The Auswine Forum

Why can't Australia make wines that age for 50-60 years like Bordeaux or Yquem?

Surely the only place in the world that can make extraordinarily long ageing wines can't just be the Sth West of France?

Do they have a secret that nobody else knows? Are they the only ones that try to?

Surely it can't just be the grapes or the terroir?

Most wine writers and forum contributers recommend a max of 15-20 for even the very elite of Aus red wines with the one exception of Grange but even Grange doesn't age as long as some Bordeaux.

What makes a wine last 60+ years and why can't it be done here?

What does Chateau d' Yquem do that De Bortoli don't? Is it in the winemaking process or do they really just have a blessed plot of grapes?

I don't mean this answer to be either flippant or rude.

But who cares if a wine can age 50 - 60 years?

I am not saying that I don't like aged wines, I really do. But I'm 40 and I don't want to drink the stuff when I'm 100yrs old. (if I make it that long)

Is 60 yr old wine 3 times better than a 20 yr old Grange or alike?

In fact, I would rather that all wines peak at say only 10 yrs of age and that way we are assurred of drinking the best stuff in our lifetime.

Perfectly good point.

I just think that if I were a winemaker I'd want to have a crack at it. I'd love to think that 20 years after I was dead people were still drinking and enjoying my creation.

I've read a few books, watched a few shows recently where people talk aboout drinking a 1920 something Bordeaux and how exciting it was. I just am surprised that a few Aussie winemakers wouldn't want to take a shot at it.

Even if it was just in very small batches.

I just wondered if there was a practical/technical reason why nobody does it or if there was just no interest.

That's a fair enough question Trapper. Not being involved in the wine industry other than at the guzzling end, I can't give you a technical answer but there are some temporal, social, economic, demographic and geographic differences involved as well as, perhaps, those of the fabled terroir. Not to mention advances in the sciences.

Given the vagaries of cork seals, I wonder how many bottles of a wine produced 60 years ago would be worth drinking. That Lindeman's 1965(?) Burgundy release seems instructive in that regard, some great, some not so and some near undrinkable from reports I've seen. Not tried it myself.

French wine, in particular table wine, has at least a couple of centuries start on the Australian wine industry. Now, I've never tried any French wine with the exception of some Moet NV one night years ago when some fool was trying to impress, buying the stuff over the bar at an outrageous price. It's really been only the last 40-50 years that drinking wines other than cheap port or muscat, has become commonplace in Australia.

Early Australian table wines of the mid-late 19th century were largely aimed at export to the UK. An Empire foil against French and to a lesser extent Spanish, domination of this commodity? There also wasn't a large enough, affluent enough market in Australia to be able to afford table wines, the populace having mostly been weaned off the stronger spirits to consume mostly beer, much more palatable than watered-down vin ordinaire Locally distilled spirits were almost non-existant. Spirits were mostly imported and expensive, so cheap local fortified wine became the alternative for those wanting something stronger than beer, and the mainstay of most of the local wine industry until after the European diaspora that followed World War II. Won't elaborate on that.

Times, the world, have changed but Australia didn't have anywhere near the afflluent population that could sustain a local industry producing the wines you wish it would have. Grange was perhaps a start, but the wine industry is just that - an industry that wants to make $$$$sss. Although I wouldn't be surprised if there are a few wines sitting in winery cellars that a miniscule number of people will ever get to taste and would match the longevity you dream about.

I'm with Gianna. If I'd been able to afford to buy a wine with a sixty year cellaring capability when I was twenty, it'd be more likely that I'd be dead before the wine. Or I'd die drinking it! If it was drinkable.

Cheers

daz

Ratcatcher wrote:Why can't Australia make wines that age for 50-60 years like Bordeaux or Yquem?

Surely the only place in the world that can make extraordinarily long ageing wines can't just be the Sth West of France?

Do they have a secret that nobody else knows? Are they the only ones that try to?

Surely it can't just be the grapes or the terroir?

Most wine writers and forum contributers recommend a max of 15-20 for even the very elite of Aus red wines with the one exception of Grange but even Grange doesn't age as long as some Bordeaux.

What makes a wine last 60+ years and why can't it be done here?

