The 2000 Barolos are "largely fading" ?

Says Italian wine critic Antonio Galloni in the current (2-28-11) issue of the Wine Advocate, right now "only a handful of 1997 [Barolos] have the potential to continue to develop gracefully. Today the 2000s are largely fading....Both of those vintages are defined by what I consider to be the kiss of death for long-lived, elegant Barolo -- a harvest under excessively hot temperatures, particularly at night."

But isn't that a U-turn, not about the obviously early-drinking 1997s (I drank all mine a while ago) but for the 2000s, from a Piedmont year the Wine Spectator and Wine Advocate both rated 95, the later publication only a little more than two years ago appending a "T" to designate "Still tannic, youthful, or slow to mature." Galloni's shift seems inconsistent, but still I don't want to take chances with my 2000 Barolos so today I pulled out of the cellar a Damilano, the least expensive 2000 I could find -- on the theory that the cheapest might be the shortest lived -- and drank it tonight with a lamb shank. Despite a rotten looking red cork the wine was fine. Roses and cherries on the nose gave way to smooth tannins, raisins and a touch of earth on mid-palate and then a reassuring finish. I'd give the wine a 90. If you say a point more or a couple less I wouldn't argue. But whatever the score The Damilano was in good shape and seemed to me to have the structure to hang in there for at least a few more years.

So what's up with the 2000 Barolos? Do you agree or disagree with Galloni?

I probably should have included Mr. Galloni's comment that he would have "more to say" on the 2000s in the Wine Advocate's April issue.

But in the meantime I'd appreciate getting others' impressions of the vintage.

[David M. Bueker]

I have not had enough 2000 Barolo to form an opinion, but if I was going to trust anyone it would be Antonio.

Maybe an idea for next month's Wine Focus?

I agree, David. I put a lot of stock in Galloni's TNs.

In my experience '97 Barolos were mostly clearly affected by the hot vintage, and I wouldn't suggest buying them or aging them further if you have them.

The 2000s were also clearly from a warmer vintage, but were better wines, good short and possibly medium term drinking but not classic, not for long aging.

How the '00 vintage was dubbed 'of the century' I have no idea, I doubt you could find a single producer in the Langa who would agree, particularly given the extraordinary vintages that surrounded '97 and '00.

[David M. Bueker]

Over on eBob, Antonio has been called to be more than a tease with his info. Not much forthcoming, but he is clear that the wines at the very top tier are fine, but second division (and some of the second division he mentions (e.g. Vietti, Brovia) are excellent producers, despite what one poster has to say about how they are third rate - a poster who has consistently railed against all things WA despite his being a subscriber) are not going ot get any better and should be drunk up.

As all I have is Giacosa I am not worried.

Maybe an idea for next month's Wine Focus?

Think an Open Mike might be better as I am not sure many here have any in the cellar.

[David M. Bueker]

Maybe an idea for next month's Wine Focus?

Think an Open Mike might be better as I am not sure many here have any in the cellar.

I agree with Bob - especially considering the price of entry for Barolo.

And I agree with Bob and David that probably not enough of us have sufficient 2000s to justify a Wine Focus.

But the price issue shouldn't always preclude buying Barolo. Bargains are to be found. For example, the perfectly respectable 2000 Damilano I wrote about above cost me only $29 in December 2004.

[David M. Bueker]

But we're not likely to find those bargains now...

If people want to discuss the 2000 Barolo we can potentially make this thread a sticky!

Galloni's shift seems inconsistent, but still I don't want to take chances with my 2000 Barolos so today I pulled out of the cellar a Damilano, the least expensive 2000 I could find -- on the theory that the cheapest might be the shortest lived -- and drank it tonight with a lamb shank. Despite a rotten looking red cork the wine was fine. Roses and cherries on the nose gave way to smooth tannins, raisins and a touch of earth on mid-palate and then a reassuring finish. I'd give the wine a 90. If you say a point more or a couple less I wouldn't argue. But whatever the score The Damilano was in good shape and seemed to me to have the structure to hang in there for at least a few more years.

Very useful data point Clint, since I'm taking one of my 2000 Damilano's to WLDG offline next weekend. Will report back!

I had to see for myself, and opened a bottle tonight. I don't know what tier Cappellano falls into since his wines are not reviewed, but it is not fading.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=37897

This evening, after it overnighted in a 375, we drank the second half of the 2000 Damilano we opened two nights ago. It was better than ever and left us convinced it is still a young wine. Remember this is a bottle with an almost fully flushed cork, evidence of overheating at some point before it arrived at my temperature-controlled cellar. But of course one bottle doesn't prove or disprove Galloni's theory.

