Matt Kramer on aging wines

[Shannon_Perdue]

One other aspect of cellaring wine must be recognized. It is us. We are emotionally invested in cellaring wines. If we've been patient a long time in hopes of a better wine future, then the long-aged, long-anticipated wine surely must be better for the wait.

So true and not just for the Rudy wines. And yes, I’m right there with all of you.

[R_Olson]

To the extent that anecdotal evidence matters, I had a 1998 Verite (first vintage ever…they only put out the Pomerol blend that year) and it was great. Considering that '98 was the ‘worst vintage ever’ in Napa I would say some stuff ages well.

The only universal rule in wine, so far as I can tell, is that there are no universal rules. As for the article in question, a lot of it driven by personal taste. As a wine drinking collective, the consumers have become more embracing of fruit than previously…therefore, lots of wines will drink great young to the consumer and thus the narrative that wines are better at a young age than they used to be becomes accepted.

• A 2002 Merus I also recently had was probably one of the best wines I had in all of 2012.

[Peter_Chiu]

@Scott E. Wade

One of the points Mr. Kramer makes is that age worthy is not the same as improving. At WS, I think this is also generally reflected in their recommended drinking windows, which are usually on the younger side.

I think it a matter of personal preference.

I do see a lot of reports of trophy wines pulled out at tastings and dinners that read “1969 DRC” or “1961 Bordeaux” that say “badly corked” or “off bottle.” I don’t doubt it, but it makes me sad. Even if it wasn’t truly corked, would those bottles have been at peak song in the 80s or 90s (or even earlier)? While I love the stories of the 60 year old bottle of Villages level Pommard that is other worldly, I see an awful lot of age-pushed bottles written off as shot through. As a matter of preference, I guess it depends on what you’d like to get out of the bottles you’ve cellared.

I bought a bunch of 1999 Drouhin Chambolle Musigny. From 5-8 it was gorgeous, especially for $30. By 9 years it was heading down, at 10 it seemed tired and I guzzled them off at 11 in 2010 and their charms seemed faded. I had a similar experience with a 2002 Faiveley Mercurey. I bought a bunch and they were great, but buy the time I got to the last couple of bottles in 2011 they were both “flawed.” Maybe they really were and it was bad luck or coincidence that those were the last couple of bottles.

I like at least 10 years on my premier cru and GC Burgs and classed growth Bordeaux. California Cabs between 7-10 years. I want the tannins and wood in the background and some residual fruit (sometimes it takes more time to get there). A lot of the Bordeaux aren’t about fruit anyway and aren’t open at 10 years and more time rewards the favor.

Another point he makes is more of the traditional age worthy wines, like Bordeaux, are more approachable in youth. There is evidence to make that argument. In Bordeaux though, I still think they need time. And I’ve learned that less expensive wine often doesn’t mean they are ready any sooner.

My two cents.

Mr. Kramer is a pretty good writer and thinker on wine. I enjoy most of his articles, but they are often pretty provocative. Often insightful too.

I am too lazy to write. + 1.


*One of the points Mr. Kramer makes is that age worthy is not the same as improving.

[Nick_Ryan]

He left me at the point where he admitted he was already guzzling down 2005 Burgundy and didn’t think it had much more room to improve. What a clown.

[gene_keenan]

@John Morris

Paul – He doesn’t say they won’t age beyond five years; he says they “will reach a point of diminishing returns on aging.”

That has always been true of California cabs: They tended to plateau after some year (more than five!) and change little beyond that. I think he’s saying that that same phenomenon is now seen in European wines.

I think is point is largely correct. (His reference to the impact of green harvesting is interesting. Never thought about that.)

I got interested in wine in the early 80s, and young Bordeaux and Northern Rhones – the things I drank the most of in the early and mid-80s – tended to be very hard and ungiving young (with the exception of 82 Bordeaux). Now those wines, and even a lot of higher-end Burgundy and Barolo, can be pretty accessible young. Will these newer wines reward long, long aging in the same way wines of a couple of decades ago did? The jury is out. Judging by vintages like 82 and 90 in Bordeaux, I’m skeptical. I see the same sort of plateauing in those wines that you see in California cabs. Tasting 1990 Barolo/Barbaresco in recent years, I suspect that may be the case with those wines. They will live on, but perhaps without the tertiary evolution wines of earlier decades produced.

Yup. I’d say the same thing for Brunello too. The new releases are approachable very early on.

We drank A LOT of aged California Cab last year and although all of them were superb I am not sure they were any better now than they were maybe 10 years ago… For most people. But I like old cab that tastes like dirt, tea and tobacco with just a bit of fruit to hold it all together. You won’t get that at 5 years. Most would say those wines are way past peak but I like them there. There are some exceptions to the cali aging thing: I am not sure I have ever had a Dunn that still wasn’t really tannic. Do they ever lose that edge and soften?

