Drinking Windows, are they a Crock?

Lately I have been drinking many wines that are would be, or are, well past many critics drinking windows. Almost every one of them has shined. Included in this list would be a 1964 St Emilion from a petite chateau, an early 1980s White Star from Moet, 1979 Savigny from a Priuer family member, 1967 Cote de Rhone, and a 1955 Beaujulais Village! All the wines were drinking very well, to many peoples surprise, and while the fruit on most were subtle, the tertiary flavors were outstanding. Most of these wines were not meant for the long haul, and yet they were probably better aged than when they were young. None of these wines were stored especially well. I can understand the early part of the window, but the later date I question more. Are drinking windows just a crock? I know they are meant as a guide, but are they frequently misguiding?

The specific wines you mention seem very unusual and probably impossible to predict going that far. In general, though, yes, I think critics’ drinking windows are complete BS. Gilman and Meadows are probably much better than all of the more “major” critics from what I’ve seen. WS and WA estimates are often hilariously wrong, going way too far for certain wines (WA especially) and not nearly far enough for others (both publications), and often beginning at times that are likely right in the middle of phases during which those wines should be left alone. Traditional Barolo and Burgundy are some of the most laughable in that last sense.

There is just too much variability for drinking windows to be taken seriously. People have different preferences in wine wrt flavors and aromas not to mentione tannin. Bottle variation is real so two bottles won’t taste the same at the same age. How a young wine will develop is not a science but a guess made in most cases by a single critic that may or may not have significant experience with which to judge.

This. Your “drinking window” won’t be the same as the next guy’s.

Doug, I did mention “lesser” wines on purpose. These should even have a shorter window than the “greats”.I have had many classified wines that are well beyond their window that are drinking great. How often do you read a review saying something like “leave alone for 2 yrs and then drink over the next 5 yrs”. This seems to apply to certain varietals from the new world, but old world wines before critical review existed seem to march to a different beat. Will this be true of newer old world wines?

Windows are guesses based on personal experience and preference. When it comes to some critics’ windows I wonder if there is an element of managing customer satisfaction. It comes down to knowing how you like your wines to show and - more importantly - understanding their life cycle, i.e. knowing when to NOT drink them versus when to drink them.

Drinking “windows” are an educated guess. That’s it, no more complicated than that.

Of all the things I LOVE about CellarTracker, the drinking window stats on wines are 100% useless. I’ll give wine critics a bit of space as they have tasted thousands upon thousands of wines over a long period of time. I believe one’s experience can be valuable in this exercise, but to think that Joe Schmuck has any clue when a wine will mature is plain laughable.

Unless you are taking critical notes on a wide array of wines over a long period of time (re-tasting wines to experience their evolution) you have no way of estimating how a new wine will evolve. None.

Agreed with what everyone else has said above. I do believe that when critics give a wine a longer drinking window, they are ‘endorsing’ it as having a potential ‘longer life’ and therefore perhaps ‘justifying’ higher scores.

No one call tell how long a wine will last, as others have said. The myriad of factors that affect this are too many to ‘control’, and even if you could - perfect cellar temp, perfect humidity, etc - there is still the variability of the closure to deal with. AND there is no way to know every detail of every bottle before you purchased it - even the provenance at the winery itself.

This is one of the ‘most asked’ questions I get in my tasting room - ‘how long can I lay this wine down for’? My answer - any winemaker, winery owner, retailer, or reviewer who tells you ‘with certainty’ is a full of it . . .

Cheers!

It would be interesting to take a sample of reviews from a critic from 10+ years ago where they have done another tasting recently to see how their initial drinking window estimations held up. I know I’ve read plenty of WA reviews that were pretty darn close to the original predictions. Now - what I can’t say is that when they were wrong, did that register in my brain as much as when they were correct and I was impressed.

And before it happens, no I don’t believe new reviews are penned just to prove the original predictions correct. Someone will jump on it, I guarantee.

Drinking window is so imprecise a term as to render it useless.

I guess it can give a reader and idea if a reviewer thinks the wine will be a good bet for long term cellaring, but otherwise, not useful.

There are two types of folks who predict drinking windows: those who don’t know and those who don’t know they don’t know.

