Terroir expression in Burgundy - does age matter?

WINE TALK
1

This post by Kevin Harvey on another active thread:

got me thinking.

Is it easier to distinguish the underlying terroir, i.e. is a wine more “transparent” (as some people, including myself, use the term), in its youth, or at least in its adolescence? In my (very) limited experience with older Burgs, it seems to me that age tends to make them more alike, and that I would have an easier time picking out individual villages, or in some instances even individual lieu-dits, in wines <10 years old.

2

Interesting question.

Steve Gilbertson, a major importer and retailer in San Francisco in the 70s and 80s, was once quoted in WS saying that in general he preferred wines young because all wines converge in flavor with time. Hence the famous Harry Waugh response when asked when he last mistook a Burgundy for a claret: “Not since lunch.” But I guess that’s only true relatively late in a wine’s life.

3

There’s definitely a lot of variables in play. For example, the quality of the tannin is one of the things that distinguishes one terroir from another, so if you’re drinking your Burgundies when all of the tannin has gone you’re going to miss out on that particular signature. On the other hand you would hope the aromatic and flavor signatures to be more distinct with the right amount of age. Eventually of course everything will turn into generic old wine and then into vinegar. It’s more of a roller coaster than a constant progression, I think. Both newborn babies and wines at their 20-40+ year peaks can show powerful terroir signatures, while seeming more anonymous in adolescence and in their dotage…

4

Hmmm. Reminds me of my 20-year high school reunion when all the women had begun to look sort of generic.

But that’s still a few years off for you, Keith. Something to look forward to.

But we digress. . . .

5

Fascinating question, I’ll be following the discussion if this thread gains traction. I’ve seen the statement that with age wines are revealing their terroir more and more, but maybe that is just stating the fruit recedes and more tertiary earthy aromas appear. I think I’ve seen certain aged aromas associated with certain Burgundy communes, though I don’t recall the mapping in any way shape or form.

I was actually thinking along similar lines about the California obsession with varietal wines. Almost all CA wines end up in the same place within a relatively short time period: tired fruit, oxidized and porty aromas. But they’re produced in a manner that puts the fermentation esters forward. This leads to a lot of fruit esters, but the better balanced non-bomb wines also have varietal typicity beyond the fruit. Definitely these are wines to drink within a few years because they express the grape variety (and sometime even the site) best when young. For wines with genuine aging capacity, though, the answer is not so cut and dry.

6

I think young Burgundy often shows the most site specific character, but there is plenty at maturity (age 15-30) as well(assuming no masking influence such as Brett).
I find it much harder to see distinguishing characteristics in older bottles (post peak) as they all seem to be heading in the same direction (ie old sous bois-y Burgundy).

To be clear, there are wines in their 40s or more that still reflect their vineyards but IMO they are in the minority.

7

I find bottle age blurs both producer and terroir signatures. They are still there but with less volume for me. For example, Corton is seen as a “masculine” terroir but well aged Cortons can be very pretty and elegant.

8

I think Keith nails it. We also need to be specific here and avoid labels like ‘young’, ‘aged’ etc because those mean different things to different people. Truly young Burgs can be tightly wound and not really showing much… but I mean from release to about 3 years. I prefer them from 10-15 years since they tend to then have unwound and show both terroir and secondary flavors but not be blurred yet. A recent Drouhin Griottes from 1999 was very much Griottes and just starting to blossom. Of course, this also depends on the vineyard - a minor premier cru and a top one might show very differently.

If there’s one thing you cannot do in Burgundy, it’s generalize.

9

I think the terroir can be apparent quite young, actually, when I think about it. It was barrel tasting with Claude Kolm many years ago that I first grasped the essence of the communes. Tasting through dozens of offerings from many different producers, I could distinguish for the first time what was the winemaker’s signature and what came from the source of the fruit. The terroir was quite apparent even at that early stage.

10

I would say that terroir characteristics recede as hierarchy becomes more apparent with genuine maturity. Though I’m probably wrong, that’s the joy of it.

11

Personally, I greatly prefer Burgundy with age on it, say about 20 years minimum. (The problem is waiting for it to get there!). The good wines get better, and the better wines get great! Young Burgs, out to maybe 10 - 15 years, speak more about the vintage characteristics and winemaking signatures of the producers, I think. And to me, very young wines all tend to taste the same, or at least have the same set of very dominant characteristics, usually tannins, acid, and very forward, youthful fruit.

If a wine does not show great individuality, personality, and precision with age, then the terroir isn’t very expressive or dominant, or the winemaking and/or vintage were so-so. But I’ve had even village level Burgs, from good years and winemakers, that were just lovely, and quite terroir expressive, at age 20!

Maybe there is some blurring at 50 years or so, but I haven’t had the good fortune to thoroughly investigate this! [cheers.gif]

But you have to serve these wines with great care. Five hours of slow-O and a good cool serving temperature will be close to whatever happens to be “perfect” for a particular Burg. Take out a small taste and enlarge the surface area to silver dollar size if the wine has a highish fill. If you can’t do this with an older bottle, don’t bother to open it!

