Great set of questions. One thing I really like about the Broadbent 5 star scale, which is what I have used for about 20 years now after using the 100 point scale for the first few years of my serious tasting and documenting of tasting notes, is that it accommodates the notion of ageability/future performance in a way the 100 point scale cannot.
For example, if I say (****), then I think the wine has 5 star potential but is showing little of that full potential now. () might mean that the wine is starting to unfurl or it could be granted at release because the wine is showing more openly than usual or expected in youth. And then, hopefully, at full maturity I can say *****. At all points, I consider such a wine of the highest potential (meaning 5 stars)- in the second example I do not mean to imply the wine is giving a ** performance (which would be quite poor), but rather that it is showing a certain portion of itself openly. The brackets and maturity estimates give a sense of where a wine is on the aging curve, but the number of stars tell the tale of overall expected potential.
Expectations, and also the use of the brackets, will vary enormously depending on the wine being evaluated. Most top Bordeaux and Burgundy from “great” vintages are likely to have all their stars in brackets when I first taste the wine. This is based on years of experience with younger and older wines- plus now being of an age where I have been able to observe specific wines periodically as they age for 20+ years. Conversely, when tasting something like Vega Sicilia or Penfold’s Grange young- even if I give 5 stars I am almost certain to have most of the stars outside of the brackets because these wines will mellow with age and show some additional development, but already show much of what they have to offer at release.
And this brings me to a key point- age means change, but that could be significant change, moderate change or a mere settling and mellowing of the elements. There is also the caveat that age means risk- whether the elements age to some glorious and harmonious junction, or go out of balance. Provenance. Ullage, And all sorts of little unknowns that can affect a few glasses of grape juice sitting in a corked bottle for years or decades.
For my part, the ideal outcome is something like 2001 red burgundy. Gorgeous wines at release that showed much promise and aged very quickly- showing the delights that normally take 20+ years to emerge by age 10 in many cases. Shorter wait, less risk. I have had many a chuckle over the occasion post or comment worrying about 2001 reds aging too quickly. That is a dream come true scenario.
I say all this to make the point that the concept of age- to me anyway- has no absolute or objective value in and of itself. It exists within the context of the wine and the vintage, and becomes valuable to the extent which it is required for a wine to show at its best. And of course when a wine is at its best is also somewhat subjective based on the taster- but I think fairly objective when it comes to making an honest and educated evaluation of what is front of you. It is perfectly fine to say you like to drink La Tache young (and there is much joy in that), but it is an absolute truth that in virtually any vintage it will be showing far more development and subtlety at age 20 than at release. Though at age 20 it will have also lost some of that youthful excitement that makes it just as unique an experience at release as at full maturity.
And age, or the need for age, can also be a detriment. Some lament the changes at Chateau Ausone and wonder whether or not the current regime will produce wines that can perform like the great run of vintages they had in the 1910s and 1920s. It could well be that something is lost in the change- but who in today’s market is going to buy a wine that needs 50+ years to mature? Such wines had their time in an era when buyers of great wine were few in number, extremely wealthy, and laid down wines for their grandchildren as they drank the wines their grandfathers laid down for them.
With that said, to answer your questions directly,
- What value do you ascribe to perceived ageability in any wine you uncork and try?
None- but I do take into account whether the wine has sufficient structure and the proper balance to age to the point when it can deliver at its best. For me ageworthiness in and of itself only has meaning to the extent it will allow a wine to develop the full potential forecast in the total number of stars I give a wine. For something like 1992 Mouton, ageworthiness was of little importance in the evaluation of the wine since it was clearly destined to be consumed young (and it was a lovely wine in its day.) The 1998, on the other hand, is a monster of a wine and my five star rating was heavily dependent on the expectation that the wine has the balance of elements and structure necessary for it to show at its harmonious best in the distant future. That wine needed far more time than the 1992 to get to its best, and so the aspects of it that demonstrated ageworthiness were more important- but only in the context of anticipating a point in time when the wine would be an exemplary bottle of Mouton at full maturity, and only because that point in time was going to take far longer to reach than the 1992 was going to require to show its best. 1998 Mouton is a greater wine than the 1992 because of the breadth and complexity of the core fruit it presented- the question of when and where to drink either vintage is another matter entirely. There were certainly occasions 10-15 years ago when the 1992 would have been a more appropriate beverage in a given setting.
- Do you consciously assess ageability as part of your overall assessment of the majority of what you consume?
Yes- but after 25 years of serious tasting it is a more instinctive process now. Over the years I have paid it a great deal of attention though. I deliberately put predictions in my TNs so that I may look back at them later and learn from them. Those predictions have been the most valuable part of my self-education in wine tasting.
- If you do ascribe value to ageability, how much value do you ascribe to it as part of your overall impression?
Zero absolute value in and of itself- but potentially of great value within the context of the wine as a whole. 1984 and 1994 are great examples of Bordeaux vintages where there is sufficient structure to allow the wines to age for decades and remain structurally balanced (meaning that while they are hard they are not maderising or showing shrill acidity)- but the fruit was not there to go the distance with the structure. The wines are still useful and interesting at the top levels for very specific purposes, but they are not great wines. Ageability alone is meaningless unless the fruit is there and in proper balance with the other elements to justify waiting for decades before pulling a cork.
- Do you value it differently depending on the locale of the wine, the producer of the wine, or the variety of the grape?
Absolutely- it always exists and matters within the context of grape, producer and vintage- in that order most of the time.
- Do you value it differently than you did 5 or 10 years ago?
Objectively- no real change. In terms of personal consumption and whether I want to buy a wine for future enjoyment, it matters a great deal now since at age 46 I do not need to be buying Bordeaux vintages like 2016 or 2018 for the cellar.
1) yes, that is the concept that I was after, rather than “will it still have life”. 3) I think we’re on the same track—my thinking here was to ascribe the “potential to be even greater down the road” concept of ageability into an assessment.