Traditional vs. Modern Nebbiolo

[Craig Camp]

Manuel Marchetti of Marcarini recently pointed out to me that the concept that "modern" style nebbiolo is more drinkable in its youth an illusion. His contention is that heavily oaked wines are actually more disjointed in their youth with erratic wood and alcohol flavors dominating the wines. In contrast he points out that traditional wines (Like his Baroli) may be very tannic in their youth, but as they are minimally processed the flavors and balance of the wine is never hidden and the taster actually gets a clearer picture of the wine itself and of the potential of the wine to age and develop in the future.

I find that I am in agreement with this hypothesis. Certainly ultra-modern styles stand out dramatically on the tired palate during long tastings, but to actually drink such wines is extremely tiring. However, young traditional Barolo with extended breathing can be very enjoyable with appropriate meals.

Is the concept of heavily oaked wines being more approachable in their youth an illusion? It is clear that the intensely oaked wines stand out in group tastings, but which is really better to put on the dinner table in their youth - modern or traditional?

[Boris_A]

that traditional wines .... may be very tannic in their youth, but as they are minimally processed the flavors and balance of the wine is never hidden and the taster actually gets a clearer picture of the wine itself and of the potential of the wine to age and develop in the future.

I remember very well when I bought some years ago Châteauneuf Clos des Papes 1995 (shortly after release), for sure a traditional wine (not nebbiolo, of course).

We tasted the wine in the beginning of the meal and it showed rather harsh tannins and I was a bit decepted. But together with meat and with the mouth coated (impregnated) with tannins, from sip to sip the underlying fruit evolved very pure and beautiful. In the end, we opened another bottle (for 3 persons) and liked it very much.

Last time I opened a bottle (two yeras ago), I found it having closed down, but I have no doubt that today or in 5 years, it will reemerge nicely.

Anyway, in my opinion a traditional (tannic, that is) young wine with enough underlying fruit can make a much better showing if consumed with a meal rather than tasted in a serie.

[Brad Ballinger]

I find that I am in agreement with this hypothesis. Certainly ultra-modern styles stand out dramatically on the tired palate during long tastings, but to actually drink such wines is extremely tiring. However, young traditional Barolo with extended breathing can be very enjoyable with appropriate meals.

Is the concept of heavily oaked wines being more approachable in their youth an illusion? It is clear that the intensely oaked wines stand out in group tastings, but which is really better to put on the dinner table in their youth - modern or traditional?

Interesting proposition. I agree with the point about the dramatic impact a modernist Barolo or Barbaresco wine may make at a large tasting. And most of the time when I've had these wines young, it has been in small doses causing me to think "hmmm, maybe I need to rethink my stance on traditionalist v. modernist." But the point you make about drinking a whole bottle (or half) in a setting brings me back to reality.

This is an issue (as Boris alludes) with all wines made in this style, and not just nebbiolo. People I know buy these style of wines for the impression they make based on perhaps a glass or only a taste. Even when they pull the cork from a bottle, they are showing these wines off to a larger group, and still aren't forced to drink a significant amount of it.

And the Baroli that have had the most appeal to me in their youth have been produced by the traditionalists.