I believe shutting down is not terminal. Which does make me wonder how that can ever be assessed other than retrospectively, or in the alternative, optimistically.
TCA is a different kettle of fish (or damp cardboard). While the palate may simply lack fruit the nose will be a give away.
The reverse of this is also true, and probably more common. Plenty of people lacking an understanding of wines evolution can simply and irrefutably say a wine is shitty. I think there was a thread relating to this about some Oregon vintage or another…
There are plenty of wines that I’ve seen taste like nearly nothing, both from a dense side (young 1990 La Conseillante that was a dark but practically untastable/non-flavored wine in 1994) and a wan flavorless watery side (1995 Produttori Mocagatta and also 2014 Goodfellow Pinot Noirs from Whistling Ridge and Bishop Creek that tasted like swamp water for two years) that evolve into very good wines with time in bottle.
This question has been addressed “scientifically” a couple times before… Mind you, not sure how well these explanations stand up to scientific scrutiny, but I’ve heard this particular explanation about polymerization of phenolic compounds from multiple people. And it seems to make sense.
The vascillation of the shut down bottle between open and shut down may be due to closure.
Corks are all unique and individual corks have different densities and porosity(in addition to differing amounts of TCA). It’s reasonable to guess that at the point it was always a shut down wine, none of the bottles had reached the evolution of being “open”. And it’s unlikely, given variability of corks, that all the bottles would suddenly reach the “open” state at the same time. Since you were tasting them very, very regularly, random chance would give you that see-saw of open and closed until the wine reached a point of evolution where a high percentage of bottles had reached the open plateau and your likelihood of whichever one you open being good would be high.
Polymerization also increases mouthfeel. Bigger molecules typically equal bigger texture(this is why mannoproteins are so important). But this also explains why many ageworthy wines will go in and out of phase(shut down, then open, then back to closed, and back to open).
When I picked up a set of older Willamette Valley wines from the Herbfarm cellar sale, I purchased a number of 2001 Pinot Noirs. 2001 was an understed vintage, that was a bit more old world than the more heralded 1998, 1999, and 2002 vintages. But while seeming a little flat from 2004-2006, they really were brilliant from 2007-2010. I only had a smattering of bottles from 2010-recently, but of the four of the 2001 bottles we have tried from the lot I bought, only one bottle (2001 Hamacher) has been “open”. The other three showed zero inclination to being tired or over the hill. Rather they showed the sort of wound up state that I usually think of shut down wines. I have a few more and am just going to wait 2-3 more years for them. Especially since the 1990s wines we purchased have been mostly excellent to superlative.
I believe this exists in Burgundy, Bordeaux, Piedmont, Loire Cab Franc, and many Willamette Valley wines.
That said, I know it definitely happens in our wines, and taste them on a frequent basis. While it happens, it is not universal between bottlings in when, how intensely, for how long, or any other aspect that I can see. For some vintages, like 2016, it’s hard for me to believe that anyone not extremely familiar with the wines would recognize that they are actually in a “quiet phase”. It’s a delicious vintage with excellent balance and enough fruit quality that the polymerization process may have bound up some of it but the wines still show well. 2017s on the otherhand definitely appear to be showing signs of shutting down, with the exception of the Fir Crest Block 11 bottling, which is somehow more open than ever.
Ultimately, to me this is one of the real benefits of CT. In addition to our own experiences there’s a catalogue of others experiences with the same wine. I use it quite a bit for the bottles I don’t have pallets of.
This raises for me the question of what one should define as a great vintage. Is it the vintage with the highest phenolic content and tannin concentration, so much so that the structure binds the primary esters and aromatic compounds in a lengthy dumb phase? Or is it the vintage with excellent balance and precision, significant but not dominant structure, and a relatively continuous open phase?
The former perhaps are the wines that will live for decades–and appreciate in value as an investment. But does the net window of optimal drinkability differs much from a wine that evolves gracefully from release to age 15-20?
My interpretation is this has quite a lot to do with critical perceptions of great vintages–the wines/vintages with ‘more of everything’ at release are deemed better. The 2005 vintage in France seems a potential case study. Are the better wines bound up in a shell? Or are they tracking a more monotonic progression?
I agree CellarTracker is a great resource for this kind of research. Having been involved with wine for like 40 years, I have seen the “shut down” phenomenon a number of times. Some producers are known for it…De Montille for example. In the US, wineries like Arcadian and Culler (the 2004 Syrah is still barely drinkable, but it’s been improving)…I’m sure others can contribute. In my experience, shut down wines can be shut down hard…and taste like tannic water. Almost nothing on the nose or palate but structure. And then 5-10 years later they evolve into beautiful wines.
