continuing the discussion on old wines

I could write pages and pages about the subject of old wines to which I have devoted my passion.
Consider what I say in this article as the cry of my heart.

Some people imagine that age diminishes a wine. I imagine that age improves a wine. And I have seen a justification of that through many extensive verticals that I have attended.

One day we made a vertical of Clos de Tart on 56 vintages going back to the decade 1880. My favorite was the 1915. But more interesting is that there were journalists whom I know do not like old wines. And when I asked them which one they preferred, they never answered a young wine but wines of the decade 1940 or of the decade 1920.
I think that Robert Parker made a very bad service to wine when he introduced the concept of plateau of maturity followed by a decline. This leads to the idea that a wine declines, when it is the contrary that arrives, if the corks keep all their qualities.

Some people say that I am a necrophilous, but it happens that I convince people who drink with me.

Some examples:
My greatest Lafite is Lafite 1844, a prephylloxeric wine which was pure perfection.
My greatest white wine is a 1865 Montrachet Bouchard, who left me speechless. I was in front of perfection.
My greatest Yquem is 1861 of a very great year but which had an advantage which is unique: it had its original cork.
My greatest DRC wine is Les Gaudichots DRC 1929. A pure marvel.
My greatest red wine is 1961 Hermitage La Chapelle Jaboulet
My greatest Mouton is 1945 Mouton
It is more difficult to say which is my best Haut-Brion but 1928 and 1945 are candidates.
My greatest Champagne Salon is 1943
My greatest Dom PĂ©rignon is 1929

One could say that I am intoxicated by old wines, but when I share wines with many amateurs, it is rare that they say that I am wrong.

We live in a world where the decline of a wine has been taught to everyone, even the winemakers. When I talked about my dinners people said: “are these wines still good?”. And it was so frequent that at one moment I answered to these questions: “no these wines are dead and I am specialized in dinners of dead wines”.

I go further. If for the greatest Bordeaux you think that a 2005 or a 2009 can deserve 100 points, my intimate conviction is that a 1947 or a 1928 deserves 200 or 300 points. Drink one day 1947 Latour or 1928 Margaux and you will regret not considering these wines.

Of course I admit that some people can think: he is passionate for old wines so his palate is deviated. But if it were the case, the people who share wines with me would tell it to me. And if they do not it is not because they are polite.

One day I went to Belgium for a dinner of Chateauneuf du Pape. I brought the oldest, a 1933, and it was accepted as the winner of the dinner.
One day I was invited by a man who collects Beaujolais because he lives in Beaujolais. I brought a 1945 Moulin Ă  Vent and he was frustrated because I had brought the best ever Beaujolais that he had drunk because he had never considered that a Beaujolais of 1945 could be still living.

My intimate conviction is that we live with wine what I will try to image. Imagine that all the shops who sell fruits present only green strawberries. As everybody would only know green strawberries, they would like green strawberries. And they would find virtues in green strawberries. Because nobody would have told them that red strawberries exist.

If you have never drunk a wine of 1945, 1947, 1928 or 1929 you cannot imagine that they are the red strawberries when all the wines after 1982 are green strawberries.

Of course there is passion in my words, but the world of old wines is such a fantastic world that I try as much as I can to let it be known.

I can fully understand that amateurs say: I prefer the genuineness of the fruits in great young wines. It is their choice. But as I drink also these young wines, I feel entitled to say: explore this fantastic world because it is where perfection exists.

Today, contrarily to what I have known, the very old great wines are not accessible financially. But it does not mean by any way that they are not transcendental. They are. It is not because I have not the means to buy a Bugatti that a Bugatti is not the absolute perfection of a car.

After 50 years of collecting wines I know that I will never convince anyone, except with a glass in hand.
Cheers

Thank your for sharing your profound knowledge. I always enjoy your experience. I am 81, and as I enjoy the older wines I have collected they are for me the best. If others enjoy the ripe and full fruit of young wine they are not wrong. These are two very different experiences. Neither is “right”. I do like a rich fruit filled young wine at times.

