Vintage?

"Dr. Weill used wines ranging from four to 17 years beyond their vintage with 240 wine drinkers and found that the tasters couldn't distinguish between wines of good and bad vintages, except for Bordeaux wines. And even when they could make a distinction, the match between the tasters' individual assessments and the charts' rankings were little better than tossing a coin. When the tests were replicated with wine experts including French wine academics, the results were again the same as chance."

formatting link

Ha ha ha ha ha ha! You guys crack me up!

Reply to
UC
Loading thread data ...

What is there to crack you up? Do you disagree with the premise that most tasters can not make consistent determination between vintages of like wines?

Only thing in that particular wiki that I tend to disagree with is the premise that Bordeaus is the only region where vintage is an important distinction. Burgundy, to my mind, is every bit as much so.

In my recent visits to vineyards in France, the most striking difference I found to our vineyard practices here in California was that of irrigation - more specifically, lack thereof. In France, at least in the AOC regions I have visited, irrigation is strictly forbidden. This leads to the inescapable conclusion that weather differences, year to year, are going to translate to more difference between vintages. Whereas here (or in Australia) where dry farming is simply not feasible as it is in France drip irrigations creates more uniformity between vintages.

Reply to
Ric

I diagree with nothing in the article.

Reply to
UC

Ric, I think it's clear that vintage differences are less in areas that use irrigation. Plus marginal climates have more variation.

I think Wikipedia is a pretty cool thing. But not something I'd treat as a serious research tool. As to this example: Dr Weil (one l) is co-chair of the Oenonomy (just one n) Society. Sounds impressive! Well, he's a doctor of economics who likes wine, and the society is apparently his group of 14 friends. And besides according to Dr. Weil those French wine experts COULD tell the difference.

As to the study of American wine drinkers, there's no methodology listed. Were these the same wines from different years? Storage? Whose vintage charts were they using (comparing WA's vision of 1993 Burgundy would be very different from virtually any other critic, and plenty of difference of opinion on many many other vintages)? And a dozen other questions/

For those that think vintage doesn't matter, I'd consider buying a lot of 1991 Bordeaux, 1994 red Burgundy, 1992 Piedmont and Tuscans, etc. There are usually some good wines in every iffy vintage, but random buying some vintage knowledge can make a difference.

Dale

Reply to
DaleW

"DaleW" wrote in news:1161648665.228756.11010 @f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

Ok I am using Bordeaux as an example 96 St Emilion from Haut Veyrac heaven in a glass. My exact comment was "I have been to church". the winemaker statement, "it was my father's last year as winemaker." 97 the vinter's statement was "it was a winemaker's year", my reaction, "Yecch, too much oak!" Is there a difference year to year, Oh yeah!

I have had Burgudny served at a restaurant from two different vintages, you would have thought two different wines.

Reply to
Joseph Coulter

Seems to me that neither your comments, nor Joseph's, are inconsistent with the premise in the wiki article. Meaning; there are many variables in the making of a wine. Assuming all things to be equal (varietals, winemaker, techniques, vineyards, etc) then vintage can be isolated as the distinguishing characteristic. And most 'new world' wines, where those variables other than vintage are consistent - most winedrinkers won;t consistently discern from amongst. But in regions such as those you mention, lack of irrigation combined with year-to-year weather differences can lead to some remarkable differences between vintages.

What I am still wrestling with is the point of UC's original post - what is it that he finds so amusing?

Reply to
Ric

Absolutely, although I also think that the Wikipedia article points out the fallacy with vintage charts: I'll take an off-vintage wine from a top producer over a "top vintage" wine from a mediocre producer any day. Of course, that's no news to most of the people who post here, who judge wines on their own merits and not based on some generic vintage chart.

As to that question, I'd just assume that he's trying (as usual) to provoke a fight. Like most species of pest, he's only annoying if you pay any attention to his inane utterances.

Mark Lipton

Reply to
Mark Lipton

Hi Ric,

I think UC is finding humor in the fact that neither French wine academics, nor Joe Six-Pack, were able to distinguish between an aged wine of a good or bad vintage.