Put me in the "hard to believe they are fading, but I never thought this was a vintage for long aging camp." I have quite a bit more '96, '98, '99, '01, '04 than I have of either '97 or '00 (I own zero '03).

Seeing as the 2000s came out on the market just as I was really starting to get into Italian wines, I don't have many notes from this vintage, and nothing from less than three years ago. Anyway, I'll definitely be very interested to read others' impressions of where the 2000 Barolos are at today. Maybe I'll even have to find a bottle to try for myself.

Hi Clint,

Based on a 2000 Barolo tasted last August at MoCool, I would say for the better barolos this is not true. My brother James brought a 2000 Paolo Scavino that was decanted for 2 hours and still was quite tannic and somewhat closed. It opened up with time but could easily have aged 3-5 more years in the bottle and improved.

I would also trust the opinion of Oliver McCrum that 2000 may not be for classically long aging.

(I have yet to drink a Barolo old enough to know if I even like them.)

"Drink 2005-2018," was the Wine Advocate prediction for the 20000 Fontanafredda Vigna La Rosa Barolo when the WA gave it 91 points on release way back when. We made the mistake of decanting ours for an hour tonight before dinner, and what we were left with was the delicate shadow of the fine and fruity wine it probably was as recently as three or four years ago. Wish we had drunk it then. As we know, recently Antonio Galloni pronounced the 2000s to be on their way down hill, and if this one is representative his view is on the mark.

Clint, this was when he was doing Piedmont Report? Or has Galloni been at WA that long? It'll be interesting to see how Galloni's view evolve. It's comparatively easy for him to reverse course on wines that Daniel Thomases reviewed, tougher on ones Parker himself praised.

Good question, Dale, but I haven't been subscribing to the Wine Advocate long enough to answer it. Apparently I got the WA score and drinking window prediction off the Garagiste email ad for the wine some time last year when I ordered the wine, and I assumed the WA critic was Antonio Galloni. Will someone correct me if Galloni wasn't reviewing Italy for Parker then. My notes also indicate that when Garagiste's usually reliable Jon Rimmerman sold the wine to me in 2010 (for $59.64) he noted it was "ready to drink now." I'd say it was more than ready.

Clint, this was when he was doing Piedmont Report? Or has Galloni been at WA that long? It'll be interesting to see how Galloni's view evolve. It's comparatively easy for him to reverse course on wines that Daniel Thomases reviewed, tougher on ones Parker himself praised.

I think that it must have been before Galloni's arrival at TWA. Part of the presumed impetus for the switch of reviewers was the lack of timely reviews of the '01 Piemontese wines, so I doubt that Galloni would have retroactively reviewed the '00s after his arrival.

Mark Lipton

I just googled "Daniel Thomases Wine Advocate" and got an eRP page that states he reviewed Italian wines for 3 years starting in 2003, sounds like he was likely reviewer of the 2000s. I think Galloni has only been there 2-3 years. I just looked at the WA Buying Guide published in 2002, just lists RP and Rovani. So I guess Parker did the '97s. While the WA tries to project infallibility, it's easier to modify opinions on wines reviewed bygone critics than founder.

On a slightly different subject, not to Parker bash, but besides this book the other Parker book I own is the 1982 (I think) edition of "Bordeaux." Lots to like about the book. But I had the best time recently thumbing through and reading of reviews of wines I've had recently and enjoyed that he called dead or dying, needing to be drunk up, or just poor wines, almost 30 years ago. Of course I tend to like wines older than many others.

On a slightly different subject, not to Parker bash, but besides this book the other Parker book I own is the 1982 (I think) edition of "Bordeaux." Lots to like about the book. But I had the best time recently thumbing through and reading of reviews of wines I've had recently and enjoyed that he called dead or dying, needing to be drunk up, or just poor wines, almost 30 years ago. Of course I tend to like wines older than many others.

Yeah, I think that many of us who started out taking Parker's "windows" as gospel learned that his "drink by" dates in no way signified the death of the wine. This goes tenfold for the Cellartracker "drinking window" dates, which IME almost always underestimate the longevity of a wine. Of course, caveats exist re cellar temperature, personal taste, etc. (though it's telling that you and I both have passively cooled cellars that have excursions well above the "ideal" of 50°/55° or whatever and yet enjoy "dead" wines pulled from those warm cellars).

Mark Lipton