If they have made any changes to the old formula - in particular, if they dialed up the oak regimen so as to get higher scores from Parker and Tanzer - then do NOT assume that the way that their old-style wines used to age will necessarily be the way that their new-fangled wines are going to age.
And if they embraced silicone-coated corks instead of sticking with the tried-and-true time-tested paraffin-coated corks, then all bets are off.
I agree with Neal. Don’t they age Rioja in American Oak, which is notorious for stronger flavors?
Are they still using EXACTLY the same techniques which they used for the great vintages of the 60s and the 70s?
If the techniques have changed, then you do not know what the new techniques are going to yield after long-term cellaring.
The plural of anecdote is not “data”
Then neither do you.
I am fairly new to wine collecting, but I have had great results cellaring cheaper wine 7-10 years. Especially California Syrah that didn’t wow me on release can taste really Awesome with 10 years on it.
Hmm…unusual activity for Punxatawny Nathan. Usually he makes one post, sees his shadow and disappears for 6 more weeks of winter.
No, I don’t - the wines might age better than ever.
But look at the new thread which just appeared on the front page:
[u]Premoxed 2010 Huet Vouvray Le Mont[/u]
If you mess around and, say, dial down the sulfur or increase hangtimes [benefitting fruit esters and sugars at the expense of acids and probably tannins and other weird anti-oxidant “green” stuff] or switch from paraffin-coated corks to silicone-coated corks, then goodness only knows what the consequences might [or might not] be.
BTW, there are rumors that lately JJ Prum has also been dialing down the sulfur…
Hey Nathan-you have no idea what you are talking about. Bring data or don’t come at all.
The thread was triggered by my opening a 1998 Raymond Reserve Cab and a 2004 Schild Estate Shiraz. If only those 2000 Cru Bourgeois Bordeaux would come around.
For the record, I’ve given two links on this thread to recent concurrent germane threads about highly-rated wines which are falling apart.
Here, I’ll give you a third link:
[u]Welcome to the Oxidized Burgundies Wiki site![/u]
Back in the mid-1990s, the Burgundy crowd turned sharply away from their time-tested winemaking techniques [and their time-tested cork-lubricating materials] and now all hell has broken loose.
How much more “data” do you want?
BTW, the jury is still very much out on all these German Rieslings which are now being bottled under screwcap - maybe it will be the greatest thing since sliced bread, or maybe it won’t. Stay tuned.
[What I’m seeing on the 2012 Germans under screwcap is so much spritz that they ought to be reclassified as sparkling wines - which might be a good thing or it might not]
Nathan-you have no data on German Rieslings. I have now 12 years of experience with Germans under screw cap. Even I know it’s not enough to make a real case, but at least I am making the effort.
The wiki on oxidized Burgs is well known, as are the issues with Huet, so you are not imparting any wisdom on us uneducated masses. Then you throw out unsubstantiated rumors on Prum like a passing pigeon.
Your history is one of dropping in every few weeks, pissing on whatever you find, and then disappearing until you feel the need to spoil everybody’s fun again. Go back to your bridge.
Nathan: BFD, as they say. So one guy in New Zealand who I have never met and who I know nothing about didn’t like 2003 Hermitage.
You like older techniques? Putting syrah into pinot in Burgundy to add color and flavor? Adding Algerian grapes to Bordeaux to give them more power in bad years? Chaptalization, which used to be much more common.
I do not know what 2012 German wines you have tasted under screw cap, but I have seen no spritz and if there is, it has nothing to do with the cap.
You guys are vicious. This article was about selecting cheap wines for aging. Do cheap over-oaked wines often get worse with age? Of course. Do “lesser” varietals often rely on their youthful fruit for enjoyment, and become undrinkable with time? Certainly. Yet somehow these very bland and reasonable statements have led to several bloggers coming down on Nathan like a pile of bricks.
What the heck does 1947 bordeaux have to do with buying cheap wines for aging? And why can’t the extremely troubling issues with oxidized burgs and Huet be mentioned? For what possible reasons must we ignore things that are “well known”? Also, what’s with all these demands for “data please”? Since when do we need to perform extensive double-blind peer-reviewed statistics projects before posting to this website? WTF is going on here?
To answer the original question, in my experience well made classic wines can age very well - either entry level wines from excellent producers, or mid-level wines from unheralded but traditional producers. Spoofulated wines, be they cheap or expensive, are at their best when young and showing off their great fruit flavors - because that’s all they’ve got.
Well, Daniel, since your questions are posed to me, I’ll respond.
I was not responding to anything about cheap wines. Two posts were made indicating, respectively, that wines need high acidity to age, and that “the absence of oak” is equally essential. I was interested in both assertions, as they are repeated often as if they are true, but I am aware of absolutely nothing to support them. If there is evidence to support them I’d be fascinating to see it.
So I asked for an explanation of the evidence that supported the assertions. What followed was “I know of this low acid (or over oaked) wine that fell apart. Oh look, here is another.” That seems to be remarkably flaccid support for the assertion as to what is “essential” for aging. I mentioned the 1947 bdx as an example of a low acid vintage that has produced some profoundly long-lasting wines; it seems to be a counter-example of anecdotal evidence. I also pointed out that for decades riojas have made with an oak regimen that can hardly be described as “oak restrained” and they are remarkably long lived.
Asking for evidence hardly strikes me as “vicious,” but maybe that’s just because I was raised by wolves
Daniel
I can only assume the posters in question have had previous disagreements with Nathan. His posts on this thread don’t warrant that treatment, even if I also disagree with his generalisations.
Regards
Ian
I have no history with Nathan, did nothing vicious to him, and gave him no “treatment” other than ask him, politely I think, to substantiate his assertion.
Hi Neal,
To be fair to you I see yours as challenging questions that isn’t unusual on this forum. Not vicious, though caught up with the other comments it did feel Nathan was being targeted.
However there were other posts I thought rude and abusive, from someone I know is capable of being much more personable. That I find sad. He is better than that.
Regards
Ian
Ian,
Nathan has been playing the same card over and over since about 2002. That was about the last time he put up any kind of original notes.