I do actually find that funny, because I'm tired of the incessant manner in which wine is held on a podium by certain people who don't appreciate how it was made or what it really is about, beyond the pricetag.

Here's a study I'd like to see. A home vintner's wine slipped into the study. I'd like to see if anyone would pick it out (for better or for worse).

Further, I'd like to see what might happen if *any* wine was bottled into two different bottles: 1) a high-priced label, and 2) a bottle with a junque Trader Joe label. Hands down, I guarantee that the high-priced bottle would receive praise, while the lesser one would be downplayed as a fluke.

Hence the reasons for blind tests. People in this business are too-often swayed by brands and names, than by what their senses are telling them about the wine.

And hence, the funny aspect that such tests demonstrate that the quality of many wines, if produced correctly, can easily overcome "good" and "bad" vintages. I've noted time and again, that some bottles I buy are too acidic, didn't undergo MLF, are still undergoing MLF after I open them, have too much TA, have too much sulfite, are too biting/tannic and need a few years to age, etc. etc. etc.

To what degree are all of these things -- which are entirely dependent upon the experience and knowledge of the vintner -- and their tendencies to inject so much personality into their wines as to destroy them -- then blamed on the wine coming from "a bad vintage"?

Really. Bad vintage? If dealing with a particular terroir, perhaps. But industry-wide? Can it be possible that an entire crop of grapes is so bad such that every bottle out there is crap? More often than not, I chock it up to the vintners not paying enough attention to what the grapes they're working with are like. The grapes talk to you. They show you what they have to offer. Sugars, acids, sulfites, tannins... all of these things can easily be discerned through careful attention. A skilled vintner can easily overcome most of these problems. Why, then, is there such a thing as a "bad vintage"? What it tells me is that vintners, on average, are asleep at the wheel. The good ones will continue to produce a good wine. The bad ones will be discounted and sold as such.

And tests conducted years down the road on wines will expose a lot more about the skill of the vintner, in terms of finding the right sulfite and TA levels to assist in the wine's longevity, than anything related to the quality of the grapes at harvest. After all, if the grapes were bad, they'd not produce a wine capable of lasting more than a year or two, anyway.

Just my TA .02%.

Thanks,

David

Reply to
Dave

I'd still like to see what wines were used in these studies (from Weil's comments there were more than one study). One would assume for any validity they were comparing the same wine from different vintages. But were those randomly chosen? There are innumerable cases where I think a non-heralded vintage is better for a particular wine than a more touted vintage, and one would also isolate for drinking window issues (for instance, I would prefer to own most 1996 or 2000 Northern Medocs over their 1997 or 1999 counterparts, but if I was ordering in a restaurant with no real decant time I'd choose the more ready to drink vintages rather than a closed down wine).

I just found one study online

formatting link
Looks like it only used one wine, the 1991 & 1994 Pensees de Lafleur. Now, 1991 would probably be my pick as worst Bdx vintage of last 20 years. But 1994 is a rather hard tannic vintage, not one I'd pick as a crowd pleaser. Most 1994s I still decant for hours. More interestingly, the Pensees de Lafleur isn't a chateau, but the second wine of Lafleur. Does anyone know if Lafleur even made a first wine in 1991 (I know they didn't in 1987)? In any case I'd bet that a lot of wine that normally makes it into the first made it into the Pensees in 1991. For validity a test would have to choose a wine that should be more or less comparable. The variability of what is used in a second wine makes it particularly unsuited for such a test in my opinion.

As one can note from study and from this link

formatting link
the French wine academics were 100% at identifying the correct vintage, so the Wikipedia article is just plain incorrect there. It does note that almost half of the academics preferred the 1991, after correctly identifying it. As I noted, I love the idea of Wikipedia and consult it fairly often, but the nature of the beast is such that at any given time someone with an agenda can make any point they wish, until someone else decides to rectify.