[Marcu_Stanley]

Is Kramer a guy who just habitually overstates things to get attention? I mean, there is a core of truth in what he is saying in that today even classic-type wines generally give a lot of pleasure when they are young. But their character transforms over time, so it doesn’t make sense to say that there is no return from aging. Saying that wines do not get ‘better’ may be true in some sense but completely misses the point. E.g. I tried the 2009 Pichon Baron the other day and it was a crowd pleaser, huge huge black fruit, towering structure but the tannins were not hard enough to interfere with the fruit. If that’s the experience you want this is a fantastic wine today. But I think it will be a very different wine in 15-20 years. Will it be ‘better’? I don’t know, it depends what you’re looking for. I think it will be different in an interesting way. I do think many California wines age to be different in a not-interesting way, that is they just fade. But I doubt today’s riper Bordeaux will go the California direction of not developing interesting tertiary characteristics.

Also, his repeated statements that wines are ready to drink at 10 years and do not improve after that really strike me as BS. I can’t be the only person who is waiting for my top-level 2000 Bordeaux to open up again after the closed period they’ve been going through recently. I suspect those wines will be better at 15 years than now.

My favorite comment on the WS piece was this one:

“A couple of years ago, the very points you make were revealed to me when I drank through a mixed case of 2000 Barolos I had put away for 10 years. All were WS rated 93-96 with initial tasting notes that promised greatness. All were stored in optimal conditions. When consumed in 2010-11, none of them knocked my socks off. It would have been nice to sample them a few years earlier.”

Dude, you didn’t learn that Barolo can’t age for 10 years. You learned never to trust Wine Spectator reviews!

[brigcampbell]

Marcus, I thought the same when I read it.

[K_John_Joseph]

I took a dump on Kramer for his last post. And I don’t think this one is written particularly well either, though perhaps has main point has some merit, erroneous facts, percentages, references, etc. I still think his fundamental argument is erroneous. Great wines remain great wines largely because of what we all claim is complexity, balance, and structure. Those are largely the same things that made wines truly cellar-worthy decades past. Cellar time still allows for the evolution of great wines. What is exciting about great wines is the expansion of complexity that may be obtained with age. If you think Napa cabs, for instance, are jammy and thick at 5 or even 10, go buy some 1996s. They’re 16-17 years old, have lost the baby fat, and show clean pure rich fruit melded with beautiful savory notes. It’s the development of those notes, paired with classic California fruit, that makes the wines so special. The same is true for Burgundy. I enjoy drinking some young, with their verve, bright fruit, and hint of funk. But 15-25 years in bottle adds depth and additional complexity to the secondary notes in the wine that can really create intrigue and an expanse of flavors not found in young wines.

Also, Kramer states that zero-malo wines take more years to become mature…there’s a massive push to reduce maloferm, and if that’s the case, are we promoting a need to cellar chards? That seems to contrast with his thesis paragraph.

[Fred_Daniels]

It’s crazy to take a stance on aging wines in my opinion. Some people like young wines, some like some wines aged 10, 15, 30 years. It’s a matter of taste. So if a critic gives the new Mouton 100 points, is it 100 points right now, or will it be 100 points in 20 years? Will the crazy proliferation of wines from everywhere, I think it is a bold experiment to try and age wines for those that like more subtle, mellow and complex flavors. One of my wine epiphanies was a 15 year old Lirac…tasted like a premier cru Volnay. I believe that there is no “generalization” possible on this question, and that it must be considered for individual wines or related wines. I can make generalizations about, say, warm vintages of Vieux Telegraphe or a bottle of 2010 Aubert chardonnay, but to make general statements on all wine and aging seems impossible. And if one prefers young wine, it is just as valid an argument to say a 5 year old is at peak as it is to say it needs 10-15 more years.

[Ty_Hockstaff]

@Nick Ryan

He left me at the point where he admitted he was already guzzling down 2005 Burgundy and didn’t think it had much more room to improve. What a clown.

+1

@Fred Daniels

It’s crazy to take a stance on aging wines in my opinion. Some people like young wines, some like some wines aged 10, 15, 30 years. It’s a matter of taste. So if a critic gives the new Mouton 100 points, is it 100 points right now, or will it be 100 points in 20 years? Will the crazy proliferation of wines from everywhere, I think it is a bold experiment to try and age wines for those that like more subtle, mellow and complex flavors. One of my wine epiphanies was a 15 year old Lirac…tasted like a premier cru Volnay. I believe that there is no “generalization” possible on this question, and that it must be considered for individual wines or related wines. I can make generalizations about, say, warm vintages of Vieux Telegraphe or a bottle of 2010 Aubert chardonnay, but to make general statements on all wine and aging seems impossible. And if one prefers young wine, it is just as valid an argument to say a 5 year old is at peak as it is to say it needs 10-15 more years.

interesting insight…I wonder why Parker, Suckling, Tanzer etc. feel the need to include aging window with specific years (to and from) in their TN’s? To me personally, aging wine isn’t just about improving the quality, but about the social aspect and being able to pull a bottle from the cellar, 15-20 years old is kind of cool in a social setting; even if it’s a little off and a touch past its prime it can still be enjoyable if not delicious.

[Tom_G_l_a_s_g_o_w]

The critics give aging windows because it sells subscriptions. It also helps “establish” their credentials as experts, but see Marcus’ closing line above.

[Ian_Dorin]

@Berry Crawford

I think he might be going senile. His last couple of articles posted here seem just way off from reality.

