Two Winery Visits in Lazio

[mark e]

originally posted by Levi Dalton:
Length of maceration seems pretty key to me.

Of course, it is. I doubt anyone here disagrees. But if your goal was, say, an earlier drinking young-vine Nebbiolo delle Langhe you would macerate less, but I do not think using a rotofermentor is so horrible for such a wine.

 

[Levi Dalton]

originally posted by mark e:

originally posted by Levi Dalton:
Length of maceration seems pretty key to me.

Of course, it is. I doubt anyone here disagrees. But if your goal was, say, an earlier drinking young-vine Nebbiolo delle Langhe you would macerate less, but I do not think using a rotofermentor is so horrible for such a wine.

In theory I agree with you, in practice there is a textural element that I associate with roto-wines which I do not enjoy. That said, I tend to prefer the Nebbiolo that could be considered "baby" Barolo (such as Bartolo, Accomasso, or Roddolo), not the quaffers.

 

[mark e]

originally posted by Levi Dalton:

originally posted by mark e:

originally posted by Levi Dalton:
Length of maceration seems pretty key to me.

Of course, it is. I doubt anyone here disagrees. But if your goal was, say, an earlier drinking young-vine Nebbiolo delle Langhe you would macerate less, but I do not think using a rotofermentor is so horrible for such a wine.

In theory I agree with you, in practice there is a textural element that I associate with roto-wines which I do not enjoy. That said, I tend to prefer the Nebbiolo that could be considered "baby" Barolo (such as Bartolo, Accomasso, or Roddolo), not the quaffers.

Funny, when you said that it reminded me of the tannins typical of Roero Nebbiolo. Often that texture seems a bit similar to those wines made with a rotofermentor, though in the former case it is simply the terroir. I would want to sit down with some side by side examples. But I do know what you mean: some of the firm Nebbiolo tannic typicity is lost by using the technique.

 

[Levi Dalton]

originally posted by mark e:

originally posted by Levi Dalton:

originally posted by mark e:

originally posted by Levi Dalton:
Length of maceration seems pretty key to me.

Of course, it is. I doubt anyone here disagrees. But if your goal was, say, an earlier drinking young-vine Nebbiolo delle Langhe you would macerate less, but I do not think using a rotofermentor is so horrible for such a wine.

In theory I agree with you, in practice there is a textural element that I associate with roto-wines which I do not enjoy. That said, I tend to prefer the Nebbiolo that could be considered "baby" Barolo (such as Bartolo, Accomasso, or Roddolo), not the quaffers.

Funny, when you said that it reminded me of the tannins typical of Roero Nebbiolo. Often that texture seems a bit similar to those wines made with a rotofermentor, though in the former case it is simply the terroir. I would want to sit down with some side by side examples. But I do know what you mean: some of the firm Nebbiolo tannic typicity is lost by using the technique.

Similar, but different. I see sandy terroirs as having lift, lightness, aroma. The texture I associate with rotoferment lacks grip, but not because it is light. Rather I find the texture packed in in away that I find alien. The wines can also seem dull on the nose, and lack some lift on both the nose and the palate.

 

[VLM]

originally posted by mark e:

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
Gosh, in my book rotos are a lesser evil compared to barriques.

Absolutely. You beat me to it on your post. I see it as a relatively innocuous technique that you may or may not like. Do you see seed screens used in pump-overs manipulation?

I associate it with the worst excesses of the 90s modernity in the Piedmont. It's difficult for me to dissociate it from shorter-hotter fermentation that extracted more color and darker fruit profiles. Often times technology just allows us to take something that used to be hard and make it easier and maybe rotofermenters are one of these things but I can't separate their utility from my experience with them for nebbiolo of that era.

 

[mark e]

originally posted by VLM:

originally posted by mark e:

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
Gosh, in my book rotos are a lesser evil compared to barriques.

Absolutely. You beat me to it on your post. I see it as a relatively innocuous technique that you may or may not like. Do you see seed screens used in pump-overs manipulation?

I associate it with the worst excesses of the 90s modernity in the Piedmont. It's difficult for me to dissociate it from shorter-hotter fermentation that extracted more color and darker fruit profiles. Often times technology just allows us to take something that used to be hard and make it easier and maybe rotofermenters are one of these things but I can't separate their utility from my experience with them for nebbiolo of that era.

It all depends on how you use it. But the pendulum has thankfully swung back from the worst of those years; many wines were ruined (and many of those owing to De Grazia's insistence that "his" growers use new barriques).

In any case, Levi is likely right that (shorter) maceration time should be used instead of rotofermentation, achieving a better and more aromatic result. That said, new oak is worse.

 

[Levi Dalton]

I find that I object to the caramel of French oak with Nebbiolo more than I object to the age of the oak. There are some traditional producers that have brought in newish botti and I still like the wines.

 

[Jeff Grossman]

originally posted by Levi Dalton:
I find that I object to the caramel of French oak with Nebbiolo more than I object to the age of the oak. There are some traditional producers that have brought in newish botti and I still like the wines.

Agreed that torrefaction flavors do not play nicely with nebbiolo. I'd always believed that was the toast level but it could well be French-tree-ness.

 

[Oswaldo Costa]

Farmers should not wear perfume.