Drinking Wine That Is Too Old

[mogsob]

Looking over a wine list earlier this week, I was immediately struck by a 1973 Leoville Poyferre selling for a song. A nice wine to be sure and would have been a solid selection about 10 years ago. Today, however, I would expect the wine to be more than a little dried out and well past its peak.

Of course, Leoville Poyferre is a St. Julien and perhaps not a likely to age as well as its neighboring wines in Margaux and Paulliac, but nonetheless, the fact remains that at some point in time wine reaches its peak and then declines.

My question is why do "those in the know" look down on drink wine that is too young, but readily pony up big money for wine that is clearly past its peak. Clearly, the youthful vigor of wine can be tempered by judicious exposure to air by decanting the wine a few hours before service, but nothing will bring the bloom back into a wine that has faded.

[jdetal]

I would rephrase your question and ask "What is it in our human nature that values a unique experience whether it is a rare wine or exotic food?"

[Steve Plotnicki]

Well considering I had 1953 Leoville Poyferre last week and it was great. Yes I agree that 1973 isn't a great vintage in St. Julien but that wouldn't make me discount that wine. I can recall being at Clementine and the couple at the next table brought a bottle of wine with them to celebrate their anniversary. It was 1967 Lafite which might be the most derided First Growth since they did the 1855 classifications. Well they gave us a pour and the wine was delicious. And there are other examples of unheralded wines like 1980 Margaux that drink well.

I think that there are two aspects to drinking Bordeaux. One has to do with the individual characteristics of the producers. But the other has to do with the magic that a mature bottle of Bordeaux exhibits. And many less then good wines, even what we might call bad wines, are worth drinking because they have the attribute of maturity to them where the fruit hasn't dried out yet. So the '73 LP will never be a great wine or even a good one. But could it be a good drink with some charm to it? Sure.

[Tonyfinch]

I agree with Mogsob. I just can't "get" old wine at all. By old I mean thirty,forty years or more. And I have tasted a fair amount. Magnolia and I used to belong to a wine club in London where the enthusiastic leader was always opening bottles of 1904 this and 1927 that. They were all clarets and he would proclaim them all to be "great"-" the essence of Margaux, the essence of Pauillac" etc.

To me they uniformly tasted like dried out vegetable water. They were HORRIBLE. And I know that many of us felt the same way. But to our leader the fault lay with us.We just didn't get it. Well he was right. We didn't. And I still don't.

I did have a bottle of 1978 Chateau Pavie the other day which said a lot to me. But of course this was a mere stripling at 24 years old.

[mogsob]

Yes, yes. It's this "essence of Margaux, essence of Paulliac" thing I'm getting at. You know, those bottles may show the "essence" of what was once a great wine, but wouldn't it have made more sense to drink it when it was still great?

Personally, if I want the "essence" of French wine, I drink marc.

[britcook]

Yeah, we've got them in our wine group, "The Dead Claret Society". I'm not a medium and so can't have conversations with the dead but those guys hear voices in their heads. Good Bordeaux can last a surprisingly long time, I've drunk wine older than I am which was superb (definitely in better shape than me) but mostly when it's gone, it's gone and at the prices charged I'm not going to take the risk.

[schaem]

I'd be interested to read what the "dead wine skeptics" have to say about non-clarets that supposedly last a long time, ie Madiera or Gruener Veltliner (I'm highly skeptical about that claim). I, sadly, don't have the budget to be "subjected" to enough old Bordeaux to have made up my own mind (just a few sips of '57 Margaux once) so I enjoy reading the debate.

Edited December 16, 2002 by schaem (log)

[Tonyfinch]

I'd be interested to read what the "dead wine skeptics" have to say about non-clarets that supposedly last a long time, ie Madiera

Well of course Madeira and Port are fortified wines so they are, in effect, preserved in alcohol and therefore able to last for decades. Having said that I recently tasted Cockburn's 1963 Port and thought it was drying out, although the current Cockburn's winemaker disagreed.

I have also tasted very old Vouvrays which still had vigour, although again I thought there were signs of oxidization which tainted them for me.

I think so much depends on how well the wines have been stored.

[mogsob]

A while back Gramercy Tavern had a very affordable 1973 Rioja on their list. I was informed that although it was quite oxidized, it pairs well with cheese. We opted for port instead, but I often regret not taking that chance.

[Tonyfinch]

A while back Gramercy Tavern had a very affordable 1973 Rioja on their list.  I was informed that although it was quite oxidized, it pairs well with cheese.

Sounds odd. Oxidization is a major fault in a wine and I'm surprised they were pushing it knowing that. You did right to avoid it.

