Ok I picked up what I am told are 2 decent bottles of wine, so now I want to collect and drink it a little.
I picked up a 1999 greg norman cabernet marlot and 1991 pouilly fuisse.
Now I don't know how long I am supposed to hoild onto these and if I want to buy some for collecting and aging. I am interested in cabernet sauvingon and cabernet merlot and I guess merlots. (I know what am I doing with the pouilly).
If I want to collect these wines what can I start with to buy, and I am a cheap man, from Canada, the states mainly and well pretty much anywhere but I want to hold onto these wines for a few years.
You have posed the most difficult question for all of us.
With time, I suppose several of us could elaborate for hours on the aspects of collecting.
I'm assuming you are not collecting to invest; but just to enjoy a great wine once in awhile.
I've been working in the Napa-Sonoma wine industry, on and off, for over 25 years, so my thoughts about this may not be the same as for others.
Because, every time I think I "missed" collecting from a great vintage-of-the-century, there's another one just around the corner.
I have presently over 30 cases of wine which I collected in my early days. Even though I was careful with the storage, much of it may be undrinkable now.
My wife and I rarely entertain, and I could never bring myself to crack a bottle of, say, a '74 cabernet with pizza; so now it's mostly over the hill.
A collection should be a static thing. Limit yourself to so many bottles. Whenever you buy something great to add to your collection, drink up the mature wines, and keep your total collection within bounds.
Wine collections, or "cellars", were originally created in the Great Houses in Britain, to have wine available for grand entertainment, and to provide a legacy for the children (the tradition of "laying down" vintage port from the birth year of the child, to use at his wedding, is an example).
A modern "cellar" should just be a collection of bottles you'd like to share and enjoy in the next 2-to-5 years or so. Maybe a few bottles for a future anniversary, or because you've read that a certain bottle will be worth savoring after 25 years (and few wine merchants or wine writers make those boasts anymore).
The process of winemaking has changed a great deal, especially since the second World War. In the old days, young red wines were often so "tannic" (chewy with bitter flavor character), that a few years' development in the bottle was recommended.
Today's wines don't necessarily get BETTER with age; they get DIFFERENT.
Likewise, the preferences of an older generation of wine-lovers have changed, with the emergence of new priorities on what makes a great wine.
They (the wine connoisseurs) used to prefer the aged, leathery, "old bookshop" aromas of a cabernet or merlot. Modern wine lovers prefer "fruit bombs" and sensual, intense berry aromas, which can only be found in young wine.
[In fact, since I sell barrels for a living, I've come to really love precocious fruit and assertive-yet-integrated barrel characters, from sampling barrels in the winery before bottling]
Obviously, modern tastes almost contra-indicate keeping a cellar, but there are some exceptions:
1) You found some great wine from some exceptional, age-worthy (and that's the key!) vintage, at a great price. By all means, indulge your wallet
2) You have an emotional purpose for keeping a certain wine, such as for an anniversary
3) You have found some, increasingly rare, wines, such as vintage port, which demand a few years' cellaring to get the maximum enjoyment.
I agree with some of those who say that patience can be rewarded. Some of the world's wines, like great Sauternes, Tokaji, vintage champagnes or vintage port, can be much more interesting after some bottle age---but it needn't be a quarter-century; 8-10 years will do!
Brian, I'm not saying that having a "cellar" is a bad thing.
One of the old maxims I was taught is that, if you find a great cabernet or merlot (or zinfandel, or anything), BUY A CASE.
Drink one bottle every six months or so, for the next six years, and see how it develops. Keep these tastings in your memory. After a few years, you will have ascertained at just what point of ageing you prefer your wines.
Sooner or later, all wine becomes vinegar. Those stunts about bottles from the collection of Thomas Jefferson, which have commanded tens of thousands of dollars at auction--are just stunts. Bidders pay the price for HISTORY---not for the intrinsic value of the wine.
Even Parker isn't scoring a 1788 Lafitte on a 100-point scale.
In the past decade I have tasted some 1929 Pomerols (a great, great vintage), some 50-year-old Tokaji and some 100-year-old fortified wines.
The experience, of course, is awesome. And there is something to be said about the amazing nuances of supremely aged wine. The aromas are fleeting, fragile, and like nothing in this world. You are tasting history. It is truly a magical experience.
But it's the context, not the subject in question, which produces the experience.
It's like looking at a middle-aged Hollywood beauty, and you are amazed at how well she looks today.
[Long chortle here] Like comparing your 1961 Bordeaux against your 1961 wife! Which has held up better? Better run for cover!
As to the wines you ask about, I don't know the 1999 Greg Norman merlot, but it's likely to be still alive and enjoyable by 4PM on March 12, 2005. Then pour it down the sink (what do I know?)
As for the 1991 Puilly-Fuisse, I expect a reception for the "amazing that it's still alive" crowd, at best. That one's probably over-the-hill.
One way would be to size your cellar capacity at some rate that would match consumption. If for example you are laying down Bordeaux's for ten years or so on average, then size your storage at 10x your annual consumption. This tradeoff between drinking wine without cellaring makes up for bottles that you wish to keep longer than 10 years, etc...
Life's too short to drink cheap (I'm referring to lesser quality really than price) wine. Hey, we'll drink the good stuff with pizza, why not?
I am sure you would get some differing opinions on this one in this group.
I don't think I am the only one who prefers well aged wines (over ten years old). If these sensuous fruit bombs are what I am supposed to like, count me out.
The average age of wines in my cellar is at least five years, most of of the wines still sitting in the styrofoam shipping crates in my basement. I've found very few disappointing wines in my cellar that were too old, in spite of having less than ideal storage conditions (low humidity, summertime cellar temps approaching 70 degrees F).
I think the best advice to a newbie is to try both young and old wines at first, to establish one's stylistic preferences, and then build a cellar accordingly.
Sorry to differ with you on this Bob. I just don't think the young fruit forward style is universally accepted (or preferred).
I'm glad I logged on today to add my 2p's worth. Cast my vote as an oenogerontophile. I leave oenopaedophilia to the French! At JK Carriere, today, we tasted Oregon PNs that we ALL agreed should not be drunk at less than 10 years old. .
Agreed.
-- All the best Ian Hoare
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client:
formatting link
................................................................ Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access >>>> at
DrinksForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.