290895 Tue Nov 19 00:53:50 -0800 2002 49 27 General Chowhounding Topics 0 1580750 Was at a party the other day and a couple explained their faux pas. They received a gift of a bottle of wine and drank it, after which they were told that they shouldn't have, that it was an old [seemingly sacred] bottle from Jefferson's Monticello Estate. They at least kept the bottle, they said, which also had value. My question is: How do you know when a wine is aged to perfection or under- or over-aged before you even open it? Is it half-spiritual? Or totally scientific (or, I mean documented)? Seriously, the wine was obviously not from the 1800's, but quite old from the estate (which evidently, is still producing?) Is the Monticello Estate Winery the same as Monticello Vineyards Winery? (Can you tell I'm a novice?) Tue Nov 19 00:53:50 -0800 2002 0 kc girl 1 1580751 Don't know anything about the Jefferson estate. But, in answer to your main question, it depends. Different wines age in different ways, or not at all. The best you can do is know what you have, consider the trusted opinions of others regarding the longevity of a wine. The best answer is, buy enough so you can open a bottle now and judge for yourself, then save the rest for when it's ready. Tue Nov 19 01:06:51 -0800 2002 1580750 0 Tom M. 1 1580757 This is one instance where it's invaluable to have friends who really know their wine. "When to drink?" is an all-essential question, and you need lots of knowledge and experience. One can consult books, etc, but they're never up-to-date like the wino grapevine (pun unintended). We have a few serious wine people on site who might chime in to help with such queries, but it'd be more helpful for you to surf into a more concentrated wine discussion (like Robin Garr's site) for that sort of thing. ciao Tue Nov 19 02:13:23 -0800 2002 1580750 0 Jim Leff 2 1581006 Thanks for the info. Later, gaitor. Wed Nov 20 12:35:34 -0800 2002 1580757 0 kc girl 1 1580773 The vast majority of wines do not improve with age. In fact, increasingly producers are making fruit-loaded wines that are not really intended to be drunk many years later. There are certainly exceptions. Generally the wines that age best are big chewy red wines. Vintage Ports also benefit from aging. The wines that classically benefit from aging are red wines from Bordeaux and Burgundy, and the more complex reds from California. Very few dry white wines improve with age as it is the softening of the tannins in red wine that is the most significant effect of aging. Also, roses are generally drunk within a year or two of bottling (would certainly like Jeff Morgan's thoughts as well). As usual there are exceptions: Sauternes dessert wines age quite well and can get more complex in the bottle. Some (particularly the brits) like champagnes that have some age, it acquires a toasty taste as it matures. And there is no magic way to tell if a wine is "just right" or should have been drunk 5 years earlier. Wine that has been around too long is only suitable for salad dressing. You are far better off drinking that bottle of Petrus a bit too soon (it will still be delicious) then risk having it turn the corner on you and change to vinegar! Tue Nov 19 09:10:26 -0800 2002 1580750 0 StriperGuy 2 1580814 Hey StriperGuy-- I basically agree with many of your points on ageability. Personally I like good wines. I like 'em young and I like 'em old. They're different; equally enjoyable but for different reasons. (See my comments a couple comments back.) Now let's get to the important part of this response: PINK WINE! As you may (or may not know) I'm a winemaker too. And I only make rosé. (That's why I call my wine SoloRosa). Why only rosé? Cause it's so damn easy to drink. Goes with just about every food type (except maybe dessert). I love it. Mine is barrel fermented, which makes it a bit richer and rounder on the palate that many French rosés. It's a style that I believe gives the wine more staying power in the face of steak frites, for example. But it's stll light and fresh....pretty good w/turkey too. As far as agebility goes for rosé. It'll last for a year or two...maybe a little more if it's got body and and good acidity. But it's really made with immediate consumption in mind. (If