What does Chateau d' Yquem do that De Bortoli don't? Is it in the winemaking process or do they really just have a blessed plot of grapes?

Interesting question, but I'd answer this way: who says we cant?

I know growth Bordeaux in particular gets a lot of press for ageability of the miniscule proprtion of very top wines from there, but some forget the volumes of drink now stuff that come from unclassified growths, and the ocean of vin de pays. When you consider that, surely the context changes - extremely ageable wines are really quite rare.

As to whether this type of ageing is worth it, I have to admit havent tried Latour from the 19th century to know any better so someone may tell me it is all worthwhile after all!

I dont think I've had more than two aussies from pre 1970. Al but one I can remember were sound but, well, they just tasted of bottle age. The odd one out was a 1962 Cabernet, reputedly bought by Gary Crittenden from Penfolds. It was sensational. Others tell me Grange from the 60's can still drink well, as do occasional others.

Also bear in mind Australia hasnt been making serious dry reds for more than about 50 years, so we just dont have the examples sitting around to know, and we also havent had the practice the french have had at this sort of thing!

Having said all that, I tend to agree with Gianna. I used to go for wines with "extreme age" but now I dont see a lot of point - unless the wine is for a swinging d!ck competition . I've begun to find that while there can be some nice wines at 25+ years,

cheers

Andrew

Gianna.. wrote:I don't mean this answer to be either flippant or rude.

But who cares if a wine can age 50 - 60 years?

I am not saying that I don't like aged wines, I really do. But I'm 40 and I don't want to drink the stuff when I'm 100yrs old.

Gianna,

Who's to say that you need to wait sixty years before drinking it? Auction is always an easy way to buy old wines now and you wouldn't have to wait. A first release as a museum release is another idea that could be utilised, as do the Italians, whereby the wine is already 20-30 years old when it first comes onto the market. I think Ratcatcher definitely has a worthwhile point that he's making.

Australia can but the trouble is getting hold of them. Remember Chateau Margeaux is about 27,000 cases per year it is only recently Grange is consistantly above 5000 cases. Much easier to drink a bottle every 18 months for a longer period when you start with more to being with.

The next challenge historically is cellaring conditions - we don't have any Scottish castles with cellars at a permanent 8 degrees to age things for 100 years+

I think 43 years at time of drinking is the oldest I've had an Australian wine, a 1955 Hardys Tintara Cabinet [sic] - stunning (drunk 98 or 99)
61 Grange was meant to be a shocker but the bottle drunk in 93 was very good

A couple of bottles of 64 (or was it 63) Seppelt Great Western Shiraz drunk round 2000 were a revelation.

64 and 66 St Henri, 65 Elliotts Hunter River, 54 Tullock Private Bin, All the Lindemans 1970 Hunter Rivers, 70 Eileen Hardy These are all wines I can think of that I have drunk at over 30 years which were fabulous but I could only ever get a bottle or 2 and so no way could I keep them another 30 years to prove they could go that long.

Most of the great wines you mentioned reach their peak by the time they are twenty years old but live for ages - I sure there are Australians which could do it (See books like Hallidays Great wines of Australia) but to have the stock to leave it that long - I don't have the money to build my cellar that far. Do you?

I think the Wynns 50 years of Cabernet tasting attending by a multitude of scribes showed that some of the early vintages were still very much alive and well.

Campbell may care to comment if he can get away from the keyboard.

Ratcatcher Wrote:
I've read a few books, watched a few shows recently where people talk aboout drinking a 1920 something Bordeaux and how exciting it was.

I cetainly agree with how wonderful this could be, I would love to try a 40 - 50 -60 -70 yr old wine for the experience.

My point is: wouldn't it be great if the 10 yr old wine was able to taste just like the 70 yr old one.

A bit of pipe dream I suppose.... [/b][/quote]

The last of my 66 Great Western Shiraz was consumed in February this year. The only reason I opened it was because the cork was leaking. It would probably have gone another 10 years with comfort.

And I have sitting in front of me a report on a vertical tasting of Yalumba Signature going back to the original from 1961, which was the last of the Galway Vintage Clarets. From the report most if not all were sound.

