Probably because that was not the question that was posed in the original post. Does “serious” or “great” = “ageworthy” to you for all wines? It doesn’t to me, and I gather that it doesn’t to most who have replied in this discussion.
It makes sense to me. Why does pink wine seem generally inferior to white or red? It often does when comparing from the same producer, and pretty much always when comparing wines from a great producer. Sure, you can come up with some examples of rosé wines that can age, but most do not actually improve in the way that high quality whites and reds do. Even if you think that one improves (LdH maybe? they release late, so it’s tough to say unless you’ve tasted young versions at the estate), it’s only one wine, so that doesn’t negate the idea that very few are truly ageworthy.
1993 LdH Rosado is brilliant right now. By what definition is that not serious or not ageworthy? I’ve had the 1964 and 1976 before, both also brilliant wines, very much alive, vibrant, and showing the characteristics of bottle age. Again by what definition is that not serious or not ageworthy? They aren’t the reds. They aren’t the whites. They are their own category. And they are marvelous with the regional cuisine.
This!
How’ve you been Jayson? Did you get together with Manuel while he was in town?
+1
Valentini Cerasuolo, in a class of its own. Can age very well.
I guess I have a few questions here about people’s consumptions of rose:
Do you tend to pair these with food or not?
At what temperature do you serve these?
Is part of your definition of being ‘great’ involve being age-worthy? And if so, how long would you consider age-worthy for this style of wine?
This continues to be a really interesting thread and one that I hope keeps going for a while - even though it is after Labor Day! 
Jorge, I think you’re misreading my question, and I’m not disagreeing with you.
My first point is that there are very few (not NONE) roses that rise up beyond the level of a really good wine into the category that you would go out of your way to collect. I fully agree that Tondonia Rosado is an amazing wine worth collecting. The 2000 was the first wine I ever bought a case of. I drank them far too quickly. I agree with you 100%. I would also consider grabbing more Tempier, Musar, and the aforementioned Dupasquier to follow over the future.
My second point is that, while they are very serious indeed, they still don’t reach the same level of special-ness (however you want to define it) as their other wines. The way I would treat a bottle of Tondonia Rosado is very different from how I would treat my Gran Reserva Blancos. Likewise, a Cotat rose is a beautiful thing but not in the same league as their best Mont Damnes. Musar is slightly different, in that it’s basically a Musar blanc with a bit of cinsault added, as opposed to a quick-press red. I’ve still not had one with a lot of age on it but it’s on my hit list.
Finally, using the words “serious” and “ageworthy” are just attempts to find the right words to describe the quality that gets people to wax poetically about a perfect or near-perfect. Please forgive my poor vocabulary.
As one who really loves a good (or even great!) rose, it seems to me that the best are often something other than “low skin-contact red wine (grapes)”.
For example, many (probably most) of the excellent rose Champagnes I have enjoyed are made in the (I believe most traditional) manner of blending a bit of red wine in with the white. That is, excellent white wine plus excellent red wine… I think (from long ago) this presents a problem in most French regions, but this is beside the point.
Last I have read, the LdH rose, which is IMO terrific, is made only in years when the white and red grapes from Tondonia ripen at the same time, no wonder it is rare, and I believe they are cofermented.
Chteau d’Arlay in Jura makes one of my very favorite wines, a rose called Corail, which is a cofermentation of the 5 most prominent Jura grapes, 3 red and 2 white.
Rosé des Riceys of Champagne is made entirely from pinot noir, is certainly not a by-product of making red wine, and obviously made only because the (very few) producers think it is worthwhile.
So, in sum, I am thinking that the common thread is that most of these possibly great roses are either (or both) made from specific sites and grapes chosen for this purpose, or are blends of already excellent red and white wines; so stated it does not seem to me this should be surprising.
We saw Manuel and Josie Friday night. No Lopez de Heredia but other goodies like 2016 Huet Clos du Bourg DS, 1995 Calon Segur, and 1970 Lafon Rochet.
Hey Vince - here’s my take on the roses I have loved the most that seem to have an extra gear when it comes to complexity and deliciousness.
Clos Cibonne Tibouren Côtes de Provence Rosé Cuvée Spéciale des Vignettes - only if you like oxidative wines
Domaine François Cotat (Paul & François) Sancerre Chavignol Rosé
Domaine Comte Abbatucci Faustine Rosé Vieilles Vignes
Domaine de Marquiliani Corse Rosé - almost a white wine in color, amazing crystalline texture
Domaine Dupasquier Vin de Savoie Rosé - yeah, this was a “stop me in my tracks” wine as well
The list below are favorites that are many a little less complex but still bring me a lot of joy
Domaine Bernard Baudry Chinon Rosé
Ameztoi Getariako Txakolina Rubentis
Château de Peyrassol Côtes de Provence Commanderie de Peyrassol
Denis Jamain Pinot Gris Reuilly
I love a great vintage of Cotat Monté Damnes or Cul des Beaujeu but I think the Pinot-based wines just as serious in their own paradigm. With bottle age the Rose in a good vintage shows itself to be beautifully fashioned limestone-based (iirc clay over limestone - don’t quote me on that) Burgundy-like wine.
Yes! Valentini + carbonara was great.
Higher than whites lower than reds (~14 C)
Not necessarily. Valentini I drank at 9 years of age, and it could have lasted longer.
Thanks for the Cibonne rec. I love oxidative wines and it seems our palates are quite aligned… the Baudry, Ametzoi and Peyrassol are probably my top 3 go-to daily rosés.
Thanks Jayson. I’ve yet to have a Cotat Chavignol Rose with age on it, but it sounds like something to seek out.
In the future, when you have an agenda, don’t ask a question or pretend that you are interested in anyone else’s views. Stand on your soapbox and just enlighten us with your brilliance.
Only two:
Tempier
Musar
I prefer the Musar, but it’s not a “real” rose, per se, as it’s actually a blend of white and red wines.
I haven’t had the LdH, and need to rectify that.
Sorry, what’s with the personal attack?
I had a genuine question about wine, and I thought this forum was the place to ask.
In my original post, you can see that I asked about non-champagne, since I am aware that there are are great rose champagnes out there. I was expressing frustration that no one seemed to read the initial post, which was meant to be about still wine. Sorry if that’s somehow offended you.
This. What they said. Complexity, depth, aging potential, fascinating.
We pretty much only drink wine with food. I find Rose to be great for pairing. Depending on the style, it can go with light dishes through chicken/turkey and pork medium dishes. If you go to the heaviest style, it can go really well with spiced food as well. We have a slightly heavier one with curried lamb burgers.
I usually go a bit under cellar temp, like 45 F.
I’ve had a marsannay rose that i forgot about for a couple years, and it was quite nice. The only other rose that I like to age is the Lambrays rose.
Another vote for Tempier and Cotat Chavignol as roses that I’ve loved. Ott—it’s solid but never spectacular.
I’ve had one from Bruno Clair (from Marsannay grapes, I think) that was very nice indeed, but pricey.
Larry’s Tercero rose and Liquid Farm’s rose, both from the Vogelzang vineyard, I think. That is a great vineyard for Rose.
Larry–good questions, my boy:
- Not consciously, but aware if I do taste with food
- chilled, almost always
- no, that isn’t necessary for me, though it can be an “interest” part of what the wine is when poured.
Mike