Leaving wine overnight versus aging

[Robert_Pavlovich]

For context at the same tasting/flight, a 2011 Bartolo was considered by (more than a few others, albeit not all) to be the worst of the flight, for exhibiting some of the sweet traits of the Cappellano. It had the same treatment. Ie, I don’t think folks considered the cappellano to be a flawed bottle, and thought perhaps the bartolo also got too much air.

But as a totally separate question, what do folks expect to discern by trying a wine on day 2 or 3? I assume ageability is only one thing folks are looking for?

As far as softening tannins and all primal elements of the wine mellowing (fruit, tannin, oak, acid, etc.) and fusing together, I’ve found day 2 works great. If you were to save half a bottle of a young wine overnight only to see its drinkability decline on day 2, that’s not a good sign at all.

Think where people get their dander up is to try and say you can approximate aging wine, which you obviously can’t - and that would blow the purpose of much of the hobby for collectors. An analogy that might get more agreement is, to give a young wine extended air is something like microwaving versus slow cooking.

[Robert_Pavlovich]

What does ‘slightly riper’ mean? How much riper? And how many in the group felt this was the case? Everyone or . . .?

A specific wine in question is a 2011 Rupestris. One group tasted a 2011 after a ~10 hour slow o, and at consumption used descriptors such as “ripe”, “slightly too sweet”, “mono dimensional”, “slightly candied”. Conversely, I know others who have this vintage on pop and pour and suggested giving the bottle less air.

A more recent example of the question was someone who tried a recent vintage Chateau De La Tour Clos Vougeot VV (not I), and felt the wine increasingly showed a cola note on Day 2/Day 3, and then having concern the wine would be too ripe for his palate – even though this a wine (I have read) that is difficult to approach young. She felt the wine may thus evolve too ripe to her palate – which was the catalyst for starting this post.

The cola note was always there, just became more prominent as the serving temp warmed.

[Robert_Pavlovich]

I’ll chime-in re the 2011 Capellano Rupestris because I was one of the folks who banged on it hard at that tasting where it saw extended air. It struck me as noticeably oxidized ---- brown sugar, vegetal. It was also a bit bretty. But for another wine that I thought had slight TCA, it was probably my least favorite of the tasting. It was served at proper temperature, imo. I believe I used a Riedel Vinum Pinot stem, but cannot recall for sure — I may have used a Riedel Ouverture red.

…

As for the main question here: I do not view extended aeration.as a proxy for aging.

Having the benefit of tasting most of the bottles after opening, and then after some air. The Bartolo and Cappellano were sexy off the PnP, but declined quite a bit after all that air. Counter to that, the Vietti and the (Chiara) Cannubi benefited from the air time, and one of the only ones that we actually saved a decend amount of, the Vajra was singing on day 2. I have to say in that case, the Vajra was exactly what you look for in a day 2 proxy. I’m now confident that wine will age very well.

As an aside, this night is going to live forever in Shan’s mind.

[James_Billy]

There is no doubt that leaving a wine open uneducated will ‘open up’ a wine compared to pop and pour. And I generally find that if you open a wine and do not decant it, but then have a glass on day 2 or 3, this is ‘somewhat indicative’ of how the wine may evolve over time. Do I have ‘scientific data’ to support this? Nope - just observation.

I was thinking this:

The current free SO2 levels of the wine?

You beat me to it.

If there is little free SO2, the wine will fall over sooner (say, after one or two nights.)

If there is a good level of free SO2 the wine might keep (for example) for 3+ nights.

This could give an indication of how long the wine might keep (wrt free SO2) in the cellar, fewer days an open keeps the fewer years an unopened bottle might last.

Obviously, other factors will come into play.

The above is just a hunch, not scientifically based. It also tallies with my experience.

