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

In general, my definition of "aged" would be 25+ years.

All relative, no? Very roughly speaking, I would consider "aged":
one year old Beaujolais Nouveau
five year old Sancerre or village Burg
ten year old cru Beaujolais or premier cru Burg
fifteen year old grand cru Burg
twenty year old GCC Bordeaux
fifty year old port
seventy five year old madeira
hundred year old sherry
two hundred year old Thomas Jefferson

I will tend to agree with you on the port but disagree on the Nouveau Beaujolais. It does not need aged and in fact, unless it is the reason for the party, it does not need to be drank or purchased. I have a lot of Bordeaux that is sitting on 25+ years and doing just fine. I do not worry about aging good Bordeaux and drink it when I feel like it. Had a '89 Cos last night, a vintage they are not well known for, and it was the best of any I have opened and very young. Plan on giving this wine another bunch of years.
Walt

David, very interesting take, I didn't realize eiswein *have almost no experience) became "aged" so quickly.

Walt, I was kidding about the Beaujolais Nouveau!

[David M. Bueker]

Oswaldo,

I really don't think anyone knows what aged Eiswein really is, but it's one of the wine types I prefer not to age. I love the purity of the fruit in fresh, young Esiwein, so tend to leave it at that.

Walt, I was kidding about the Beaujolais Nouveau!

I know, just pulling your chain. It is such an awful wine that our local, and largest, wine store only brought in one example. It is a good excuse to have a party but I think a Nouveau Beaujolais wine party would be better served by drinking last years Beaujolais.
Walt

All relative, no? Very roughly speaking, I would consider "aged":
one year old Beaujolais Nouveau
five year old Sancerre or village Burg
ten year old cru Beaujolais or premier cru Burg
fifteen year old grand cru Burg
twenty year old GCC Bordeaux
fifty year old port
seventy five year old madeira
hundred year old sherry
two hundred year old Thomas Jefferson

Certainly, Oswaldo. I had age worthy reds in mind. I agree with your assessment. I would certainly like to have the chance to taste a 100+ year old sherry.

It is a pleasant and interesting thread where it is possible to agree more or less with every position and preference presented and at least sympathise with both sides of the few contrary views expressed for a small minority of wines.

The only thing I am sure about in terms of aging is that 40 years ago I had e.g. a generalised 20-30+ year top red Bordeaux guideline which today is 10-20 - and the latter part of the range more in hope than anticipation. Actually the front end would probably be more than I deserve or have a right to expect but it does explain why my last top vintage en primeur extravaganza was 2000 rather than 2005 and after that the early drinking 2003s were my last considerable en primeur purchases.

However some wines, particularly the great ‘Old World’ reds, really do need age to show anything like their makers intended. The same applies to others too but many excellent wines are now made to be consumed relatively early even if they have the ability to do well for an extended period.
OTOH if a consumer has a different vision it is of course their right to realise it regardless of what the maker intended.

On balance I would rather drink a wine too early than too late and that hasn't changed with age. When buying by the case I have always drunk age-worthy wines over an extended period, probably beginning earlier than most.

I have aged most wines even those that drink well young and that many people only drink young - like Muscadet, Beaujolais, Loire SBs and dry Chenins, NV Champagne and German Riesling - sometimes accidentally. However I only age the best of these like Domaine de l'Ecu, Jadot Chateau St. Jacques 'Clos' MaVs, Francois Cotat Sancerres, Bollinger and a wide range of classic German QmPs while still drinking them steadily from their youth onwards.

For me these wines are seldom better old, just enjoyably different and sometimes more interesting with added complexity making the wait worthwhile.

I can also say that I have little interest [other than any accompanying history] in very, very old wines i.e. wines where age makes any chance of experiencing something genuinely tasty rather unlikely. But my opportunities with genuine rarities are almost non-existent anyway.

However Oswaldo's post would be a useful polling reference where everybody could put a personal plus or minus against each category listed.

.... but one is then really asking a personal preference question of whether you prefer the vibrance of youth or the complexity of age......

Are we talking about wine or women?

Are we talking about wine or women?

Yes.

[David M. Bueker]

How about songs? Some age well, some don't.

I’ve enjoyed reading this thread, but I’m surprised at how victorwine’s curve post drew no comment. Sure, the grape plays a role. I don’t age Muscadet nor Kiwi Sauvignon Blanc. They are excellent when young. And reputation plays a role--Baroli v. G. Mascarello means something in Barolo.

But we’re all guided by our own taste. When I tasted 1999 Ridge Lytton Springs Zinfandel at a party, I loved it and bought a case at K&L the next day. It was awesome in 2003, too, but my 2004 tasting note recorded a metallic taste with lasagna and just possibly the dope we were smoking. Just joking! But in 07 it was superb with flank steak and just last year it worked well with cheese, a more subdued fruit character and a really etherial apple vinegar character, certainly something I hadn't tasted earlier. Tasting notes are good!

But this is a great wine, as I learned over the “curve.” To buy any wine, even in a good year, on reputation alone and expect it to passively evolve into something extraordinarily good is a fool’s quest. But to buy that wine and follow it with yearly tastings is to join in with wine, grower, terroir.