Thank you for this reply. In my opinion this post is a great example of how romantic older wines can be. Your passion clearly shows. If you ever find yourself in NYC with some of your great older wines with you, I’d love to try them with you, regardless of the cost.

You are an artist in your writing. Some of the best non-fiction I’ve read.

Francois, can you please explain the red strawberry/green strawberry comment. And also what do you attribute this to?

Mark, I took this to mean that if we have only been exposed to the inferior (and unevolved) version of something, and have no knowledge that a different form exists, then we can only grow to appreciate the inferior form.

Edit: it occurs to me you may be asking Francois not on what he meant by the strawberry analogy, but by why he indicates a difference pre/post 1982.

Curious about the comment that all wines after 1982 are green strawberries. While many here lament the rise of modernization/internationalization in Bordeaux, and the ubiquity brought about by the consultant crowd, are you really suggesting that there are no Bordeaux post-1982 that will rival those of 45, 47, 59, et al, once they have experienced a comparable level of maturity? Please expound, I’m intrigued. Perhaps what you mean is that they are green today and still need 25+ years to transform into pretty red strawberries. I don’t care for strawberries, by the way, but do love mature Bordeaux.

Robert, I think his comment about green/red strawberries was metaphorical, but I still don’t understand it, at least not that early. 1985 Bordeaux for instance is a poster child for old fashioned, classic Bordeaux that matured as wines have in the past, and there are plenty of other examples I can think of, going as far forward as 2008.

Come 2009, and the growing conditions seemed to change radically, with huge amounts of dry matter, acidity, alcohol etc. Looking back, it seemed that Global Warming was hitting Bordeaux with a vengeance, and several vintages seemed to suffer from the effects. I even wondered whether or not we would be the last generation to taste these classic wines young, that era before GW transformed the region. A few months ago, I tasted 2014s, and later 2016, and realized I had been premature. I loved 2014 for their old fashioned virtues, barely ripe but ripe enough, red and beautiful wines. 2016 is set to be something better still, wines that have teal depth, character and have serious terroir.

While I agree with Francois that are dangers, I am not sure all the strawberries are green.

NB My apologies Francois for not getting accents right. My phone lost its copy function.

I got the metaphor, just trying to understand the use of that metaphor. My literal comment at the end was in jest.

Thanks for the context on 2016, I’ve been re-thinking it recently. I had stopped at 2014, such a wonderfully classic and affordable vintage, but have slowly started buying some 16s. Was initially loathe to do that at the ripe age of 54 that I am.

Not having had any ‘ripe strawberries’, I’ll have to take your word for it, but if you wish to enlighten me and are coming to America, I’ll welcome you with open arms and embrace your invite to witness this firsthand.

I don’t think he was commenting on the ultimate quality of post 1982 vintages. He just considers them all to be too young, like unripe strawberries. For him, a 1985 probably won’t be ready until 2055. Having head almost no wines at the age at which he drinks them, I am unable to comment.

Thank you for all your comments. It is always difficult to make métaphores.
My intimate conviction is that the wines which were well made will age as gloriously as the ancient wines.
It means that if a 1928 is glorious today, I do not see why a 1990 would not be as glorious when it is 92 years old, in 2082.

And I believe also that in some régions wines are better made than one century ago.

What makes a great wine is the addition of two factors : the way to make wine, and, ad min equal, the age.
Great wines are drunk absolutely too young, even if they are pleasant with a spontaneous fruit.

La TĂąche of 3 years is a pure wonder. But La TĂąche of 60 years is a marvel.

I think that Robert Parker made a very bad service to wine when he introduced the concept of plateau of maturity followed by a decline. This leads to the idea that a wine declines, when it is the contrary that arrives, if the corks keep all their qualities.

Thank you for this perspective, in the last year I’ve had quite a few wines that were well beyond their drink by dates and found them to be exceptional and wondered if I was missing something by liking wines that were supposedly past their prime.

