To be fair, however, the author only tasted from four wineries in support of his premise. I do understand, of course, that he may have further evidence, but his report only details those four. Hard to read too much into any of this since there are so many questions/factors/criteria which can affect the results.
I guess I disagree, because the article isn’t about how the 99% age, it tries to be about how the 1% age. They aren’t taste testing Woodbridge and Coppola Pinot at age 10.
And if you took the total production in Bordeaux or Burgundy at all levels, probably the vast majority of it would have gone downhill by age 10 or 15 as well.
Having said that, I’m not trying to create some equivalency on aging. A higher percentage of Burgs at a given price/quality level age well and longer as compared to California. Sure.
Perfectly said. And the track record of producers like Swan, Dehlinger, Sea Smoke, Mt Eden, Rochioli and others shows that good California pinots can age even at the same time as they have ripe fruit that is appealing in its youth. They don’t have to be searingly acidic, lean, stemmy, shut down, and so forth in their youth in order to be able to develop well with age.
To add to Eric’s point, thanks to being pals with Blake Brown, I have enjoyed many many Williams Selyem whites and reds…going back to 1985, which is about three years after they started.
I have been to Burgundy maybe forty times in my life and I must say
1/I don’t have faith in every premier cru red, and esp white, in terms of ageing potential
2/I have always purchased there by producer, not by appellation
3/I don’t know what the total acreage of red premier crus is, but it must be close to zilch. Acc to one book, premier and grand cru vineyards amount to 12% of Burgundy production, inc Chablis and Macon.
4/Percentage wise your statistical chance of having a good ager from premier cru Cote d Or is probably better than any California Pinot Noir from Carneros, RR, Sonoma Coast, Anderson Valley, and the the Cental Coast…so what? Who buys wine based on statistical chances?? Most of us buy wine from wineries we know, wherever they may be.
On this issue of Burgundy/Bordeaux and aging…don’t mean to flog a dead horse here, but I simply don’t buy that “the vast majority” or even “most” (as in half or more) of classed red Burgundy/Bordeaux don’t age. It’s now 2017, think about picking up a 2007 Burgundy, say just a village wine. Would you have the slightest doubt in your mind that a 2007 Burgundy would still be fine if well stored? I wouldn’t. Ten years from vintage date is nothing for most Burgundy.
Now I guess it’s possible that there’s a statistically vast ocean of plonk from Burgundy/Bordeaux that we never run across and which may not age. In Bordeaux especially that could be true for reds, because there are so many satellite appelations and then most of us never drink the plain “Bordeaux” appelation. But that’s really not what’s being discussed here, any more than we are discussing Barefoot Pinot when we are discussing California pinot and its ageability.
Bottom line, for red Burgundy and Bordeaux in the $30 and up range, being ageable is the RULE and not being ageable is the EXCEPTION. For California Pinot in the same price range, it seems like the opposite is the case (although I do think a lot of California Pinot can at least last if not improve in the bottle for a reasonable amount of time).
Only reason I’m making a point of it is that I’ve often wondered why this difference exists.
To answer Marcus’ question, I think there are several reasons.
1/the market makes the wine and restaurants are very important here. Restaurateurs want ready to drink wines here. If you are making 500 cases of Vosne Suchots, you can do whatever you feel like.
2/I think most Burgundies have lower pHs,etc.
It seems like every book on wine published in the '70s made the points that
1/Bordeaux makes ten times as much wine as Burgundy
2/If you put all the wine of Burgundy into a bottle, the part from the Cote d Or would go from the top of the shoulder to the cork
It’s funny that thirty years ago, the title of the Prince’s article might have been, Burgundy: Go there at your own risk. As most 1er Cru red Burgundy starts at around $50, the real question would be, How happy would you be if you dropped $50 on a drinkable but unexciting Burgundy from the 2008 vintage??
What if you spent $100?? How do you feel about your 2004s??
I’ve tasted three “adolescent” Pinots recently - ‘11 Williams Selyem “Peay”’, '11 Arnot Roberts “Peter Martin Ray” and '09 Rhys “Horseshoe.” All outstanding and seemingly on a steep ascent.
The distinction is that when you and others make this point, you drop in “classed” or “premiere cru” or some other qualifier that changes the question.
I think a risk of this type of assessment is that if a wine really did age like great Burgundy, the range of vintages tasted might be the very worst to understand that. If you tasted a bunch of closed/muted wines you might conclude they were losing fruit and going over the hill/not outlasting their tannins. I’m not sure if any CA Pinots actually shut down hard like that but I’m sure some will go through ups and downs.
This article piqued my interest, so I opened a 2010 Windy Oaks Proprietor’s Reserve tonight, since Rusty’s review seemed particularly harsh for this one.
I thought it was simply gorgeous with notes of roses, berries, sandalwood, and orange zest along with an amazing silky mouthfeel. To me, this should continue to evolve in very interesting ways for years to come. I would rate it an easy 94 with room for further improvement.
I’ve done a fair bit of experimentation over the years. I think it’s generally good advice to not have high expectations for ageing California pinot but of course there are exceptions at the high end. What’s more damning to me about a great deal of aged California pinot is that often times it’s impressive when it’s still alive but not at all clear that ageing improved it.
In my experience, positive exceptions to the rule have been:
Windy Oaks - was doing great at 10+ years and clearly improved since release
Mount Eden - have had 15+ year examples that were great
Rhys - they almost all improve. Mediocre years like 2006 are peaking at age 10, structured years like 2007 probably won’t peak until age 15 or 20.
Littorai - 15 year old examples were very good but not improving past that point to me
Ceritas - the 9 year old Escarpa was drinking great this December but probably not improving past that point
Rochioli - I’ve had a good number at age 10-15 that were very good but not improving past that point
But conversely the list of pinots I wouldn’t take much past age 10 is much, much longer. Some of them are producers I regularly buy & enjoy, I just make a point of finishing them off early.
Agree with Jeremy & others that burgundy has on average a strictly longer ageing curve at basically every price/quality point.