[Steve Plotnicki]

You guys are drinking the wrong old wines. Off years like 1904 and 1927 might taste like dried out vegetable water but I assure you that good 1928's and 1929's that have been stored well will not. Same with Mogsob's 1973 Rioja. I have bought multiple cases of 1954 Rioja (birth year) and the wines are etheral providing you get a good bottle. Not only that, but the '54 Cune Vina Real is still not ready to drink! And 1958 Marquis de Riscal Gran Reserva is probably the best Rioja ever made and still drinks perfectly. Then there are wines like '59, '66 and '70 Latour which aren't even ready to drink yet.

The best way to acquire a taste for old wines is to attend a vertical tasting of a great producers wines. For me when I first started collecting, I went to two different 14 vintage tastings featuring the wines of Latour and Cheval Blanc. '61 Latour (probably the greatest wine I ever tasted) and '64 Cheval set a standard for me as to what great wines tasted like. But in that setting, one can see the relationship between the new wines and what they are going to be like when they age. Even a recent vertical tasting of various Barolo and Barbaresco from 1961-1982 made me a fan of the wines from those regions when I used to have trouble appreciating them to their fullest.

If anyone is daring and wants to take a punt on an older wine that still drinks really well but isn't $1000 a bottle like most of the good ones are, 1964 Latour and La Mission Haut Brion are lovely wines and you can buy them anywhere from $175-$250 a bottle. The older Riojas from 1954 and 1958 can be bought for $75-$150 a bottle, In fact I just bought some 1954 and 1958 Lopez di Heredia Vina Bosconia for $75. There are others too. If anyone is interested just ask.

[marcus]

mogsob -- I find GT's tecommendation of a wine which is known to be oxidized, for any purpose, to be weird verging on unbelievable (but true). I would be interested if you have any further insight into their thought process.

[jdetal]

I'd like to add another comment in the same vein as my prior post. I've looked forward to opening the last saved bottle from a case or of a type bought years ago. It's like greeting an old friend ... we are both older and wrinkled and not very youthful but there's an experience there that can't be assessed by how good the wine remains. I have a few bottles of Torre Quartro from Apulia from the 60s which are most likely over the hill but this wine has given much pleasure over the years. Would I purchase an old wine? No but I've had 20 year old burgundies from light years that were charming and a 30-40 year old Rioja or Portuguese red can be nice. Rhones like the 1978 Vieux Telegraph can last a lifetime.

[jaybee]

I have to echo what Steve P wrote: "you guys are tasiting the wrong old wines." I have a cellar that was started in 1969. I bought 1959, '61, '64, '66,

'70, '71. '75 first growth Bordeaux and premier Grand Crus, as well as classic Burgundies from '59 and '61. I have a fair amount of '66, '70, and '75s which we are still drinking when the occasion warrants. My brother-in-law who bought with me has some '61s left. Almost to a bottle, these wines are great. They are complex, fresh, and have a bouquet that you don't want to stop inhaling. '61 Calon Segur and '61 Montrose are treasures. '64 and '70 Leoville Poyferre and Leoville Barton are chewy, rich wines. A '59 Bonne Mare and '59 Clos de Tart (Mommesin) drunk in the last year were fruity and fresh.

Maybe the wines you tried were not cellared well. Mine have sat in one place for over 25 years, at 55 degrees and I've never had a spoilt bottle, except for one where the cork went bad. I recently discovered (as I posted) bottles of '70 Chablis Les Clos that I had lost in a corner under some boxes. I though it would be gone and instead it turned out to be ambrosia.

The best wine I ever tasted was a '61 Cheval Blanc and that was in 1987!

It was "ready" then, but probably is even more ready today.

Edited December 16, 2002 by jaybee (log)

[Tonyfinch]

I'm quite willing to accept that I've drunk the wrong old wines. And not every old wine I've drunk has been awful. Apart from port I've had some lovely old champagnes (30 years +) which have taken on all those wonderful toasty mellow brioche flavours.

But after a certain age it is a gamble isn't it. That's why retailers and restaurants sell them at the customer's own risk. With a VERY old wine there's really no telling what you're going to get so it makes them a very risky purchase. I mean unless you've stored them yourself or you know their life history it starts to look like a foolish gamble.

[jaybee]

But after a certain age it is a gamble isn't it.

No argument there, but the original statement made was that old wine isn't so great, not that there's a big risk of paying a pot of money for a badly cellared bottle. But that's what "laying down" wine is all about isn't it?

