The merits of aging wine - let's have the debate

[David M. Bueker]

There have been a number of times that the phrase "not as good as it was on release" or "expected more from this bottle" (attached to some older vintage) or similar things have come up in notes both here and elsewhere.

Certainly as the popularity of wine has risen there has been more and more young wine opened, and also some shifts in style to make wines more accessible in their youth.

The question really is, what is worth cellaring? As many here know, I am not a big proponent of aging Muscadet or Beaujolais, though some of the cognoscenti suggest that it is the thing to do. I haven't been convinced that the gains from aging exceed counterbalance the loss of the youthful virtues of those wines, not to mention the various logistical issues of keeping them for extended periods of time. Rahsaan recently wrote about a 2005 Huet Vouvray Sec that was to him quite delicious in its current state. Certainly the ability of Huet wines to age and change over decades is beyond dispute, but are they better for the age? Is someone a "lesser wine geek" (to partially steal from Neil Martin) for not appreciating the specific virtues of older Vouvray, Riesling, Bandol, Bordeaux, Cote Rotie or even Burgundy?

So given the current state of winemaking (there is little point in debating the merits of cellaring Bordeaux from the '60s and '70s as we can't buy them for cellaring at this point), what is truly worth aging and why? For how long?

Please show your work.

I don't have enough experience to properly engage this debate (which is one reason why I am excited about aged wine - learning experiences!) but last night I opened a 98 Nigl Hochacker Riesling and a 98 Nigl Piri Privat Riesling, both of which tasted like they would have been a lot more fun and a lot more character-filled one or two (or even three) years ago. I could sense the nice fruit and got slight hints of their distinctive characters, but for the most part they were aging too austere and generic for my tastes.

Of course I bought these recently so it wasn't an issue of me holding onto them too long. But still, think of the joy they could have given someone else just a few years ago!

Though this is one of those impossible-to-answer questions, it's an issue definitively worth parsing because of the widespread fetish attached to aging. While complexity requires time to develop, each wine will have an arc in which some things emerge and others disappear. What emerges may not utimately compensate for what disappears.

[David M. Bueker]

You actually hit upon one of the key issues in my opinion (everyone ok with that? ).

There seems to be a little bit of genericism (to potentially make up a word) in that if the archetype of a wine style is ageable or even demands age (let's use Clos Ste Hune since we're talking dry Riesling at the moment) then all remotely similar examples share that same characteristic. In my experience, I don't find that top Austrian Rieslings (with some exceptions) age as well as the top Alsacian examples. That doesn't make them inferior, just different. Let's examine that a wine like Hirtzberger's 2001 Singerriedel is drinking ever so well while the 2001 Clos Ste Hune is a closed fist of nothing but potential (heck, the 1995 is still closed).

Lately I have been searching the cellar for the wines that I may have stretched beyond their capacity. Some have come out the other end alive and others have not. More often than not, the fault is mine for assuming that if wine A is meant to age then surely wine B must also be meant to age.

In my experience, I don't find that top Austrian Rieslings (with some exceptions) age as well as the top Alsacian examples. That doesn't make them inferior, just different. Let's examine that a wine like Hirtzberger's 2001 Singerriedel is drinking ever so well while the 2001 Clos Ste Hune is a closed fist of nothing but potential (heck, the 1995 is still closed)..

From my limited experience, I can see that. And in some respects we should be grateful because it makes it easier to match drinking strategies. Start in on the Austrians and when they are finished move to Alsace. With Germans sprinkled inbetween and all over!

Do you like wines that throw !!!!!!!! points at you or do you like wines that throw ???????? marks at you?

Salute

[David M. Bueker]

Do you like wines that throw !!!!!!!! points at you or do you like wines that throw ???????? marks at you?

Don't get it Victor. Please explain.

I am finding a certain angularity in aged wines. Positive tertiary flavor development is often accompanied with a taste of oxidation, before the tannins are gone. I sometimes wonder if tossing away stems today to hasten drinkability has negatively effected mid-term aging, never mind long-term.

