The 2000 Barolos are "largely fading" ?

Thanks, Dale, for the correction. I've edited my posting on the Fontanafredda to indicate that the Wine Advocate, not Antonio Galloni, did the initial TN and drinking window prediction. My apologies to AG.

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).

OK, my book is actually 1985 (first) edition. I understand the vagaries of the auguries of drinking windows. Actually my biggest objections to DW projections at WA is the 30 to 50 year windows for the ooze monsters. I'd prefer someone erring on early side. But in the cases I'm most amused by in the '85 book, my guess it is less "bad augury" than not realizing he had a bad/cooked bottle, and still issuing these definitive windows. I'm not talking about the "agreeable" 79 DDC needing to be drunk by 1990 (hey, I liked it last month!), but the 71 DDC being "decrepit, senile, short, past prime-67 pts," the 79 Pape Clement being "light, shallow, drink in 4 years (1988)-76," 70 Canon being "fully mature, drink immediately 84, " and even Sauternes - the 71 Rayne Vigneau being "hot, unbalanced, drink up 75". Plenty of others, those are just wines I've drunk with folks here.

Oh yeah, and then there's the weird WS windows, where Suckling seemed to aim for "when will this wine be most likely to be shut down."

Thanks, Dale, for the correction. I've edited my posting on the Fontanafredda to indicate that the Wine Advocate, not Antonio Galloni, did the initial TN and drinking window prediction. My apologies to AG.

Clint, I think no apologies needed. WA hasn't made an effort from what I can see to differentiate critics, they are dependent on the RP mystique. So not surprising you couldn't keep up.
Anyway, back to original subject, while I'm not a 2000 fan, I'd think at least the more traditional producers should be good for another 5-10.

A few months ago, I opened up a Cinestra Barolo and a famiglia anselma barolo, both 2000's to see if the modern style was the one breaking down versus the traditional (Anselma being a defender of the faith). Neither were remotely downhill, in fact as expected, the Anselma as painfully closed and tannic and needed a few days of air.....

Tonight a 2000 Villero Barolo came to my table dead on arrival, stinking of alcohol and with little resembling what had been on release a Wine Advocate 93 point wine. And a few days ago I reported an over the hill 2000 Fonannafredda Vigna La Rosa. So to date I have tasted two sad, faded wines that support Galloni's theory.

But so far we also have tasted three 2000s that are doing just fine, including my previously reported delicious Damilano, Diane's "not fading" Cappellano, and Tom N.'s Paulo Scavino, which he said "could easily have aged 3-5 more years...and improved."

Has anyone else tested a 2000 Barolo?

Yup. Sperss. And - surprise! - it was not fading; in fact it was not even ready. But Gaja is not representative, of course. After all, he made his best wines ever, IMHO, in 1997...

Greetings from Sweden / Fredrik L

But so far we also have tasted three 2000s that are doing just fine, including my previously reported delicious Damilano . . . .

Can add a second data point for the Damilano, from my bottle opened at IndyFest this past weekend:

Damilano, Barolo 2000
Cherry, blackberry, hint mushroom, hint leather. Vinous, great body, a riper style, but a perfect Barolo. Still tannic and taut, just now reaching drinkability.

Day 2:
2nd day, after several hours of slow breathing, plus a full day recorked with airspace. Medium garnet. On the palate, cherry, blackberry, chocolate, mineral/granite, and leathery earth; as it opens a hint of juicy currant/plum. A somewhat riper style, but with great tone, and still very Barolo. Now, the nose, which encapsulates this wine and why I love it: deep and rich cherry, blackberry, chocolate, and leathery earth; as it opens, so many things emerge in turn (and are reflected on the palate) - orange rind, roses, mushroom/forest floor, wet gravel, and tobacco; one of my favorite noses ever. Great body and persistance; savory, and with aromatic drive. For me, this is stylistically perfect. My favorite Piedmonte red to date. This has just now arrived at drinkability from youth. It's future presents a difficult decision: to drink it in 5 years, when its fruit is still youthfull, or to drink in 10 years, when it should display a beautiful maturity. I'll be looking forward either way. I love this Barolo! ****

Ryan, your Damilano TN describes my bottle perfectly. And, damnit, that was my last one.

Ryan, your Damilano TN describes my bottle perfectly. And, damnit, that was my last one.

I've got one more, and why oh why didn't I get more back when it was only $30? Current prices not as good . . . . might have to get more anyway.

Oddly enough, this ended up being paired with roast beef (a la crock pot with a package of onion soup mix thrown in), and gravy. That was a fantastic match! For the purposes of food matches, you could almost treat this like a Graves.