[James_Billy]

For context at the same tasting/flight, a 2011 Bartolo was considered by (more than a few others, albeit not all) to be the worst of the flight, for exhibiting some of the sweet traits of the Cappellano. It had the same treatment. Ie, I don’t think folks considered the cappellano to be a flawed bottle, and thought perhaps the bartolo also got too much air.

But as a totally separate question, what do folks expect to discern by trying a wine on day 2 or 3? I assume ageability is only one thing folks are looking for?

Sounds a bit like the vintage may have had to do with this. Were the other bottles from 2011?

[K_John_Joseph]

A few months ago there was a group that slow o’d two 2011 barolos that made them appear slightly riper at a tasting 12 hours later, leading some to declare these wines were given too much air / may not age well. Conversely some believe these wines will age just fine or even spectacularly.

And so I ask the question, how much of a proxy is giving wine extended air to forecast how a flavors of a wine will evolve with time? I imagine leaving a wine overnight would soften tannins, but I less sure how the fruit or acidity would change in such a period. Said another way, I wonder whether slow o or leaving a wine overnight is a poor proxy for aging a wine 10 years, where you may see greater changes to fruit alongside a softening of tannin?

Calling Alan! It is a 0% accurate proxy as the reactions involved with long term aging and “slow ox” are nothing alike. You’d be better off popping and pouring, and then using your experience with analysis to determine likely ability to age.

[Anton_D]

I find letting a wine sit mostly ends up with oxidized flavors predominating, vs. a more complex profile that develops with aging.

I like the idea, but haven’t shared others enthusiasm for letting wine sit for a few days.

I do know a guy who works at a linear accelerator facility and he says blasting wine in the linear accelerator actually does provide “instant aging.” I have yet to take him up on his offer to pour these for me, so no true first hand experience.

The guy seems legit, he has made me Lichtenberg figures…

[Mike_Grammer]

oooh—that would truly be interesting Anton. If you ever do take him up on the offer, be sure to post!

Difficult to answer Shon, for some of the reasons Larry aptly pointed out–age of wine when opened, which wine it is, cellared conditions, etc.

I think that if I had to put this into words, I look to slow-ox to draw out more of what the wine can show me on the day/year I open it. I don’t think I am looking to see into the future of what the wine might give me 10 or 30 years from now—I’m with John on that, where I trust more my PoP and analyze then to take a shot at ageability profile. But I do give most of the wines I drink (or try to) at least some air, my prime example being white Burgs which usually see at least a half-day’s slow-ox the day before served and then 3-4 hours in a decanter on the day of. With very few exceptions, this treatment has always benefitted the wines (all of which would be 10 years old or younger).

Hope this helps, and it’s a good question. I have a wine seminar coming up that I’m giving which involves a panel discussion and I think I’ll add this question to the panel question list.

Mike

[David_Glasser]

I’m with the majority that says improvement after sitting open a day is not a reliable predictor of how a wine will age. It may suggest that the wine would benefit from more time in the cellar, but it doesn’t tell you how much better it will get or how it will change. It’s no guarantee that the additional time will make the genie emerge from the bottle. Balance and quality of acid, tannin, and fruit, and knowledge of the wine’s track record for aging in prior vintages are better predictors.

[Alan_Rath]

On the other hand: decanting immediately without slow-oxing might cause the structure (tannin and acidity) to be sharper, less sweet … some very young and strong wines might take it well, others will show less well after fast exposure to air.

Remember when you write things like this, people may actually read them and believe there is some actual truth to it

[Gerhard_P]

On the other hand: decanting immediately without slow-oxing might cause the structure (tannin and acidity) to be sharper, less sweet … some very young and strong wines might take it well, others will show less well after fast exposure to air.

Remember when you write things like this, people may actually read them and believe there is some actual truth to it

I´m counting on that!

[Brian_G_r_a_f_s_t_r_o_m]

Brian,

Did you try the wine prior to slow oxing? Had you had the wine before?

Cheers.

No. And No.