I do maintain that there are great bargains to be found in non-touted vintages - I snap up wines I think are good from 2000 Burgundy, 2001 Bordeaux, 1998 Napa, etc when I see them, and enjoy the bargain prices compared to the so-called "great" vintages. But I wouldn't buy blindly from 2002 Piedmont, Tuscany, or Rhone - certainly there are some good wines, but there are plenty of losers. And I'm very wary of many 2003 European wines, as the character is often one that doesn't appeal to me (even if I can note they are in styles that might be quite popular with others).

I'm not a fan of numerical vintage charts, but for different reasons than Weil:

1) Reducing a vintage to a number ignore the character of a vintage, and some prefer riper vintages while others prefer cooler. 2) on the same general idea, numerical ratings that are partly based on potential give people back ideas re what is good now 3) there are always overachievers (and underachievers) in every vintage. 1983 has a rep as a bad Burgundy vintage, but I've enjoyed wines from Chevillon, Mongeard-Mugneret, and Rousseau.

Certainly I think there is less variability in the New World than the Old. And wines made from bigger sources (regional wines ) are probably less variable than say single vineyard wines. But most of the wines I drink vary noticably between vintages, though often that might be a stylistic difference more than a qualitive one.

Reply to
DaleW

That's not so unreasonable. What would be telling is if the lesser (labeled) one would be rated lower even though the wine itself is identical. It =is= a fluke when an ordinarly poor winery makes a good wine (as is the reverse).

Probably not. But an entire crop of grapes can be (on the average) of lower quality (however measured) than it would have been in other conditions, or than other years. However, this may mean that certain "pockets" of grapes which =would= have been bad (let's say, having too much JGB) turn out really well (because conditions this year did not allow for the formation of much JGB, and all the other wines have too little now, but this one's just right).

I'll buy that.

"lasting" is just one aspect of wine quality.

Jose

Reply to
Jose

That wine from 'appalling' years is just fine!

Reply to
UC

Almost all tastings are done blind; no labels for the tasters to see. Any tasting done where the tasters see the label is inherently flawed - for the very reasons you cite.

Reply to
Ric

It seems some of your questions at least are answered in the article cited by wikipedia

formatting link
But to be honest I couldn't be bothered to read it in detail.

Reply to
Steve Slatcher

Steve, thanks, I missed the wikipedia link, though I found another copy of the study (but without the charts) on the web. I must say that I find the choices bemusing. I already stated above that I find using a second wine such as Pensees de Lafleur to be a curious choice, since it by nature such a variable wine. Well, now that I see the charts, I find his choices even more curious. Myself and others hear have talked before about how much we disliked "California" designations in vintage charts that were obviously about Napa/Sonoma wines. And Dr. Weil chooses as his representative.....Ridge Santa Cruz?

My dislike of vintage charts is partially based on the fact that there are always over & under achievers, and charts are neccessarily oversimplified. But Weil seems fall in the same trap, drawing huge conclusions based on very limited samples (if you were comparing vintages as opposed to wines, wouldn't you use more than one wine at a time? Shouldn't have been hard to locate more a dozen 96/97 Tuscan pairs! ). I'm no fan of vintage charts, but this study just seems ...weak.

Steve Slatcher wrote:

Reply to
DaleW

ANY very good wine from an 'appalling' year makes the vintage chart basically useless. Good wine can be made almost anywhere, in any year, if you try hard enough. But i must say that 1989 in Piedmont was something to rave about.

Reply to
UC

Some years are better than others. You would agree with that.

The Vintage Charts generally reflect benchmarks only and not specific wines.

Like 1997 was an excellent year for Napa but Silver Oak did not perform up the the average for the vintage with it's Alexander product.

Others were much better.

Benchmarks reflect averages only.

I support the vintage charts but winemakers would prefer not to use because if they have say vintage 2000 being sold and 2003 is rated as a vintage much better the pricing is affected on the 2000.

Then when a great vintage dwarfs another very good vintage pricing again is affected.

Reply to
Richard Neidich

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.