Is age a great equalizer?

In a recent offer, a retailer suggested buying some red 2001 1er Cru Beaune Burgs from a rock solid producer but not a producer coveted and chased like say a D’Angerville or Montille. He suggested that btl age is a great equalizer and that possibly 10-15yrs out you might not detect that much difference between a big name and a solid lesser know producer. This theory likely works just as well for BDX. Say comparing a La Mission Haut Brion down the line with a 10-15yr old Larrivet-Haut-Brion or in most any region. Agree?

Sellers got to sell.

No

Nope.

I’ve always thought of age as more of a differentiator, but I suppose it can work both ways.

In the end: yes [cheers.gif]

Yes. I think age, itself, adds a positive element in most Red Burgundies, that when added to the mix can make SOME other elements less important and noticeable. Thus, perhaps “offsetting” , to a degree, some perceived issues like “lesser” producer, vintage, vineyard. And, often that character, is as much a focus of the experience as is any of them.

Op : " This theory likely works just as well for BDX. Say comparing a La Mission Haut Brion down the line with a 10-15yr old Larrivet-Haut-Brion or in most any region. Agree?"

I don’t think a Larrivet HB will ever catch the LMHB… Well maybe as Harry says, when they are both stone dead.

Top wine is sought after (chased), because of many reasons. One being the ability to age well. This is often only achieved, by using top materials and skills.

It is a nice thought though, that the cheaper wines will become “expensive” with age.
There are some examples, and when this happens, then the rumors get out, and the price goes up.

Ch. Lannesan 1982, one of my secret weapons, is a true top wine today, and can compete in any 82-tasting, at a fraction of the price, of crus 1-5. The Lannesan 2000 will hopefully also catch up with some of the bigger, more expensive names, when the time comes.

But age as equalizer… -As a thumb rule for Bdx and burgs… No !

Best regards, Soren.

Craig,
I get your point and agree with what you are (generally) saying, but my answer is nonetheless an emphatic “No.”

a rock solid producer > but not a producer coveted and chased like say a D’Angerville or Montille. He suggested that btl age is a great equalizer and that possibly 10-15yrs out you might not detect that much difference between a big name and > a solid lesser know > producer

Spelling aside, you answered your own question.

Age is not an equalizer.

Crappy wine may become better, but if it starts out poorly made, or substandard, it won’t magically improve to become good wine.

However, wine is as much about fashion and marketing as anything else. A big name is absolutely no guarantee of superior quality. It’s only an indication of superior price.

So yeah, wine from your rock-solid producer that isn’t fashionable can absolutely equal the wines of the fashionable producers. The key is that the producer is good to start with.

It’s not the age that does it though - the wine starts out just as good. And those are the wines to buy, unless the name is more important then the quality of the wine, which is often the case.

It happens all the time. A wine gets WOTY from Spectator, or 100 points from Parker and becomes a sought-after wine with a nice price increase. The wine doesn’t change though.

Not at all. While a lesser producer’s bottle might have the rough edges smoothed out with 10 - 15 years of laying down, a top producer’s bottle will change from excellent to etherial in that same time.

Now, if this seller said you might not notice as much of a difference between a Village and Premier Cru level from the same producer in the same vintage from the same appellation after a decade or more of rack time, I might be inclined to somewhat agree.

+1

Is this sometimes true? Yes. Is it generally true, hard to say, or just false.

It’s really impossible to discuss this in the abstract. If we were talking about particular producers, it would be easier to have an intelligent discussion. Who’s the retailer pushing, Craig?

Horizontal tastings of older vintages, sometimes shows surprises.
But there are many factors involved, like different -storage, -cork quality, -intended drinking window, and so…

  • Generally, horizontals shows that the expensive wines rarely disappoints (unless flawed).
    And that’s why they are expensive.

-Soren.

In Rhoda Stewart’s A Zinfandel Odyssey, one Zinfandel grower/producer asserts that the identity of the grape variety in a bottle of wine becomes indistinguishable from other red grape wines through the process of aging. He specifically cites old Zin vs old Bordeaux or Cabernet.

It appears that, as the primary/secondary fruit flavors that are ascribed to given grapes fade over the passage of time, and tertiary flavors are more difficult to discern as belonging to one type of red wine or another.

I am doubtful that these statements are universally true, yet I haven’t tasted many aged red wines and do not have a strong frame of reference, either.

in general and not specific to Burg… Sometimes it can be, and I’ve tasted a good few lower level wines that have been simply stunning with age. In addition there can be a tendency for older wines to just taste of old wine (not a criticism from my perspective). Old bojo is sonetimes quoted as a good example of this. I think it typically comes down to whether the wine was built to age and had enough about it to retain interest. Some quite modest wines can be just that.

I saw what you did there. [welldone.gif]

My guess is what the retailer is saying is that in his opinion a lot of the hyped producers do not deserve the hype and over time the showy oak or whatever recedes and the wines are no better than (and maybe worse than) some producers who do not get as much hype but do a really solid job. That I can believe.

But, i would say overall that time is the great divider - not the great equalizer. It divides the wines that are all bluff from the wines that really have the goods. And, the ones with the goods may not be the most hyped guys.

Morot from Burgundy which I respect and like but it doesn’t carry the cache of a D Angerville or another more prominent producer.

What people have said about old wines converging is certainly right, but that’s with a lot of age. I suspect that Craig and his retailer are thinking of these Burgundies at a stage where they haven’t yet become generic old red.

Old Ridge zins are often described as claret like, and there’s something to that. But an old claret or Cal cab is better at being a mature claret than a zin is.

In Rhoda Stewart’s A Zinfandel Odyssey, one Zinfandel grower/producer asserts that the identity of the grape variety in a bottle of wine becomes indistinguishable from other red grape wines through the process of aging. He specifically cites old Zin vs old Bordeaux or Cabernet.

It appears that, as the primary/secondary fruit flavors that are ascribed to given grapes fade over the passage of time, and tertiary flavors are more difficult to discern as belonging to one type of red wine or another.

This is absolute crap.

In fact, that’s why I started collecting some wines rather than others.

In 2002, I was at a special sale. A small, forgotten stock of old wine (from the 60’s and back to 30’s) from Swedish Systembolaget.

There were eight bottles Cheval Blanc 1949, and lots of old village bourgogne. Many other things too.
As a good friend of the seller, I asked if We could open some of the burgs, to test the quality.
-All burgs were dead. It was a mean tasting, but very amusing to try so many different vintage vinegars. We even tried to take notes…great fun.

I noted that some of the Cheval Blancs had dome shaped capsules. And asked for one to be opened. Sure enough, it was dead, and three more opened showed all dead.

My point is, when a wine is dead, or very very close to, it is hard to tell burg vinegar from Bordeaux vinegar, but there are still some differences as I recall, even after death occurs.

Regards, Soren