There is a group called the Old Vine Project in South Africa that seeks to protect the older vines in South Africa (vines between 35 years and 120 years). I am a big fan of the project, but always wonder if we can convince the consumer that they should be paying more for these, when sometimes it is very difficult to taste the difference.
I would love to hear if there are movements in other parts of the world with a similar ethos.
I made a short five minute video that outlines the issues for the Old Vine Project in South Africa:
Generally, no. If there was any marketing impact, it played out decades ago.
So, it comes down to individual wines. If they do come across as distinct, then itās an interesting factoid, part of an explanation. If thereās no there there, no oneās gonna care care.
Yes in Australia we have the Barossa Old Vine Charter, which appears similar to the South African Old Vine Project.
Old vine: greater than 35 years old
Survivor vine: greater than 75 years old
Centenarian vine: greater than 100 years old
Ancestor vine: greater than 125 years old
Yeah, apparently the guys in Chile, Aus and France all agree that vines go through some sort of metabolic shift between 30 and 35 years of ageā¦so the certification in South Africa has set the age limit at ā35-yrs and olderā. I was wondering if any other countries have set explicit limits on the term āold vinesā or āvielles vignesā.
Fair point.
What I am interested to see in South Africa is that (after a few years of persistent marketing of the Old Vine Project) a recent retail study showed that wine consumers in South Africa are willing to pay slightly more money for the bottles that feature the Old Vine Project seal. And thatās without tasting the wineā¦
Perhaps it taps into a sense of nostalgiaā¦
But I think you might be rightā¦there needs to be widespread sensory markers to these wines for the movement to be sustainable.
I think that it might contribute to a sense of something unique and therefore might attract a premium. In the end, a large part of wine appreciation is more or less subjective IMHO and things that come with a story tend to be prefered. Iām personally quite partial to the idea of someoneās great grandfather having planted a special parcel that we now see the benefits from.
From a European context, my notion of āoldā would be closer to 100 years though, but I understand the setting in South Africa is different.
Yeah, there is definitely something special about a centennial vineā¦although even in France, the term āVielles Vignesā is used on vines much younger than 100yrs.
I love the Aussie scale that has different names for different agesā¦ it adds a little more specificity to the romance that you mentioned about someoneās grandfather etc.
About 2 weeks ago I hosted a tasting for a friends 40th birthday. It started with a white. Nisia āLas Suertesā Old Vines Verdejo.
The wine is from grapes of a pre-phylloxera vineyard planted in 1885. On one hand it was one of the favorites of the day, and a wine almost everyone came back to try again after, but on the other hand it is less than $30 for the bottle. All though it seems that they would pay more, they are currently not in this case even with 137 year old vines.
I think there is a distinct difference with old vine wines, that the average consumer would be able to taste under the right circumstances, and that they would be willing to pay more (on average). But I think the main issue here in NY, and maybe the US in general is that the retailers rarely educate the consumer. The lack of competition has permitted stores that do a mediocre job at best, and when the consumer is trying a wine and then trying something similar with different aged vines a week or so later the difference can easily be lost in an array of other differences in the terroir/ winemaking. If every bottle showed the age of the vines, I am certain that the average customer would pay more, as the difference is not only noticeable, but the consumer would likely associate the difference with the vines (often when that is not even the case).
The challenge now is educating the customers and marketing only when the difference is distinct on the wine, so as not to lessen the validity.
I personally know nothing about emerging properties at 35 years for the vines though. I would be very curious to see the science behind that, and even more curious to do a tasting of wines from 40 year vines vs 28 year vines vs 16 year vines to see if there is a greater distinction between 28-40.
Great note Joseph. Thanks.
I have personally set up such tastings, and the results were distinctly disappointing (IE the much older vines were not clearly differentiate in a blind tasting by a group of very seasoned wine professionals).
But on other days, I find myself able to pick them out of a line-up quite easily.
The distinction in vine metabolism, if I remember correctly, has to do with the decline of sap flow, the reduction of fruit yield, and also an apparently quite noticeable shift in the acid-sugar ratio during veraison. IE phenolic ripeness seems to being to be reached more quickly at lower sugar levels.
BUT I have not looked at the data myself, but am instead reporting on what I heard from OVP members discussing how they reached the number of ā35 years of ageā. It was reached in close discussion with research bodies from a whole range of different groups around the world.
Here in the US there is a non-profit group dedicated to preserving the heritage old vine plantings in California. The Old Vine designation on a bottle by itself carries little weight as the terms usage is not regulated. There are a number of producers who source primarily from these old heritage vines and they command prices 2-3x what others can get for wines of similar varieties. The wines are head a shoulder above the competition in terms of quality and longevity.