If one relied totally on retail for all one's wine drinking, one would have to be quite wealthy to drink good old wine.

Anyone who is serious about wine and young enough to be able to wait 15-30 years should have good wine laying down in a good cellar. There are plenty of commercial storage places if a home cellar is not possible. Futures of some very good 2000 Bordeaux could have been had for reasonable prices. These are expected to be spectacular in 15-30 years.

But then, maybe 30 year olds of today don't have the patience or interest to delay gratification that long.

[SFJoe]

I'd be interested to read what the "dead wine skeptics" have to say about non-clarets that supposedly last a long time, ie Madiera or Gruener Veltliner (I'm highly skeptical about that claim).  I, sadly, don't have the budget to be "subjected" to enough old Bordeaux to have made up my own mind (just a few sips of '57 Margaux once) so I enjoy reading the debate.

I've only had Madeira back to 1900, not *really* old by Madeira standards. It was fresh, rather young wine that I wish had been decanted a week before. But fortified wine and wine made in oxidative styles (Port, Madeira) are different stories. I had an 1847 port in 1997 that was spectacular. I hadn't really expected it to be, but it surprised me at a tasting.

Whites like GV or Chenin age if they have the stuffing and balance to do so. I've never had GV older than 25 years (hard to do in the US), but several people whose palates I respect have done so, and bring great reports. GVs from the '70s and '80s were delicious in my glass. There have been some 1990s on restaurant lists in NYC for the last year or so that were quite good despite being from second tier producers and sites.

Old Chenin is one of the glories of the world. Some of my best experiences have been Vouvray going back to the 1924. I have a couple of 1919s that I am excited about as sensory experiences, not merely intellectual ones. If anyone gets ahold of well-stored 1921s, send me an email and I'll write you a check.

Of course, you take your chances with old wines. Storage is paramount, and after all, the damn things *are* sealed with a hunk of tree bark. I've had sad bottles of 1947 Huet LHL, but I've had great ones, too.

Most of the above wines were sweet. Sugar preserves these wines, and it also usually means that they had more acid than would be tolerable in a dry wine, which also slows oxidation.

But even dry ones age well. I've had 1961 dry Vouvray that was great. I've heard of 1959 dry Romorantin (obscure Loire grape) that was delicious within the last couple of years.

All of it eventually goes over the hill, I'm sure. I'm not advocating necrophilia, and you have to be very selective about what you buy, and willing to take a joke about some of what you end up with. You have much better odds of getting old, uncooked wine in Edinburgh than in Houston, for instance. But even a 1990 Muscadet I had last week was amazing. Shockingly old for most Muscadet. One of the best producer's best wines, well stored natch.

Old wines from great sites and great producers give experiences that are unparalleled. As great as young wine can be, and I assure you that's most of what I drink, wine with the right amount of age on it develops flavors that aren't there in the young stuff.

[Tonyfinch]

But then, maybe 30 year olds of today don't have the patience or interest to delay gratification that long.

Well it's hard to think of a hobby which calls for more deferred gratification than laying down wines.

But another issue could be what is the point? The quality of wines on the market from around the world is so high today compared to 20/30 years ago. Excellent wine is to hand off the shelf at a relatively reasonable cost to anyone who wants it. One can also get the odd or bottle od old wine for that special occasion without too much trouble if you want it.

There's absolutely no need to be cellaring your clarets for forty years if you want to drink fine wine, even if you've got the space. OLD wine yes, but there's no virtue in age in itself (and that goes for folk as well as wine)

[hollywood]

But another issue could be what is the point?

There's absolutely no need to be cellaring your clarets for forty years if you want to drink fine wine, even if you've got the space. OLD wine yes, but there's no virtue in age in itself (and that goes for folk as well as wine)

It must make for a more dramatic post to detail the trip to the cave to extract the 30 year old, old world delight. And, of course, it's doubly good if the post confirms the owner's wisdom in waiting just the appropriate period before sampling the claret. Further, one can recall the mere pittance that was paid for this nectar many years before.

[StephenT]

Further, one can recall the mere pittance that was paid for this nectar many years before.

Is that still likely to happen though? If someone tells me what they paid for a bottle of wine 30 years ago, it might not sound like much but for all I know it could have been the price of a small car in those days. My impression of the current market is that "investors" tend to push up the price of good Bordeaux and in order to be able to tell someone in 30 years time that you bought a bottle in 2002 for a genuine "mere pittance" and it turned out to be great in 2032 then you'd have to be very selective indeed to find something decent and ageworthy for a low price. I could be wrong though - and people on this thread have mentioned well-aged wines other than Bordeaux that they've enjoyed.

