When I visited Maria Teresa Mascarello in Barolo last spring one of the questions I asked her was, “Who has been the most detrimental to the state of barolo, the Wine Spectator, Parker, Marco DeGrazia or wine consultants?
Maria Theresa getting me some tastes of the 2003
She laughed. She found this all amusing. “All of them go in the same direction of modern barolo. But all of them needed to learn from Luigi Veronelli," she said referring to the late, most prominent Italian wine critic.
“I do not like this American way of judging wine," she continued. "Veronelli connected the culture to the wine, he judged wine in its context.” Then she said, with a scorn-edge in her voice, “Do you know, Wine Spectator’s James Suckling said my 2001 wine smelled like a room with two dogs in it!”
What she didn’t know was that Suckling gave it an 84. Here's the review.
Very funky. Smells like a warm room with two wet dogs in it. Yet some of the funk blows off, giving it lovely plum and berry character. Medium-bodied, with a sweet fruit finish. Drink now. 1,570 cases made. –JS
That review is one of the more squirrelly I've ever seen. If I were Marvin I’d think about sending Suckling to the mailroom. Even if it did smell like two dogs at the beginning, he was sharp enough to note that it blew off and what remained didn't seem so 84-ish. What was it he didn't like, the wine's elegance? The wine changed. It was alive. How did he miss the wine's soul?
I don't like scores for wine. I find them meaningless, however when the rest of the world sees an 84 as negative, I usually think (especially from Parker or the WS) it might be an interesting wine. And so I needed to taste the wine for myself. Anyway, if there was a dog or two in that wine, in a young barolo I wouldn't find that a negative. After all, a Mascarello barolo is not a Super Tuscan, a wine Suckling, I believe, is more familiar with.
I mentioned my desire to friend Jeremy, who when he is not gigging with his faux French band (or helping out his wife with her Klezmerish band's gigs) works at Vino, the most excellent New York City Italian wine store. Some new world-ish wines squeak through on their shelves, mostly it's a non-spoofulated Italian wine shop.
Jeremy got right to it, set up a blind tasting and invited me to join them. In attendance were some of his co-workers and the erudite Charles Scicolone.
Four wines had been decanted for three hours. Out of the four, the Mascarello was the most pure. It was young and it was beautiful.
No hint of any dogs in a room. The wine was almost intensely perfumed, shockingly so for a barolo so young. I must admit the appearance of wood through me for a loop. I'm not used to it on the Mascarello wine. I wonder if this is the first year she bought replacement barrels?
There was a little pickle under the flowery, cherry aroma. Palate was bright cherry, rosy and chestnut honey. Missing for me as far as classic notes was some licorice. And, I was confused by the tannins. There were wood tannins mixed in with the mostly rustic barolo tannins of old and I love so well.
Bottom line, this wine is in the market for under $90. Would I buy it if I could? Absolutely. I think that wine is going to be fascinatingly lovely in ten years, maybe even in seven. The wine is extremely powerful, complex, young and growing.
The other wines blind tasted:
2001 Clerico Ginestra. Weird and grossly unpleasant. Where's the grape? Very dark and brooding and showed lanolin of all things and lots of cookie dough.
2001 Paolo Scavino Carobric: There's a caramel coated something going on here with caraway seed and brussels sprout underneath some brown shoe polish. Tannins had been erased. I have no idea how someone made this out of nebbiolo.
2001 Fennocchio Villero
Hey, I liked it. Not 'important' but at $40 it was a cheerful barolo that definitely tasted and smelled like the grape (at this point, I'm easy. If it smells like barolo. I'm sold). Some tea, some grass, some luden cherry but nice barolo-ish suede tannin and a nice bitter finish.
Recent Comments