Who says we don't make wine that will last. Most of us are just too damn impatient, or now too damn old, to wait.

Davo wrote:...I have sitting in front of me a report on a vertical tasting of Yalumba Signature going back to the original from 1961, which was the last of the Galway Vintage Clarets. From the report most if not all were sound....

Davo, make with the goods. Now! Can we see? Please...??

Jakob wrote:Davo, make with the goods. Now! Can we see? Please...??

This was probably one of the few intelligent articles in Winestate over the past 5 years.

Look to the March/April edition from last year. Tasting panel were Peter Lehman, Robert Hill Smith, Brian Walsh and Peter Simic. The first 3 at least should know what they are talking about.

Davo

A vibe as to how the old Seppelt's aged?

Comparisons or thoughts reference the contemporary St Peter's or Chalambar styles?

The wine was still quite youthful, with plenty of primary fruit still evident but with layers of complexity added by the secondary changes. There was plenty of body and a long finish. And it was still revealing more of itself over time in the glass, unlike a lot of older wines I have had that had a definite short drinking window before they turned up their toes in the glass.

But then I might be a bit biased, why not ask Muscat Mike, as he shared the bottle. He seemed to enjoy it on the night but of course he may have been faking.

A bit hard to compare to current Seppelts wines, made harder by the fact this was a blend of Gt Western, Rutherglen, and Barossa fruit.

Wish I had more but.

my personal problem with aging is:
1) when you buy old wine, you have no idea how was it stored over the years and basically engaging in expensive crap shoot.

2) when you buy new wine and cellar it yourself-
who the heck knows if you be around to drink the wine when it's at the top?

decissions, decissions....

We do make wines that will age a very long time, it's just that we don't keep them that long.

Probably the biggest factor is storage. Most of the great old bottles of France have been cellared in very cold temperatures and since ageing is basically a chemical reaction which is heat sensitive, very cold storage will slow the process. I doubt any great drinking bottles of France have been in an Australian cellar since the 20s and 30s.

Keeping wines at a constant 14 degrees is a relatively new idea in Australia. The best we've done in the past is what we've thought is a cool cellar which at best probably has summer temperatures above that kind of range.

Very good point Steve.

When I interviewed Len Evans last year he mentioned that he only buys aged French wine out of London auctions, rather than Australian auctions, for this very reason. London auctions = (on average) the likelihood of cooler storage conditions.

campbell.

My oldest wine is a 1992 HOG

I have to agree with Gianna, who cares how long a wine ages for?? What really has that got to do with anything?

If a wine peaks after 2 years instead of 20 how does that harm us?

1. The more long term cellar wines you have, the larger your cellar has to be based on the formula: cellar size = no of wines per year drunk * average age of wine at consumption. What ever happenned to JIT wine cellars, cost of inventory, cost of capital, risk costs etc hehe

2. Old wines are more risky. No great old wines just great old bottles. tastes change and a cellars intertia sometimes doesnt keep up with those taste changes. How many people have wines that they once enjoyed but now never seem in the mood for? How many tasting notes have you read of great old wines that have let people down? Ive read piles!

3. If you just want to caress your bottles in anticipation for decades, try drinking one then keeping the bottle and carressing it in rememberance instead. At least then you know whether it actually is worth all the carressing or whether its gonna dump on you when its opened!!

4. read any vertical tasting and you will find that the wines scored the highest are usually in the younger section, not the older section. Also if you average the scores of the older 50% of the wines it will be less than the average score for the youngest 50% of the wines.

Top wines improve over short to medium term no doubt. However long term cellaring has no return on investment relating to how it tastes in the glass. It has more to do with snobbery and collecting than drinking and enjoying

One nice thing to have is a birth year/anniversary year wine i guess for a special occassion but apart from that I cant think of any time where I even consider the long term potential for a wine in making a decision about what to buy

C.

I'm the opposite to Craig (NZ) and dont have the time to refute every point he makes. Suffice to say I strongly disagree. Anyway, I ONLY buy wines to cellar long-term. If it ain't gonna last 10 years and improve then there is no point for me to purhcase it. The short answer is that I have no choice (too much to drink currently) and my taste preference is for older wines. I find young wine far too tannic and acidic. Others love them. Your prefernce will dictate what you prefer.

