Professional reviews have copyrights and you can view them here for your personal use only as private content. To view pro reviews you must either subscribe to a pre-integrated publication or manually enter reviews. Learn more.
Manage Subscriptions
Important Update From the Founder
Read message >
Label borrowed from 1983
Label borrowed from 1981
Label borrowed from 1981
Label borrowed from 1984
Label borrowed from 1980
Label borrowed from 1979
Label borrowed from 1978
Label borrowed from 1987
Label borrowed from 1975
Label borrowed from 1989
Label borrowed from 1990
Label borrowed from 1974
Label borrowed from 1990
Label borrowed from 1973
Label borrowed from 1973
Label borrowed from 1991
Label borrowed from 1992
Label borrowed from 1971
Label borrowed from 1971
Label borrowed from 1993
Label borrowed from 1971
Label borrowed from 1971
Label borrowed from 1970
Community Tasting Notes 8
-
Sean Tay wrote: 92 points
April 30, 2023 - Medium nose intensity with notes of dried cranberry, dried strawberry, mushroom, toast. Medium+ acidity and medium tannin. Did not decant. Nose is still aromatic but palate feel little tired.
-
Sean Tay wrote:
June 15, 2020 - Had 8 bottles of it. Drank 6 bottles as per this note, of which 3 are drinking very well and had a good smell. And the other 3 had musky, wet cardboard, or probably faulty. These 2 bottles are aromatic, had leather, mushroom, truffle and cooked red fruits. Medium+ tannin and medium acidity. A distinctive difference is on the cork itself, I realised that a damp or soil cork usually had a better chance of 'drinkable wine' whereas a clean cork for an old vintage usually turns out to be 'undrinkable wine'. That's my observation of these 6/8 bottles from the same source. Provided that the bottle is kept properly, the wines can be kept for easily 5-10 years.
-
Sean Tay wrote:
June 5, 2020 - Had two bottles for the night. One was drinking perfectly without decanting, no musky smell. Pale ruby in colour. Chocolate, coffee, dried red fruits, mushroom, medium+ tannin, medium acidity. It seems like a perfect bottle. Unfortunately, the second bottle had musky, wet cardboard, burnt tyres smell, and the colour pale amber.
-
Sean Tay wrote:
June 3, 2020 - Dried cranberry, dried strawberry, mushroom, tobacco, smoke, cedar, Medium+ tannin, medium acidity. Surprising fresh for a 1982 Barolo which I had no expectation. Valued for $ for a King of Italian Wine and an outstanding vintage. Should be at its peak even though i feel it can be kept for another 5 years easily. Slow oxygen decanting without decanter.
-
cct wrote:
February 1, 2019 - 1982 piedmont Retrospective (Fausto, Brooklyn): 1982's at Fausto
Dark fruited and foursquare. Thin in the midpalate, with acid that seems out of balance and chewy tannins. Varietally correct, forgettable bottle of wine.
1 - 5 of 8
More notes
Wine Definition
- Vintage 1982
- Type Red
- Producer Marchesi di Barolo
- Varietal Nebbiolo
- Designation n/a
- Vineyard n/a
- Country Italy
- Region Piedmont
- SubRegion Langhe
- Appellation Barolo
- UPC Code 8004910337036
Community Holdings
- Pending Delivery 0 (0%)
- In Cellars 33 (59%)
- Consumed 23 (41%)
Food Pairing
No food pairings available.
Who Likes This Wine
50% Like It 2 votes
Add Articles
- Wine1982 Marchesi di Barolo Barolo (add)
- FamilyMarchesi di Barolo Barolo (add)
- ProducerMarchesi di Barolo
- VarietalNebbiolo
- CountryItaly
- RegionPiedmont
- SubRegionLanghe
- AppellationBarolo