+1.

I don’t think he gave up enough detail. This is NOT a 1,000 words or less type topic.

I’m finding WS seems to be limiting their writers. The blog post yesterday about flipping wine had the chance to be interesting, but it was solely focused on selling Screaming Eagle Sauvignon Blanc??? Come on, so much more interesting going on in the world of re-selling wine right now than some already over priced Napa SB going to beyond stupid pricing.

For those who missed it…

Who Gives a Flip? When High-Value Cult Wines Tempt Buyers to Resell for a...

[Peter_Chiu]

@Nick Ryan

He left me at the point where he admitted he was already guzzling down 2005 Burgundy and didn’t think it had much more room to improve. What a clown.

Nick…generalization of a Burgundy vintage is difficulty. What I am trying to say is : one needs to be more specific.

For example, Faiveley farms and produces many of their holdings in Mercurey. I am very familar with them as I bought and drank many of them by cases since vintage 2005. Their dMyglands 05 was priced CA $30 ) , La Framboisiere 05 was approx. CA $26 and Le Mauvarennes 05 was CA $22. Faiveley knows what they are doing and their Mauv was for earlier drinking then their La Fram ( for mid-term ) and CdMygland ( for longer-term ).

From my extensive experience with the above 3 wines, I would say…the Maur reaches its best enjoyment plateaux from 2010 to 2011, at least for me personally. The wine could keep but would it improve ? I would say no as a young wine.

If I keep the wine until 2015 and beyond …the wine will transformed into a matured Burgundy.

Will it taste better than when the wine was young ( at age 5 or 6 ) ? This question should be only answered by the drinker himself !

What I am trying to say is : if Peter Chiu is the drinker of this wine, the answer should be : the wine tastes better in 2010 to 2011 because Peter Chiu prefer to drink Burgundy wine young. If Tom B ( or Paul S ) is the drinker of this wine, the answer should be : why you open this wine so young ?

[Rick_Allen]

I think you guys are missing the point a little bit. Compared to wines coming to market in the 60’s, 70’s and early 80’s, today’s wines are much more approachable when they are young (remember, Kramer is in his early 60’s). The late 80’s and the 90’s were more of a transition period to current practices. Keep in mind that one of the theories about premox (which really started in 1995 or so) was that winemakers were changing their processes to make wines more approachable when they were younger.

[David_Bu3ker]

Also keep in mind that The Wine Spectator is not a hard core geek publication. What Kramer says is largely true for most wines & wine drinkers. This board (and the wines cited here) are not the 1%, but rather the .001%.

[Henry_Kiichli]

@Rick Allen

I think you guys are missing the point a little bit. Compared to wines coming to market in the 60’s, 70’s and early 80’s, today’s wines are much more approachable when they are young (remember, Kramer is in his early 60’s). The late 80’s and the 90’s were more of a transition period to current practices. Keep in mind that one of the theories about premox (which really started in 1995 or so) was that winemakers were changing their processes to make wines more approachable when they were younger.

What he said.

[Peter_Chiu]

@David M. Bueker

Also keep in mind that The Wine Spectator is not a hard core geek publication. What Kramer says is largely true for most wines & wine drinkers. This board (and the wines cited here) are not the 1%, but rather the .001%.

So sensible … and brovo David -

[Ian_Dorin]

@Peter Chiu

@David M. Bueker

Also keep in mind that The Wine Spectator is not a hard core geek publication. What Kramer says is largely true for most wines & wine drinkers. This board (and the wines cited here) are not the 1%, but rather the .001%.

So sensible … and brovo David -

You know, this brings something to mind, and it’s a thought I had yesterday.

If what you are saying is true (I’m 10000000% with both of you too), why do Lafite, DRC, Screaming Eagle and so many other wineries of that caliber allow the Wine Spectator, Wine Enthusiast and other “casual” (for lack of a better term) wine magazines taste and rate their wines??? If the folks reading those magazines aren’t the customer base for those wines, doesn’t it seem a bit of a mismatch?

Not sure why I think of these things, but I do. Would love some thoughts.

[Henry_Kiichli]

@Ian Dorin

If what you are saying is true (I’m 10000000% with both of you too), why do Lafite, DRC, Screaming Eagle and so many other wineries of that caliber allow the Wine Spectator, Wine Enthusiast and other “casual” (for lack of a better term) wine magazines taste and rate their wines??? If the folks reading those magazines aren’t the customer base for those wines, doesn’t it seem a bit of a mismatch?

Not sure why I think of these things, but I do. Would love some thoughts.

Advertising, drive up prices, and remember that many people who may not be hard-core geeks hunt these trophies because they are “the best of the best”. Is the Chinese Lafite bubble now bust, only to move to DRC?

Another thing, especially with Lafite, is the extent of their own lesser wines. Big scores for the flagship mean more sales in the supermarket.

[David_Bu3ker]

Buzz is always good. Lots of non-geeks have tons of cash. They seek out the hottest/“best” things. Wine Spec, with its oversized, glossy format & glamorous lifestyle pitch appeals to the more money than they know what to do with crowd.

Does not make them geeks.