Long, long-winded, but terrific interview with John Gilman

http://www.drvino.com/2009/10/06/natura ... #more-4981

Indeed, very long but interesting interview.

Will be curious to see what happens and comes out on this copper issue.

[David M. Bueker]

His comment regarding 2001 being less heralded in Chateauneuf than 2000 and 2003 ('98 probably did get more hype, but came after a couple of mediocre years) is dead wrong & just more grist for his mill. Now I happen to really like 2001 in the Southern Rhone, but to me this article (I picked out one point for illustrative purposes) is just more of John's disingenuous, contrarian commentary designed to get him an audience.

Sounds like there's a history here that I am unaware of...

[David M. Bueker]

I just don't care for Gilman's reactionary writing, especially his "road kill" notes. He's the Alice Feiring of wine critics IMO.

"And one of the most reassuring aspects about shopping for Port is that this is one of the regions that has essentially stood aloof from all of the controversy surrounding the “modern international school of winemaking”- if one buys a case of vintage Port to lay down one is pretty safe to assume that this is going to be a traditional product that is going to age precisely along the lines of the great vintages of the past in the Douro."

I wish it were so, oh, do I wish it were so... Anybody buying 2007 and expecting the wines to age like 1970 is bound to be disappointed.

Greetings from Sweden / Fredrik L

[David M. Bueker]

Anybody buying 2007 and expecting the wines to age like 1970 is bound to be disappointed.

Anybody hoping that they will age like the 1970s will be dead when the wines are ready to drink.

So apparently Gilman has missed the significant changes in the approachability of modern Port.

Gilman is certainly long-winded, and in many things a contrarian, but he's the last person I'd consider disingenuous. I've dined/tasted with him probably 35-40 times, and while I have disagreed with him on some things I have never had reason to doubt his sincerity.

So apparently Gilman has missed the significant changes in the approachability of modern Port.

What changes do you consider significant?

[David M. Bueker]

Umm...the approachability of modern Port. I have never delved into the minutia of its production, but robotic lagares and such have certainly changed what was once a forbiddingly tannic wine into something that can be drunk without injury in its youth.

I think manual (um, pedal?) stomping pretty much ended in the 60s, and 70, 77, and 83 all seem to be aging well. While one can drink the 94s now, I personally have no doubts about the vintage's ability to age another 20/30/40 years. The 91 and 94s were tannic but approachable on release (oldest I've tasted early) which is the consensus on the 00/03/07s from what I've read. What vintages were the last that you feel will age traditionally? We had a discussion about this recently with a group (part amateur, part pro -including Gilman), most of whom have been drinking longer than I, none felt the ageablity of port had been compromised.

That said, I'm not rushing to lay in some 2007 Port. I just find it too easy/cheap to find it with age to bother cellaring.

I have two comments about John Gilman:

1 - everything he likes I like
2 - not everything he dislikes I dislike

With that in mind, I know I am on safe grounds when he recommends a particular wine. And for the record, I am with Dale in that I do not find him disingenuous.

[David M. Bueker]

Dale - looking at some web sites, Graham's introduced the robotic lagare in 2000. Tasting years like 2000, 2003 & even single quinta years like 2005 I have found the wines more approachable. What really has me concerned is that my tannin-phobe wife even likes them young.

Just because a wine is approachable or even enjoyable in its youth doesn’t mean that it losses its ability to bottle age. All that matters is does-one like the “younger” version or “older”?

Salute

[David M. Bueker]

I don't find the tannic structure in the younger Ports that I have tried. I have not tried the 2007s (the 2000s are cheaper, so why would I), but other, recent vintages have seemed to lack backbone. Back in 2002 when he was writing about the 2000 VPs, Steve Tanzer questioned their ability to age as long as the old-school vintages. Don't get me wrong, I would rather not have to wait 35 years to enjoy my Port, but that extended bottle age does impart a certain set of flavors. I doubt 20 years in bottle (still a long time) will result in the same flavors.

Let's check back in 2025 or so to see if I am wrong.

Believing that the desire to produce vintage ports that are drinkable from the get-go will not compromise the wines´ legendary ageworthiness is rather naive. The Guimaraens people do not believe it either - at least not off-cam - but do not think they are compromising too much; the wines will still benefit from cellaring but not demand it as in the days of yore. All a matter of personal taste, of course, but 2007 reminds me personally of 1989 and 90 in Médoc, I then realized that my Bordeaux buying days would soon be over and that I had to grab all the 1986s I could afford. A decision I have never had reason to regret, and now I see the same mene tekel in the Douro. (And do not even get me started that all this has meant the birth of a Taylor super cuvée; just what the doctor did not order )

I have said all this as a wine-lover, but must admit that from a strictly financial standpoint, I fully understand why the Mentzelopoulos and Symingtons of the world do what they do. At least we have Bepi Quintarelli and Henri Bonneau! (But for how long?)

