Older wine before younger wine?

In the same wine guide I mentioned in another post, there is a page devoted to the progression of wines though an evening's tasting or meal as in the suggestion that light bodied wine be served before full, whites before red, dry before sweet and so forth.

One suggestion surprised me: Older wine before younger wine. All things being equal, I have always done just the opposite in the belief that an older wine is more complex.

I understand that there are no rules and regulations on this type of this but any thoughts on old before young?

I really don't have any hard and fast rules, it's situational. I'd guess that 70% of time I move younger to older. The usual exception is at a very large vertical or tasting, once you get into double digits I might worry about palate fatigue and tannin buildup and prefer to have older earlier. But thinking about it, we don't usually do a straightforward progression. We generally try to pair like vintages (a Medoc progression of flights might go 97 & 99, 88 & 94, 96 & 2000, 89 & 90, 82 & 83). If there's a meat main we are generally aiming at a progression that puts the predicted top flight with that.
I'd be more likey to go in a straight progression with a white-centric dinner where tannins don't bear on it.
And if there isn't a sweet wine but there is a cheese course, I have zero problems serving white Burgundy or a top Sancerre after reds.

I would agree with serving older wine before young. Older wines can be more complex, and generally are a bit more fragile with subdued fruit and tannins, when compared with their younger counterparts. Better to drink them first to appreciate the nuance, rather than have your palate overwhelmed by a young, powerful and perhaps overbearing wine before trying to appreciate the older one (not to mention the effect of the alcohol in numbing the senses as you progress).

I would agree with serving older wine before young. Older wines can be more complex, and generally are a bit more fragile with subdued fruit and tannins, when compared with their younger counterparts. Better to drink them first to appreciate the nuance, rather than have your palate overwhelmed by a young, powerful and perhaps overbearing wine before trying to appreciate the older one (not to mention the effect of the alcohol in numbing the senses as you progress).

I was thinking what to respond, but Joy's response seems right on to me. In addition to what Joy says, there's also the chance to open the younger wine and let it have some time to settle down before getting to it while sampling the older wine first.

Generally, I prefer(ed) older to newer for the reasons Joy mentioned.
As an alternative, I had an acquaintance who swore by the high to low ABV method. His thinking was to jump start the buzz.

Generally, I prefer(ed) older to newer for the reasons Joy mentioned.
As an alternative, I had an acquaintance who swore by the high to low ABV method. His thinking was to jump start the buzz.

What buzz? We drink wine for the intellectual pursuit

My rules:

1 - if the older wines are sturdy, then drink younger to older - it is wonderful to witness what age does for wine and very hard to assess that by drinking in the opposite order, as the brash young wines overcome the older more complex wines in memory.

2 - if you have older delicate wines (or just plain delicate wines - say Burgs) then consider whether having them before that monster Zin or Petit Sirah so you can properly appreciate it, even though that is out of normal order.

I sometimes open the wines and taste and then decide on order - an old wine can surprise you with it's forcefulness and a younger one can disappoint with premature senility.

At a special dinner or meal I might serve an older vintage before a newer one, but at a formal tasting (were the wine is evaluated, especially at a vertical tasting) I would go newer to older, as Bill stated makes it a lot easier to follow the ‘evolution’ of the wine.

I like Bill’s Rule #3

Salute

It has been my experience that if the older wine "should" be in good shape (and it will probably need a decant to make sure that it is clean and not corked) I like to serve the wine in ascending order which is usually young to old, good to better. It has always worked well for me to end the evening with a remarkable wine, but to each his own. Wine order in a tasting is what it is all about.

[Jenise]

Dale's response pretty well encapsulates my thoughts. It's entirely situational. Too, if there's a wine that's particularly old vs. the rest on the table, I might try to sequence that between courses rather than with a course, in order to limit distractions.

Good example. I did a video night earlier this week and we all brought California Cabs (notes to follow).

The oldest wine was a BV Georges de Latour 1974 which was definitely elderly though not really decrepit.

No way we'd have wanted to taste it after drinking a couple of bottles from vintages after 2000!

Look forward to note on BV GdlT. I've never had a 74 GdlT that was the equal of top CaliCabs from that year like Heitz MV, Mayacamas, Conn Creek, Sterling, Mondavi Reserve (or even Mondavi Napa or Charles Krug). But understand there is a lot of variation.