As I opened another disappointing bottle last night of 1978 Château Mont-Redon Châteauneuf-du-Pape, I realized it likely represented one my wine pet peeves: an undisclosed reconditioned bottle. The label was pristine, the cork was virtually new, and although the wine itself appeared to have some age, it was missing the complexity and aromatics I expected from a bottle rated 95 by John Gilman (whose palate I find often is similar to my own.) In sum, I very much suspect John Gilman had reviewed an original bottle while mine was reconditioned.
This is not in my experience an isolated practice. Giacomo Borgogno Riserva, for example, is known to be released with both original bottles (with a red capsule) and reconditioned bottles (with a black capsule). The difference between the wine in these bottles is significant, with the red capsuled bottles usually showing tremendous depth and nuance, while the black capsuled bottles typically are muted. Of course, only those who know of this capsule distinction can be sure to acquire the bottling they prefer as there is no information provided to inform the consumer beyond the different color of capsules. Further, reviews of these wines very rarely even reference the distinction between the bottles so in my experience they are relatively useless. Whenever i see a so-so review of a top vintage Borgogno Riserva, my assumption is that the black capsule version had been tasted. My experience with the red capsuled version of the same wine invariably supports that conclusion.
Another example of this phenomenon is the somewhat recent library release of wines from Georges Noellat. I purchased a nice selection of these wines from such classic vintages as 1962 and 1978 only to find, again, pristine labels and newish corks. My small sampling of the wines revealed again an experience suggesting reconditioning: an older appearing wine lacking depth or nuance. According to friends, there were other versions of these wines with different labels and older appearance, all of which showed well.
My reaction to these bottles is that it smacks of bait-and-switch or even fraud. There is no disclosure that what is being sold has been altered. Others may disagree but that is how i feel about it. My usual practice is to ask the retailer to take the bottles back, and they invariably are quite willing to do so. That eases the pain somewhat but it is still a hassle.
Are there any other examples of undisclosed reconditioning out there so those who dislike this practice can avoid them?
I had the exact same problem with that exact wine (78 Mont Redon) in a tasting a few months back. A friend had brought the bottle and I was excited to try it, only to find it subdued and mute. The balance became the tasty braising liquid of some short ribs (sorry, Mark!)
Please elaborate on the concept of “reconditioned” wine.
Are these bottles that were held by the producer for years and then labeled and released onto the market? Are these bottles that were returned to the Winery after already being released on the market, then relabeled and cleaned up?
An “undisclosed-reconditioned wine” is equivalent to a “brand-new used car”.
Who is the merchant? I want to feed to him or her some pre-eaten,
reconstructed sausage. The meal contents will be disclosed after
consumption (second round, not first).
From my humble experience ITB - there are wineries that do re-conditioning in certain cases - the main point of concern is “undisclosed”.
I think that something like this obviously needs to be disclosed to the customer. Similar to situations relating to old Negotiant Bottling that also merit disclosure…
My belief is that it is the former. But what is pernicious is that it invariably also involves one or more of the following additional undisclosed acts: (1) exposure of the aged wine to air; (2) insertion of a new cork; (3) topping off with wine from the same or a different vintage; and/or (4) removing sediment.
I’ve seen both cases for reconditioned. Bottle that remained in the winery/negotiant possession and in rare occasions (on very very rare bottles) wine bottles that were returned to the winery for reconditioning.
As for the acts- if they wrote “reconditioned” then you should assumed they did all of the above…
I don’t know that’s it’s normally undisclosed. Some of the premier crus in Bordeaux used to offer the service – a new cork and a topping up. Borgogno never hid what they did – they had different capsules (and labels, too, perhaps?).
Removing sediment? I didn’t know that was done, though, come to think of it, maybe I did hear that about some of the very old Cappellano Barolos the winery periodically releases. That would worry me a lot more, since it would entail a lot more exposure to oxygen than merely replacing the cork and topping up the bottle.
I wonder how much of the reconditioning is just keeping the shiners stacked up in the cave for years and then when the winery feels like they should release some of their older wines, they clean up the outside of the bottles, put a label and capsule on, and voila. If the cork seems brand new and there’s virtually no sediment, then there was at least a recorking, and possibly some decanting/topping. Hopefully, they use the same vintage wine. If the wines were to never have left the cave, this doesn’t seem too bad, but if wines are being sent out through distribution and then are returned to the winery years later for reconditioning, that’s another.
As I recall, when Lafite reconditioned bottles, they put a stamp on the label or something to indicated the date and fact of reconditioning. I believe they stopped doing this a few years ago because the existence of reconditioned bottles was an invitation to fakery.
I have had similar experiences with the Georges Noellat.
I’ll also add Fabien Coche. Lots of recent library releases (30 years and more) floating around with perfect labels, super high fills, and notes mentioning how “youthful” they seem.
Also remember seeing a lot of old Rieslings that popped up in bulk a couple of months back on multiple wine lists. Had a 1990 Leth Weisburgunder last night at Hakkasan Miami that very well could have been reconditioned and topped off also. Very youthful and no precipitates at all when the waiter inverted the entire bottle at the end into my glass.
I think this is open to interpretation. More accurately, I think you could say that for those aware of the capsule color distinction, Borgogno has provided a means to differentiate between the bottlings. But saying the practice is not hidden is a bit much given that (a) there is no distinction between the labels, (b) i have never seen an official written statement explaining this distinction, and (c) I question how many consumers, retailers or even critics are aware of the distinction. Reviews and retail offerings to my knowledge rarely identify which version is being discussed. So, I think you are giving Borgogna too much credit. However, Borgogno at least provides some information from which the distinction can be deduced, which is far better than Georges Noellat, Mont-Redon and others engaging in this practice.
Although Borgogno’s practices are entirely anecdotal, this (removal of sediment) is supposedly part of its process in readying its black capsuled bottles. Personally, the removal of settlement to me is more risky than just additional exposure to air; although we don’t drink sediment, it would not surprise me if its presence plays a valuable role in the development of wine in the bottle. I for one would prefer the sediment stay in the bottle until it is opened for consumption. At a minimum, I should know if it has been removed so I can make an informed purchasing decision.
My understanding is that producers such as Penfold’s that have official reconditioning programs employ a system where the reconditioned bottles are clearly marked. Personally, I have no problem with that practice, although I don’t think I would ever choose to have any of my bottles reconditioned. (To me, if the bottle is fine, why recondition, and if it is damaged, reconditioning is not going to improve it. There is also anecdotal evidence that reconditioned bottles do not show as well as untampered bottles.) The practice that concerns me, unlike what Penfold’s and Lafite do, is when the producer, rather than adopting a program to benefit consumers who consent to reconditioning, instead “privately” recondition and release the wine without disclosure.
Barolo sediment does not help the wine. It’s nasty stuff. It’s totally unlike, say, Bordeaux sediment, which (depending on your tastes) can add a little structure at the end of an old bottle. If the Barolo is old enough to recondition, I wouldn’t worry about the removal of the sediment if I weren’t concerned about exposure to air.
Just out of curiosity, what is the scientific evidence to support this statement? I am dubious that a subjective “nastiness” assessment of one kind of sediment versus another would alone (or at all) validly support the assertion. Some, for example, would assert that old Barolo itself is nasty. (Not me.) I would think that the only way to determine if your statement is true is to take several identical bottles, treat them identically for years, but remove sediment from some and then taste them under blind conditions later. Has anyone ever done that? Anything else would seem subjective or even speculative. Just as a matter of common sense, I would prefer to keep the natural contents of a bottle of wine intact. But individual preference might differ, of course.