OK, I'll take the pro-aging side. Certainly there are plenty of wines I prefer young, and I'm not averse to sometimes (often) drinking wines that can age while they are young. Still, if I sat down to write my 50 favorite wines of all time probably 45 would have some age on them.

For me, while I maybe drink some modern Right Bankers young, the real Bordeaux experience is mature wine. I generally like classified wines at 20+ in ageable vintages. I find even minor left bank wines like Caronne Ste Gemme are more enjoyable at 10 than 3.

I can enjoy young village Burgundies, but I think it's really a shame to drink great 1ers or GCs without letting them age. That goes double for serious Piedmont where you factor in tannin.

White Burgundy- can be very good young, but only great with age. But due to PremOx issues I'm not aging anything, buying bourgogne/less expensive village wines and drinking young.

Riesling is a bit different. I tend to enjoy Germans equally (though differently) young and old. I think great Alsace needs age.

Not drunk enough older Gruner Veltliner to comment, but have liked the few I've tried with age.

Muscadet? I mostly drink young. But older L d'Or or Briords are a very different (and for me superior) experience.

I like Vouvray young or old, but 30 yr old Huet is a remarkable thing. As is aged Savennieres.

Beaujolais, I again mostly drink young. But Moulin-aV or Morgon do get that attractive "pinotosity" (sp?) with age. That said, I don't age, though I have a few '05s I think need to shed some fat and tannin

I don't begrudge anyone drinking whatever they like when they like it. But for me I am glad to cellar Bdx, red Cote d'Or, Rieslings from Germany and Alsace, CA, Piedmont, Tuscans, Loire Chenin, Rhone, etc. As well as a few select bottles from Australia, Austria, Oregon, Spain, Beaujolais as well as Muscadet (though I drink more young). I don't generally cellar NZ, WA, or South American wines, though some might could use it.

[David M. Bueker]

Dale,

Clearly I cellar many of the same wines/types that you do, so I am not anti-aging, but perhaps more pro-highly selective aging.

Personally, so long as a wine has gone so far paste it as to be unpleasant, I find nearly any aged wine to be an interesting and worthwhile experience. Certainly some wines that are meant to drink young are glorious, but those that can age command a different kind of respect and appreciation. And though I've certainly had the disappointing "Should have opened this younger," I've also had the "this is supposed to be past it, and yet is very good - what a treat." Now, when you've had a particularly nice wine that you invested a lot in, and have carefully kept, only to find that it is past its perfect best, yea, that's a frustrating experience. But even in young, impeccably stored, high quality wines, you can have the off bottle. All part of the game, the experience, the excitement, and the learning.

As for my preferences, in general, I prefer the complexity and grace of age. I agree with Dale on red Bordeaux: any quality Bordeaux from a solid vintage, while it can be an impressive and very rewarding experience to glimpse its potential, is probably better left until 8 - 10 years, if its pleasure you're looking for. That's especially true of Pauillac. Although I admit many Merlot based wines from either bank are approachable and quite pleasurable even when young. Sauternes I love in both young and old, the former for its glorious richness, the later for is complexity. Solidly made Napa Cabs can be a real treat at 20 years+, but are good young - although any really good California Cab is probably better at age 5. I like the grace that Southern Rhones can gain with age, but also the concentration of their youth. Most Brunelli are probably better at near age 10. I agree on German Rieslings - good young, good with age. I haven't got a lot of experience with ageable red Burgs, but my impression is generally that they should be given 5 - 10 years as well. Most of the really excellent white Burgs I've had have been older (12 years+), and I really enjoyed those.

[James Roscoe]

Could we define what we mean by "aging"? I have had wines that accidentally sat in a cellar for a couple of years (a Red Knot Shiraz comes most specifically to mind) that tasted wonderful. Much better than it did upon release. Is two years "aging"? Does it depend on the specific wine? While I tend to agree with Ryan and Dale, too often I have had some aged Rieslings that had nothing left but stale water. I wish I took better notes as I suspect these wines were probably meant for younger drinking. However, would they have been better at ten years instead of thirty? I am very interested in hearing what more experienced palates than mine have to say on the issue.