Have been eyeing one of the specific wines you mentioned that is available at retail with the intent to drink it on its 100th birthday, its looking even more tempting now


Thank you for the story, Francois, lovely as always. And keep using those metaphors! They make perfect sense to me, everyone here will figure them out eventually.

I always enjoy reading Francois’s posts.

Even setting aside the issue of old and young wines, he seems like a great example of someone with a genuine passion and love of wine. In an age where most people seem to look for things to attack and to be angry about, Francois is someone looking to find joy and beauty in things. Blake Brown and Frank Murray are others who make that same impression on me.

Now, I’ve never met Francois or tasted with him. I know he has some detractors, and I wouldn’t be one to say who is right and wrong about what. But the Francois I know from his posts really inspires me.

Yes, we are lucky to have him posting here. Who else has such vast experience, perspective and so great a talent for explaining what he finds in these old wines? Whenever I see a new post of his, I wonder what adventure awaits, and I am never disappointed. Thank you, François!

Amen to that, François!

Thank you for all the nice comments.
I drink wine since 1970 (when I bought a house which had a cellar, giving a motivation to fill it), and I drink old wines since 1975. I have a data base only since 2000 which means that I have no notes on 25 years of consumption of old wines.

Anyway, I have today notes on more than 16,000 wines.
Among them, I wanted to see what I have drunk from legendary millesimes. My choice of legendary years could be criticised, but it is not very important.
Here is what I have drunk from legendary years :

1900 (53), 1915 (35), 1928 (166), 1929 (208), 1934 (144), 1945 (158), 1947 (261), 1949 (171), 1955 (219), 1959 (315), 1961 (261), 1982 (230), 1989 (358), 1990 (514), 2000 (371), Total général (3464).
Average 230 wines per legendary year.

If I mention it, it is to say that for example I have drunk 261 wines of 1961 in this statistics since 2000. In 2000 1961 had 39 years, and it has now 59 years.
And I have still in my mind memory of 1961 that I drank from 1975 up to now, which means that I know the vintage 1961 when it had 14 years and when it has 59 years.

I have followed the evolution of all great vintages for a period which is not far from a half century. And I can say that I do not see any of these vintages declining. And for me it is extremely important. (of course the mortality increases with the age, but the intrinseque quality of still living wines does not decline).

And it has changed my vision on wine. When in 2003 I wrote a book on wine, I said that my preferred vintages were 1928 and 1929. And I wrote in the book that I could admit that in 15 years, the years 1945 and 1947 could be above 1928 and 1929. Because the 1928 and 1929 could become more tired when the 45 and 47 would gain in accomplishment.

And I must say today that 1928 and 1929 continue today to be glorious. And none of the legendary years declines.

I hope that you can understand what it means.

Of course, as for mortal persons, death exists, and more for old vintages than for young. But what is important is that with so many great wines drunk, I can say that the quality of a millesime does not decline. The quality of the 1900 continues to be at a top (of course accepting that some bottles, due to the corks can have problems).
And this applies for every great vintage.

For me 1961 is far from being at its top, even if many 1961 are spectacular. But before they have the Glory of 1928, they will need time.

And this vision changes completely what is generally considered. And it is why I try to create occasions to drink wines which deserve to be drunk before the death comes by the death of the cork.

And it explains why I want so much to convince amateurs to consider old wines in their passion. There is a treasure of old wines and this treasure must be drunk before it is too late.

I hope you understand why I want to let be known so much the idea that old wines have to be drunk.

Note : I do not forget that the success of an old wine depends on the way the bottle is opened. The method that I use makes miracles, and it explains also why I have a great ratio of great wines.

Francois, my number one hero in wine.

Francois, what do you think about the evolution of very old but less heralded vintages? It is interesting to me to read the thread describing quite a few special 1981s (Krug, Haut Brion, La Mission, Montrose, Beaucastel, Rioja). What would you say about the “off” vintages of the 1920s and 30s (which are wholly unfamiliar to me)? Do they possess the same magical quality and timelessness you refer to? Merci d’avance, John