The Myth Of Old Vines And Quality (over 50 years old Vines )
I have been studying grapevines for over 55+years … at age two I had a vivid memory of understanding what a grapevine was and a fig tree ~ two very symbolic necessities for the Greeks and Romans cultures, empires, from which I have descended from , well 71% as per my DNA… in my quest for viticulture knowledge over the decades I first sought wisdom from my grandfathers who passed the oral and practical tradition down to me, yet this was not enough for the kid who kept on asking ‘why’ ? ---- sometimes to the dismay of my elders… they sent me in the direction of a library where the books had some of the answers, at least for that time era …
Observing Chardonnay grapevines not far from the house became an obsession, along with the the root cellar, a subject for future discussion … so where does this myth of OLD VINES COME FROM…???.. marking and the fact that Old Vines produce diminished yields and this increases the intensity of the fruit, thus making the ‘Old vines’ special, not because they are Old per se but because of the fact that fruit is in decline… young vines where the farmers drop fruit, like we do, can mimic ‘Old Vines’ I challenge anyone to be put to the test and taste ‘Old Vines’ vrs 15 year Vines where the fruit was restricted and the yields match the ‘Old Vines’ … you can’t tell the difference… sorry it’s a myth … it’s a marketing ploy to extract more money a ton from fruit and more per bottle to compensate for the low yields…nothing more …
One grape comes to mind is Zinfandel and all the marketing that goes into ‘Old Vine’ designate what a racket… zero difference if the same yields are achieved with replants that are grown right next to the ‘Old Vine or Vines’ … I have seen this with cabs, especially in mature vineyards in europe even from the oldest estates … guess what a little dirty secret their vines were most likely replanted after 25 years to get better production … double density planting is a concept that is now used for low yield vines to do what ??? mimic ‘Old Vines’ I have seen this and tasted this and no difference … while there may be a ion differential exchange transfer, it does not produce better wines, just different… not increasing quality, not one bit in it of itself …
So what I have found is the best wines for me come from vines 12 to 25 years old with healthy vascular systems that are planted double density that have the fruit restricted… from what I have studied this brings the 95 -100 point grape quality potential out… Who wants the vascular system of a 100 year old person, you get it now ???
Salute and Shalom !!!
Copyright 2017 all rights reserved … reproduction of this content is prohibited by law without the expressed authorization of the owner Don Giovanni aka John D. Zuccarino
John - I’d break some of that up into paragraphs but anyway there have been field experiments measuring sap flow, etc., and it’s pretty clear that once you have a mature root system, meaning the vine is a few years old, there’s little difference in the juice resulting from vine age, all other things being equal. But you do have issues like viruses, and then there’s just the self-selection, kind of like a natural massale selection. Otherwise, maybe it’s marketing, but it’s not offensive to me and it’s kind of nice knowing that some guy planted a vine 100 years ago that is still producing.
I love the fact that old vines exist and that the legacy of the farmers work lives on, because when we go to that next place it nice to know our hands made a difference … so in this context I hold reverence for those vines …
Salute and Shalom !!!
PS thanks for the para sugg good looking out … Peace …
Confusing post to read…
My understanding was older vines have deeper root systems and thus better equipped in drought years, though in a vineyard spoon feeding them with drip irrigation it wouldn’t really matter. Some of their advantages can be mimicked in healthy young vines with high density and reduce yields, but not that. My understanding is only academic however as I have only ever done comparative tastings between 3yr old vines though their 10th year.
In the case of very old zin vines, that means they were planted on the first generation of phylloxera-resistant rootstock, which, as I recall, some people believe yields somewhat different fruit than the rootstocks that were developed and became popular in the late 20th Century. That could well be true in other parts of the world, as well.
For me, the greatest Zinfandels come from vineyards like Whitton Ranch (Geyserville), Old Hill Ranch, Limerick Lane (old patch), Aldo’s, Bedrock, Carlisle, Evangehlo, Lytton Springs, Monte Rosso, Ueberroth, Pagani Ranch, Highwire, Montafi Ranch and Papera Ranch. Many of these are mixed-black vineyards planted in the late 19th to early 20th Centuries.
Interesting. I know next to nothing about vines but deal in the psychology of human behavior and marketing daily.
A couple thoughts, perhaps interesting only to me, crossed my mind:
there’s already a culture of older-is-better around wine (thus Steve Martin’s joke in “The Jerk” about wanting fresh wine, no more of this old stuff)
most consumers (until recently) have been older adults whom you’d expect to have a bias towards buying things that conform to a view that older is better
Interesting post. Not a happy conclusion for a large segment of CA Zin marketers I wouldn’t think. I’d really like to see something equally specific on the other side of the issue. .
I have never heard a competent Old World producer say that vine age made no difference, and they usually treat the different parcels differently depending on vine age, so if they’re wrong they’re leaving a lot of money on the table.
Wasn’t one of the great DRCs of all time, from the decade after the war, made from five- or seven-year-old vines that had been replanted right after the wall? That’s the example that’s usually cited to show that there’s no absolute rule.
Well, if they can command more money for an old vines bottling, then they aren’t leaving money on the table.
It’s a bit of a digression, but it reminded me of a conversation I had with the proprietor of Schiavenza, the Barolo maker in Serralunga, in 2005. I asked him why Langhe winemakers rarely advertised when they had old vines. He said that in the past the vines hadn’t been that well cared for so there weren’t that many really old vines and people didn’t really know whether well-tended old nebbiolo vines were really better.
I don’t know if that’s really true. Perhaps you know, Oliver. But it was surprising enough that it stuck with me.
They don’t make much of vine age in Bordeaux, either.
That’s my point, they usually put the younger vine fruit from cru vineyards into lesser bottles. If that’s a mistake, they’re losing money.
As an example, Sergio Germano owns pieces of four named vineyards in Serralunga. For the first few years the fruit is usable (i.e. after the vines are 3 years old for a few years) they go into the Langhe Nebbiolo, thereafter for a few years into the village Barolo, then into the named vineyard. Every producer who does this is voting for the ‘old vine effect’ with his/her wallet.
There are many examples of iconic wines made from young vines. One theory I’ve heard is that both young and old vines have low vegetative vigor which benefits quality. Middle aged vines have too much vigor. I’ve also heard that old vines are just easier to maintain, i.e. less intensive pruning, water management, to produce a high quality crop.
I don’t necessarily share John’s viewpoint, to put it lightly, but just as one data point, as Steve Spurrier related in a recent I’ll Drink to That podcast, the Stag’s Leap Cab that won the Judgment of Paris in 1976 was from 3yo vines.
When were were in Napa recently, we toured To Kalon vineyard as part of a Mondavi tasting. We were told the vines are replaced every 15-20 years due to production drop off. Always thought that was odd, but…