See this post and the ones below it on that thread for an explanation as to why old vines may also matter.
Also, welcome!
In short, older vines, even if they werenāt great clones to begin with, can start behaving like better clones. Closing the gap.
So, distinguishing by taste may not be possible in some cases, especially if vs a new great clone, but the wine is almost definitely a better wine than the vineyard used to produce with the same vines.
I myself can attribute extra value to āold vinesā.
Thing is: you can access a lot of great wine made from old, ungrafted wines and theyāre usually not leagues above in price compared to other wines from the same area, different criteria play bigger roles.
So for example I can buy Egon Muller Scharzof QbA Riesling for around 70 ā¬ here, and several other mosel āAlte Rebenā from other producers around 30 ā¬.
With that awareness, if a lesser know producer from South Africa comes out with a wine that costs 200+, like other top bottles from other producers of the region (I donāt know much about South Africa) and they try to justify it mainly with the vines being 80 + years old ā¦ I wouldnāt be very excited.
Joseph and Jono make very good points. If the (average) consumer cannot tell/taste a difference, why pay a premium price. Clearly, the āscienceā says there is a difference (some times more pronounced in taste than others), but if it is not sensed, why pay more?
In my experience āold vinesā or āvvā designates have been better wines far less than Iāve hoped they would. At least they are not always wines of distinction in comparison to similar bottles in terms of grape and terroir.
There are many unique vineyards that deserve to be preserved that happen to be of old vines. Where replanting say a mixed variety vineyard to whatever a modern vineyard manager might do in terms of grapes, spacing and trellising would significantly change the character of the wines currently made from it.
There is also a problem of being unable to truly compare wines of old vines with wines of younger vines because those are not made in the same vineyard. There is also likely a certain amount of āromanceā for lack of a better word that we attach to a historic vineyard that may color the way we perceive the wine. Would it have that note of pepper if it were replanted? Or does the maturity of the vines give it that?
There are some examples. When Mount Eden gradually replanted their Cabernet over a decade or so they made an āOld Vine Reserveā alongside the āEstateā. Not sure what the price differential was on release, but with maturity the market is rewarding the qualitative superiority of the OVR.
I see Burg and Bojo producers with VV and regular bottling from the same vineyard, but donāt know if the parcels are comparable. I suspect some are, some arenāt.
That Mount Eden OVR is a great example, Wes. I first tasted one of those last year, in a vertical of Mount Eden cabs, mostly regular bottings. The '91 OVR was a real standout.
Whether the āold vinesā designation is even used seems very much a regional thing. It is touted for zins in Sonoma, and in Burgundy and (to a lesser extent) the Rhone. But you donāt come across it in Barolo or Montalcino or, to my knowledge, Rioja. (A Barolo producer told me in 2005 that there were few vines over 40 years of age or so because most vineyards hadnāt been well maintained until recent decades.)
Another factor with age could be the rootstock, particularly in California. Wes ā you can correct me ā but as I recall, St George roots were widely used through much of the 20th century, post-phylloxera. But growers switched to newer rootstocks starting in the 70s or so. And then again when some of those proved vulnerable to phylloxera. So 100-year-old vines are likely on St. George, while few recent plantings are.
Something similar is the case in Germany, I understand. There was a lot of replanting in the 60s and 70s and the law required grafted vines, even though phylloxera isnāt a problem on slate, which much of the Mosel is. So, again, old vines may be ungrafed.
If youāre making a 5 $ wine and your goal is to make an old vines version of it and sell at 8 $ (nobody is probably trying to do it this low on the price scale) itās probably a lost cause.
If youāre making a base 20 $ wine and your goal is to make an old vines / single plot / more time in oak version of it and sell it at 35 $ you might have a greater chances, even if the taste difference might still be subtle the consumer in the market for that price range often already recognize that thereās more to a wine bottle than the mere sensation on your palate.
I seek out wines from old vines. I urge growers to maintain them for as long as possible. I am willing to pay more for wines from old vines.
Having said that, AFAIK there is complete lack of legal definition for the term in any country! If I am wrong, please enlighten me.
In my own vineyard, I have several small plots that were planted before 1950, exact dates unknown. My vineyard manager thinks that one of them (Grenache Noir) was probably planted in the 1930s and maybe as much as 100 years ago. There are missing vines and yields are maybe one ton per acre. It makes no commercial sense to keep this parcel; it is too small to vinify the grapes separately, but I will keep it. It is picked with several other old parcels and an excellent parcel planted in 1986. This combined batch always produces one of my best lots.