Baby Chickpea wrote:...Your prefernce will dictate what you prefer.

Danny, how profound!

Davo wrote:But then I might be a bit biased, why not ask Muscat Mike, as he shared the bottle. He seemed to enjoy it on the night but of course he may have been faking.

I was, of course, faking. It was absolute and utter crap. I am joking. The wine was excellent. I was honoured that Davo and his beloved were willing to share it with me. It would have been better if they had let me drink the lot, but I did have to work the next day.
I did not take any notes but it was a sublime wine. There was still fruit, tannins and acid but all were melded into this smooth as silk liquid that just tantalised my tonsils as it trickled over them. (That is actually bulldust as they were taken out many years ago, but you get the picture.)
Thanks Davo for sharing this with me.
I have only had one older wine recently, a 1942 Seppelts Port and it was also still in great nick.
MM.

My take on this; aged wine certainly can have an air of historical reverence. Imagine the summer sun that bathed the vintage, the economical, political and social climate that bore it. Your birth vintage, or that of a loved one? The perfect way to celebrate or reflect on a life. Sentiment aside, wines that age, or rather, improve with age, develop qualities, depth and character, that early bloomers will just never attain. My greatest wines have all been at least 20 years of age. I believe that Australia does produce wines that will take on these forms, though whether they find the grace and deep, complete beauty to rival the best of Bordeaux, I just don't know...I haven't been lucky enough to strike one yet. Why? Well, maybe for the very reasons cited above. While you cannot argue against Grange or John Riddoch at its middle-aged peak, many (most even) of our wines make for an awesome experience in the short to medium term. To cellar or to buy from auction? For the truly long haul, the cellars of previous generations must be the only answer. Even with perfect provenance, you can never tell if a bottle will be frighteningly perfect or perfectly frightening until you pull the cork or, for PC's sake, turn the screw

Do I like drinking really old wine, not really. Up to 20 years for reds often brings some interesting wines but really old wines do have that historical significance.

About a decade ago I had a 1917 Protugeuse Vintage Port with a few friends. It was still eminently drinkable but past it's best. We were enjoying the experience when someone remarked "they were shooting at each other across the Somme when this wine was vintaged". The table went quiet as we reflected on that statement.

Great old bottles are an historic time travel.

707 wrote:Great old bottles are an historic time travel.

Yep, take the 1966 Gt Western I mentioned above.

Great wine from an historically memorable year. 14th February heralded in decimal coins, and that same week Davo started at high school.

Surely more memorable than a bit of lead at the Somme.

I find it sad that people can't appreciate the benefit of aged wine - after all, it is a natural product and the difference that age makes is caused by nature and time - not artificial intervention!

Aged wines are more subtle (regardless of country of origin!) more complex but certainly not "in your face" like young friut bombs - perhaps there in lies the problem............

Take a good bottle of 10 year old red, pull the cork, let it breathe, enjoy what the wine offers and then think....what was I doing 10 years ago - that will help put things in perspective!

Long live the long lived wines!

Ten year old wines weren't the oldies I was referring to, I drink and enjoy them frequently.

I'm talking about how enjoyable 30 and 40 year old wines are. If with great cellaring they still are mostly curios and not what you'd sit down to a whole bottle of.

Australia does make wines that age well - but none that continue to gain complexity over 50+ years (fortified blends of vintages are not included).

I have been privileged to drink the 1921 d'Yquem seven times for consistently unbelievable results: not as curiosity but simply THE most fantastic dessert wine I have ever tasted. By contrast 19th century wine from (very) cold cellars has left me....cold and I regard it as a curiosity that may be alive but not for drinking pleasure.

On the other hand a 1934 lafite, a number of memorable 45s & 47 s and a LOT of 59s and 61s from Bordeaux have blown me away.

1971 Grange well-cellared (and Grange is surprisingly hard to kill compared with much else) is superb at 34, and the underrated 1975 vintage is drinking superbly at 30 if you like Grange as a style.