I sound self-serving; it's because I am!) But seriously folks--don't age your light little Tavels and SoloRosas....Just drink 'em. What was the other question? Oh yeah...bubbly. I love it old. It gets rich and nutty. Yummy. The frogs say its best young....but that's cause they want to turn it over....But go a champenois' house and he'll pull out the old stuff to impress you....One of the few things that the Brits understand is that old bubbly is the best! Jeff Morgan Link: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0811832139/chowhoundcomA Tue Nov 19 14:05:02 -0800 2002 1580773 0 Jeff Morgan 3 1580874 Jeff: I am actually a big pink wine fan, particularly in the summer. I lived in Spain as a youth and found nothing better with grilled rabbit or paella on a hot summer day. As Jim Leff said you were a pink winemaker, er or rather a maker of pink wine, I figured I would leave that commentary to you. I usually go for French or Spanish Roses, but will keep my eye out for SoloRosa. Never had a barrel fermented Rose. In fact the only CA Rose that I am familiar with is whatshisname's "Vin Gris de Cigare." StriperGuy Tue Nov 19 17:36:28 -0800 2002 1580814 0 StriperGuy 4 1580885 Bonny Doon? Tue Nov 19 18:43:40 -0800 2002 1580874 0 Aaron D 4 1580935 Glad to hear you're into pink.....Randal Grahm's Vin Gris is pretty good....light and simple....Mine's totally different...Older oak, so it's not oaky....just rich on the palate...a blend of Sangiovese, Syrah and Merlot.... Hope you like it when you find it. Cheers, Jeff Link: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0811832139/chowhoundcomA Wed Nov 20 01:11:16 -0800 2002 1580874 0 Jeff Morgan 5 1580939 Jeff, do you have a list of retailers? Is it available via mail order? Is all this info on the SoloRosa web site (if not, it should be!) ciao Wed Nov 20 01:21:23 -0800 2002 1580935 0 Jim Leff 2 1581011 Thank you for confirming some of my tangential knowledge and adding info, Striper Guy. Have tried some aged ports with instruction. Is it maybe the sugar content that delivers in aging? That would be factored by grape variety and it age on the vine? In due time, - and like Jim suggested, it would be great to have buddy's with that intense knowledge. Wed Nov 20 12:45:55 -0800 2002 1580773 0 kc girl 3 1581062 Part of the reason that Port ages so well is the sweetness and high alcohol content. They are actually fortified wines, like sherries, that have alcohol added. This stops fermentation early, leaving more sugar, and boosts alcohol content. Both sugar and alcohol are excellent preservatives. So Port is very unlikely to turn into vinegar while aging. That said, ports also tend to big brutish, tannic, red wines, exactly the type that most benefit from aging. If you want to try out a vintage style port that is a very good bang for the buck try the Warre's late bottled vintage from any year you can find. I am still drinking some '82s that I picked up on the cheap a while back. It's not quite a true vintage port, but close. The LBVs from other port houses are usually not worth the effort. True Vintage Ports can be mindblowing, but from the top houses can be very pricey. Enjoy. Wed Nov 20 19:17:20 -0800 2002 1581011 0 StriperGuy 4 1581102 Port's about my favorite drink. Many, many people will disagree with this, but for me, my rule of thumb is this: if I can afford a port, it's not worth drinking. It's definitely one of those realms where once you've tried the good stuff, you can never go back. I'd like to point out that Morgan once refused a glass of '82 Grahams I offered him. he had a fever of 102 at the time, but it was still a notably bad move! : ) ciao Wed Nov 20 23:44:22 -0800 2002 1581062 0 Jim Leff 5 1581128 Jim: I am with you; a huge port fanatic! I will even drink it with dinner, preferably if dinner included a big hunk of red meat. One thanksgiving about 5 years ago I cracked a 1970 Taylor Fladgate and it is the most memorable wine I have ever drank (1970 was an awesome year for port). I would take a taste, and then walk around the apartment, talk to family members, and 10 minutes later could still taste the amazing licorice, leather, blackberry, plum. Wish I had a case of two of that lying around. But seriously, the Warre's Late Bottled