Some of these are individual wines or cuvees…CellarTracker gives us some evidence…if 10 people try the wine around the same time and it has these “shut down” characteristics in whole or in part, and then 10 years later there are glowing tasting notes…that is a sign. Others, like above, might be winemaker or winery related. Even Aubert has a great example…that nasty 2005 Lucia Cab that caused a revolt among subscribers, some asking for their money back. Even my own tasting note was 80 points which on my scale means physically go outside and pour it in the gutter so it doesn’t contaminate the pipes. But a decade later there were signs of life, and today some have evolved nicely. Michael Broadbent had a great story about a friend of his who was drinking 28 Latour as his house wine because “the wine will never come around in my lifetime.” “Alas, he was right” Broadbent opined.
Not sure if this correlates but thus far 2017 pinot noir (mostly from CA) I have yet to clique with. Although I would not prefer to drink them this young, but was left with no choice after drinking my older vintages on hand during Covid and then went on a buying hiatus as I was not emotionally invested in this hobby while the world felt like it was burning down around me. Now 2011, 2012, and 2013, I have had lots of memorable bottles and know that 2014’s have not held up well. I hope you are able to hold lots of older vintages of your wines, Marcus, to revisit as the years go by and remember what each was like
I am lucky enough to consider Joe Davis a friend, and have tasted a lot of the older Arcadians and can agree with you. Although Joe typically does not sell his wines until they are “ready”, and some bottles like the Pisoni and Francesa have incredibly long lives past when he’s initially offered them. I’ll post a tasting note from his 1997 Pisoni and let you know how it’s doing.
I think the problem here would be that the sample size would be extremely variable - aka, the drinker. Depending on what you’re seeing, doing, eating, drinking, feeling, or paying attention to each time you opened a bottle would have far more implications for your assessment than any changes in the contents of the bottle, I think.
In regards to wine shutting down after being open for X amount of time; I also believe that some wines that have the perception of shutting down are merely just you smelling and drinking it for an hour, two, three and your brain recognizing that information as increasingly familiar. Over time, they will seem less poignant, powerful, or interesting, and this phenomenon is borne out by science.
I will always take the fallibility and variability of the human body and brain from year to year/day to day/hour to hour over a relatively static and stable liquid.
This, and the Doug Hein post, describe what I think is going on as well as anything.
One thing I’ll postulate is that drinkers of domestic wines, which tend to be richer, riper, higher alcohol wines, may not experience the phenomenon as much as drinkers of more “traditional” wines from burgundy, bordeaux, piemonte, etc., though even in those regions some wines and vintages seem less prone to ever shutting down.
I like the idea that tannins play a big role, because my own experience is that white wines are far less likely to show poorly at some point in their lives than red wines.
In 30 years of wine appreciation, I have never had a wine of the continuously open phase that held a candle to a 1957 Bonnes Mares consumed in 1996. Notoriously tannic vineyard with a reputation for having a very long shut down phase. For me, great wine experiences generally often involve qualities that are both beautiful and rare(by dint of the wine actually being great rather than very, very good).
I would say that while I live on really good, and often relatively open wines, the reason I make wines is due to the wines requiring significant patience, that eventually do make their way into a place where few other wines can find their way to(including the wines of the aforementioned Hubert de Montille).
I don’t think that tracks with the critical review of wines with more, more, more as the best. Often that’s more fruit and must weight, which isn’t really what the great wines of the old world were about. I’m not really a fan of 05 red Burgundy. They’ve always felt heavy to me rather than shut down. I’ll be happy to be proved wrong, and a lot of people I respect really feel they are great.
I also think that significant tannin and phenolics are necessary for great wines, and that doesn’t often seem to jibe with heralded vintages(2002 Piedmont, 1997 Napa, etc). But polymerization binding up the flavor and fruit molecules is also preserving them. And in my opinion, also enhancing them broadening the range of expression within wines that have significant phenolics.
Human fallability can play a part, and aeration of the wine can still be a reality as well.
However, it doesn’t explain the bottles that just keep getting better and better. Or the ones that are just tight, until that last bit of the last glass when suddenly the wine turns that corner and is amazing.
I bought 6x2010 Malescasse, the first 3 from 2018 to 2020 were hard tannic and for my palate shut down. The 4th around the new year was opening up, broader, and excellent with food. The final 2 were unfortunately corked.
This…spot on. Wine is in essence alive. Peaks and valleys in regards to flavor and texture personality over time simply due to complex chemistry. Nearly impossible to blanket an explanation why there are “shut down” phases across the vast scope of wines made all over the world.
1986 Mouton arrived as a dazzling flavor circus of primary fruit.
IIRC, about a year later shut down/dumb phase set in and it was tighter than a drum for a couple of decades, then offering a only glimpse with decanting and coaxing.
![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}