I look forward to tasting my first vinegar from such wines. I have never experienced this, though I’ve read about it.
I do think that many “dead” wines are not really “dead”, but are not treated well when opened, simulating “dead” or spoiled wines to those tasting them.
I think a good humble wine is more likely to upset a great wine in a blind tasting when far too young, rather than when older. Remember how Reignac would do so well in those blind tastings? But older Reignac would probably come in last against the same lineup down the road.
But I do agree that varietals can get less differentiated from each other at greater age. With good wine at age 30 or 40, served double blind, the guesses are all over the world and the grape spectrum pretty often.
Hi Stuart. Hard for Me to believe You never had a truly OTH, bad stored, oldie. -I dont look forward to My next one.
At the special wine sale, We were 15-20 persons, all deep into old wines. We tried all the tricks, and We could open as many as We wanted of the burgs, in hope of finding a batch that was drinkable, and therefore sellable.
Some bottles were Audouzed (actually just left after a small pour and taste), some tried decanting, and returns to glasses poured earlier. No improvements…Actually they got worse.
All burgs had a bitter smell of rye bread, brown cloudy colors with small white bubbles in the edge of the glass, and acids that makes My mouth water right now, when thinking back. No fruit, no sugars. Just spicy acids with a hint of acetone.
The Chevals were darker brown cloudy, and had more of this colorless foam when poured. some tertiary flavors were present in a few minutes, then only acidic brown fluid with rye bread smell remained. We all really wanted these Chevals to work… But they were dead.
The seller told us that the storage room actually was forgotten for many years, probably without cooling.
The wines were old/very old, and the storage had been poor for many years. This was too much for all the simple village burgs, and also for the CB 1949.
A 1934 Latour from same sale was drunk two days later, and all liked it. Not all the wines were dead from this stock.
Kind regards, Soren.
Like I said, I’ve never experienced red wine vinegar…in bottles I wanted to drink. Not sure why, but I haven’t.
I read on this board of so many great experiences with truly “off” vintages of RB, like '73, '74 , '77 and others. When I read such things I assume that 1) these wines were not predictably of high potential for such rewards, and 2) that it is the aging and its characteristics that have made them pleasant and added a dimension that the vintage hadn’t.
Is it possible that with 10-15 years of age a lesser wine might taste “better” than a well-known higher classified growth? Sure. Is it likely? Not typically, but you can always find examples of over-achievers (and under-performers).
Bruce
I agree that age is absolutely for the benefit of many (fine) wines, but generally the higher the initial level of a wine is (and that includes variety, origin, vintage and wine-making) the more gracefully it will age and still improve after a certain time.
Less fine wines, once the primary fruit (or oak) has gone, will usually remain “simpler”, be less complex, less interesting and more straightforeward, even if they can be alive and enjoyable for quite a long time.
It´s self-understanding that the bottle-condition and quality of storage are immensly important after decades, but I´ve had enough wines of identical or similar age, but different quality side by side to state that usually the difference in level of quality is even more pronounced in higher age.
If you compare a Village Burgundy and a Grand Cru (let´s say) 1959 or 1964 it will be very evident - the same for a (let´s say) 1961 or 1966 Medoc Bourgeois and a 1st or 2nd classified Bordeaux growth - same vintage.
I lesser vintages it might be even more obvious …
If a bottle has been ruined by bad storage/shipping - it usually doesn´t matter vm if it is Village or Grand Cru … and also Audouzing won´t help vm …
and don´t blame the producer …
Perhaps age can disguise rather than equalize. I am reminded of some mid-90s Rheingau Rieslings that were released in 2005 or so that people went nuts over. They were from an historic but underperforming estate, yet had lovely, aged Riesling character…until you stacked them up against a top performing producer. In a head to head the lack of depth and real character became apparent.
No it is not crap. We do buy wines that give different profiles as they age, but in very old age, there are plenty of instances where it is very difficult to tell different regions apart. However that is perhaps one if the great joys of very old wine, in that the flavours and aromas can be truly unique, and as a result prized more greatly for offering us that uniqueness. Not a burg profile or a bdx profile as we are used to, but a profile for that wine in that vintage, and at that age. It can be very humbling if blind tasting very old wines, being unable to tell a rioja from a bdx or a sangiovese from a nebbiolo, and even more usually obviously different pairings.
In the long run, we are all dead.
what is dead may never die.
