wines for more than 15 yrs

[llredwine]

I am in the middle of discussion to my friends in regarding to how long the wine you can keep before they become “dead”.
 
My friend’s idea “wines selling less than 100 bucks (DM/ liquor retail shop or cellar door price) have to drink within 5-15 years.  If you keep those wines more than 15 yrs, they are dead and don’t taste good” (assume the wines are kept in right temperature and place)
 
I know there are many pros in the forum.
 
Can you guys please list some wines less than 100 bucks that can keep more than 15yrs or even 20 yrs?
 
2 for more than 15yrs and 2 for more than 20 yrs or longer will be good. Thanks!
 

[sjw_11]

Bin 389 is the obvious example which has a long track record of doing so and even now sells <$100 though its getting closer, Wynns Black Label Cabernet would be another example...Wendouree, not at bottle shops, can live eternally and remains c$50 from the winery. Petaluma Coonawarra is another, c$50.

My personal cellaring is only 10-yrs old, but from many attempts on the auction market I can tell you what does and does not live for 15yrs++ is a bizarre mix (and of course storage and pot luck play a big role) ... For example, last year I had a Yalumba Galway Claret from the early 1970s that was amazingly alive...

In the last couple of years I have had Wynns Shiraz from 1986, 1990, 1991, Bowen Estate Rieslings from Coonawarra from 1991 and 1992, mid 1980s Wolf Blass Black Label and Grey label (1984, 1982, 1989), D'arenberg D'arrys Original from the late 1980s.... Wendouree Cab Malbec 1991 and 1993... E&E Black Pepper Sparkling Shiraz 1993 (where I had to use a cork screw to get the cork out!)... and how could I forget a memorable run of Saltram Metala - a couple of 1982 and a 1993... all memorable. And of course Vintage Port is a whole 'nother category...

I always remember 3 Jim Barry Cabernet Merlot 1987 I bought for about $10/at auction in 2004. The back label said "this is a light wine, ideal for lunch time" and yet it drank well 17-yrs later.

Conversely, I have had Grosset Rieslings from 1999 - a 6-pack all vinegar. Lake Breeze Cabernet 2002 - good vintage, good winery, and yet was pretty much "dead" by 10-yrs. Lindeman Pyrus 1986 - great vintage, but 7 bottles rubbish (due to poor storage in that case). And many others I prefer not to recall.

I guess my point is: can cheaper wine "live"? Of course it can, if its got the right structure and is well looked after. Can $100 wine fall over in 5-yrs? Absolutely (especially if its $100 because RPJ gave it 100pts for being 16.5% abv blackcurrant syrup).

[AaronL]

It really depends on the individual. Just look at some of the varied reviews you see on CellarTracker, one person will say it hasn't entered it's drinking window, the next will say it's well past it. Which one is right? Probably both.

Anyway, there is so much choice for wines that are less than $100 that will age more 15 years. Look at good examples of Aussie Riesling (2012 a good start) and Hunter Semillon (Vat 1). For red wines, cabernet is your best bet. However, if you don't enjoy aged wine, then there's not much point in waiting 20 years to find out. It's all a learning process and I'm sure you'll find the sweet spot of how much age you like.

[sjw_11]

It really depends on the individual. ..... However, if you don't enjoy aged wine, then there's not much point in waiting 20 years to find out. It's all a learning process and I'm sure you'll find the sweet spot of how much age you like.

Great point AaronL - I meant to add this and then got carried away remembering all those great random wines!

[DJ]

Look at good examples of Aussie Riesling (2012 a good start) and Hunter Semillon (Vat 1).

Couldn't agree more that the bargains for aging are in the whites. Saturday opened 1998 Richmond Grove Watervale Riesling - great stuff won't get better but will hold for another 10, Last night 2003 Merea Park Terracotta Semillon - needs another 5 years may be 10 to fill out a bit further.

[llredwine]

Thanks SJW, Thanks for the list.  I have to put those wines into my purchase list if I can afford.
 
After 1993and 1999 Seppelt Drumborg Cabernet Sauvignon, 1991 Lindemans Limestone Ridge Shiraz cabernet in last 2 weeks, I have to agree that old/aged wines have their own attractive points.

 
AaronL,  +1,  Maybe we have different taste method on wines.
 

[Andrew Jordan]

Had a 1994 St Hugo Cabernet a few months back and it was absolutely gorgeous! The rebranded stuff under Jacob's Creek is probably not the same quality, but in good years I would think they could still can go +15 years. For a $30 red that is pretty impressive.

