Community Tasting Note

• baroloboy55 wrote: 94 points

  December 25, 2015 - Purchased on the recommendation of Sotto 325. I had a bottle in Barcelona in June that was absolutely transcendent. This bottle, decanted and aired an hour or two came across as tighter, a hint of spice from the American oak, and in need of evolution, but still impeccably made, balanced, clay soil, tempranillo spiciness, destined for greatness, but without the silkiness of the first bottle... Makes me wonder whether there are different lots of this wine, but happy to own

  1 person found this helpful 4,801 views

4 Comments

• Sotto325 commented:

  12/26/15, 8:36 AM - Excellent palate! Needs time. Not as. Amiable as the 904.

• digitalis commented:

  2/19/16, 4:15 AM - Very interesting you make that comment about different lots. Having purchased bottles of this at two different times and from different places, I noticed that bottles have different 'total bottles made' numbers across labels. I got in contact with La Rioja Alta about this and, after some to-and-fro, it transpires that there are 3 number runs; an X series, a Y series and a Z series. You can see this letter designation next to your bottle number. They insist that this does not translate to 3 different batches of the wine, the whole lot being bottled in one go. So far I have had one bottle each from my two batches (one from the X series and one from the Z series) and, although I did not have them at the same time, my impression was that they had different characters, the X series one being heavier and the Z more elegant. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, this variation could arise due to many possible and innocent means. For example, differences in storage post-release or perhaps they bottled directly from cask or from multiple blending vats?
  In any case, they have now stopped the practice of using multiple number series; 2001 was the last year they did it.

• Sotto325 commented:

  2/19/16, 5:31 AM - Very insightful comments both-- and of course the Nebbiolo expertise of baroloboy was incisive here. I will guess that in time the experience we all three had will not be significant as the wine matures. Note too some of the comments on the 2004 890 possibly being new world. Hope that is wrong and in any event corrected in the 2005.

• digitalis commented:

  2/19/16, 6:11 AM - @sotto325
  I dearly hope you're correct about the maturation. However, that depends critically on the reason for the variation.
  I would also like to share your hope that the 2004 vintage is just a blip in terms of new-world style. However, I can't escape the observation that even the 2001 shows signs of departing from the old-world style (especially the X series bottle I had). I think the commercial pressures are just too great, even for these guardians of the old school. Over the past 40 years it is an unavoidable truth that the average number of rackings has reduced, along with time spent in barrel, at nearly all of the big 'traditional' producers. I am also convinced that incremental changes to decision-making concerning barrel selection and management have been having gradually impacting the style over the past few decades.
  My feeling is that 2001 marked a turning point for many Rioja winemakers, based on my own experiences of the wines.
  
  Yes, perhaps 890 2005 will be better than the 2004. I am certainly enjoying the 904 2005 more than the 2004. Giving producers the benefit of the doubt, I would say that I've found 2004 Riojas to be consistently heavy and inelegant, putting it down to the character of the vintage itself.

Add a Comment