The Essential Guide To Barbaresco

Like Barolo, Barbaresco was first delimited as a DOC in 1966 and became, along with Barolo and the Tuscan pair, Vino Nobile di Montepulciano and Brunello di Montalcino, the first four DOCGs of Italy in 1980. Unlike Barolo, the boundaries assigned to Barbaresco have remained as they were drawn up.

The DOCG for Barbaresco requires;

• 100% Nebbiolo grapes

• Vineyard altitudes: no minimum, but a 550 m maximum

• Area under vine: 578 ha

• Maximum production per hectare: 54 hL/ha (7,200 bottles)

• Ageing is 26 months from 1st November following harvest. So allowed to be released 1 year earlier than Barolo
  Minimum 9 months of that ageing in wood
  Riserva can be applied once the wine is aged for 50 months (from 1st November after harvest)

• Minimum alcohol: 12.5% by volume

• Minimum total acidity: 4.5 g/L

• Minimum dry extract: 22 g/L

• Production: up to nearly 4 million bottles/year. E.g., the 2018 production was 378,000 cases.

The DOCG zone of Barbaresco, just north-east of Alba, takes in 4 townships (compared to the 11 of Barolo); 3 of them in their entirety.

• Barbaresco

• Neive

• Treiso

• Alba, specifically only the locality of San Rocco Seno Elvio.

There are 66 MGAs (Additional Geographic Mentions) for Barbaresco, but no allowance for Comune MGA labelling (unlike Barolo’s Barolo del Comune di Serralunga or La Morra ie the 11 townships). Similarly to Barolo, there are a few specific sub-plot mentions allowed, most notably the Camp Gros and Gaiun portions of the Martinenga Cru or Santo Stefano of Albesani.

Despite having essentially the same soils as Barolo, the differences both within Barbaresco and from Barolo, would seem to be that the predominant soils are mostly the same grey-white marls as are dominant on that ‘softer’ western (left-hand) side of the Barolo map and that in a macro sense, Barbaresco is warmer and its vineyards are predominantly at lower altitudes than Barolos. There are patches of the more ‘severe’ let’s say, Serralunga (right-hand) type soils, but aspect and altitude tend to be the determinants of style and structure. While Barbaresco is indeed harvested earlier (about 2 weeks) and released and regarded as drinkable a little earlier than Barolo, it certainly doesn’t lack layering, structure and zing to complement its perfume and elegance. Nor do they lack in the age-worthiness department; I’d be pretty keen and confident to share anyone’s bottle of ’78 Giacosa Barbaresco Santo Stefano Riserva, or an ’85 Marchesi di Gresy Barbaresco Gaiun, if you happened to have one?

It’s fairly universally agreed that the definite Grands Cru (as mentioned before, an unofficial terminology) are the adjoining magic trio of Asili, Martinenga and Rabaja, just below Barbaresco township (of Barbaresco comune). Some would, reasonably, like to add nearby Paje, and others (like me) must have the Santo Stefano sub-plot of Albesani (in Neive commune) in there. Barbaresco (comune) has nearly half the zone’s MGAs, and it tends to claim pre-eminence. Stylistically, the wines have real elegance underpinning intense and layered perfumes of red fruits and flowers allied to a real zingy structure and finish. Neive comune wines are generally characterised by more toughness (tautness?) of structure, reserve and generally darker elements. Some austere and tannic wines are found in Treiso and often need quite some breathing. Some very nice, if not widely celebrated Barbaresco wines come from San Rocco Seno d’Elvio/Alba. In fact, the first-ever bottle, actually labelled as Barbaresco, apparently came from here (in 1870).

Because of its relative (to Barolo) lightness and elegance I think Barbaresco finds it harder to hide (or should I say ‘accommodate’?) both adverse vintage conditions and winemaking faults. The vintages here don’t always line up with Barolo; 2013 eg being clearly better to great for Barolo and mostly just very good for Barbaresco. 2014 is generally the reverse. Only time will tell if the recent, exceptional 2017 or 2010 vintages are as great as ’85 or 1978, but whatever happens they continue a pretty good run. Having tried plenty of wines from all vintages over the last couple of decades, I’d group them something like this;

• Too hard, too wet or just too hot – 2002, 2003

• Good, with many good examples, including oldies still going well – 2005, 2008, 2011, 2012

• Very good vintages – 2000, 2007 and 2014

• Very good vintages, so close to great – 2004, 2006, 2009, 2010, 2017, 2018, 2019

• Hard to argue against greatness – 2001, 2015, 2016. The best 2017s are superb, in a vintage decimated by hail and quite a few didn’t offer wines. Every chance 2019 might come into this class too.

Of other older vintages, and ones which you might occasionally come across, I’ve found ’99 to ’96 inclusive, pretty reliable or better, and the 1990/’89 twinset as usual, highly reliable to still present well.

Some 1978 stand a good chance of still being good and a 1964 (by G Conterno) had in May ‘22 was superb. Vintage and maker - as ever.
2018 Nebbiolos generally showed superbly and the big guns show a similar elegance with ample flesh. Here, as in Barolo elegance is not code for lean or prone to palate ‘holes’. Buy with confidence – and I don’t just mean my wines! 2019 will be a beauty and 20 likewise, with even more enthusiasm being shown for 2021. In fact if the varietals already on the market (whites, Dolcetto and Barbera eg) are any guide, this is easily a vintage in the serious class of 2016.