Greetings from Sweden / Fredrik L

Funny, the Port part of the inteview was the least interesting to me and generated the most discussion. Go figure...

I have a question, should a distinguished be made between longevity and ageability of a wine? Or is longevity and ageability of a wine exactly the same thing?

Salute

[David M. Bueker]

I have a question, should a distinguished be made between longevity and ageability of a wine? Or is longevity and ageability of a wine exactly the same thing?

Salute

Longevity and ageability are the same to me. I think the real question is when does long ageability stop becoming an attribute that is worth rewarding. Should taking 30 years to mature make a wine more valuable than taking 10 years to mature? I don't think so, but that's just me.

I have two comments about John Gilman:
1 - everything he likes I like
2 - not everything he dislikes I dislike
With that in mind, I know I am on safe grounds when he recommends a particular wine. And for the record, I am with Dale in that I do not find him disingenuous.

Good summary!

I thought the robotic legares were supposed to recreate the old methods. We'll just have to see re if port no longer ages as well, we'll reconvene in 2039

I thought the robotic legares were supposed to recreate the old methods. We'll just have to see re if port no longer ages as well, we'll reconvene in 2039

That can be the successor experiment to the Great April Fools' Day Heat Damage Experiment. We'll all buy a few bottles of '07 Port and all open them up on 4/1/39 to see if they've aged as well as older vintages.

Ever one for the scientific method,
Mark Lipton

[David M. Bueker]

I thought the robotic legares were supposed to recreate the old methods. We'll just have to see re if port no longer ages as well, we'll reconvene in 2039

That can be the successor experiment to the Great April Fools' Day Heat Damage Experiment. We'll all buy a few bottles of '07 Port and all open them up on 4/1/39 to see if they've aged as well as older vintages.

I'll be there! We will probably still be able to get the wines at retail.

I have a question, should a distinguished be made between longevity and ageability of a wine? Or is longevity and ageability of a wine exactly the same thing?

Salute

Whilst they can mean the same thing, it's also possible to interpret them slightly differently
e.g.
Longevity - How long a wine lasts before it's in noticeable decline
Ageability - It's suitability for long-term ageing... and the subtle subtext being that improvement and aged complexity are expected.

It's so difficult to generalise here, but it's fair to say that two wines that last the same number of years, may have very different levels of complexity emerge, with one staying quite true to how it was at 5,10 and 15 years, whilst the other changes dramatically after (say) 12 years.

It's also dangerous to assume that wines that taste quite open on release, will lack the staying power of a more structured / tight wine. Apparently the 1979 Barolos were seen as very bright, somewhat light & open wines that surely wouldn't last, yet many did so very well.

That said, it always worries me when winemakers are focusing on trying to make wines more attractive on release - I get worried that they're chasing scores, not a long-lasting legacy*. It was important for me to recognise a while ago that it's not just wine or even aged wine that I like in this hobby, but also the act of cellaring, with the trust, hope, expectation that goes hand in hand with it. I'm glad I have certain wines cellared, that I probably won't open in the next decade. Over time I'll chip away at their brethren, eventually getting round to them when the time & occasion is right. Patience is indeed a virtue and one I'm happy to pursue.

regards

Ian

*Compare this to the Seppelt programme of putting barrels of Para liquer aside FOR ALMOST A CENTURY before release in bottles 100 years from vintage. The current vintage is 1908.

Thanks David and Ian,
I think more like Ian (longevity and ageability is not exactly the same thing), but David does bring up a good point. At what point does ageability stop becoming an attribute that deserves rewarding? I guess everyone will have their own answer for this.
Certain components and characteristics of the wine contribute to the longevity (life span) of the wine, others contribute to ageability, and some contribute to both longevity and ageability.

Salute

Longevity and ageability are the same to me. I think the real question is when does long ageability stop becoming an attribute that is worth rewarding. Should taking 30 years to mature make a wine more valuable than taking 10 years to mature? I don't think so, but that's just me.

All I can say is as my 50th bday is rapidly approaching, I'm not buying the amount of new release traditional barolo that I did 10yrs ago.