…
we have produced double gold medal wines that would be 97-100 pts and Mark tasted only the ice 91 points IIRC and a bit higher IIRC for the library wines … we only did one tasting with him and limited … the production we do now is better than at that time so who knows ??? but when you get international medals this is another matrix … the world does not for us in the FLX revolve around Parker …
I had MW in int comps give me 97-100 points … again the matrix is saying we are making world internationally accepted wines and I need no single wine critic as my professional to hang my hat on… I would rather be judged by a fellow winemakers with degrees and MW’s and professionals than one person
now if Parker himself scored the wines then we can have this conversation .,…
so your point is moot …
Salute and Shalom !!!
The land the old vines Zin is coming from is not To Kalon$$$
From my own experience, vine age matters a lot when it comes to density and nuance. I don’t think 30 vs 40 years is that significant from each other, though. I typically blend 100+ year old Zinfandel vines with those in their 40’s because I think it makes a better wine and expresses the site more fully.
Clonal material and viral status could be confounding factors in comparing very old and very young vineyards. They could swing the quality preference either way.
My theory on why very old vineyards tend to be very high in quality is this: For the vineyard to have been kept in production thru prohibition and the cyclical down-market events, there was probably a quality reason the vines were kept in. It validates the site, primarily.
I would be careful in comparing shorter-lived vines like Cabernet with longer-lived vines like Zinfandel. The former is very susceptible to fungal diseases that affect permanent wood while the latter is less so.
Fred - What about differences in rootstock?
John,
Rootstock is HUGE! I have only worked with Zinfandel on St. George. However, we put in a rootstock trial with Cabernet Sauvignon planted in 1993. Once the vines were 10 years old, I made a separate lot out of each rootstock for a couple of successive years. Same clone, same soil, contiguous rows, etc. The hierarchy in quality had little to do with yield, by the way. Vines were farmed for balancing vigor with capacity. Harvest dates were based on each rootstock’s readiness and grape flavor.
Once rootstock is varied, I think the vine age question becomes muddled.
Soil changes: This is as significant as rootstock. We have another Cabernet block that must go to two different blends based on the soil change.
It just strikes me that the rootstock could be a big reason for the difference in older vines. At some point, people stopped planting on St. George and went with newer, supposedly better types, right?
We didn’t stop using St. George. Just once, our order was not able to be fulfilled by the nursery at the last minute (they sold our vines to someone else), so we had to find alternatives. That’s actually what inspired the rootstock trial. We ended up with alternative rootstocks that were both superior and inferior to St. George on that soil. This is good information to have for when that block is replanted.
I’ve also worked with two Grenache blocks recently at the same site. Same clone, same soil, similar age yet the nuances are different and consistent between the two different rootstocks.
So, I wouldn’t rule out the rootstock variations as one cause of the disputes. Most people in the industry seem to discount or ignore the role rootstock plays in wine flavor.
I wouldn’t say that just because a vineyard is older than another that if follows that it will be superior. Yet, I do look at vine age as a plus, all other things considered equal.
Another variable that is often brought into play in old vineyards (particularly Zinfandel in our area) is the common inclusion of other varieties such as Petite Sirah, Alicante Bouschet, Petite Bouschet and Carignane. Our own vineyard planted in 1912 has a tiny fraction of a percent of other varieties when my grandfather replaced dead vines every few years. In our case, I do not think it is a significant number of vines to cause the differences I see between those and vines planted in, say 1978 or 1973. If anything, the differences go contrary to what one would expect from the inclusion of these more assertive varieties.
So your saying your 35 year old vines are incapable of providing better wine than your 15 year old vines? Your OP just strikes me as something someone would say who owns no 50 to 100 year old vines.
Thanks for all of your input, Fred!!!
Could you please elaborate on what you meant on the texted portion of your post?
We’re dealing with incredibly complex systems with a large number of variables here. Some have been mentioned: terroir, rootstock, vintage, weather, grape varietal … the list goes on. That being said, the claim by the OP goes against my large but still mostly unscientific experience.
The one piece of coherent evidence I do have is a seminar run in Santa Barbara by Pascal Marchand back in the mid-90’s when he was still at Comte Armand. He brought 3 different samples from their Clos des Epeneaux, each sample from vines with different ages. There was a young-vines sample (somewhere in the 10-20 yr range), middle-age vines (30 years I think) and old vines (I think around 50-60 years). I can’t tell you about sub-parcels in the Clos, or about clones or elevage (didn’t know enough at the time to absorb the info if it was shared). The trend was clear though: the older the vines got, the deeper and more complex and complete the wine got. The seminar wasn’t done blind but it was pretty clear just from the color, I don’t think we were swayed by the information in this case.
