphlet that turned my stomach over, and yet, I couldn't deny the quality of essay writing).

It's no different with wine: if one doesn't like modern CdP like Deus ex Machina, no one forces us to either buy or drink it. I'm obviously no buyer. That doesn't mean I'm unable to judge it fairly.

To give another example, I'm perfectly satisfied to drive any car that's got wheels on it. My fascination with cars is limited: as far as I'm concerned, they're supposed to get me from A to B. Now, does that blind me for the fact that there are qualitative differences?

Now, if rating is invariably paradigmatic (as in the silly white wine versus red wine comparison above), this means quality is directly linked to typicality. But style? I don't see how that could be quantified. Is Goethe "better" than Borchert? Impossible to answer. But: does use more elaborate syntax than the other? No doubt.

In a nutshell: if numbers feels awkward, feel free not to rate consciously. But when it comes to quality, remember you invariably do anyhow.

Personally, the reason I rate numerically, by the way, is to come to terms with a wine (or an essay - it's not as if that were in a way more or less obvious, after all). What it really means to me is something like "got the gist, on to something new".

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

J'ai gaché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ Roger Conti
 
originally posted by David from Switzerland:
What it really means to me is something like "got the gist, on to something new".
Have you ever had a bottle so changeable, so elusive, so complicated that you felt you needed a second bottle to understand it?
 
I have no objection with the use of numerical rating.
My point was more something like :

When I read your TN about the Bepe Rinaldi, I have the feeling that there is a very little room from the grower to improve his wine.

When I read the one for the Deus, you, yourself, show tracks of improvement for Pascal Morel.

Therefore and since they get the same points, it seems to me that Cambi styled Chateauneuf have more "objective" potential of greatness than traditionally made Piemonte wines.
Which I totally disagree with.
And for this is part of my personal fight against globalization of terroirs.
Terroirs are more and more evaluated up to their availability to give big, powerful wines each year. Huge losses in perspective, especially in southern vineyards.
So I feel allowed to make this kind of remark.

Of course I might have understood wrong.
 
It's a math problem. I wish the VLM were more supportive, since it's more his line, but really a linear scale doesn't work. You can project your vectors all on a single line and get to a scalar outcome, but you loose a huge amount of your information in the process. The same scale can indeed be used to evaluate a minivan and a Porsche, but the minivan buyer probably values the cup holders more than the Porsche buyer. And the speed through a turn may matter more to a Porsche buyer.

Plotting Muscadet and Chateauneuf on the same line leads to silliness, since it turns out that it's not really the same line, it's just that some of us pretend it is for a bit. As with minivans and Porsches, the wines have different utilities that should be recognized with different vectors.

/math

J
 
originally posted by SFJoe:
It's a math problem. I wish the VLM were more supportive, since it's more his line, but really a linear scale doesn't work. You can project your vectors all on a single line and get to a scalar outcome, but you loose a huge amount of your information in the process. The same scale can indeed be used to evaluate a minivan and a Porsche, but the minivan buyer probably values the cup holders more than the Porsche buyer. And the speed through a turn may matter more to a Porsche buyer.

Plotting Muscadet and Chateauneuf on the same line leads to silliness, since it turns out that it's not really the same line, it's just that some of us pretend it is for a bit. As with minivans and Porsches, the wines have different utilities that should be recognized with different vectors.

/math

J

I regard that not as a "math" problem, but one of (choosing the right) paradigm. However, I've almost never had problems like that in my wine-loving career (i.e. a question such as whether it's a red or a white wine).

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

J'ai gaché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ Roger Conti
 
originally posted by Brézème:
I have no objection with the use of numerical rating.
My point was more something like :

When I read your TN about the Bepe Rinaldi, I have the feeling that there is a very little room from the grower to improve his wine.

When I read the one for the Deus, you, yourself, show tracks of improvement for Pascal Morel.

Therefore and since they get the same points, it seems to me that Cambi styled Chateauneuf have more "objective" potential of greatness than traditionally made Piemonte wines.
Which I totally disagree with.
And for this is part of my personal fight against globalization of terroirs.
Terroirs are more and more evaluated up to their availability to give big, powerful wines each year. Huge losses in perspective, especially in southern vineyards.
So I feel allowed to make this kind of remark.

Of course I might have understood wrong.

That's a misunderstanding, and I do not remember saying anything the like: there should be greater potential for greatness in general for modern-styled CdP than tradionally styled Piedmontese Nebbiolo. I'm confused. The potential for getting a category (a piece of work) right is per se 100% (or 100 points on a scale). A perfect cheese cake is no less or more perfect than a perfect snail... I'm sorry, maybe I fail to see what you're getting at.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

J'ai gaché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ Roger Conti
 
originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
originally posted by David from Switzerland:
What it really means to me is something like "got the gist, on to something new".
Have you ever had a bottle so changeable, so elusive, so complicated that you felt you needed a second bottle to understand it?

Great question. It's tempting to think such a wine might exist. But no, I haven't.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

J'ai gaché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ Roger Conti
 
originally posted by SFJoe:
David, if you are interested in Malcom Gladwell's article in the recent New Yorker, which I think gets at the mathematical question in point here, though not in a formal or direct way, please shoot me a message.

As per here: http://winedisorder.com/comment/56/4826/

Best,

Joe

Always curious!

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

J'ai gaché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ Roger Conti
 
Back
Top