Martin

This is one of the so called "traditionalist" Barolo makers, IOW you
must not count on drinking these young and get any pleasure. And 1990
being a great year, this needs another decade. Real barolo is a bit
like real chablis, no point in trying it in the first 10 years.

Another traditionalist reality in Barolo is Rinaldi. Personally, I
find Rinaldi and Bartolo Mascarello to be a refreshing change from the
big woody seductive stuff that comes out from the rest of the region.
Even Altare, who is a brilliant winemaker, uses too much wood to my
taste.

Mike

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 13:20:28 +0200, "Martin Schulz"
wrote:

For our tasting last Saturday, I brought this wine. The group agreed on

"medium ruby color with orange rim. Nose of coffee and rum pot. Extremely
acidic - lemon, grapefruit. Mouth drying tannin, but virtually no fruit."

Have a look at R.Parker's review from April 94, WA#92: 94-97 points:
" massive, with huge extraction of fruit; fabulously fragrant nose of cedar,
jammy black-cherries, herbs, and roses; extremely concentrated,
well-integrated monumental Barolo. The super level of ripeness makes this
wine very accessible, even seductive when young."

My opinion of this wine didn't change proven by a TN of the firat bottle
from november 96:
"light ruby color; austere alcoholic nose with kirsch liqueur. The wine is
dominated by the adstingent tannin which makes it virtually undrinkable, the
fruit doesn't get through. No idea what RP is talking about: massive,
monumental, seductive, ... ridiculous!

It is quite obvious that the wine RP drank and the six bottles I bought are
completely different things. What I want to know: Did they give Parker a
special "tasting nectar" or was I just unlucky with my sixpack I bought on a
cold All-Saints-Day 1994 at the winery in Barolo?

Can anybody shed some light on this issue? Or easier: How did you experience
this wine?

Martin



Mike Tommasi, Six Fours, France
email link http://www.tommasi.org/mymail