Like many, I love the flavors of well-aged wine, but aged examples of the old standbys can get expensive (Bordeaux, Burgundy, Piedmont, Napa Cab, Mosel Riesling). Additionally, It’ a lot of fun to find an unexpectedly great aged bottle that one might not expect to age well at all.
Here are a few of mine from the past couple of years. The aging capacity of these types of wines have been documented here before, but I still think of them as “off-the-beaten path” as wines that most would consider suited for aging.
2012 Domaine du Haut Bourg Muscadet-Cotes de Grandlieu Origine
2007 Cloudy Bay Sauvignon Blanc
2000 Trimbach Pinot Gris Reserve Personelle
2001 Eyrie Pinot Gris Willamette Valley
1992 Bio Weingut Kemetner Gruner Veltliner
1989 Ravenswood Zinfandel Sonoma County
2004 Domaine Calot Morgon Vielles Vignes
1967 Bersano Barbera d’Asti Conti della Cremosina Riserva Speciale
I recall a Billecart-Salmon Brut Rosé…
Nonvintage, so don’t know the year of production, but it easily sat for 10-12 years in the back of the cellar before I noticed it.
Off the charts. One of the best aged Champagnes I can recall.
In 2020, a 1968 Cesanese del Piglio from Fantina Soc. Cesanese del Piglio, a coop. I’ve acquired a taste for the cesanese grape and had had them up to six or seven years old, but this was stunning – a really great wine.
Last summer, a 1976 Guigal Hermitage, which I expected to be past its prime. It was superb – fresh and just classic Northern Rhone, notwithstanding Guigal’s use of barriques.
A 1996 Drouhin Beaune - Clos des Mouches, last year. I was prepared for this to be hard as nails, as it was a 1996, a highly structured vintage, made at a time when Drouhin was not aiming for approachability. Instead, it was feminine and floral – a delight. An A+ Cotes de Beaune.
I’d have to check the first edition of Parker, but I think so. By the 80s, I know his regular Cote Rotie was spending 24-30 months in barriques, and the La-Las were 36 months, I believe. For Guigal, the barriques were not a fad of the 90s.
Even after tasting it, I feel crazy saying this, but a 1991 Kenwood “Jack London” Cabernet Sauvignon I had a couple of years ago was incredible (and I was just hoping it would be decent).
Six bottles of N.V. Mark Swann Golden Muscat Rutherglen bought for $30 total. It was a blend of '81-'83 juice and over the last five years were superb. Laughably so for $5 a bottle.
Eight bottles of 1981 Bodegas LAN Rioja Gran Reserva Lander bought for $24 each. They were all delicate, floral, dusty leather and very much alive. Had my last bottle last year and it was the same as the first five ish years before it.
1984 Peter Lauer Saar Riesling Brut Reserve. Have one left and the first was insanely good.
1993 Château Simone Palette Blanc. Tasted like a french made LdH Gran Reserva of the same age.
Insanely good? You’re probably the first who I’ve heard describing them as such - most people I’ve discussed about these wines with have said they’re more for quenching academic curiosity than thirst. Others have not been as forgiving.
I myself have had some of those old Lauer bubblies (including that 1984) and while they were definitely interesting, none were something I’d describe as insanely good. The 1984 was rather aggressively green and funky, tasting more like a Finnish cider (ie. made with barely ripe apples as they don’t ripen enough for making good cider around here).
It seemed the wine was suffering quite badly from reduction and it did get better with air so that it ended up being quite nice, but it felt the wine needed more air than it could take to blow off all the funky, green thiol notes.
Had a 1945 “port-style” wine from Crimea, sampled at Hedonism here in London. They had no idea what grapes were in it. It was alive, barely. Quite like an old-but-faded ruby port. Just a bit of life left to offer.
