WOW. What power. I really can't describe what made this wine so striking. But, it managed to be lighter in the mouth, yet significantly more powerful than the Peter Michael Pinot. Similar fruit characteristics, but more red clay and earth notes, less boysterousness. I prefer this to the '98, which is saying a great deal. I think this went through significant decanting and this will only improve over the next 8 years, then probably last another 10. But, wow. 95(+)


a

This wine really opened up with some airtime. It was uncorked and tasted at 8:30 AM and recorked until about 8pm. The sommelier cooled the wine down a little bit and was served at a perfect temperature around 8:30 PM.

Sandrone 2000 Barolo Cannubi Boschis

It's aromatics demanded my attention and screamed nobility - a sweeping, dizzying array of flowers, dark cherries, minerals and faint tar. A fantastically elegant wine on the palate but with a lot of power lurking underneath. A standard-bearing Barolo that will be stunning in a few years. 95 points.

Great to hear that the 2000 is that good

I have yet to try a 2000... but I am a bit skeptical about all the hype around them from what I've been hearing. This is one of the first tastings I've heard that's kinda lived up to the hype.

DJ - I tasted a bunch of 2000s on our trip to Italy. I don't believe the 100 point hype (how could a vintage get a 100 if all of the wines don't score a 100????) but the quality level of the 2000s was very high across many wineries. Much like 2000 Bordeaux - it was almost hard to make bad wine.

I've tasted a handful of 2000 Nebbiolos and they have all been very good. I'm also tasting a few more this weekend, so I'll let you know how they go as well.

I've had the pleasure of tasting a few 2000 Piemontes over the last 3-4 days. I must say I've been impressed with every one. They're freakin GOOD.

Quote:

---

I prefer this to the '98, which is saying a great deal.

---

Wow.. really??? That '98 is tremendous!!! Ok.. this is going on my buy list.. thanks for the great TN.

Burgundy/ruby core with a garnet rim. This showed a medium nose of vanillin, dried roses, black cherry, light red fruits and earth. Medium body, medium plus intensity and medium plus acidity. The palate followed through with medium-to-medium plus tannin. While very good this vintage semed to lack a little of the structure that I usually associate with Cannubi from Sandrone. I think the more 2000's I drink I realize how much I prefer 1996, 1998, 1999.

Kinda "medium" wine for ya? I imagine you'd enjoy 2001s, based on what I know about your palate.

Hey I use it a lot, but everyone can understand low, medium and high. How do you judge nice and good?

I appreciate your consistent approach to writing your TNs. Have you tried any 1998s recently, Sandrone or other Barolo/Barbarescos? I wonder if they are tight and in a sleeping phase.

My higher end '98s are definitely sleeping soundly for a few more years.... last time I tried one about a year ago it was extreme wine infanticide

I agree with Brad that most 1998's I have tried lately have been shut down. I would wait another 4-5 years on them.

Re-visited last night. Was my WOTN over a 1990 Margaux (as well as some others). This did not show off the way it did with Jaimetown. Nevertheless, this remains a special wine. The purity of fruit really is historic, as is the velour (sp?) mouthfeel. This was showing just a hint of sage and thyme but not the great gravely soil I'd hoped for. It is hard for me to say if the issue is bottle variation or time-line, as the last time I tried this was over 2 1/2 years ago. Nevertheless, this continues to be an incredible wine. I would wait about 3-4 years for this to hit its prime, though. 93.5(+?)

Thanks for the TN whiner.

I took a bottle of this to a Barolo throw-down at Dino in December and I think I might have over-aerated it (opened around 8am, re-corked and served at restaurant around 10 pm) - whatever it was, it did not show very well, though it was in some mighty company. For purity, balance and precision, a Giacosa 1996 Barolo (Falletto perhaps?) was truly amazing.

I'm guessing by the relatively high scores that the oak treatment on this wine is fairly unobtrusive. I know that Sandrone is more closely aligned with the 'modern' camp of Barolos, therefore a bit higher oak and fruit levels are expected.

I just purchased some of the 01 Le Vigne but seem to think all of the wines (Le Vigne and Cannubi Boschis) since 1996 are probably pretty darned good...

Blair,

I deffinitely think of Sandrone as a crossover-type house. Yes, more modern, but one that would appeal to tradionalists as well. (Contrasted with La Spinetta, which I also love, which I can see real traditionalists having a problem with on account of its modern style.) You are right to expect more up-front fruit and oak than you would with, say, a Conterno (either).

I've had several of the '96-on Sandrone Barolos and I've neve scored anything lower than a 93. That said, I was sure this was going to be a 'blow-down-the-door' wine and it did not live up to that expectation on this last try. (It did, however, best a 1990 Margaux, which, I suppose, is saying something..)

I do like the Cannubi a lot, but I don't know if I'll buy Le Vigne anymore - there are a lot of other interesting (and site specific) Barolos I would opt for nowadays.