Jeff Grossman
Jeff Grossman
Posted by David Schildknecht on November 18 on another board in response to a long article on wines of 1959 and how well they are holding up. I have removed two irrelevant "another board" references but otherwise this is re-published as written.
- - - -
I want to touch on some specific, unapologetically geeky issues that have long intrigued me and that are of potentially major winemaking significance.
My concern here is one of numerous striking effects of 1959 that, as far as I am aware, apply in every European growing region; which recurred on a similarly Europe-wide basis in 2003; which apply to certain other vintages depending on growing region; and, most importantly, which are clearly going to apply in more and more vintages going forward. The agelessness of 1959s no doubt has something to do with fungal and insect pests having been killed-off by relentless sunshine and heat. But that wasn't all that got baked-out. So did malic acid.
Virtual absence of malic acid explains, incidentally, why predicting the taste characteristics of wines from a vintage like 1959 based on measurements of total acidity can mislead, since what was present in the musts was close to 100% of the efficacious tartaric sort. (And on top of that, such warm vintages with extremely ripe phenolics characteristically yield as a byproduct of primary fermentation succinic acid, which itself has a delightfully enlivening influence. But that's probably irrelevant to what follows.)
Let me begin by addressing how absence of malic acidity in the musts might influence Riesling. What really got me thinking intensively about this phenomenon in Riesling was an observation that Peter Jakob Kühn made subsequent to his biodynamic conversion. He averred that extended élevage including complete conversion of any malic acidity into lactic acidity was necessary in order to "complete the work of nature" and result in wines that are "at peace with themselves." And this, he believed, would conduce to maximum longevity. (He also thought, and still thinks, that this leaves his residually sweet wines in violation of his own principles - but that's a topic for another time.) I observed that many of the most amazing old German Rieslings I had tasted (such as from Kloster Eberbach's or von Bassermann-Jordan's legendary cellars) had spent two or more years in cask during which any malic acidity would likely have been converted to lactic. (And in fact, analyses of great old Rieslings frequently reveal zero malate). But then I was reminded that quite a few of the most amazing old Rieslings I had been privileged to taste - those deemed exceptional enough to merit space in someone's Schatzkammer, from the likes of 1893, 1911, 1928, 1947, 1959 - would have originated with musts that harbored virtually no malic acid to begin with. That reminder prompted a question and triggered a flashback.
Egon Müller has the generous habit of letting one share a bottle of mature Riesling (initially, blind) after tasting through his latest collection, and he always selects wine from a vintage he thinks bears important similarities with the one under scrutiny. So when it came time in late summer of 2004 for me to taste the Müller 2003s, I knew I was in for an especially rare treat and that I'd be able to skip right over the usual guessing game, because the only comparable vintage in the cellar was going to be 1959. As it happens, we tasted (excuse me, drank ;- ) the Scharzhofberger Auslese. Müller averred that the seeming agelessness of this wine was typical for 1959s and speculated that it was to a significant degree attributable to there having been virtually no malic acid in the musts, nor, therefore, in the finished wines. So I wondered, if there were such a connection, which might be more important for stability and persistent youthfulness: the absence of malic in the finished wines (which would of course also apply to Riesling from more normal vintages that had undergone malo-lactic conversion) or instead, the complete dominance of tartaric acid?
Turning to red wine: musts free of malic, besides making for wines whose acidity is nearly 100% tartaric, have another significant consequence: The blanket of CO2 that normally collects at the top of the barrel once malo-lactic conversion has kicked in would be missing. This blanket is often (and, in the case of Burgundy, typically) deemed important (even allowing for assiduous topping-up) in protecting the young wines and allowing them to remain on their fine lees for a full year or longer without threat of excessive volatility or other spoilage. (A CO2 blanket is likely much less significant in traditional German Riesling élevage because of casks featuring far less head space-to-total volume ratio.) But have we any indication that some estates adjusted racking regimens or bottling calendars in 1959 to compensate for absence of malo-lactic conversion?
Soon after tasting that 1959 with Müller I had begun discussing with Burgundy growers the peculiarities of their young 2003s. (This applied to whites as well as reds.) Many cited low total acidity as a reason for earlier-than-usual bottling, but others - whose view has in my experience been borne out by the evolving wines - insisted that time on the lees was precisely what these wines needed. (Some averred it was needed to confer "structure" and compensate for the wines' relatively low total acidity.) Those of the latter opinion predictably professed having had no worries about the stability of their infant 2003s. (I recall that de Villaine and Noblet were among those so-testifying.) It did not occur to me to consider the possible effects of absent malo-lactic until Bernard Dugat brought up the matter. "Look at this!" he said, pulling out an old cellar book. In commenting on and dating the evolution of his infant 1976s, Bernard's dad had written "fermentation malolactique?" with a question mark. This inspired me to observe that if Dugat père hadn't kept his ear to the bung hole the entire time listening for a few bubbles to break the surface, he probably would have missed any malo-lactic transformation that took place. "Yes, that's just how it was in 2003!" said Bernard, laughing. Because grapes got so roasted in 1976 - indeed, the bad rap on that vintage is that they got too roasted - that, as in 1959 and 2003, all malic had probably been baked out. (Dugat then opened the '76 in question, and let's just say it was one of the good ones. Riesling grapes, too, got roasted in 1976; but then they got rained on and massive botrytis ensued.)
Low (or even no-)malic grapes are definitely becoming a more frequent, no longer freakish phenomenon (witness 2018); but as my observations and questions suggest, I'm wondering how that will influence wine stability.
