Page 1 of 1
Cellaring wine for results
Posted: Sat May 29, 2004 9:11 pm
by ChrisH
Raised a topic on another Board along these lines :
The recent argument between global wine scribes such as Parker, Robinson, Coates, Broadbent, Tanzer and Suckling about the Parker phenomenan influencing Bordeaux wines made me start thinking. It manifested itself around the 2003 Chateau Pavie, but really transcended into a Classic versus modernist camp situation.
The Parker style is commonly considered to be massive fruit character, almost to the point of being over-ripe, high alcohol, and in the case of OZ lookalike style, also lots of American oak. These "modernist" styles are often tailored to the American consumer, who has a lot of buying power in the global wine market through sheer numbers.
Here is my point - the top 30 wines I have drunk so far in my life have been mature wines. The greatness has come about because time has bestowed tremendous complexity to the wine.
I cannot think of any modernist style wines I have had that improve with cellaring - as a result they are generally not great wines in my book because they do not attain complexity through gradual maturation. I have trouble with the concept that a wine can be truly great without bottle-aged complexity.
Is the Runrig an exception perhaps - what do you think ?
Are there others ?
regards
Chris
Posted: Sat May 29, 2004 9:29 pm
by Guest
By definition this 'modernist' style is fairly recent ... is there enough evidence to suggest that some of these wines will NOT improve with age? IMHO - Sure, some of these 'modernist' wines are so out of balance that they won't improve with age, but that does not mean that high alcohol + very ripe fruit +american oak ALWAYS means there is no potential to improve with age.
What I have said has been said before by people more learned than me - this debate has been had before, will be had again, and the answer every time is always that only time will tell.
Re: Cellaring wine for results
Posted: Sun May 30, 2004 5:02 am
by TORB
ChrisH wrote:I cannot think of any modernist style wines I have had that improve with cellaring - as a result they are generally not great wines in my book because they do not attain complexity through gradual maturation. I have trouble with the concept that a wine can be truly great without bottle-aged complexity.
Hi Chris,
Agree with most of the points you raised but here are a few comments.
1. Agree with guest, it is to early to tell, but my gut feel is most of the super octane juice will not benefit and improve greatly with cellaring but there may be a small number of exceptions.
2. The modernest style can be "truly greatly enjoyable" and a hedonistic delight, but that does not mean they will get more complex. But does it matter? Why not just enjoy them for what they are now?
As Guest says, time will tell.
Re: Cellaring wine for results
Posted: Mon May 31, 2004 8:55 am
by GraemeG
TORB wrote:
1. Agree with guest, it is to early to tell, but my gut feel is most of the super octane juice will not benefit and improve greatly with cellaring but there may be a small number of exceptions.
As Guest says, time will tell.
Pretty much sums up my general view - and I'm always concerned that the wide generalisations that this type of debate engenders. Everyone's quite happy to say "There are no great old wines, only great old bottles" and I rather think this debate should be conducted along those lines. Pavie 2003 will no doubt be a wonderful case study - when it is finally available (at a farcical price, no doubt).
So here's my candidate for discussion. One of the first Oz wines 'discovered' by Parker was the range of Clarendon Hill reds, starting with the 95 vintage, if I recall. Mass extract, high alcohol, the whole orchestra. Anyone know how those wines are travelling at 9 years of age? What drinking windows did he give them? Has he retasted?
cheers,
Graeme
Re: Cellaring wine for results
Posted: Mon May 31, 2004 10:56 am
by TORB
GraemeG wrote:[One of the first Oz wines 'discovered' by Parker was the range of Clarendon Hill reds, starting with the 95 vintage, if I recall. Mass extract, high alcohol, the whole orchestra. Anyone know how those wines are travelling at 9 years of age?
Hi Graeme,
I have tried some of the older (93 and 94's) Clarendon and Noons wines. Hot, alcoholic one dimensional port.
Posted: Mon May 31, 2004 11:38 am
by Baby Chickpea
Last year I tried some of th 1st WDC Springflat's from 1992-1995 and all were still excellent wines and showing no sign of falling apart. Not sure if the Springflat can be considered "cult" though given it is quite a classic style compared to Dave's other wines. I also had the 95 Duck Muck and an earlier vintage which had no label and both were also fine, showing little of the 18% alcohol and still primary fruit. I've always maintained that Dave's WDC wines are well made with good structure (notwithstanding a couple of over-the-top efforts like the flamboyant 2000 Shiraz Reserve and Duck Muck in 1997). I have had some Noons however from 1995 and 1994 and yes I agree with TORB they were like sugared port. Not undrinkable just not enjoyable wines.
Posted: Mon May 31, 2004 11:49 am
by Jess
It is probably worth noting at this point that Drew Noon didn't return to the family winery until 1996, and that he didn't really take full responsibility for the wines, from go to whoa, until the 1997 vintage. Until then he had nothing to do with the wines - he was working in Victoria - and by his own admission, they weren't as well made as they could have been. If people have tasted Noon wines from vintages prior to 1997, then that is fine, but these wines are not indicative of Drew's practices.
This is not a defence of the style, just a point of clarification. Drew Noon belives in fruit concentration. But he also believes in balance. If the wines are balanced, then they should age. If they are not, then they won't.
Jess.
Posted: Mon May 31, 2004 12:43 pm
by ChrisH
Jess wrote :
If the wines are balanced, then they should age
Agreed Jess. But will they improve and become more complex ?
It could be argued that some big wines like Runrig are already complex on release - I wonder how many are like this.
Examples that I have experience with that are big and bold are E&E Black Pepper Shiraz and Leasingham Classic Clare Shiraz. Having drunk these both early and at 10 years of age, they did not become any more complex than they were upon release - just softer and in some cases like the 93 Classic Clare the fruit will be outlived by the oak, so is probably only going to go backwards.