Others that would travel the distance:

Yalumba Signature
Kalleske Greenock Shiraz
Woodlands - pretty much all their wines
Seppelt St Peters (easily a 20 year proposition in good vintages) - even the humble chalambar would last 15 years at under $20 a bottle. The 1998 is drinking very well right now!
There are plenty more ....

And with the introduction of stelvin on many Aussie wines ... who knows how many years have been added to these wines?

[bdellabosca]

A few ideas for sub $100 wines with extra longevity that might still be around for retail sale:
- 2010 Houghton Cabernet Sauvignon Gladstones
- 2010 Penfolds Bin 389
- 2008 Voyager Estate Cabernet Sauvignon Merlot
- 2009 Cape Mentelle Cabernet Sauvignon
- 2009 McWilliam's Mount Pleasant Wines Shiraz Shiraz Maurice O'Shea
- 2010 McWilliam's Mount Pleasant Wines Shiraz Old Paddock & Old Hill
- 2010 Rockford Shiraz Basket Press
- 2010 Marius Symphony Shiraz

There are a lot of other wines that could last 15 years but the above wines should (theoretically) be drinking well for the next 30 years. Hope this gives you a few ideas.

[TravisW]

Morris Durif from a good vintage will age forever (or any other decent label from Rutherglen) and goes for $25-$30 a bottle. A bargain.

Cheers, Travis.

[ufo]

Any good Rutherglen Duriff will go almost forever.
Kay Bros Old Block 6 Shiraz will easily go over 20 years.

[burgster]

You need to bear in mind that the price of a wine has only the slimmest correlation with its quality.

[Mahmoud Ali]

It really depends on the individual. Just look at some of the varied reviews you see on CellarTracker, one person will say it hasn't entered it's drinking window, the next will say it's well past it. Which one is right? Probably both.

Sorry, but I disagree, they both cannot be right. Preferences may be subjective but there are informed opinions about quality and how a wine ages. It is intuitively clear that a wine cannot be both good and bad at the same time, nor too young and old. Each bottle may show differently over time because of storage but that is another story.

Mahmoud.

[Mahmoud Ali]

You need to bear in mind that the price of a wine has only the slimmest correlation with its quality.

Very true. Sometimes the most modest of wines have the inherent quality to allow it to age gracefully for many years. The only thing holding it back is an appreciative audience for mature wines.

Mahmoud.

[Milan]

My first piece of advice would be for you to stop listening to your friend.

Price does not equate to quality with wine!

Ultimately, regardless of the wine, the Vintage and Terroir (where it comes from) will play a massive part in how well the wine will hold in the years to come. Some Vintages come to maturation faster than others. It comes with time learning things like that.

My picks...

1.) Wynn's Black Label Cabernet. Goes for around $30-$35. I had a 1971 Vintage at The Century at the Star Casino the other week. It was brown (oxidised), toffee, chocolate, subtle...still had life to it!

2.) Penfolds Bin 28, Bin 389, Bin 407...etc etc. Refer to the Penolds Book of "Rewards of Patience" for Vintages that will hold better than others. With that said, 2008 sings to me down the Penfolds Pyramid. I'm going to stick my neck out and put a prediction out there that Koonunga Hill 2008 will go the distance. I had a 2003 Koonunga Hill not so long ago...ripe raspberries, strawberries, silky, fat fruit, velvet. It was fantastic. Not bad for uh...$8 a bottle I get it for?

3.) McWilliams Elizabeth Semillion. A great example of showing what aging wine can do. Goes from young and leafy to full and marmalade in profile with time. $19.

4.) Keith Tulloch Kester Shiraz. $80?

5.) Tyrell's Vat 1 Semillion. About $45.

They're just some examples off the top of my head...

You have to have a goal when collecting wine and also you need to discipline yourself to not only refrain from not drinking it, but also to one day actually drink it!

In Australia, Barossa Shiraz, Coonawarra Cabernet and Hunter Semillion are the most age worthy.

Old World wines like Bordeaux, Southern Rhones etc. are worth looking into...2009 and 2010 will age for a long time depending what you get...

[Polymer]

I have to roughly disagree w/ the price/quality correlation...

Up till probably 40-50 dollars (Depends on what you're comparing..it is just a rough number, someone else might think that number is higher or lower) there is definitely a price/quality correlation. It isn't a slim correlation, it is actually a pretty strong correlation.

Comparing a 7 dollar bottle to a 35 dollar bottle. There might be some exceptions and personal style preference but there is going to be a strong correlation that the more expensive wine is going to be of higher quality than the less expensive one.

