Feedback
Feedback
Ageable wines: Old World or old-fashioned?
I think that you missed the boat on what I think is the key factor in ageability (Tim Patterson's Inquiring Winemaker, July and August 2008) -- to wit, minerality. I wish I could tell you with absolute certainty that older vintages of Bordeaux (and New World Cabs, for that matter) had a higher degree of minerality, measurable by physical means, than their modern counterparts.
I know there is something linked to minerality that expresses itself far more in Old World wines versus New World. Old World wines, even the current crop made in the hedonically gratifying, special FX, "international" style, tend to hold up for several days after they are opened, as opposed to New World wines, which are generally dead in the water the following day.
I think that in general, age-worthiness or minerality are primarily linked with how the grapes are farmed: Non-irrigated vines, with relatively small crop loads relative to their root volume, should theoretically take up the most minerals, and I would certainly correlate these vine characteristics with age-worthy wines.
Randall Grahm
Founder, Bonny Doon Vineyard
Santa Cruz, Calif.
Learn more about the existence (or lack of existence) of "minerality" in Patterson's December 2006 Inquiring Winemaker column.
I grow about 800 acres of winegrapes in Washington state, having produced grapes for wineries since 1980. Last year, we opened our own winery in Prosser and will produce about 10,000 cases by next year.
I've been drinking wine for 40 years, and I never cease to be amazed at how silly consumers and producers can be in their attitudes. The issue of ageability is quite interesting to me, since wines that hold up well with time seem to be cherished by enophiles and wine snobs. It would be interesting to know what percentage of the wine in the $30/bottle and over category is held for more than five years.
I rarely keep wines in my cellar for longer than five years. If I buy fine wine and keep it for 20 years, the cost to hold that investment means it will be far more expensive than a 5-year-old wine. Is a 20-year-old wine twice as good as a 5-year-old wine? The chance of the wine going downhill is nearly as high as of it getting marginally better.
I think the vast majority of wines are consumed within a year of purchase. So why shouldn't winemakers produce wine that is more readily approachable? I buy wine to drink, not to impress my friends or adore as art. Ageability of wine is an overrated attribute in my opinion.
Larry Olsen
Olsen Estates
Prosser, Wash.
I think that you missed the boat on what I think is the key factor in ageability (Tim Patterson's Inquiring Winemaker, July and August 2008) -- to wit, minerality. I wish I could tell you with absolute certainty that older vintages of Bordeaux (and New World Cabs, for that matter) had a higher degree of minerality, measurable by physical means, than their modern counterparts.
I know there is something linked to minerality that expresses itself far more in Old World wines versus New World. Old World wines, even the current crop made in the hedonically gratifying, special FX, "international" style, tend to hold up for several days after they are opened, as opposed to New World wines, which are generally dead in the water the following day.
I think that in general, age-worthiness or minerality are primarily linked with how the grapes are farmed: Non-irrigated vines, with relatively small crop loads relative to their root volume, should theoretically take up the most minerals, and I would certainly correlate these vine characteristics with age-worthy wines.
Randall Grahm
Founder, Bonny Doon Vineyard
Santa Cruz, Calif.
Learn more about the existence (or lack of existence) of "minerality" in Patterson's December 2006 Inquiring Winemaker column.
I grow about 800 acres of winegrapes in Washington state, having produced grapes for wineries since 1980. Last year, we opened our own winery in Prosser and will produce about 10,000 cases by next year.
I've been drinking wine for 40 years, and I never cease to be amazed at how silly consumers and producers can be in their attitudes. The issue of ageability is quite interesting to me, since wines that hold up well with time seem to be cherished by enophiles and wine snobs. It would be interesting to know what percentage of the wine in the $30/bottle and over category is held for more than five years.
I rarely keep wines in my cellar for longer than five years. If I buy fine wine and keep it for 20 years, the cost to hold that investment means it will be far more expensive than a 5-year-old wine. Is a 20-year-old wine twice as good as a 5-year-old wine? The chance of the wine going downhill is nearly as high as of it getting marginally better.
I think the vast majority of wines are consumed within a year of purchase. So why shouldn't winemakers produce wine that is more readily approachable? I buy wine to drink, not to impress my friends or adore as art. Ageability of wine is an overrated attribute in my opinion.
Larry Olsen
Olsen Estates
Prosser, Wash.
| Write Us: Please send us your opinions on wine industry issues, or your reactions to any of our articles. E-mail to edit@winesandvines.com or fax to (415) 453-2517. Items may be edited for clarity and brevity. |
SHARE »