My point was not whether these wine are nice to drink or not, it was whether they improve and become complex with cellaring - in most cases, I think not.
regards
Chris
Posted: Mon May 31, 2004 12:56 pm
by Jess
Chris,
I was not really making any argument on the topic at hand, just clarifying the situation on the wines of Drew Noon. I don't buy Noon wines so I'm not even defending them, just clarifying. My guess with Noon is that some of his wines will gain complexity with age, and some will not. Just my guess though. Am not the least fussed if you disagree.
If I were to argue anything on the topic, I'd suggest that, the longer you cellar and drink quality wines, the more you come to the conclusion that most wines, from all over the world (new world and old), don't really get much better with age – they may last, they may kick on to great old ages, but get better, get more complex? It's a delight when it happens, but it's not the norm.
Having said that, I think that Grange was criticised for being too big/extracted/American oaky when it was released 50 years ago, and yet it can gain complexity, and it can improve with age - it doesn't always, but it often does. I would argue that there are wines from the recent Barossan cult splurge that have been criticised in exactly the same way as grange was originally, and they will age similarly magnificently.
Then again, there will be many cult wines that will fall over and die in a horrible mess. That, my unfortunate experience would argue, is wine.
Jess.
Posted: Mon May 31, 2004 1:28 pm
by ChrisH
Couldn't agree with that Jess. I have had plenty of wines that have improved and become more complex with cellaring, from Bordeaux and Rhone through to Burgundy, and heaps of Aussies.
regards
Chris
Posted: Mon May 31, 2004 2:44 pm
by Jess
So have I Chris. The ones that have actually gained complexity though are, in my exeprience, in the minority. If you've had more luck, then I want to come around to your place for dinner
But what do you think of the flack that Grange copped when it was released 50 years ago, versus the flack that some cults cop. Is it surprisingly similar flack? Do you agree or diagree?
Jess.
Posted: Mon May 31, 2004 6:58 pm
by ChrisH
Grange is not made for immediate hedonistic appeal. It has sturcture and inevitably improves and becomes more complex with ageing.
regards
Chris
Posted: Mon May 31, 2004 7:09 pm
by Guest
Chris,
I believe Jess' point was this:
1. 50 years ago Grange was a new style (a modernist style for the time).
2. People doubted its ability to age.
3. With the benefit of hindsight they were proved wrong - some (ok, many) vintages of grange do improve with age.
Perhaps the same thing will happen with the blockbuster style. Perhpaps not. More likely some will prove to be great agers due to a complex combination of potentially unique terroir or judicious blending, top class vineyard management, and winemaking that promotes the balance of the wine. And others will turn into alhocolic sunraysie prune juice.
You seem to be suggesting that because a wine is good in its youth (to certain people) that means it won't age. There is a certain school of thought that thinks just the opposite - that a truly great wine will be great from day one.
I think predicting improvement of age is 75% luck and 25% the skill of the taster in determining how 'balanced' it is. Wine seems to be far too complex to pick with any degree of certainty. Some of the wines I thought would be crackerjack after a few years turned to dross. Others I held out no hope for turned out to be good. I am sure the same will occur here.
Posted: Mon May 31, 2004 10:17 pm
by Guest
Chris.
Let's just say this. When Grange was released, it was called a "monstrosity". Almost no one mentioned its structure or its ability to age and gain complexity over time. All that was mostly seen was its extract, its huge fruit, its lavish American oak. I simply see a parallel between it and the criticism of many of the modern cults i.e. some of them (not all) do have structure, and will age, and will gain complexity with time. Some will not.
Is 98 Grange not hedonistic? Is 1990 Grange not hedonistic? Is 1983 Grange not hedonistic? Are these not great vintages of Grange?
Jess.
Posted: Mon May 31, 2004 10:36 pm
by Guest
Anonymous wrote:1. 50 years ago Grange was a new style (a modernist style for the time).
2. People doubted its ability to age.
I feel so ignorant now. I, for whatever reason, thought that Grange was dismissed because it was undrinkable on release, and that its ability to age was in turn completely ignored, discounted even. I, right now, find it very hard to believe that drinkers and critics both failed to see the potential for beneficial ageing IF they looked for it. Is this really how it played out?
Posted: Thu Jun 03, 2004 10:23 am
by KMP
Grange is an interesting topic to discuss in regard to big wines and cellaring potential
Schubert wrote of Grange
'during the 1951 vintage, the first Grange experimental wine was made, incorporating five new untreated oak hogsheads which I had observed were used to such good effect in France and other European countries. The objective was to produce a big, full-bodied wine, containing maximum extraction of all the components in the grape material used." He also wrote
"It was during my initial visit to the major wine-growing areas of Europe in 1950 that the idea of producing an Australian red wine capable of staying alive for a minimum of 20 years and comparable with those produced in Bordeaux, first entered my mind. " See
here for The Story of Grange. I'd add more but the *(&&*^%#s who have my two copies of Schubert's biography have never returned them!!
From what Schubert is saying it does seem as though making
"big, full-bodied wine, containing maximum extraction of all the components" was something that the French were doing quite a while ago. This seems to be born out in a few sentences here and there in
Noble Rot. Oddly enough when Parker praised the 1982 Bordeaux vintage (in contrast to other reviewers) he aparently did so after learning that great vintages like 1929 were initially considered too big and ripe to be typical Bordeaux.
Having never tasted any of the great vintages, especially with age on them, I can't comment on the generalization. However it does seem to me that wine drinkers keep re-discovering the bigger is better wheel on a fairly regular basis. If this is so then I think the real question is why is there this cycle in wine styles?
Mike