When you start reaching into more expensive bottles of wine..the correlation becomes weaker and weaker...At that point it isn't just about quality but marketing, scarcity, brand reputation, etc, etc...

As far as the OPs original question. Especially with screwcap I'd expect a lot of reds to hit that 15 year mark...They might not be fantastic with 15 years of age but I don't think they'd be dead either...

[Duncan Disorderly]

I've had two bottles of the 1996 Tahbilk Marsanne this year and they were both superb. While I bought these at auction (for less than $25 each) the 2013 vintage of this wine is typically available in most bottle shops for under $15.

The whole price equals quality debate is best avoided, but given the available evidence I reckon you can put your friend's theory to bed.

[Luke W]

Had some wonderful cheapies that seem to last forever (given good cellaring conditions) - had a 1993 cellarmasters Riesling a week ago that blew my socks off!
Some that come to mind are old Lindemans, Tahbilks - almost all the old Penfolds, Rockfords, Tyrrells, Mt Pleasants, Lakes Follys. Hell most Wendouree Cabernets aren't even ready at 15 years!. Most of the wine in my cellar is over 10 years old and they are still wonderful and very few cost upwards of 50 bucks.

[Mike Hawkins]

Based on multiple bottles in the past three years of 86, 90 and 91 Penfolds Bin 28; 71, 86 and 90 Bin 389 (which was cheap back in the day); 86, 90 and 91 Yalumba Signature and 76, 86 and 91 Wynns Black Label, lower priced wines can definitely last the distance - and be much better for doing so. For me, the key is the vintage. For most of the aforementioned labels, vintages such as 85, 87, 89 and 92 have seen better days, but the great years are just that - great.

Mike

[ticklenow1]

In my experience, I have to agree with Mike. Vintage is very important. The great vintages just seem to last so much better.

Cheers
Ian

[paulf]

Sweeter rieslings, De Bortoli Noble ones and Vintage fortifieds. I don't think I've ever opened a Stanton and Killeen Vintage fortified with less than 20 years on it

[TravisW]

Before we go too much further: IIredwine, do you like (or have you tried many) aged red/white wines? There is no point buying up and then laying down wines which you might end up disliking. That said, your taste/preference in wine will probably have changed in 15 years time.

Cheers, Travis.

[daz]

I've had bottles of standard Tahbilk cab 1981 and shiraz 1986 bought directly from the winery that drank very well significantly more than 15 years after vintage. Allan (TWF) can attest to the shiraz, we having shared a bottle (with Sue) at Brent's in November, 2006 or 2007. The Tahbilk vintage rating guide is pretty accurate, depending on the cork seals of older wines. One of the shiraz 1986 was reported by family I left it with to be TCA affected. Tahbilk replaced it with a bottle of the same vintage without hesitation or question.

[Jay60A]

All about vintage and balance - for SA reds years like 1996 over 1998, 2004 over 2002, avoid heatwave years where the grapes were roasted (too many to mention but 2001 comes to mind). Clare and Eden Valley Riesling in 2002, 2005, 2012 etc.

Cabernet and cabernet predominant blends will do 15 years in a good vintage ... e.g. Balnaves and Majella in 2004 ... not just top wines but also the mid-range.

Some of the fruit bombs from the Parkerised era (1997-2006?) won't age, others may. Amon Ra? Critics are generally as clueless as us unless they have done a 20 year vertical too they are guessing on ageability.

No generalisations ... I love reading aged wine reviews or drinking them. Wynns Centenary and Seppelt GW Shiraz 1991 both come to mind as learning experiences on wines that age really well.

[phillisc]

I agree with much in this interesting post.

However what has occurred in the Australian wine industry, particularly with the bigger brands is that their ranges have just exploded to the absolute detriment of the overall quality of the once proud and better quality existing wines in past portfolios.

I had someone from TWE at Southbank trying to flog me Wolf Blass yellow label yesterday...for God's sake what next Pennies wanting to sell me bargain based Rawsons retreat...or a bag of mixed lollies seeing its Halloween.

If you are going to look at 15 year old reds I agree with some posters here...the wine has to have cred or proven longevity...regardless of price.
There are one ot two wines under $15 that one, have a track record of 20 plus years and two, as aged examples really deliver the goods.

The trouble is, on the whole you are going to have to spend a bit of money to supposedly get something with quality fruit.