[Brian_G_r_a_f_s_t_r_o_m]

For context at the same tasting/flight, a 2011 Bartolo was considered by (more than a few others, albeit not all) to be the worst of the flight, for exhibiting some of the sweet traits of the Cappellano. It had the same treatment. Ie, I don’t think folks considered the cappellano to be a flawed bottle, and thought perhaps the bartolo also got too much air.

But as a totally separate question, what do folks expect to discern by trying a wine on day 2 or 3? I assume ageability is only one thing folks are looking for?

I thought the Bartolo presented as extremely closed, but not “bad” in the same way I found the Cappellano bad. There was a Coagna in the flight, however, that I thought “bad” in the same manner as the Cappellano, albeit to a much lesser extent.

[Brian_G_r_a_f_s_t_r_o_m]

For context at the same tasting/flight, a 2011 Bartolo was considered by (more than a few others, albeit not all) to be the worst of the flight, for exhibiting some of the sweet traits of the Cappellano. It had the same treatment. Ie, I don’t think folks considered the cappellano to be a flawed bottle, and thought perhaps the bartolo also got too much air.

But as a totally separate question, what do folks expect to discern by trying a wine on day 2 or 3? I assume ageability is only one thing folks are looking for?

As far as softening tannins and all primal elements of the wine mellowing (fruit, tannin, oak, acid, etc.) and fusing together, I’ve found day 2 works great. If you were to save half a bottle of a young wine overnight only to see its drinkability decline on day 2, that’s not a good sign at all.

Think where people get their dander up is to try and say you can approximate aging wine, which you obviously can’t - and that would blow the purpose of much of the hobby for collectors. An analogy that might get more agreement is, to give a young wine extended air is something like microwaving versus slow cooking.

I agree with this 100%, and find the cooking analogy to be brilliantly spot-on.

[Alan_Rath]

Think where people get their dander up is to try and say you can approximate aging wine, which you obviously can’t - and that would blow the purpose of much of the hobby for collectors. An analogy that might get more agreement is, to give a young wine extended air is something like microwaving versus slow cooking.

I agree with this 100%, and find the cooking analogy to be brilliantly spot-on.

Can I say I think it’s not a good analogy at all? Because I don’t believe what happens to a wine when you leave it open for a day or two is any indicator at all of how it will age. A properly aged wine sees almost no oxygen, while an open bottle is saturated with oxygen. The result should be very different.

[GregT]

A properly aged wine sees almost no oxygen, while an open bottle is saturated with oxygen. The result should be very different.

And that’s the key point that so many people seem to miss, isn’t it? Especially the folks who buy those pouring aerators that are supposed to mimic aging.

What happens to a wine while it ages is NOT simple oxidation. You have molecules that don’t even exist when the wine is young, and that only appear after other reactions have taken place. You have precursor reactions and then additional reactions and at some point you decide to drink the wine but the wine you’re drinking couldn’t possibly exist without time and chemical changes that it affords.

[Brian_G_r_a_f_s_t_r_o_m]

Think where people get their dander up is to try and say you can approximate aging wine, which you obviously can’t - and that would blow the purpose of much of the hobby for collectors. An analogy that might get more agreement is, to give a young wine extended air is something like microwaving versus slow cooking.

I agree with this 100%, and find the cooking analogy to be brilliantly spot-on.

Can I say I think it’s not a good analogy at all? Because I don’t believe what happens to a wine when you leave it open for a day or two is any indicator at all of how it will age. A properly aged wine sees almost no oxygen, while an open bottle is saturated with oxygen. The result should be very different.

Exactly. Just like how microwaving is an entirely different cooking process than slow-and-low cooking. Have you ever caramelized onions in a microwave?

[Alan_Rath]

I’ve tried, but it doesn’t work too well I didn’t really make the connection, but I see the analogy now that I think about it. I was trying to avoid any equivalence at all between aeration and long term bottle aging, while the microwave can do a pretty decent job of cooking many foods just as well as other slower cooking methods.