Vintage (LBV) is a rare exception. I have recently seen a 1995 or 1996 for $25 or so. Haven't tried that vintage, but I have had many vintages of this wine and it always surprises me what an amazing bang for the buck it is! In fact the following is from the Label of the 1992: "Warre's is one of the only port companies to have always made LBV in the original way and continues to do so... this wine is bottled without fining or filtration. This ensures that this port's superb fruit concentration is retained." For anyone on a budget who likes port, you really have to give this wine a try. It is widely available. If your wine shop does not have it, they can definitely order it for fairly small money! Thu Nov 21 09:09:00 -0800 2002 1581102 0 StriperGuy 5 1581168 I only have one disagreement with you. "It's definitely one of those realms where once you've tried the good stuff, you can never go back" I go back and back and back and back. I like to call port my "comfort booze", and spending big bucks on comfort takes much of the comfort right out. jake Thu Nov 21 13:42:31 -0800 2002 1581102 0 jake pine 6 1581180 Jake, I love being disagreed with when I generalize...that's how I learn! But by "good stuff", I mean like Grahams/Taylor 1962's, 1945's, 1927's, etc. I'm lucky enough to have a wealthy collector friend, whose wine tastings have totally spoiled me for any port I could possibly afford. If you, too, have been lucky enough to catch a few sips of these incredible ports-of-the-century and can still drink, like, LBV, I tip my hat to you! Interestingly, I've also drunk, like, '29 and '45 first growth Bordeaux at those parties (my fave of all, actually, was '66 Palmer), yet still totally enjoy modest wines. So, for me at least, port's different in terms of getting spoiled. Thu Nov 21 14:44:36 -0800 2002 1581168 0 Jim Leff 7 1581183 Having a sip of good port is equivalent to smelling a freshly baked apple pie I wont be eating, or an outdoor bar-b-que I wasn't invited to. There is a certain pleasure to it, but almost as much frustration as any other emotion. I like to drink port, not sip it. I've had some good stuff, usually as a thank you sent back to the kitchen, and usually it makes me want to stop at the liquor store on the way home, plop down a twenty, get a few bucks back and lie on my couch with a permanently full glass. As an aside; is tawny or ruby more highly regarded. My daughter is Ruby, so that is usually what I buy (I guess that shows you how seriously I take my port). jake Thu Nov 21 15:15:26 -0800 2002 1581180 0 jake pine 8 1581186 Tawny over ruby. I think that's a pretty reliable generalization (though I'd love to have that one blasted, too!). Hey, here's a tip for you: Yalumba Clocktower, a cheap Australian tawny. Very drinkable, and under ten bucks, I think. The same company makes a slightly more expensive one (help me out, someone!) that's even better. ciao Thu Nov 21 15:37:26 -0800 2002 1581183 0 Jim Leff 9 1581196 hmmmm...we're probably going to have another kid.... Tawny's a girl's name, right? Thu Nov 21 17:06:40 -0800 2002 1581186 0 jake pine 10 1581208 LOL How about "Tannin"? Thu Nov 21 18:29:33 -0800 2002 1581196 0 Jim Leff 9 1581210 Ok, I'll quibble with you. At the entry level price points, tawny and ruby are equivalent. Where tawnies start to become interesting are the aged ones or single vintage colheitas, which are clearly in the fine wine category. Link: http://www.chowhound.com/topics/show/286753#1538908 Thu Nov 21 18:45:11 -0800 2002 1581186 0 Melanie Wong 7 1581185 Just as a postscript.... I discovered Port in Portugal. Not the good stuff. But I loved Portugal and I loved port, so I UNDERSTOOD it even if I didn't know a lot about it. And when I happened upon an amazing port tasting (strictly by coincidence), my deep affinity helped me understand what I was drinking more deeply than any rigorous learning. I wrote up some notes (read 'em below), and the host of that event got a kick out of them (most of his peers take a more left-brained approach to port appreciation) and that's the friend who's plied me with ports (and Bordeaux...and D'Yquem) dating back to 1874 ever since. ciao Link: http://www.chowhound.com/writing/port.html Thu Nov 21 15:34:28 -0800 2002 1581180 0 Jim Leff 5 