Is two years "aging"? Does it depend on the specific wine?

It depends.

Yes.

[David M. Bueker]

Certainly some wines that are meant to drink young are glorious, but those that can age command a different kind of respect and appreciation.

Why should they? That's part of the debate. Is a wine that will give the most pleasure 15 years from now inherently better than one that will give lots of pleasure today? Objectively that really doesn't make sense to me.

And though I've certainly had the disappointing "Should have opened this younger," I've also had the "this is supposed to be past it, and yet is very good - what a treat."

As have I, but whether it's because of winemaking techniques or something else, I am having more of the former and fewer of the latter lately.

I don't have enough experience to properly engage this debate (which is one reason why I am excited about aged wine - learning experiences!) but last night I opened a 98 Nigl Hochacker Riesling and a 98 Nigl Piri Privat Riesling, both of which tasted like they would have been a lot more fun and a lot more character-filled one or two (or even three) years ago. I could sense the nice fruit and got slight hints of their distinctive characters, but for the most part they were aging too austere and generic for my tastes.

Of course I bought these recently so it wasn't an issue of me holding onto them too long. But still, think of the joy they could have given someone else just a few years ago!

98 Austrians are an example of aging which wines? The 98's in Austria as has been discussed should have been drunk young with a few exceptions. They were riper, blowsy, confirmed by SF Joe who in my circle of wine friends has the best background in young and older Austrians.
The question of storage of older wines is of paramount importance IMHO. How many people have really GOOD storage? I'm drinking my stash of 80s & 90s cabs from Dunn and they are just drinking beautifully. Probably have a couple of mixed cases of 82 bordeauxs that are holding well.
I guess it's a combination of empirical knowledge and luck when it comes to aging wines.
I would love to have a thousand dollars for every bottle where the tannins still remained and the fruit was gone or where the fruit and tannins were both gone. Adios you dum dum

[David M. Bueker]

How many people have really GOOD storage?

I do. 55-57 degrees with 60% humidity. Hasn't helped some things.

Plus Dunn and '82 Bordeaux were not exactly the kind of wines I was looking to discuss. There's pretty much general agreement on those.

My top ten wine experiences have all been with well aged wines with one exception, a Dönnhoff eiswein 98 drunk at age three or four.

That said, great wines, especially white, can be wonderful but different both young and old. To appreciate the riches of wine we need both. However, ageing them is, of course, risky because of bottle variation, finding the right drinking window after a closed period, premox for white Burgs and, more simply, misjudgement of ageing potential.

In general the 10 year rule for fine red Bordeaux and Burgundy in good vintages is still valid but the 95s and 96s need to be left a little longer and the 99 Bordeaux have been drinking well for 2 or 3 years and may not have a lot more life.

My cellar is adequately stocked with maturing vintages and most of my current purchases are of young wines for drinking within a year or so because it no longer makes sense for me to buy bottles which need 10+ years ageing. However this observation leads to no hardship because, although in my youth I shared the British weakness for geriatric wines, I now paradoxically find that I am increasingly appreciative of pure fruit and bright minerality of one to two year old wines and I never have enough of them.

98 Austrians are an example of aging which wines? The 98's in Austria as has been discussed should have been drunk young with a few exceptions.

Not sure what question you are asking, but my experience was supporting your second sentence. That's all.

all the good points have been taken...

seriously, there are so many legitimate ways to answer this question, I agree with pretty much all of them, but I wanted to add that I find a special joy in opening and tasting any wine which is 10 or 20 or 45 (oldest I have had) years old which is still vibrant and delicious, regardless of which attributes have come forward, and which have been lost. To me each aged wine is a unique and moving experience, not the same as the relative similarity rightfully expected from recently bottled wines. I guess this is a paean to the surviving bottle's individuality, dignity and perseverance (not to mention anthropomorphic qualities!).

I was going to post, but Ryan stole my thoughts completely! Someone apprehend that man!!

Likewise I'm very much a fan of ageing and take with good grace the downside, for the promise of the upside. I recognise that I am very tolerant of the failings of old wines, as the facets they reveal are rarer than the highlights of 2-3 year old wine.