[hollywood]

Further, one can recall the mere pittance that was paid for this nectar many years before.

Is that still likely to happen though?

I was kidding. I'm too practical and too impatient--or, maybe it's the ADD. I'm in Tony's camp--buy it and drink it. If you want something older, pay a little more.

[Steve Plotnicki]

There's absolutely no need to be cellaring your clarets for forty years if you want to drink fine wine, even if you've got the space. OLD wine yes, but there's no virtue in age in itself (and that goes for folk as well as wine)

I don't think the issue is can you drink fine wine when it's young, the issue is does mature wine have something special about it. And I think despite the longwindedness of some of the answers (especially my own,) the answer is yes. In fact the more mature wine I drink, the less I like wine that hasn't reached a certain level of drinkability. In Bordeaux, unless we are talking about a very fruity vintage that drinkes well young like 1985 or 1995, I don't like to drink them less then 30 years old and 35-40 is preferrable. I think that mature wine is sort of like stinky cheese. You have to acquire a taste for it. But like cheese, once you do, it's difficult going back to those mild cheeses rthat don't have much flavor.

[SFJoe]

I don't like to drink them less then 30 years old and 35-40 is preferrable.

Steve, you just have to start drinking 5th growths--they're ready younger!

The other reason to cellar the wine yourself is that you know how it's been kept. If you have good storage (Scottish castle dungeon, professional storage, etc.), you know the wine's OK. Much of the aged wine you pay up for now has been badly stored, and is a shadow of the same wine well kept. It is very difficult to tell that something has been subject to so-so storage without opening a bottle, or sometimes comparing with a good bottle. Utter incineration usually leaves traces, but indifference along the line will deprive you of a good bit of what you pay for in older wine.

[jaybee]

If someone tells me what they paid for a bottle of wine 30 years ago, it might not sound like much but for all I know it could have been the price of a small car in those days.

I think a 1970 dollar is worth about $6 today.

How's an average of $8 a botttle for grand crus of great vintages ('59, '61, '64, '66, '70, '71, '75) and $12 a bottle for premier grand crus, including Haut Brion, Cheval Blanc, Laffite Rothschild, Latour. How about $18 a bottle for '61 Petrus? $6 for '70 Trotanoy? $8 for '61 Montrose...Premie Grand Cru Chablis for $6 a bottle...I can go on...Maybe you could buy a car for what I paid.... for the whole cellar in 1970.

But then if you haven't kept a cellar, it's easy to understand being contemptuous of the idea. If your rich enough to pay $250-400 a bottle for the cellared wines I am drinking now, congratulations.

SF Joe, I love Romarantin. We enjoyed this wine in the Sologne several years ago and have not been able to find any here. Do you know a source?

[marcus]

For those with a preference for older Bordeaux, such as I have, (although not to the extent of Steve P, I consider the super brilliant 1966 Latour, for example, to be ready to drink), there is really no all around good answer to the question as to how to reliably find these older wines.

First let me say that buying wines on release and laying them away for a generation is probably the least good answer. Any close look at the forward value of money plus the cost of long term storage shows this to be a very expensive proposition. In addition, it requires you to have substantial disposable assets when you are young, the time when you are least likely to have them. Also the reputations of vintages and wines within vintages changes significantly over time, and you also have to see through the hype that comes with most new vintages. Many wines actually decline in value after release.

Retail is also problematic. The vast majority of wine shops make their living from very recent vintages. They have no depth of inventory and you essentially have to pick and choose from an arbitrary and very limited selection. Most wine shops, even those that offer a veneer of seriousness do not have temperature controlled storage. Those that do specialize in old vintages, and have proper storage facilities, are very expensive, and even here you have no idea of provenance. Although a bit less expensive, the major mail order/internet wine shippers are still costly.

The auction market provides the best selection and the best prices, but you typically need to buy cases, although individual lots can vary in size. There is usually some indication of provenance and storage history, but this is very superficial. You also need to be aware that one of the reasons that people consign their wines for auction is that the owner is not happy with their condition. In my experience, the percentage of less than perfect bottles of wine sold by major auction houses is staggeringly high, even for vintages as late as 1990, which is the most recent red Bordeaux vintage that I will consider buying.

There are times at auction where a major well known collection whose history is well known is being dispersed, or where a major chateau is releasing a number of cases from an older vintage. These probably represent the most reliable opportunities as to wines in good condition, but these lots also will command a substantial premium.

The message is that you have to really love this stuff and be willing to spend a lot of money and face many disappointments. I don't know of any easy answers.