12

Don’t old reds (say 30 years+) Bordeaux, Burgs, Cali Cab, Loire and even Beaujolais often start to merge together with respect to character?

RT

13

I agree with everything Kevin said, so he must be right.

14

Interesting question…but, doesn’t this raise the whole issue of what the “underlying terroir” is…maybe the fruit and the tannins make people think that’s the “terroir” showing; but, maybe, it’s with age that it shines through better…and, maybe, if, as people say, wines become more similar with age, maybe the terroirs are more similar than we think, which is why identifying blind is so difficult.

I don’t really buy this whole “transparency” descriptor anyway. Certainly tannins and bright, primary fruit get in the way of any such “transparency”. (But, unless we drink the runoff from the vineyard in the rain, I’m not sure anyone really knows the underlying “terroir” in most places, especially those with multiple producers…or when the age of the wine that’s tasted is figured into the mix.

15

Put me in the “more expressive when young” camp. I’ll put a different twist on this. Look at the differences in Burgundy vs. California when young compared to old. Very few would confuse one for the other in youth, but give them a decade or more and you start fooling some people.

16

Richard,
In 2003 I had a 1937 Corton from Leroy - a lovely ethereal wine that I could not nail as Corton, for want of experience with such old wines, but it was unequivocally burgundian. As others have said, it’s more likely that tired, oxidising or what I call “muddy” wines may be hard to identify by region.
Nigel

17

I hate to be contrary or provocative but really, I think this discussion is hugely oversimplified. Terroir has levels of specificity, which intermingle to various degrees with the other prominent taste components. I really think people do a lot of talking about terroir in Burgundy and are conflating other things as being the “terroir”. There are just so many powerful elements working to obscure terroir. IMO the ability to reliably and repeatedly discern terroir is a skill very few have. It requires constant tasting over many vintages to acquire the knowledge and constant practice to stay well tuned.

The list of obfuscatory factors seems long to me, parcel position and configuration, old or young vines and/or ratio, clone make up, farming practices, vintage character, harvest date, post harvest handling, pressing method, what barrels, new or old, wild or commercial yeast, shipping and handling, reduction, aeration, service temperature, and so on. Most of this gets lumped under “producer style”, if even considered, which is fine but that tends to gloss over many determinative elements as if they were minor compared to terroir. I think most of what is being tasted and experienced in young wines by most tasters are mainly these differences and are conflated as being terroir. I’ve long had the understanding that with time these obfuscatory elements diminish compared to the terroir, allowing it to emerge from behind or underneath them. Terroir reality down to site, gets pretty subtle and the distinctions are quite fine. Spend some time doing extensive mixed blind flights and let me know how well you do naming the sites.

While it has been said that aged wines tend to merge, that is more about the unsubtle elements fading away allowing the more subtle ones to emerge, which is where the terroir that exists in that wine is revealed.

18

For me the vintage is paramount. Some vintages I find “transparent” meaning that once I see the label the wine is absolutely true to type. Other vintages hide this stamp. Age does not disguise this.

Anthony.

19

Great discussion so far…

I think Anthony is right here, there are so many variables and vintage is just one more. Ex: 2004 burgs seem to be in a good place right now (green issues notwithstanding). Most of the '04s I have tried lately seem to be expressive of their terroirs with a nice balance between primary and secondary fruit. On the flipside, I wouldn’t touch an '03 right now, even if I like my burgs “young”.

I’ve also found this interesting: when I have visited burgundy in the past I’ve always tried to ask the winemakers when they like to drink their wines. While I have only spoken with a limited number of them, maybe 2/3 seem to indicate that they like their burgs on the young side… right at the point where the primary and secondary aromas are sharing the stage. On the flipside, I’ve also run into a few winemakers who like their burgs at the plateau of maturity, when all of the primary fruit is gone (the Leclerc brothers immediately comes to mind). It would seem that a lot of “serious” burg collectors here in the US like their burgs at this stage as well… and I see the allure. I think that most of the “epiphany” moments occur with burgs that are at this plateau of maturity…

I have a '72 Lafarge Volnay Clos des Chenes in the queue right now and it makes me nervous and excited at the same time. It could turn out to be an amazing epiphany type wine or it could be a total dud… whereas if I had opened it young, right when the secondary and primary flavors were balanced, it likely would have been very good (but not great), with a lot less chance of being a dud.

So, I suppose there is no right answer (although there are times when you shouldn’t drink a burg no matter what your preference is), it depends on personal preference, vintage, vineyard, winemaker style etc. etc. but it’s a great to discussion to have!

20

Ned, well said…what I think I was trying to articulate more concisely. Although “terroir” is a great concept, discerning just what a certain vineyard’s “terroir” is is almost impossible, though , IMO, easier as a wine ages as all the “obfuscatory factors” (I like that term…sort of the opposite of “transparent”…which I think is a ridiculous concept.] Bottom line: divining terroir is a “chicken and egg” process; that different vineyards, villages, etc. have different terroirs is not controversial; but, figuring out what they are is…well, futile, until the “chicken/egg” controversy is answerable.

p.s. Do you really “hate to be contrary or provocative”? Isn’t that the basis of almost all good discussions…?