1581209 If I were offered an '82 Grahams, I'd think twice too. But I suspect that you were packing the '83. (g) Thu Nov 21 18:42:37 -0800 2002 1581102 0 Melanie Wong 6 1581242 oops, yeah, '83, of course (did they even declare in '82?) Thu Nov 21 22:29:25 -0800 2002 1581209 0 Jim Leff 7 1581258 Grahams did not declare in 82. Taylor did, as well as Nieport, Sandeman, Ramos Pinto and Churchill. Fri Nov 22 00:45:39 -0800 2002 1581242 0 Melanie Wong 8 1581265 But they did in 1983 and damn what a vintage that was! Smooth, unctous and like velvet, one of the best I've ever had. Fri Nov 22 09:08:45 -0800 2002 1581258 0 David De Silva 9 1581303 Grahams is the only 83 I have much experience with, but given the rep of the vintage, I gotta assume it's the pick of the litter. It has been lush and velvety since a baby in a the protypical Grahams style. Fortunately, I have many friends who bought lots of it in halves and full bottles so I get to try it with some frequency and my own case is still unopened. (g) I know it is one that the Big Dog has stashed away, therefore my gentle ribbing... Fri Nov 22 14:42:00 -0800 2002 1581265 0 Melanie Wong 10 1581306 You have Grahams '83, too? Ok, no more horning in on my splits, Melanie! Open that case! : ) There are other goodies in '83, though i can't find my notes (gould campbell I THINK is on the list). But Grahams is indeed duh picka duh litter. I think Taylor's has been disappointing from that year. ciao Fri Nov 22 14:46:21 -0800 2002 1581303 0 Jim Leff 11 1581309 I have never liked the 83s nearly as much as the 85s. The 83s are generally duller, lacking some of the acidity and weight of the 85s. Given the relative prices of the 83s and 85s I prefer the 85s considerably, but the 77s, which are better than either of these two vintages, are even a better deal if you shop carefully, since their prices aren't much higher than the other two. Fri Nov 22 14:58:10 -0800 2002 1581306 0 David Pearlman 12 1581310 David, I owe you an email (forgive me, I'm frantic). Last time I ran through 85's, I think I remember their being pretty closed. Is the vintage starting to loosen up? For 77 I like Dow a lot.... ciao Fri Nov 22 15:07:31 -0800 2002 1581309 0 Jim Leff 11 1581352 I've had '83 Taylor and the Fonseca several times over the last 7 years or so and they were not really notable. Can't wait to try some of the '92s and 94s I have socked away in a friend's basement. I'll just wait another 30-40 years ;-). Bought 'em both before the Parker reviews came out and drove prices throught the roof. Fri Nov 22 22:47:16 -0800 2002 1581306 0 StriperGuy 10 1581307 Cockburns '83 is highly regarded. They were in a down period then and selected very carefully to make a fine port. Only reason I know much about it that was my only child's birth year. Fri Nov 22 14:46:51 -0800 2002 1581303 0 Tom Hall 10 1581331 A CASE of '83 Grahams, you said a CASE? I am a lover of all things wine and especially port but my finances make me a "by the bottle" buyer. Care to part with any of your babies now that they are itching to be drunk? I'll take good care of them I promise. I have an '83 Smith Woodhouse I am planning on opening this New Years, a lighter style I know and not nearly as viscous as the Grahams (I prefer the thick, unctous ones personally). Fri Nov 22 19:24:34 -0800 2002 1581303 0 David De Silva 4 1581212 Actually, most Port is NOT brutish, tannic or big and red/purple. That's a description of Vintage Port, which is a tiny percentage of the production of Port. The vast majority are wood-aged styles that are ready to drink when released to market. Thu Nov 21 18:48:53 -0800 2002 1581062 0 Melanie Wong 5 1581250 You have exposed my bias for the purple chewy monsters. I have open a bottle of Old Benson Fine Tawny Port from Rosemont. 