I would love to know what the pecking order was , for example with 1986 Bin 28...a brilliant wine of which I think there are a few left in the cellar. The best fruit back 27 years ago probably now goes into St Henri and RWT.
Thats the issue, you can't get that wine now, either for quality or price...hence very few know of what a wine circa 2013 will look like in 2030. 20 plus years ago there was IMHO a much greater degree of certainty of what was likely to evolve over 1-2 decades....not now.

My 2c
Cheers Craig.

[llredwine]

Thanks for everyone’s opinions. You guys are excellent.

We had 1995 WA wines. They are almost vinegar.
1993 Seppelt Drumborg Cabernet Sauvignon was my first aged wine which absolutely changes my thought for aged wine.

we have to agree some Old wines are excellent. We do like the taste of old wine. That is why we raised this discussion.

We love to try some AGED Penfolds. But we end up giving up this idea due to high demand of this brand which causes price jump up so much. We are happy to try some other brands which are affordable and drinkable.

[griff]

We had 1995 WA wines. They are almost vinegar.

Which ones did you try? It was a very decent vintage in WA, awful in some parts of SA however. The Houghton's Show Reserve Shiraz from this year was, and still is, a stunner. The Cullen not too shaby either. The Houghton used to be a favourite on here and beat most comers at tasting events like the current forum favourite, the 1991 Wynns Centennary Shiraz Cabernet. Actually that would be a nice comparison someday...

cheers

Carl

[burgster]

It's been an interesting discussion.

I do agree totally with Milan's point that one day you do have to be prepared to drink the wine.

Strange as it may seem, after collecting wines for many years it is easy to see them as trophies and not actually get around to drinking them until they are past their best.

The other point that I often ponder is this whole concept of a product that has to be stored for 10-15 years before you can actually use it.

Imagine buying a new car and having to park it in the garage for many years until you can use it. Perhaps getting it out at ten years of age and driving it around the block to see if it is working ok yet.

In many ways its a very cunning marketing ploy pushed on us by the wine industry. Open a wine too young and its your fault for not being patient enough, leave it too long and you should have drunk it a few years earlier when it peaked after 13.5 years in the bottle. Very cunning if you ask me, and what other industry could get away with it?

[ufo]

It's been an interesting discussion.

I do agree totally with Milan's point that one day you do have to be prepared to drink the wine.

Strange as it may seem, after collecting wines for many years it is easy to see them as trophies and not actually get around to drinking them until they are past their best.

The other point that I often ponder is this whole concept of a product that has to be stored for 10-15 years before you can actually use it.

Imagine buying a new car and having to park it in the garage for many years until you can use it. Perhaps getting it out at ten years of age and driving it around the block to see if it is working ok yet.

In many ways its a very cunning marketing ploy pushed on us by the wine industry. Open a wine too young and its your fault for not being patient enough, leave it too long and you should have drunk it a few years earlier when it peaked after 13.5 years in the bottle. Very cunning if you ask me, and what other industry could get away with it?

Excellent point never thought of it this way.

[llredwine]

We had 1995 WA wines. They are almost vinegar.

Which ones did you try? It was a very decent vintage in WA, awful in some parts of SA however. The Houghton's Show Reserve Shiraz from this year was, and still is, a stunner. The Cullen not too shaby either. The Houghton used to be a favourite on here and beat most comers at tasting events like the current forum favourite, the 1991 Wynns Centennary Shiraz Cabernet. Actually that would be a nice comparison someday...

cheers

Carl

Unfortunately I don’t remember the name for that wine. I paid no attention to that wine due to unacceptable sour taste back in 1 yrs ago.

[llredwine]

It's been an interesting discussion.

I do agree totally with Milan's point that one day you do have to be prepared to drink the wine.

Strange as it may seem, after collecting wines for many years it is easy to see them as trophies and not actually get around to drinking them until they are past their best.

The other point that I often ponder is this whole concept of a product that has to be stored for 10-15 years before you can actually use it.

Imagine buying a new car and having to park it in the garage for many years until you can use it. Perhaps getting it out at ten years of age and driving it around the block to see if it is working ok yet.

In many ways its a very cunning marketing ploy pushed on us by the wine industry. Open a wine too young and its your fault for not being patient enough, leave it too long and you should have drunk it a few years earlier when it peaked after 13.5 years in the bottle. Very cunning if you ask me, and what other industry could get away with it?

Good point, Burgster,

That is interesting.

Buy one bottle ( good one) and store for 10 yrs, you don’t know whether it has passed its best.

Or

Buy a box of 12 (ordinary one), you open one every year to see how it is going.

Which one do you guys prefer? (assuming the price for 1 bottle is equal or sightly less than 12 bottles)