Au contraire
(Regarding the wines)
producer, producer, producer still applies after decades in the cellar
…but rises again, harder and stronger.
Where’s the Klapp to talk about dead Barolo?
Spoiler! 
Possible counter-evidence – Mommesin versus Hudelot-Noellat Suchots.
No it is not crap. We do buy wines that give different profiles as they age, but in very old age, there are plenty of instances where it is very difficult to tell different regions apart.
Ian - not in my experience. I have to disagree with you entirely.
I’ve done many blind tastings where we compared one region to another after 30, 40 years or more and the wines from different grapes/regions do not converge. In fact, they can be much harder to distinguish in youth than with some age.
Why? I don’t know exactly.
I think it is because young fruit can seem mostly like well, young fruit, but with age, the various compounds within the grapes and the wine combine and recombine and evolve and become something very unique. You started with different raw materials so you end up with a different product.
I can promise you that Tempranillo from Rioja does not age like Nebbiolo from Piedmont or Merlot from Bordeaux or Zinfandel from Santa Cruz or Pinot Noir from Burgundy or Syrah from Australia or the North Rhone.
Many years ago I began collecting Spanish wines because in doing comparative tastings of wines with age, I consistently found that if there was a Tempranillo-based wine, I preferred it. I figured I could keep them 30, 40, 50 years or until I wasn’t around any longer to enjoy them, and other than Nebbiolo-based wines, I wasn’t aware of another grape that produced wines that lived as long.
If today you taste a group of wines side by side from the 1940s, 50s, 60s and 70s, from different regions, as long as they still have life, they are not converging.
Otherwise why not go out and buy a few cases of some good Zin and keep it until it turns into old Margaux? I drank a 1992 Zin last night. It wasn’t anything like any Bordeaux I’ve ever had. And my Gigondas isn’t going to turn into DRC in the next few decades.
Once you get past the point where there is any flavor at all left and it’s little more than colored water, I guess they converge. But not at some point where you still want to drink them.
Neither an equalizer nor the opposite (de-equalizer? un-equalizer?). Better to say it’s the truth-teller. Maybe some humble producer really is equal to the blue chip - only one way to find out…
Greg, Greg, Greg… We so often agree, but this is not my experience at all. Gray Newman brought an old Rioja to a double-blind tasting a couple of months ago and we guessed lots of things other than Rioja. I’ve had older Burgundy that taste like mature Barolo. Etc., etc.
I remember a quote in WS from Steve Gilbertson of Draper & Esquin in SF back in the 80s to the effect that old wines converge and lose their distinctiveness. That statement stuck with me because there was so much truth in it, even if it’s not always true.
No, I disagree.
With age (and I´m talking of several decades) the real quality of a wine comes out (which may have been disguised a bit in the youth, e.g. by oak treatment etc.) … the great can be easier distinguished from the (only) good … and eventually the “not so good” …
2nd is the origin: a great Burgundy will be recognized as a great wine - most probably also as a great Burgundy (there are exceptions), and in many cases also as a fine Richebourg/Musigny/Chambertin etc. … from a great or less great vintage … and there usually will be a clear quality that cannot come from a Village or lesser Premier Cru …
A fine aged Hermitage can usually be spotted as great Northern Rhone wine, which cannot origin from a Crozes-Hermitage or St.Joseph vineyard …
… but it´s much harder - and in many cases impossible - to tell who made the wine … at least if there are many possibilities like in Chambertin (less difficult in Romanée-Conti 
) … or in Chateauneuf-dP …
Recently I had some fine aged Rhone wines side-by-side … it was relatively easy to spot two Cornas and two Chateauneuf, it was more difficult to distinguish between a (traditional) Cote-Rotie and an Hermitage … but it was almost impossible to recognize Verset against Allemand - and Chante-Cigale against Fortia …
Yes, it is sometimes possible to confuse an aged fine Rioja with an aged Barolo or Burgundy - and vice-verca … especially if the wine-making style is similar … hardly possible with an old Bordeaux against a Burgundy …
… but the difference between a - let´s say 1964 - Gevrey-Chambertin Village and a GC Chambertin (even from the same producers) will be really obvious …
Maybe Greg is just better than the rest of us at placing very old wines. If so, bravo to you Greg.
GregT must be related to DavidZ. It shows in more ways than tasting prowess. ![[wink.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/04707e6a7bbb03e0153e349d8a9270d30e1e9525.gif "wink"){kind=small}