350 ml and not bad. Have tasted top notch 20 yr tawnies. Sipping on a 1987 Grahms Malvedos (single quinta)... could stand another 10 yrs in the bottle but very yummy. Thu Nov 21 23:26:56 -0800 2002 1581212 0 StriperGuy 6 1581257 My weekend guests were served 1984 Quinta de Vargellas (from Taylor Fladgate) with Stilton, warm toasted pecans, and French pears. I think that one's at peak. Fri Nov 22 00:41:58 -0800 2002 1581250 0 Melanie Wong 1 1580787 Im not sure I believe this story as told. First, its unlikely that wine of that age would have been drinkable. such wines exist more as curiosities than as drinkable commodities, and if they ARE drinkable, I would be suspicious of its bona fides(new wine in old bottles is a very old trick) Second, bottles of that sort are exceedingly rare and pricy. When a wine dealer, Bill Sokolin, owner of D. Sokolin winestore in NY, dropped a prize bottle of wine from Jefferson's estate or cellar and broke it at a fancy dinner a number of years back, it created a big stir in wine circles. Of course, given that he dropped it, I am not sure whether anybody even got to make a judgment as to whether the wine inside the bottle (which presumably he had sold for a big price) was even possibly contemporaneous in age to the bottle. Having said all this, maybe our expert Jeff can clear up the Monticello question once and for all. Tue Nov 19 12:13:58 -0800 2002 1580750 0 jen kalb 2 1580809 The oldest wine I've ever drunk was an 1898 Lafite Rothschild (from Bordeaux). It was stored impeccably for a century, then shipped ignominiously by FedEx over a very hot 4th of July weekend--so it got stuck in FedEx's overheated warehouse for some 3 days. The wine was nonetheless extraordinarily well preserved...dare I say delicious. I've had a whole lot of 50 and 60-year-old Cabs from California that have been really great too. So I guess wine can age. As for aging some 200 years? I dunno. Haven't tried any. I'd say 15 to 20 years isn't bad for a bottle of fermented grape juice....The rest is gravy! Jeff Morgan Link: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0811832139/chowhoundcomA Tue Nov 19 13:48:19 -0800 2002 1580787 0 Jeff Morgan 3 1581179 Oldest wines I've had (at a dinner in 1999) are an 1870 Latour and an 1969 d'Yquem. The 1870 Latour could have passed for a five year old California wine and probably would be fine twenty or thirty years from now. d'Yquem, being a sweet wine, ages practically forever. The 1869 wasn't a great wine, but I don't think it was age that was getting it down. Thu Nov 21 14:43:42 -0800 2002 1580809 0 David Pearlman 2 1581002 The wine was not from the TIME of Jefferson and I thought I'd made that clear. However, it was from the vineyard of the estate that (I found) is in Charlottesville. At least I now know it is not the same as the Monticello Vineyard (which I found was in California). Be skeptical, if you can't answer my question. I still don't know the name of the winery and may have to have the pleasure of visting the couple and asking them directly. And, yeah, I suppose it was damned expensive, but some people have that pleasure (although I, for one, could not afford to buy a bottle at that price). I'm sure I can answer that small part of my question when I have the pleasure to talk with them again. Wed Nov 20 12:22:20 -0800 2002 1580787 0 kc girl 1 1580806 Yes, quite a few questions there...but really easy answers: There's really no way to know how a wine has aged until you open it. That said, some wines age more gracefully than other. Big, bold reds--like Cabernet Sauvignon, Syrah, Zinfandel--do well with age. Their astringency becomes softer and yields a silky quality. But today's wines, particularly those of CA, are often quite silky and approachable in their youth...so they don't need much aging if any. It's not a question of better or worse; just different. White wines typically are appreciated younger and fresher. Just open 'em when you get 'em! Unless it's some rare Burgundy that requires 20 years aging before it tastes any good...But you probably won't have many of those landing on your table from guests. The wild card is HOW the wine was aged. In a nice cool cellar? Terrific. In someone's kitchen or under the bed in their NY apartement? Not so good...you might find the latter wines to be a little "cooked" and kind of over the hill. As for what's kosher in opening a friend's offering? If it's a great bottle--you want to open it with the friend who brought it to share with you. If it's plonk--you know, the cheap bottle they picked up on the way to dinner---it doesn't really matter. Make them drink it! It'll teach 'em a lesson. As for Monticello....The odds are you got a bottle from Monticello Vineyards, owned by