One of the most surprising things I heard in the recent IDTT podcast was Morris’ claim that many bottles from 1996 white Burgundy (from his cellar) are turning out to be good aged white burgs, tasting as expected. These are the same bottlings/crus that when opened years earlier were horribly premoxed. He surmised that there was some character of premature oxidation such that bottles, if kept long enough, could get past. In effect, they’d become nicely aged, and no longer oxidized.
Admittedly he was uncertain of how or why this could happen. And he couldn’t prove that good bottles were previously premoxed. Still it’s intriguing. Has anyone seen this? Can anyone hypothesize how or why this might happen? Is there hope for long aging white burg?
Perhaps he was talking about bottles that he had seen or had himself that showed a deeper darker color and we thought to be bad based on that color alone? That would explain what he’s talking about.
Secondly, we still know so little about the problem that I wouldn’t rule anything out in terms of what may or may not happen moving forward with these wines. Yes, it doesn’t make much sense, but that’s one of the amazing things to me about wine. It doesn’t always make sense
And as far as clonal selections vs field or masale, many have been saying the same thing based on certain sites in Burgundy. I think it is simply too early to make that statement at this point. We simply don’t know enough.
If I remember correctly, I think he said something like he had opened some bottles from the same case or batch that were all premoxed. He quit opening them for some period of time and then when he started opening them again, they showed well. Still, no way of knowing if the latter bottles were fine all along.
what is non-sensical about the argument? I think it’s a little too convenient (if you open a premoxed bottle it’s now your fault for not waiting long enough for the issue to resolve) but is there some reason why what Jasper is saying - which is that there is a temporary condition that mirrors oxidation and then the wine returns to normal - is necessarily untrue?
Evidence against this theory is the numerous bottles of dark and oxidized bottles at auction (eg. the 71 Bouchard Chassagne Montrachet and the 91 Leflaive Batard on Winebid right now).
This is a fascinating idea. First I have no experience with this particular wine and I haven’t listened to the podcast.
However, I can see an argument for early negative qualities (in this case pre-mox) resolving over time. The chemical reactions in wine, particularly in wine aging are quite complex and are not completely understood.
I’ve seen negative traits in young wines resolve in the cellar (I’ve also seen them get much worse). This is sometimes hard to predict unless you have specific experience with a wine. For example I’ve seen certain wines that often have an acetone (nail polish) hint at pressing, but by the end of 6-9 months in barrel it is no longer a prominent or offensive trait.
I can imagine two ways (perhaps more) that an early flaw could resolve:
the underlying wine is sound just “out of balance” and at the point of noticing the premox the other attributes are wonky and the prominent feature is the oxidation. As the wine matures the other characteristics mature and bring it in balance so that you have a nicely aged wine. Basically reactions occur at different rates. Like a teenager with disjointed proportions, you just have to wait until the wine grows into its body.
the underlying wine is sound and the premox is just a step in the aging process for this particularl wine. Kind of like the “dumb” period in longer aged wines (the window of mediocrity between the initial fruit and the ultimate aged complexity). So basically whatever compounds are causing the premox are then slowly oxidized further or combine with other oxidized/reduced compounds to produce an ultimate compound which is pleasant and characteristic of a finely aged Burgundy.
This isn’t to say all premox wine is ultimately going to be great (or even good), but that it is perhaps possible to have a funky step in the process of full evolution of a finer wine.
Not a chemist but I seriously doubt that the reactions leading to premox are reversible. I would need more evidence than one guy’s opinion to be convinced otherwise, no matter how respected he might be.
My guess is that the good bottles were simply the survivors in the case that were never premoxed in the first place.
I doubt it too but Morris is no dummy. And again, the idea is that the wines aren’t actually oxidized and that the effect is later reversed, but suffering from something that temporarily replicates oxidation. I believe he points to Rhône whites as going through a similar phase, but I can’t put my hands on the quote. It strikes me that whatever is happening is complicated. Complicated enough that some pretty smart minds can’t figure it out. If it is true that folks are now opening 1996 Bonneau du martray or leflaive in quantity and finding those wines to drink as one would have expected notwithstanding premox, I would find that really interesting.
As a wine professional, I am pretty sure I can tell if something is oxidized: the color, the bouquet, the taste on the palate. But what if I am wrong? > What if there is another effect that shows the same symptoms but is in fact a different process? > I wouldn’t even entertain the notion if it were not for one factor: On a number of occasions I have experienced wines that appeared to be oxidized that have subsequently returned to the fold…
I can only infer one of two explanations: > Either oxidation is reversible, or else the symptoms of oxidation that seem compelling are in fact something else. > Those with a better grounding in chemistry than I suggest that the conversion of ethanol to acetaldehyde is not reversible-but perhaps the oxidation of flavonoids can be. Certainly all winemakers have experience of detecting some oxidation in barrel or tank and reversing it with a judicious dose of sulfur.
It should also be noted that (a) some wines that have oxidized in a normal manner have been described as premoxed, and (b) such is the fear of this issue currently that many wines are immediately accused of the pox if there is the faintest hint of oxidation (or sometimes other deviations), when time in the glass might deliver a fine and untainted wine. [Steve] Tanzer was taken to task for suggesting something like this back in 2008, but he may well have been right.
Edit: the above quote does add some anecdotal evidence, but with the huge amount of experience on this board why has nobody here seen anything similar?
Becasuse that 71 or 91 should be un oxidized by now? The theory is that if you hold it long enough then the oxidation goes away. Or do you think the theory is only for bottles 96 and after?
Yeah, we’ve heard this before. Certainly, in my experience, there are some few wines where an early verdict would have been “premoxed” but they actually weren’t - I’m not really up on wine chemistry, but I suspect those bottles are / were actually highly reduced. And then when you drink them now they’re actually good. But that is a very small portion of wines and “premoxed” ones. I’ve had this happen for example with '96 Ramonet. There’s then a small number of other wines that showed early signs of oxidation, but some bottles were “enjoyable” many years later - e.g. I saw this in some BdM CC 96, which at age 20 was a bit more oxidative than I’d want but not a million miles from what would be forgivable in a 20 yr old wine - somehow, the early oxidation just paused or progressed only quite slowly. And then there’s the majority, where you’d really only want to cling onto Jasper’s story if you’re going to auction !!