To me it seems pretty clear that we’d need design and execute a large number of studies like these (blind), where as many variables as possible are controlled for, to really be able to say much on the matter.
The 100 YO block gives more delicate, nuanced wines, generally a tad lighter in color than the mature vines that are 100.00% Zinfandel. One would think that adding Petite Sirah and Alicante Bouschet would make the wine darker and more assertive.
In this case, I see the comparison to the wisdom of older age. A wise older person may not speak in the flashiest manner, but the content can be quietly profound.
Thanks to Fred for contributing his wisdom. As he pointed out, I have always wondered how much selection has been made on the basis of quality over the years. A vineyard that produces great wine is more likely to be kept intact, and not replanted if the vines are still producing adequately.
As much as it is very hard to demonstrate “truth” around this question, “old vines” remains something that still hooks even someone like me who distrusts much of the conventional wisdom in wine.
Alan, well said.
I think that one selective factor in the long-term vineyard sites is relative freedom from Spring frosts. In the old days there was no mechanism for ameliorating the low temperatures. While this may not directly cause high wine quality in every vintage, the topography that allows good air drainage is often associated with good drainage within the soil - a very good thing for dry farmed vines on the rootstocks of the day. I’d call it a loose correlation. It’s something I consider when working with a new (to me) site.
Having respect for older vineyards is not to discount the ultra-high quality potential of recently planted vineyards taking advantage of advanced viticultural experience, though. The ability to match rootstocks to soils and varieties is an exciting change in our area over the past couple of decades or so. Good ol’ St. George rootstock is fantastic on soils where it is well-matched. It is pathetic where it is not well-suited. We have more tools and experience now to make better matches in many sites. It’s pretty exciting, actually.
Thanks for the clarification and the insight, Fred!!!
Most of Napa valley has been replanted over the past 25 years and that’s partially for yields, but also because widely used AxR rootstock didn’t end up as phylloxera resistant as was originally believed. There is a section in the back of ToKalon owned by the MacDonalds that is very old, and Mondavi people have said it’s their best block. You walk this block and it’s obvious, when it comes to vine age, that Cab is not Zin. The old vines just look like they’re not as sturdy, and upkeep of an old Cab vineyard takes a lot of TLC.
It could also be that for Cab, or Pinot, or Syrah, vine age doesn’t matter so much. La Turque was (originally) made from young vines with tightly controlled vigor, and I don’t think anyone thinks it the lesser of the La-La’s.
As far as Zin goes, there are a few places where young vine and old vine zin are grown in the same vineyard, by the same farmer, and made by the same winemaker. Bucklin Old Hill, Limerick Lane, and Nalle immediately come to mind. You can taste these blind, in fact I did Bucklin and LL last year, and there’s no contest. Not even close to the same wine. Now, is this rootstock, varietal mix, trellising, or vine age? Who knows. There are replant sections at Pagani and Bedrock that will be coming online for Ridge and Bedrock respectively that are old-school: head pruned, mixed black field blends. That will be an interesting difference to taste.
Are we making this a global statement about old vines?
Isn’t Vögue Chambolle Premier Cru made from Musigny grapes? My understanding is that the grapes are declassified only because the vines are younger than 25 years old but older than 10. If ‘old vines’ are just marketing, Vögue is losing money when they could be bottling Grand Cru Musigny.
Also I think Mugnier’s village wine from 1er cru Clos de Marechale is also from young vines in the same vineyard.
In the 1970’s, I believe, with the introduction of drip irrigation. St. George is one of the best rootstocks for drought tolerance and dry farming, not nearly as good when irrigated. Cabernet sauvigon, especially, is notorious for horrendous shatter when planted on St. George and irrigated.
Very interesting, thanks Larry.
St. George gains a reputation for drought tolerance from soils that are deep enough for it to find moisture somewhere that are also not very fertile. If the soil is shallow and the entire root system gets too dry, it is not at all tolerant. It (Vitis rupestris) evolved near seasonal streams where flows went underground in the summer.
On the right soils, St. George is fantastic and does well with modest irrigation. It does have a tendency to shatter when its nitrogen status is in high gear. Well-watered and fertilized vines tend to this way of being.
On the wrong soils, it is overly vegetative, favoring shoot growth over producing decent levels of quality fruit.