I’m a little sad that I have only 1 bottle of the 99 LS left. But I wouldn’t enjoy it as fully if I’d just tuned in after a 10-year gap. Hitting the high point of the curve takes initiative and luck—and as several others have pointed out, the stats might be negative. And there might be regret. As Nietsche put it, “The owl of Minerva takes flight only with the coming of darkness.”

But I'm OK--I've got a number of ageable recent vintages in my breezaire-cooled cooler. And as others have pointed out, the ability to store wine at below-60 degrees is crucial to this debate.

Michael
An interesting post - If anything I'm at the opposing end of the argument, in that I value variety in the cellar and in order to keep the cellar reasonably compact, I'll often buy in 1's 2's and 3's. Dozen purchases ar really only when I'm constrained to that (e.g. auction lot size).

However I do see your argument and would fully support the idea that we talk too much about drinking 'at peak', which then risks becoming a nerdy quest to hit the 'perfect' time to open a wine. FWIW I do set drinking windows in CT for my wines, however I treat them as broad guidelines and sometimes a wine will outstay it's window, in other instances it's just what we want now and so it's popped early. In other instances I'll buy a wine that's already passed it's notional drinking window, but was worth a punt, so goes in with an already expired drinking window! If it's surprisingly youthful, then I'll go back and amend the window for the benefit of others (or me if I have other bottles of it).

I suspect where I differ from your comment:

To buy any wine, even in a good year, on reputation alone and expect it to passively evolve into something extraordinarily good is a fool’s quest. But to buy that wine and follow it with yearly tastings is to join in with wine, grower, terroir.

is that I'm happy to take my chance when it's opened and enjoy it for what it is. I hope it's good, maybe even extraordinarily good, but I'm just happy at that point in time to take it as it is, 'warts an' all'.

regards

Ian

[David M. Bueker]

However I do see your argument and would fully support the idea that we talk too much about drinking 'at peak', which then risks becoming a nerdy quest to hit the 'perfect' time to open a wine.

Which is really the crux of my concern as well. What is peak? Even in my own household I cannot get agreement on that. I find the 1998 German Riesling Spatlesen are drinking very well right now, while my wife thinks they have lost too much fruit. The problem is that I have so many I need her to help me drink them!

However I do see your argument and would fully support the idea that we talk too much about drinking 'at peak', which then risks becoming a nerdy quest to hit the 'perfect' time to open a wine.

Which is really the crux of my concern as well. What is peak? Even in my own household I cannot get agreement on that. I find the 1998 German Riesling Spatlesen are drinking very well right now, while my wife thinks they have lost too much fruit. The problem is that I have so many I need her to help me drink them!

I'm sure that many denizens of this board would be glad to help you solve your problem. Personally, I'll even pay for shipping!!!!

Interesting thread that isn't so much of a debate as a discussion.

I expect we all agree that there is a range of wines, from those that derive no benefit at all from ageing to those that positively require it.

After that it becomes a big crap shoot, with people's individual preferences falling all over the spectrum.

I can see both sides to the agrument, especially with some wines that are iffy when aged. Rieslings of less than at least Spatlese level can lose, rather than gain by ageing in my experience - but not all of them! Zinfandels lose the up front fruit that so endears them to many. But a few will become more complex and almost indistinguishable from a decent claret give some age, while others have nothing of interest left after the fruit drops.

Usually I win the crap shoot, because I try to cellar half cases or cases and sample over the years to see if they are still improving. Sometimes wine can fool you. I had a Brunello that seemed to close down and I figured it had peaked after tasting at least 2 bottles, so I disposed of some of it. Found a few bottles hiding in the cellar and it had come back to life and picked up where it left off. Go figure! (1990 Castelgiocondo, if anyone has some - still drinking well).

I am losing the battle right now, a rare situation, because I have two batches of wine that have passed prime while my attention was elsewhere - a 1994 Guigal Cote Rotie (the 95 is still gangbusters) and a 1998 Ch. de Tours Cotes du Rhone that has simply faded out. Sometimes you get the bear and sometimes.....

I had a Brunello that seemed to close down and I figured it had peaked after tasting at least 2 bottles, so I disposed of some of it. Found a few bottles hiding in the cellar and it had come back to life and picked up where it left off. Go figure! (1990 Castelgiocondo, if anyone has some - still drinking well).

Glad to hear that, Bill, I've been going through a case of 99 Castelgiocondos and they've all been surly so far...

Glad to hear that, Bill, I've been going through a case of 99 Castelgiocondos and they've all been surly so far...

It does seem to be hit and miss. I've had unforgiving bottles and I also had one not long ago that was pretty good. Cross your fingers that it will get better. I have 3 and haven't touched them yet (hope springs eternal).

These are fun questions to ponder. Like many, I feel aging wine is largely just a preference thing. By that I mean that even if one could objectively state that wine "x" is better if it's aged, there still will be those who will always say that they would rather have that wine younger rather than older. So I don't think this is the kind of debate that can ever have a right or wrong answer.

