2017 Comm. G.B. Burlotto Barolo

Community Tasting Notes (27) Avg Score: 91.2 points

• Options

  • Post a Comment
  • View atbarbar's profile
  • Report Issue

  3/2/2024 - atbarbar wrote: 90 Points

  Tasted side-by-side Burlotto's Monvigliero 2017, basic Barolo 2017 and basic Barolo 2016. Wide differences among all of them. The basic 2017 looked tawny on the rim, was much hotter and developed than the Monvigliero 2017, which had a much lighter and more ruby color. The 2016 was completely different from both. Darker color, deeper nose and less developed, it clearly had a different wood program with a lot of licorice in the aftertaste. Monvigliero 2017 was packed with flowers, dried roses and violets, very sweet tannins. Sweetness also in the basic 2017, face powder but a hotter more alcoholic background, kirschy cherries. Tannins in the the Monvigliero are refined, small-grained. In the 2017 they are a bit sandy, upfront. The basic 2017 appears more developed in some dimensions, like color and some tertiary notes, but tannins require more time in the bottle they are grippy with a green vein. Overall unbalanced wine, I would strongly suggest to skip basic 2017 at this point since its development is unclear. Back to Monvigliero 2017, after the dried flowers, some spices peep through (like mace) and a freshness of methol or eucaliptus. Some delicate tobacco leaves in the background. Some cheese as well, but that was a common thread to all of them. The 2016 requires still some wood integration and it appears a touch more modern than the other two with more concentration. All of them very interesting wines, but clearly 2017 was a challenge for Burlotto basic Barolo.

  1 person found this helpful, do you? Yes - No / Comment

• Options

  • Post a Comment
  • View astroman's profile
  • Report Issue

  1/20/2024 - astroman Likes this wine: 93 Points

  Lunch with D in HK (The Victuals): Polish, red fruits, mineral with good lift, med to light body, lovely on the palate with good acid and long finish. Excellent stuff

  1 person found this helpful, do you? Yes - No / Comment

• Options

  • Post a Comment
  • View Raage's profile
  • Report Issue

  12/29/2023 - Raage wrote: 91 Points

  Je voulais la rose.. et je l’ai pas eue.
  Bar a vins, Rome, conseillé.
  Plus structuré qu’esperé, serré, boisé présent (coco) mais texture fine derrière. Une heure de carafe et le vin s’est délié, plus minéral, plus aéré. Fruits noirs, épices, il n’offrait pas le côté floral attendu, mais c’est noble, classique, distingué.
  Au final, voici un barolo solide et fin, mais qui ne m’a pas marqué par sa magie.
  Prix conséquent

  1 person found this helpful, do you? Yes - No / Comment

• Options

  • Post a Comment
  • View Burgnick's profile
  • Report Issue

  9/9/2023 - Burgnick Likes this wine: 90 Points

  Rose petal, tar and cherry. Medium bodied palate. Quite clean and precise. Good for its level. 90+

  Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment

• Options

  • Post a Comment
  • View Tim Heaton's profile
  • Report Issue

  7/29/2023 - Tim Heaton Likes this wine:

  PnP that offered a pleasant, upside surprise. Plenty of freshness, despite the overarching vintage characteristics dominating similar wines of the region in this year. Earthy, round, red>dark red fruits, with plenty of supporting acidity and sweet, spherical tannins, etc; satisfyingly linear, elegant, even. Can be enjoyed now, or, you may choose to wait another 6-7 years, and check in on it then - which I may well do with my remaining four bottles, though I make no such promise. recommended.
  
  https://www.ItalianWine.blog

  5 people found this helpful, do you? Yes - No / Comment

View all 27 Community Tasting Notes

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 below. Learn more.