Thanks, Eric

and I really don't think syrah gets that much more interesting with tons of age.
Click to expand...
Neither do I, but I seldom see that opinion voiced. There are exceptions of course.....but they are extremely seldom.
 
originally posted by Odd Rydland:
and I really don't think syrah gets that much more interesting with tons of age.
Click to expand...
Neither do I, but I seldom see that opinion voiced. There are exceptions of course.....but they are extremely seldom.
Click to expand...

Well, no one agrees with me anyway.

Lone voice in the wilderness.
 
originally posted by MLipton:
originally posted by VLM:

I think only outliers need more than 15.
Click to expand...

Doesn't that statement apply to most any type of wine? (apart from BN, of course)

Mark Lipton
Click to expand...

15 is too long for most wines, even a lot of the good ones.

Ultra-longevity would be more of a virtue if these were paintings, rather than something meant to be consumed.
 
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
originally posted by SFJoe:
Eric told me not to open his 2001 CR anytime very soon. 2012+.

VLM, you agree?
Click to expand...
A bottle I had about two years ago was astonishingly good...
Click to expand...
Likewise. I opened another bottle a year later in hopes of a similar experience but it was incredibly disjointed and shut down. I'm inclined to let these lie a few more years.
 
And I will say as an aside, that this may the first 1996 Burgundy of 1er cru AOC or above that I have found in any way soft enough to enjoy. A vintage that seemed to spawn a large number of very firm, soemtimes hard, wines.
Best, Jim
Click to expand...

Lafarge's Clos des Chenes, drunk along with a few other 96s in December 2009, was quite soft - indeed, jammy! Lafarge! 1996! (So I exclaimed several times at dinner that night.) Bertheau's 96s never shut down and an Amoureuses drunk that night - and one had in May 2010 alongside the 98 - just sang.

I appreciate these may seem like exceptions that prove the rule - but I like 96s and have great faith that when the fruit wakes up, those 96s made by reliable producers will be excellent wines.
 
originally posted by maureen:
I appreciate these may seem like exceptions that prove the rule - but I like 96s and have great faith that when the fruit wakes up, those 96s made by reliable producers will be excellent wines.
Click to expand...

There's the spirit.
I think I may a bit too impatient.
Best, Jim
 
originally posted by VLM: I really don't think syrah gets that much more interesting with tons of age.
Click to expand...

Nathan, I agree with you if you are referring to non-French Syrahs.

I do feel, though, that many (most?) French Syrahs make good old bones.

. . . . . . Pete
 
originally posted by maureen:
And I will say as an aside, that this may the first 1996 Burgundy of 1er cru AOC or above that I have found in any way soft enough to enjoy. A vintage that seemed to spawn a large number of very firm, soemtimes hard, wines.
Best, Jim
Click to expand...

Lafarge's Clos des Chenes, drunk along with a few other 96s in December 2009, was quite soft - indeed, jammy! Lafarge! 1996! (So I exclaimed several times at dinner that night.) Bertheau's 96s never shut down and an Amoureuses drunk that night - and one had in May 2010 alongside the 98 - just sang.

I appreciate these may seem like exceptions that prove the rule - but I like 96s and have great faith that when the fruit wakes up, those 96s made by reliable producers will be excellent wines.
Click to expand...

chet opened a 1996 Drouhin Musigny about 2? years ago which he slow-oxed all day and it was beautiful.

I just picked up a 6 pack of 1996 Drouhin Beaune Greves (which tells you something about comparable budgets) and look forward to experimenting with the same treatment.
 
originally posted by David M. Bueker:
originally posted by MLipton:


Doesn't that statement apply to most any type of wine? (apart from BN, of course)

Mark Lipton
Click to expand...

15 is too long for most wines, even a lot of the good ones.

Ultra-longevity would be more of a virtue if these were paintings, rather than something meant to be consumed.
Click to expand...

In my experience old style Bordeaux and Burgundy from a good vintage usually need at least 15 years. There's this stuff from Piedmont called Barrello or something like that which I hear might behave similarly. I suppose you could call Dunn and Mayacamas outliers but they definitely need (and benefit from) 20 years.
 
No doubt Jay, but that's still a tiny slice of the world of wine. It also doesn't change the fact that the lengthy required aging curve for those select wines is more of a pain in the ass than a virtue.
 
originally posted by David M. Bueker:
No doubt Jay, but that's still a tiny slice of the world of wine. It also doesn't change the fact that the lengthy required aging curve for those select wines is more of a pain in the ass than a virtue.
Click to expand...

To follow a wine through its different stages isn't a pain in the ass in my view, rather the contrary. Therefore, the lengthy aging curve for certain wines are indeed a virtue.

I agree that many wines do not win from beeing aged, but imho there are many considered to be drunk young that do win from being aged. Chasselas, for instance from good sites. Good storage is mandatory, of course.
 
originally posted by Anders Gautschi:
originally posted by David M. Bueker:
No doubt Jay, but that's still a tiny slice of the world of wine. It also doesn't change the fact that the lengthy required aging curve for those select wines is more of a pain in the ass than a virtue.
Click to expand...

To follow a wine through its different stages isn't a pain in the ass in my view, rather the contrary. Therefore, the lengthy aging curve for certain wines are indeed a virtue.

I agree that many wines do not win from beeing aged, but imho there are many considered to be drunk young that do win from being aged. Chasselas, for instance from good sites. Good storage is mandatory, of course.
Click to expand...

A 10-15 year life span is potentially a virtue. A wine that needs 20 to just be ready to drink is a pain. I love following wines through their life span, but a bottle every two years is just a series of isolated data points IMO.
 
originally posted by David M. Bueker:
originally posted by Anders Gautschi:
originally posted by David M. Bueker:
No doubt Jay, but that's still a tiny slice of the world of wine. It also doesn't change the fact that the lengthy required aging curve for those select wines is more of a pain in the ass than a virtue.
Click to expand...

To follow a wine through its different stages isn't a pain in the ass in my view, rather the contrary. Therefore, the lengthy aging curve for certain wines are indeed a virtue.

I agree that many wines do not win from beeing aged, but imho there are many considered to be drunk young that do win from being aged. Chasselas, for instance from good sites. Good storage is mandatory, of course.
Click to expand...

A 10-15 year life span is potentially a virtue. A wine that needs 20 to just be ready to drink is a pain.
Click to expand...
Quite so. In most cases these are not wines that can be followed through any stage other than twenty stages of "damn, I shouldn't have opened that." The proportion of wines that reward opening at various points over a 20-year span is vastly slimmer than the proportion of wines that have a 20-year lifespan in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top