However I'll take a empathetic nod towards David, very much sharing the concern that winemakers seek to make wine that is more approachable young. I really don't mind the wait, in fact I enjoy it. I do fear a downside to making wines that are approachable young, where the long-term balance is brought into doubt.

I'm sure in some cases my fear will be misplaced, in others it will be sadly appropriate. At this stage I can't give a fair example of either, but in 5-10 years time, I think I'll have a better picture. Others may reach that point earlier - or indeed may already be there.

regards

Ian

Certainly some wines that are meant to drink young are glorious, but those that can age command a different kind of respect and appreciation.

Why should they? That's part of the debate. Is a wine that will give the most pleasure 15 years from now inherently better than one that will give lots of pleasure today? Objectively that really doesn't make sense to me.

I meant only "different" with no connotations - even the casual wine drinker is impressed by a 15 yr old wine, e.g., that is in prime drinking condition - perhaps its tied to our own hopes of longevity, to see that such a transient product as wine can last, and that comforts our sense of mortality at some sub-conscience level. Should it though, you ask? In principle I don't think that a wine that can age is intrinsically superior, although there is certainly a correlation between longevity and good wine making, and perhaps that is a important factor in our perceptions of the issue - at nearly any level, a wine that can age longer is a better made wine. And Ian makes a good point: however great the highlights of a good young wine, the secondary and tertiary notes they develop with age are more rare. And once again, one can make the argument that a wine that has the ability to develop such notes is somehow superior, but one is then really asking a personal preference question of whether you prefer the vibrance of youth or the complexity of age. When it comes down to, it really is just personal preference, as are all things in wine.

But, for good or ill, if one considers the wines that are thought capable of greatness, in every case they are agers. As I said above, perhaps its something in our mortal experience that wants to see something last.

even the casual wine drinker is impressed by a 15 yr old wine

I have seen a lot of casual wine drinkers disgusted by aged wine (15 years or more), mainly because of the lack of 'fruit'.

a wine that can age longer is a better made wine.

I'm not sure 'better made' is the point here. Take any good producer in Burgundy for example. Conventional wisdom says that the Grand Cru should have more aging potential than the Bourgogne rouge. But assuming the producer is of good quality, each wine is of the same 'quality' and is just as 'well made'. The main difference is the structure of the wine that can develop over time, in part because of the terroir, in part because of elevage.

if one considers the wines that are thought capable of greatness, in every case they are agers..

I think that depends on who you ask about 'greatness'

And for what it's worth, I'm generally sympathetic to your overall perspective.

[David M. Bueker]

if one considers the wines that are thought capable of greatness, in every case they are agers..

I think that depends on who you ask about 'greatness'

And for what it's worth, I'm generally sympathetic to your overall perspective.

As am I, but I think that attitude is applied too generically. That's really all I am getting at.

James Roscoe wrote;
Could we define what we mean by "aging"?

I assume David and the others (even myself) are referring to bottle aging or maturation. But I think it should be made clear that all wines age. The aging process begins in the primary fermentation tank where alcoholic fermentation takes place and continues in the cellar with “bulk” aging. For the most part when wines are bottled and released through the “normal” and “everyday” channels the wine is “drinkable”. (As Oawaldo pointed out what curve or arc they take (remain on course for a short period of time and then start their decline; remain on course for a longer period of time before starting their decline; early bell curves; late bell curves; double bell curves; etc) during bottle aging or maturation is just a guess). Certainly there are things one can look at (vintage, quality of the fruit, reputation of the producer, winemaking techniques, style or type of wine produced, etc) to make a prediction of what the curve or arc would look like or what the wine’s “drinking window” would be. But definitely take this (like almost everything else about wine) with a “grain of salt”. Like others have stated, storage and handling conditions (and I’ll even add, “bottle environment”) is crucial to bottle aging or maturation.
As far as the !!!!! points and ???? marks, a very well made and age-worthy wine besides having complexity, every sip or every other sip brings out something different, or a “new” dimension and it makes one think.

Salute