How to Make a Healthy Snack
McBites = Modern McNuggets?
Slow Cooker Recipes
When Should Bars Cut You Off?
How to Scrape a Vanilla Bean
Best Riffs on Hot Chocolate
I’ve been thinking about vintage lately. It’s become quite fashionable to say that a wine’s vintage—once a hallmark of classic wine connoisseurship—is largely irrelevant. Writer Hugh Johnson, as noted in the Grinder, said in his new Pocket Wine Book: “The truth is that vintages matter less than they did … when we take a bottle off the shelf we don’t need to worry, most of the time, about the year.” He says that the greatest appeal of vintage is to wine snobs, who will chase after and spend exorbitantly on wines from the best vintages, presumably ignoring the others.
He’s right, to a degree. The hyped vintages tend to be very warm and ripe, so if you’re like me and prefer wines that are more structured and balanced, you should leave the expensive bottles on the shelf. In a sense, what matters is the antivintages, the wines that aren’t hyped to the skies (and don’t command the sky-high prices).
The “off” vintages are named as such because of their proximity to great years. Let the wine lemmings of the world chase the “on” vintages, while you snap up the leftovers. 2000 Bordeaux are extremely expensive. The shelves are full of less pricey 1999 and 2001, both good vintages. I invested in a couple of cases of ’01s, knowing that I’d have to wait for them to be drinkable. But I got them for a song. This will happen again with the unheralded 2004 and the praised-to-the-moon 2005 Bordeaux.
If wine is something you like to taste and explore—not just a trophy item—you’ll get a lot out of sampling the lesser vintages. Sometimes, you’ll even enjoy them more. Burgundian producer Frédéric Mugnier of Domaine Jacques-Frédéric Mugnier said at a recent tasting that the 2005s (considered by some to be a perfect Burgundy vintage) are great, but that they don’t have a lot of personality. “Emotion doesn’t come from perfection,” he said. “Sometimes the most beautiful wines are the ones with a little blemish, something that gives them character.” He’s a fan of 2004—a cooler, less ripe year, but nevertheless smooth, ripe (enough), with gentle tannins and pretty fruit. And his 2004 Nuits-Saint-Georges Premier Cru Clos de la Maréchale is a classic example of the year, with fine tannins and supple texture carrying blackberry, plum, and mineral notes. It’s drinking beautifully now, but will continue to improve for years.
“I don’t try anymore to compensate for the differences in vintages,” Mugnier said. “I’m noninterventionist and make every wine the same way, having come to the conclusion that it’s better to let vintages speak too.” And ultimately that’s why vintage matters: Each one is different.
Do vintages matter?
It depends.
If we talk of the traditional "great" wine areas of yesteryear like Bordeaux, Bourgogne, Piedmont, Chianti, Alsace, etc. vintages are still very important although with less variance.
.
If we talk of the new areas like California, Australia, etc. than the statement could be considered as nearer to reality.
As an old winemaker I shall try and explain why and I...+READ
Do vintages matter?
It depends.
If we talk of the traditional "great" wine areas of yesteryear like Bordeaux, Bourgogne, Piedmont, Chianti, Alsace, etc. vintages are still very important although with less variance.
.
If we talk of the new areas like California, Australia, etc. than the statement could be considered as nearer to reality.
As an old winemaker I shall try and explain why and I hope you will have the patience to bear with me and excuse my bad English.
Vines tend to give their best results in areas where the plant is more stressed out. These are really "marginal" areas where the plants cannot relax and get "fatter", bigger and overproductive. Traditionally the poorer soils and cooler climates found in the hills were conducive to the best results. Within them the microclimates ( Southwest exposures, gravelly soil, enough ventilation, etc.) were an important indication of quality : vineyards facing North would not ripen enough while the next one, facing South or Southwest would. Believe it or not the more marginal the location, the more important the exposure becomes. Hence the concept of “ cru” as a special piece of land where all the variables come together to create a perfect location for that particular wine. A kind of “ perfect storm” in a positive way.
More important yet was the fact that due to the longer ripening cycle, picking was carried out later in the year which meant that temperatures were cooler providing for slower and complete fermentations. As an instance Nebbiolo, the grape used in Barolo and other great wines of Northern Italy is so called because it is harvested in November when there's " nebbia" ( fog).
The lower , warmer areas were producing more grapes ( thus less concentration) with a shorter ripening cycle and fermentations were often incomplete because of the higher temperatures. See for instance the Zinfandel which ripens in late August/early September when outside temperatures are still very high. They started making good wines only when they started fermenting at lower temperatures thanks to new equipment an improved technology.
To clarify this point I should also explain that the aerobic bacteria which cause the fermentation by feeding on sugars and producing alcohol, produce heat during the process. If the temperature of the fermenting mass rises above 40 degree centigrades the bacteria end up dieing. Much like when your body has a fever: it rises its temperature trying to kill off the infection. The result is an incomplete fermentation. The winemaker would see it come to a halt and consider it finished but in reality there would still be some "undigested" sugar. This, together with lower extraction would cause a number of unwanted problems.
Put together the longer, slower ripening cycle, the lower natural yields and the naturally better fermentations were the secret weapons for those “ great” areas especially at a time when the process of fermentation was little understood.
The counterpoint was , unfortunately, that if anything went wrong there was no margin of safety.
In reality most vintages were OK. a few would be vary bad and some would be very good. The best “ crus” would show their mettle by giving superior products especially in the OK years but would command higher prices also in bad years often with no relation to their actual quality.
Bad vintages were bad for all and everybody had to resort to some kind of “adjustments”.
So, knowing the quality of the vintage was paramount in deciding what to buy as there really was not enough correlation between what you paid and what you got to drink.
Now, all of this has somehow become less important but not completely.
Yes, “bad” vintages have virtually disappeared. Technical improvements both in cultivation and winemaking have been very important but the use of concentrated must ( wine juice which has been partially de-hydrated ) to enrich the fermenting mass but most of all the use of must concentrators and evaporators extensively used in Boedeaux ( which take water out of the must therefore increasing the sugar levels, as well as the acids, minerals, phenols etc. ) all but guarantee that every vintage is a “good” vintage.
But only insofar as the quantity of the various components is concerned not the actual quality of the final result: that kind of exalted level that comes from the almost magical relationship between terroir, grape and weather all blended by experienced, careful winemaking.
That “perfect storm” that no matter how much we try only comes basically by chance.
Newer “ great “ wine areas are not saddled with all these problems and complications. They were all established in areas where the extremes of weather are absent and when winemaking tecniques had already greatly improved. Suffice to say that we have probably progressed more in the last 60 years in our winemaking capabilities than in the previous 2000 years.
So, to sum up this longwinded rant, for which I must really apologize : Yes, vintages do matter if you’re buying wine from long-established areas and No, vintages don’t really matter if you’re buying wine from the newer areas.
After all wine is mostly water ( 87 % plus/minus 1 ) alcohol ( 13% plus minus 1) but “ the perfect storm” comes from the rest: all the 300 plus molecules which make all the difference.
Market dynamics also work perversely against the buyer. An established winemaker does not want to lower its price in bad years . So the differential between good and bad does not actually reflect the underlying amount of “bliss” that you will hopefully experience.
So, for my money, I will always go for a well established cru in an OK vintage and I still avoid bad vintages no matter how many stars, points, etc. are bestowed on them by the various market partecipants. And will try not to overpay for the hyped vintages.
All in search of that very often elusive “perfect storm”.-COLLAPSE