I cannot afford great Burgundy but have drunk many superb aged examples, albeit not in the same numbers or as old as Bordeaux.

There are many examples of wines which will keep "forever " (well 30+ years) without actually improving eg in Oz Baileys HJT I have never actually seen one soften and flesh out as opposed to tannic monsters (yes at 30), or those made to hold such as Vouvray (and improve under the sulphur)

The comments about truly cool cellars in Oz are well made, but there have been some very good wines from the 60s and previously: Peppermint pattie, 63 Grange (a bottle of which was superb 18 months ago) and don't knock the 59 Lindemans HRB - or the 65 either 3100 and 3110.

I prefer wines with some age as I like to drink wines at what I consider their peak: of course that means some wines do not require much time at all, but as a general rule I like secondary characteristics with some primary fruit left.

So, for my tastes the 1986 St Henri is at its peak window now, while the 1990 is barely entering its window; the 1991 Wynns BL is drinking superbly while the 1990 is not yet ready- but will be over the next couple of years I think; many of the 1996 & 1998 vintage from SA (particularly CS) are in hibernation or just emerging - while much of the 1994 is pretty close to being on-song. 1991 Cullen and Moss Wood are in the window, while the 1987 Moss Wood is at its peak; 1986 Grange is still too young but getting there - and no I would not consider opening 1990 Grange, bin 90A or 920: they are a scarce resource and need at least another 5 years but will look great for and in a decade AFTER that! 1982 John Riddoch is drinking superbly while 1986 has barely reached its drinking window and 1990 should not be considered prior to 2010.

A whole lot of great barolo form the 1960s and 1970s (as the traditional style of barolo takes a good 20 years to hit its straps and typically holds for another 15...) is another good indicator - not to mention some great TBA from 1971 and 1976 of the virtues of cellaring.

Anyone who has had the opportunity to drink great or even really very good wines aged naturally will understand that decanting for hours or days is only the vague indication of what a wine will become, and not a real substitute for the ageing process.

On the other hand, I am a great believer that with the exception of clearcut technical faults, one of the truly remarkable and fun things about wine is that you can have palte recognition (ie spot the wine) but there is no "right taste".

So I don't criticise those who like fruitbombs (or even SB) - just note the difference in palate preference.

When asked for advice I try to find out what they like and guide them to better value for their palate, and only occasionally towards my own preference (that latter is euphemistically described as "education").

I find it fascinating to have my own horizons expanded: the magnificent Osars that I experienced in January were fascinating.

The single greates mistake you can make is to be prescriptive. WIne drinking should be about personal enjoyment - and it should match food, not some obscure idea that it should be drunk separately. In many cases people's wine palates will be determined by their food preferences (both as a combination and because their palates will have become acclimatised/anaesthetised).

So write your notes, get excited but don't think you ever have "the answers" because the most you have is an option for your palate as it currently stands!!

fred

Essentially there is no right view. An how do we define "long ageing"? In wine industry parlance this may defined as 3 years given a number of sources cite over 85% (varies from 85% to 95% depending on soure) of bottles purchased in Australia are consumed with 24-48 hours. For many, myself includd, long-term ageing for Aussie wines must be +10 years, and probably 20 years for great vintage Grand Cru burgundy or 1st growth bordeaux (and super seconds). Personally, if we narrow it down to 10-20 years then I firmly in favour. After all, I have never tasted a great vintage 1st growth bordeaux/grand cru burgundy or Grange/HoG that tasted better at release or in its youth than at 10-25 years of age (depending on vintage and the individual wine). And I know of no other wine buffs in my immediate vicinity who hold the contrary view. But 50-60 years seems pointless anyway. After all this also seems supported by the advent of screwcaps and 13-15C cellars in Australia, which by definition should allow Aussie wines to age longer. Are the 1945 superstars, 1947 (Latour a Pomerol, Petrus, Lafleur, cheval Blanc) and 1961 1st growths really any better now after 40-60 years than they were at 20-30 years of age? Well recent TNs from Coates, Broadbent and Parker don't seem to support this. But if you can enjoy 96 Grange, or 2000 1st growths now then you are very lucky because I cannot (as opposed to not minding or trying if your providing ).