I think there’s some truth to that. And people may declare a wine to be in a dumb phase that simply needed more decanting. But it really is a genuine phenomenon.
This discussion has focused mostly on reds, but Condrieu was (or is – I have had very little in recent years) a great example. It was lovely and fruity for a few years and then climbed into a shell for 15 or 20 years. And I read somewhere that Gaston Huet said his Vouvray really needed to be kept for 17 years or so before they blossomed. I certainly have found some of those to be not terribly interesting in adolescence.
Do you mind sharing approximately how many times you tasted these wines? I’m definitely guilty of making conclusions based on too little data, and I’m curious whether you actually have enough data points to make this conclusion.
My personal notes on wines over time are rather thin:
1994 Musar (tasted 7 times in 2010, '11, '13, and '15): This seemed relatively consistent (classic Musar, not exceptional) until 2015 when I opened a bottle that really sung - intensely tertiary and way more complex than past bottles.
1995 Musar (tasted 6 times in 2009, '10, '11, '12, '15, and '16): This has always been amazing - I can’t say it ever went through a dumb phase, unless it was pre-2009.
1999 Musar (tasted 5 times in 2010, '12, '15, and '16): Seemed primary and disjointed in 2012, more tertiary but still awkward (had some primary fruit and oak sticking out) in 2015. Earlier this year it seemed really diminished (alongside the '05, '95 and '72). The primary fruit was diminished, and the tertiary notes weren’t competing with the older wines at the table. '99 is one of the more powerful vintages according to the numbers (elevated alcohol, riper fruit, a bit more cab-dominant and structured), so it seems especially notable that it appeared lighter.
This is all quite circumstantial information that lends itself nicely to a narrative of a wine’s life, but doesn’t necessarily represent objective fact. I’d love to hear from someone who’s tasted a single wine many times over a decade or more of evolution!
Another very clear example of an inflection point with age is Hunter Semillon. Lean, reductive, and green at first, give it 10-15 years in bottle and it transforms into a honey-on-toast driven nose, that seems to create the illusion of oak. It doesn’t really “go into” a dumb phase, though - it starts in one.
Ashish has said something similar about Sauternes. (I’m paraphrasing, so apologies if I get this wrong). Out of the gate they have fresh grapefruit and tropical fruit, with maybe a hint of herbaceousness and new oak. As they start to lose that, they become relatively uninteresting until they develop savory tertiary notes, which (given the sugar and acidity) takes decades.
People always say that, but I don’t think it’s always the case. Maybe there’s bottle variation variation
For example, the '95 has been 100% consistent for me. The '94 had a bunch of variation. I tasted three different bottles of the '89 Blanc recently and they were all completely consistent. Then again I had very different experiences with an '82 (one 750, one from magnum).
I wonder if Musar actually has more bottle variation than other wines of comparable age, or whether we just tend to drink them older than most wines, and age naturally amplifies bottle variation?
There are also new re-corking practices at the Chateau that might change this going forward.
Since I sold those wines by the case, recognizing the phase and with the appropriate caveat.
I tasted them years apart and spoke with other retailers, distributors and importers to get their updates.