I’ll add my 2 cents again - didn’t know I was so passionate about drinking windows!

I only care about when a wine dies. If you’re omniscient, tell me when the vast majority of wine drinkers won’t like it anymore. Don’t care about primary/secondary characteristics, that’s all personal preference. Tell me when it’s vinegar. I can live with a drinkable bottle of wine that’s perhaps older than my personal preference, I just don’t want bottles to live and die in my cellar and be useless to anyone.

That’s about it.

To summarize:

1. Nobody can predict the future. If they could, they should buy stocks, make billions, and buy all their wine when it’s ready to drink.

2. Everyone has different preferences as to when they think a wine is at peak.

3. Storage matters and everyone’s storage is different.

4. Some critics and wineries have said that they intentionally estimate very conservatively to account for 1 and 2 and 3, even though they’re sure the wines could improve for much longer, given proper conditions.

5. Some critics announce insane drinking windows to get attention. Like “100 points and good for 100 years”.

6. The drinking windows announced by people who have not had many vintages of a given wine over many years are even more useless.

7. Consequently, the drinking window of most wines is about an hour. If you slam down a bottle in like 15 minutes, it’s kind of a waste. Take your time, relax, chew your food, and enjoy your wine slowly. Then go open another bottle.

Hmmmmmm…over the last yr, I’ve drunk dozens & dozens of old btls. Many of them have been pretty dead & gone.
Bitter/astringent/dryed-out tannins. No fruit. Sometimes a bit aldehydic. Some not much pleasure.
But I don’t recall a one of them being vinegar.
Tom

As Greg dal Piaz said here recently, some people like their bananas green and others don’t want to eat them until the skins are black.

Greg
A very good summary (excusing the last point - for us the drinking window is often in days).

I know my tastes run to much older wines than many, and typically much longer than most critics (Geoff Kelly in NZ is perhaps the obvious exception).

I like Aussie critic Jeremy Oliver’s approach. He very obviously chooses drinking windows from set options i.e. 1-2 years; 2-5; 5-8; 8-12; 12-20; 20-30; 30-40 so he’s clearly showing he has no greater accuracy than drink as soon as possible, drink relatively soon, give it a bit of cellar time, give it a decade/decade and a half/ 2-3 decades

He’ll also add a + if he thinks he may be being conservative. If he retastes later, he’ll update the rating & window and I think he has on occasion bucked that scale to be more specific.

The other plus side, was he insisted on 3 vintages of a wine before it would get into his guide, so he must already have some feel for the label.

With so many problems with drinking windows why do I use them?

• They help me narrow down the drinking list to wines that are likely to be at least approaching maturity, though sometimes an infant gets sacrificed just because it appeals to me.
• I try to update drinking windows in CT after I drink a bottle, even if I have none left, as I figure that might be more relevant to someone than a critic’s guess 10 years ago
• Helping to smooth out the buying so I’m not just stuck with ‘sleepers’ (which has been a problem), or all the wines are starting to get too old at once (not yet a problem, but could happen for those with long and over-exuberant buying histories)

Finally, back to the original post, there have been a good many inexpensive wines that mature rather nicely, some quite surprisingly so. Tasting Houghton White Burgundy young, would not have me believing it would still be alive a decade or more later, but it used to positively shine at 8-10 years old. For reds there are so many examples, some becoming really quite charming/complex, whilst perhaps the majority just fade gently and retain their dignity throughout. My main experience with these have been from mixed auction lots, where a more basic (very) old wine can outshine the wine that prompted me to bid (Some 1984 Bulgarian Cabernet from Oriahovitza springs to mind). Having a punt at a few bucks a bottle can be rewarding.

regards
Ian

Agreed. One thing I do look at on CT is the % of a certain wine in all cellars vs. the % consumed from all cellars. Factoring that as a snapshot of the entire community’s holdings, I find it much more reliable measure of opinions on drinkability than a couple of folks’ drinking windows.

I think that’s a great question. In a place like Bordeaux where the style has changed so much, nobody really knows. Of course, the same can be said for Napa.

Vinegar was a euphemism for bitter/astringent/dryed-out tannins. No fruit. Sometimes a bit aldehydic. Some not much pleasure. I did not mean it would literally turn into vinegar.