A few months ago there was a group that slow o’d two 2011 barolos that made them appear slightly riper at a tasting 12 hours later, leading some to declare these wines were given too much air / may not age well. Conversely some believe these wines will age just fine or even spectacularly.
And so I ask the question, how much of a proxy is giving wine extended air to forecast how a flavors of a wine will evolve with time? I imagine leaving a wine overnight would soften tannins, but I less sure how the fruit or acidity would change in such a period. Said another way, I wonder whether slow o or leaving a wine overnight is a poor proxy for aging a wine 10 years, where you may see greater changes to fruit alongside a softening of tannin?
I believe it’s a poor proxy. Not without some merit, but basically not (sorry missed this word before) revelatory. The only way to know how a wine will age is to wait. Or to wait on so many other wines that showed similarly in their youth that you can extrapolate. Extended air may help your young wine show “better,” or more to your taste, but it will not reveal the aged wine hiding within. My opinion.
Generally I agree with Sarah.
Leaving a wine open (slow ox) or decanting will NOT (or almost not) soften the tannins but open the fruit and other components better - so the tannic structure will not be as obvious. Too long will oxidize the wine - which is not good.
On the other hand: decanting immediately without slow-oxing might cause the structure (tannin and acidity) to be sharper, less sweet … some very young and strong wines might take it well, others will show less well after fast exposure to air.
So my suggestion is always to open a bottle well in advance - and if necessary decanting only after some hours.
To estimate the aging potential there are two ways: a lot of experience … and waiting time.
Seconded. Keeping a wine open does not do anything to the tannins or the acidity, but might change the fruit enough to make the tannins or acidity appear softer.
However, I’ve never noticed any differences between a wine that has been opened well in advance and one opened and immediately (double-) decanted.
Some wines get undrinkable after extended air exposure (e.g. 12 hours)
Some wines do not improve
Some wines improves
Some wines improves a lot
For some wines it might be mandatory to leave them for more than 12 hours with increased surface in the bottle
YMMV off course
All this is true, but the OP is not asking about whether air of some sort improves the wine or not. That’s a separate topic. The question at hand is whether leaving open is a proxy for aging. I don’t think it is.
What does ‘slightly riper’ mean? How much riper? And how many in the group felt this was the case? Everyone or . . .?
There is no doubt that leaving a wine open uneducated will ‘open up’ a wine compared to pop and pour. And I generally find that if you open a wine and do not decant it, but then have a glass on day 2 or 3, this is ‘somewhat indicative’ of how the wine may evolve over time. Do I have ‘scientific data’ to support this? Nope - just observation.
There are so many factors at play here that it is really challenging to come up with a finite answer. How old is the bottle we’re discussing - assuming we’ve moved beyond the OP’s specific bottles at hand? I would think that, all things considered, the younger a wine is, the more demonstrative this exercise would be. What is the pH of the wine? The level of dissolved oxygen in the wine? The current free SO2 levels of the wine?
Interesting discussion - and waiting to hear more from others . . .
While I generally agree that they aren’t the same, I don’t think there is zero correlation or overlap. I think a wine which will age better and longer (eg young Ridge MB or Dunn HM, young Barolo, young BDX) will usually benefit from extended aeration and hold up for extended time after the bottle is open, as compared to an already older wine or a type of wine that won’t age and last well in the bottle.
And I’d also say that if I want to consider how new release Barolo or something is going to do, I’d rather do so based on seeing it with a long time in the decanter than on pop and pour. Not because the aerated wine will be the same as or highly similar to the mature version, but I think it will give me a better look into the wine’s future than a just-opened bottle.
A specific wine in question is a 2011 Rupestris. One group tasted a 2011 after a ~10 hour slow o, and at consumption used descriptors such as “ripe”, “slightly too sweet”, “mono dimensional”, “slightly candied”. Conversely, I know others who have this vintage on pop and pour and suggested giving the bottle less air.
A more recent example of the question was someone who tried a recent vintage Chateau De La Tour Clos Vougeot VV (not I), and felt the wine increasingly showed a cola note on Day 2/Day 3, and then having concern the wine would be too ripe for his palate – even though this a wine (I have read) that is difficult to approach young. She felt the wine may thus evolve too ripe to her palate – which was the catalyst for starting this post.
I respectfully disagree especially with Dunn and Montebello. We have tried the tabletop aging for both and the tannins were still so big that they were near undrinkable and a waste of an excellent wine that should just sit and wait.
Interesting. Where there any differences in the temperatures at which the wine was served on both occasions? Or the types of glasses being used? Just curious . . .
I’ll chime-in re the 2011 Capellano Rupestris because I was one of the folks who banged on it hard at that tasting where it saw extended air. It struck me as noticeably oxidized ---- brown sugar, vegetal. It was also a bit bretty. But for another wine that I thought had slight TCA, it was probably my least favorite of the tasting. It was served at proper temperature, imo. I believe I used a Riedel Vinum Pinot stem, but cannot recall for sure — I may have used a Riedel Ouverture red.
…
As for the main question here: I do not view extended aeration.as a proxy for aging.
For context at the same tasting/flight, a 2011 Bartolo was considered by (more than a few others, albeit not all) to be the worst of the flight, for exhibiting some of the sweet traits of the Cappellano. It had the same treatment. Ie, I don’t think folks considered the cappellano to be a flawed bottle, and thought perhaps the bartolo also got too much air.
But as a totally separate question, what do folks expect to discern by trying a wine on day 2 or 3? I assume ageability is only one thing folks are looking for?