2019 Barolo: Much Purity and Refinement

This article has been published in partnership with World of Fine Wine and Wine Scholar Guild. 

A topsy-turvy 2019 Barolo growing season set many challenges for growers who produced wines that are classical in structure, with firm tannins and high acidity but less of the density and richness of recent warmer years, says Andrew Jefford, who was joined by Bruno Besa and Michael Palij MW.

Classical? Little in the modern wine world, save the existence of wine itself, bears a direct relationship to ancient Greek or Latin culture—so, the primary meaning of “classical” can be set aside. The secondary meaning, though, is a different matter. Barolo 2019 has been widely acclaimed as a “classical vintage”—meaning in this case that it’s reminiscent of vintages of the past. Why? Two main reasons. It was picked in mid-October, as the mists began to drape the hills; and the wines are pale, yet firmly and crisply contoured by both acidity and tannin. A close look at the growing season, though, suggests that 2019 has plenty of modern qualities to it, too.

2019 Barolo: A switchback season

Barolo finished 2018 in a sodden state—which was just as well, since 2019 (though cold, with snow in both January and February) began drily, with a delayed budburst. April was then wet and May still more so, including at flowering; the resulting coulure (shatter or flower abortion) is why 2019’s yields are up to 30 percent lower than contemporary expectations of what is normal. The overall 2019 weather pattern to this point was grouchy.

There was then a gear-grinding lurch into summer weather in June. This quickly became fierce, with a record-battering heat spike at the end of the month that affected the plants more than the fruit itself. July was then wet—the second wettest of the previous 20 years, often stormy, with another fierce heat spike (said to have reached 115°F [46°C] in Serralunga) at the end of that month, too. August, fortunately, was dry once again, and the testing heat eased. By September, though, the diurnal pulses were warm during the day and cool at night. Hail struck on September 5, particularly affecting La Morra (Bricco Manescotto and Serra dei Turchi), but with sites in Serralunga (Fontanafredda) and Grinzane Cavour (Raviole) also affected, and September overall was a wet month, too (the fifth wettest of the past 20 years). For all that, the thick skins forged in the heat of June helped the fruit lock healthily onto its maturation trajectory, and by the time harvest was under way in mid- to late October (and despite further rain on October 15 and 24), the grapes looked handsome, and few growers faced much of a challenge with the sorting.

So, yes, the season was extended—but when you look at 2019’s heat-summation figure of 3,800 growing degree days, you can see that this vintage was warmer than any between 2000 and 2010, save for 2003 and 2009. It was cooler than 2017 or 2018—but warmer than 2013, 2014, or 2015. The switchback season is typical of modern vintages, as are the daunting heat spikes; and storms and hail challenges are typical of the wild weather that climate change promises to make commonplace.

It wasn’t an easy vintage for growers to vinify, in the sense that it was clear from the outset that both tannins and acidity would be plentiful, and the fruit would therefore be crisply structured. Do you embrace the resultant tension in the wines, even at the risk of exaggerated austerity and cragginess? Or do you try to mitigate it and foil it by, for example, reducing maceration times and tweaking aging regimes to bring extra tenderness? This is a classical Barolo conundrum, it’s true, and grower responses varied. As Michael Palij MW points out, though, the growers were, in general, enthusiastic and excited about what they had created, and the wines’ critical reception has in general followed suit. We now know, too, the outline of the succeeding four vintages, which will be warmer and riper than 2019—and in 2022’s case, spectacularly so. If you consider yourself a “Barolo classicist,” 2019 should please.

High but very variable scores

How did we find the wines? Michael Palij admired the “moonshot mix” of “authoritative tannins and palate-cleansing acidity,” though he also felt that the tasting lacked consistency and “was surprised that there weren’t higher scores.” He was presumably looking across at his two fellow tasters at that point, since Michael himself found no fewer than six wines in the 97–100-point bracket (“Great wine of spellbinding beauty and resonance, leaving the drinker with a sense of wonder”), including a rare perfect score for Giovanni Corino’s Giachini from La Morra. “I really love the 2019 vintage,” said Bruno Besa, thinking notably of “the true Barolo character” and also observing the clarity of “village identity and character.” Bruno found two wines in the top-scoring 97-100-bracket, and I found one; while Bruno had eight wines scoring 95 or more compared to my three.

In general, this was a well-scored tasting, with only ten wines out of 47 failing to achieve an aggregate score of at least 90 points. It’s worth, though, noting the disparity of scores for some of the wines, holding averages in check: Eight wines had a difference of 9 to 13 points between the highest and the lowest score, suggesting a tasting for which individual taste played a larger-than-usual role. (I had jotted, immediately after the tasting and without having compared scores or seen the crib, that “what you go for this year is more than usually subjective.”) Only three wines did not win a score of at least 90 points from one of the panelists.

As the meanest scorer, my reservations center on a lack of concentration, succulence, pungency, and drama in a vintage where rain often came sweeping over the hill. There is much purity and refinement to enjoy, by contrast.

This is an extract from an article first published in WFW83. For full tasting notes and scores for all 47 wines tasted by the panel, subscribe to The World of Fine Wine.