the Corley family, in Napa Valley. I don't think TJ's Virginia vines are producing much of a commercial crop these days. At least, I've never had any. Jeff Morgan Link: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0811832139/chowhoundcomA Tue Nov 19 13:41:46 -0800 2002 1580750 0 Jeff Morgan 2 1581005 I kind of hinted to them the same; that they would probably not have been able to know themselves when the wine was at its aged peak, and that they may have wanted to wait until the giftgiver was in their company to open it and pour. They were just learning, obviously, and at least knew after their giftgiver told them it was a faux pas to open upon receipt. They were possibly telling me about it to save me the same embarassment when I was able to receive such a gift of my own. Thanks for your info. Wed Nov 20 12:33:07 -0800 2002 1580806 0 kc girl 2 1581018 I think Dan will appreciate your site info. But, they still were not coy about stating their faux pas. I guess they thought I would have added to their, "Who knew?" Does your book have info in it about infusion of non-grape juices in a wine vintage, i.e., peaches? Wed Nov 20 13:08:39 -0800 2002 1580806 0 kc girl 1 1580815 Lots of expert advice you have gotten here for sure. I would have to agree with all that MOST of todays wines from and made in the "new world" style (California, Australia, etc.) are made to be drunk young and do not improve with age. To be honest, a good way to tell whether a wine can benefit from some age is usually the price. Expensive wines cost that much because (hopefully) the vineyard is putting their best grapes into the wine. So, a $40 Cabernet from Phelps does need 5-10 years of age to be at A point while a $10 bottle of Turning Leaf should be drunk young. Likewise, a very good (expensive, e.g. Haut Brion) bottle of Bordeaux will be unapproachable when young but glorious after 10-20 years. This is also true with certain Italian wines. One should never drink a Barolo or Barberesco young, the tannins will make it unpleasant. But, give them 10-15 years and voila, one of the best wines in the world! So, long story short, you will generally not go wrong by drinking less expenseive wines early and laying down expensive wines for at least a few years. I know it's a gross over-generalization, but usually works with novices until they become more adept wine drinkers. If all else fails, ask your friendly neighborhood oneophile. Tue Nov 19 14:08:18 -0800 2002 1580750 0 David DeSilva 2 1580936 A well thought out premise.....I would agree somewhat.....Great wines should also taste really good when they're young.....They're just different. Of course, Italy, Bordeaux and Burgundy don't always work that way.... But I had this cheap 1973 Fetzer Zin not long ago that had aged beautifully.....So I guess there are no rules....only guidelines... Cheerio... JM Link: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0811832139/chowhoundcomA Wed Nov 20 01:15:30 -0800 2002 1580815 0 Jeff Morgan 2 1581012 Yes, I am happy to have read these, too. Are Barolo and Barberesco vineyard or variety? Wed Nov 20 12:49:29 -0800 2002 1580815 0 kc girl 3 1581014 Cool sites. http://www.marchesibarolo.com/ (Italian aged vines) http://www.barbaresco.it/ (First thought of this was a young Jane Fonda, sorry) Thanks for your advice. Wed Nov 20 12:55:43 -0800 2002 1581012 0 kc girl 1 1580826 At the risk of being simplistic, to find out optimal aging time for a particular wine, call the winery. They'll explain ad nauseum. Easier (& cheaper) for US wines, but if it matters to you ... Tue Nov 19 14:45:02 -0800 2002 1580750 0 Mr Grub 2 1580838 Even more simplistic - take a gander in your local bookstore at the back of Hugh Johnson's pocket guide to wine - I believe that it indicates generically, by country/type and vintage, roughly what wines are drinking now and which wines need more aging time. That will give you an idea of ranges for the particular types and vintages. Obviously, as per the others' advice this is going to differ considerably from case to case, particularly for red wines. Tue Nov 19 15:13:19 -0800 2002 1580826 0 jen kalb 2 1581015 Makes sense. Was at a SLB winery and they had knowledgeable employees. Wed Nov 20 12:58:36 -0800 2002 1580826 0 kc girl