Anyone with further evidence and opinions on these matters?
- - - -
I want to touch on some specific, unapologetically geeky issues that have long intrigued me and that are of potentially major winemaking significance.
My concern here is one of numerous striking effects of 1959 that, as far as I am aware, apply in every European growing region; which recurred on a similarly Europe-wide basis in 2003; which apply to certain other vintages depending on growing region; and, most importantly, which are clearly going to apply in more and more vintages going forward. The agelessness of 1959s no doubt has something to do with fungal and insect pests having been killed-off by relentless sunshine and heat. But that wasn't all that got baked-out. So did malic acid.
Virtual absence of malic acid explains, incidentally, why predicting the taste characteristics of wines from a vintage like 1959 based on measurements of total acidity can mislead, since what was present in the musts was close to 100% of the efficacious tartaric sort. (And on top of that, such warm vintages with extremely ripe phenolics characteristically yield as a byproduct of primary fermentation succinic acid, which itself has a delightfully enlivening influence. But that's probably irrelevant to what follows.)
Let me begin by addressing how absence of malic acidity in the musts might influence Riesling. What really got me thinking intensively about this phenomenon in Riesling was an observation that Peter Jakob Kühn made subsequent to his biodynamic conversion. He averred that extended élevage including complete conversion of any malic acidity into lactic acidity was necessary in order to "complete the work of nature" and result in wines that are "at peace with themselves." And this, he believed, would conduce to maximum longevity. (He also thought, and still thinks, that this leaves his residually sweet wines in violation of his own principles - but that's a topic for another time.) I observed that many of the most amazing old German Rieslings I had tasted (such as from Kloster Eberbach's or von Bassermann-Jordan's legendary cellars) had spent two or more years in cask during which any malic acidity would likely have been converted to lactic. (And in fact, analyses of great old Rieslings frequently reveal zero malate). But then I was reminded that quite a few of the most amazing old Rieslings I had been privileged to taste - those deemed exceptional enough to merit space in someone's Schatzkammer, from the likes of 1893, 1911, 1928, 1947, 1959 - would have originated with musts that harbored virtually no malic acid to begin with. That reminder prompted a question and triggered a flashback.
Egon Müller has the generous habit of letting one share a bottle of mature Riesling (initially, blind) after tasting through his latest collection, and he always selects wine from a vintage he thinks bears important similarities with the one under scrutiny. So when it came time in late summer of 2004 for me to taste the Müller 2003s, I knew I was in for an especially rare treat and that I'd be able to skip right over the usual guessing game, because the only comparable vintage in the cellar was going to be 1959. As it happens, we tasted (excuse me, drank ;- ) the Scharzhofberger Auslese. Müller averred that the seeming agelessness of this wine was typical for 1959s and speculated that it was to a significant degree attributable to there having been virtually no malic acid in the musts, nor, therefore, in the finished wines. So I wondered, if there were such a connection, which might be more important for stability and persistent youthfulness: the absence of malic in the finished wines (which would of course also apply to Riesling from more normal vintages that had undergone malo-lactic conversion) or instead, the complete dominance of tartaric acid?
Turning to red wine: musts free of malic, besides making for wines whose acidity is nearly 100% tartaric, have another significant consequence: The blanket of CO2 that normally collects at the top of the barrel once malo-lactic conversion has kicked in would be missing. This blanket is often (and, in the case of Burgundy, typically) deemed important (even allowing for assiduous topping-up) in protecting the young wines and allowing them to remain on their fine lees for a full year or longer without threat of excessive volatility or other spoilage. (A CO2 blanket is likely much less significant in traditional German Riesling élevage because of casks featuring far less head space-to-total volume ratio.) But have we any indication that some estates adjusted racking regimens or bottling calendars in 1959 to compensate for absence of malo-lactic conversion?
Soon after tasting that 1959 with Müller I had begun discussing with Burgundy growers the peculiarities of their young 2003s. (This applied to whites as well as reds.) Many cited low total acidity as a reason for earlier-than-usual bottling, but others - whose view has in my experience been borne out by the evolving wines - insisted that time on the lees was precisely what these wines needed. (Some averred it was needed to confer "structure" and compensate for the wines' relatively low total acidity.) Those of the latter opinion predictably professed having had no worries about the stability of their infant 2003s. (I recall that de Villaine and Noblet were among those so-testifying.) It did not occur to me to consider the possible effects of absent malo-lactic until Bernard Dugat brought up the matter. "Look at this!" he said, pulling out an old cellar book. In commenting on and dating the evolution of his infant 1976s, Bernard's dad had written "fermentation malolactique?" with a question mark. This inspired me to observe that if Dugat père hadn't kept his ear to the bung hole the entire time listening for a few bubbles to break the surface, he probably would have missed any malo-lactic transformation that took place. "Yes, that's just how it was in 2003!" said Bernard, laughing. Because grapes got so roasted in 1976 - indeed, the bad rap on that vintage is that they got too roasted - that, as in 1959 and 2003, all malic had probably been baked out. (Dugat then opened the '76 in question, and let's just say it was one of the good ones. Riesling grapes, too, got roasted in 1976; but then they got rained on and massive botrytis ensued.)
Low (or even no-)malic grapes are definitely becoming a more frequent, no longer freakish phenomenon (witness 2018); but as my observations and questions suggest, I'm wondering how that will influence wine stability.
Anyone with further evidence and opinions on these matters?