I personally think the whole wine aging notion is very real, very special but also very over-applied. So few wines really do anything extraordinary when aged for a significant time, in my opinion, that it largely becomes a moot point. Having said that, the wine I enjoy most (champagne), just so happens to be one that indeed falls in this 7% or so of wines that again, in my opinion, DO get far more "enjoyable/interesting" with aging. Do champagnes NEED significant age to be good? No, not always. Do some people even prefer champagnes that are young? Yes. Is either of us right or wrong? No of course not. As stated, it always just ultimately boils down to what you like. I've had plenty of champagnes "young" that were perfectly nice but none that I can say that wouldn't have been no worse or better with at least some age, sometimes significant age.

Yet I don't think this is generally true of 90% of most wines. I think it's analogous to how many of us might become pro athletes or something. Is it a real truth and possibility? Sure. Pro athletes DO obviously exist and many are quite special! But should we expect that me or you or the person down the street is going to be part of this random 7% (likely smaller for the chances of becoming a pro athlete actually)?

So, by and large, I think aging is indeed real, valid and, for the wine I most drink, essential and special. Yet I also think the concept of wine and aging, for the majority of wines is really impractical and largely a non-issue. How is that for not definitively picking a side?

Jeff

[David M. Bueker]

So, by and large, I think aging is indeed real, valid and, for the wine I most drink, essential and special. Yet I also think the concept of wine and aging, for the majority of wines is really impractical and largely a non-issue. How is that for not definitively picking a side?

I'm on your side.

Hi Ian,
Just read your post with the hungry curosity of a 'cellar rat' and wanted to say how much I appreciated it.Page [2] of the debate.
Best Regards,

Philip.

Philip
Ta for that! Certainly plenty of good stuff all-round in this thread and a thumbs-up to David for putting a good thought-provoker on the table.
regards
Ian

These are fun questions to ponder. Like many, I feel aging wine is largely just a preference thing. By that I mean that even if one could objectively state that wine "x" is better if it's aged, there still will be those who will always say that they would rather have that wine younger rather than older. So I don't think this is the kind of debate that can ever have a right or wrong answer.

I personally think the whole wine aging notion is very real, very special but also very over-applied. So few wines really do anything extraordinary when aged for a significant time, in my opinion, that it largely becomes a moot point. Having said that, the wine I enjoy most (champagne), just so happens to be one that indeed falls in this 7% or so of wines that again, in my opinion, DO get far more "enjoyable/interesting" with aging. Do champagnes NEED significant age to be good? No, not always. Do some people even prefer champagnes that are young? Yes. Is either of us right or wrong? No of course not. As stated, it always just ultimately boils down to what you like. I've had plenty of champagnes "young" that were perfectly nice but none that I can say that wouldn't have been no worse or better with at least some age, sometimes significant age.

Yet I don't think this is generally true of 90% of most wines. I think it's analogous to how many of us might become pro athletes or something. Is it a real truth and possibility? Sure. Pro athletes DO obviously exist and many are quite special! But should we expect that me or you or the person down the street is going to be part of this random 7% (likely smaller for the chances of becoming a pro athlete actually)?

So, by and large, I think aging is indeed real, valid and, for the wine I most drink, essential and special. Yet I also think the concept of wine and aging, for the majority of wines is really impractical and largely a non-issue. How is that for not definitively picking a side?

Jeff

I vote for what he said... and well said at that.

Glenn

Last night I had a S40 1998 Roagna Barbaresco cru that was too young and gave me middling pleasure and the night before I had a S30 2006 Occhipinti Nero d'Avola that was singing and gave me a ton of pleasure. I know this is a bit of a non-sequitur as far as the merits of aging, but I just wanted to vent here!

Oswaldo,

Like you, I have not experienced a direct correlation between wine age and taste/pleasure, even of “age worthy” wines. To be honest, I have attended tastings at which I felt that people raved about older wines just because they thought they should. I personally don’t have trouble admitting that that I much preferred the 2000 Chateau Bel-Air to the 1978 Chateau Palmer. I have observed considerable pretentiousness around the tasting of aged wines.

I'd have to agree with that. It is similar to the phenomenon where highly regarded wines get cut a lot more slack than lesser wines.

My best example of that was at a Commanderie dinner where we were tasting 1970s. Margaux was among them (you need to know that this was right in the middle of a horridly bad slump in Ch. Margaux quality - until the 78 in fact) and some of the members were standing up and complimenting this sad, pale shadow of a wine.

They made the mistake of asking me what I thought and I told them that if the people that had commented so far had been told it was some minor growth instead of a first growth they would have condemned it out of hand and that they should be ashamed of themselves for their lack of objectivity.

If even those supposedly 'in the know' fall prey to lack of objectivity, what hope is there for more casual drinkers?

One reason I much prefer blind tasting - plus I get to watch their faces turn red when it is revealed that they preferred the Meyney to the Petrus or whatever. We did one flight blind a couple of years ago, and when the wines were revealed I hadn't seen such fancy backpeddling since I last went to the circus (the clowns in this case were just a bit better dressed). I don't know why people have trouble forming an honest opinion about a wine and then sticking to it.