Why do some wines evolve and others merely last?

WINE TALK
21

Interesting question.
This situation particularly applies to CA PN.
Some can last 5-15 yrs.
Few actually evolve.

TTT

22

Balance, balance, balance…

23

Bruce,

good point about definition. Let me put one out there as a strawman…

Evolve means that the wine begins to show secondary non-fruit aromas and flavors as it ages and the fruit fades. Usually, this is closely associated with there being several such flavors, not just one.

To last means that the fruit loses freshness and becomes an older version of itself, but doesn’t reveal any hidden complexity.

I suspect that Matt and others above are right when they cite balance and complexity in the young wine as prerequisites for this. Balance is, I imagine, mostly a matter of viticulture and not screwing up in the winery… so let’s go here - why are some wines complex and others simple, even wines from the same grape?

24

There are some wines that age much like a body builder in atrophy. '94 Bryant and '95 Araujo are two that come to mind. They haven’t really developed or improved. In fact, they don’t even really taste much older, just smaller. There is less to taste than there was not long ago.

25

Rick,

Your question is almost existential. This is THE single greatest mystery of the wine world. Most of us would consider the ability of a wine to evolve (using your definition of “evolve” on this thread) as opposed to merely age as the one attribute which makes a wine great instead of good. You list many factors which can influence how a wine might evolve, and they are all involved. Some would argue that it all comes down to “terroir” – the sum of all the factors you have listed (and others) which ultimately give a wine its character, its age-worthiness, and its ability to evolve with age. As you point out, one can take DRC plantings and grow Pinot Noir elsewhere, but the resulting wine will in all probability not taste like a red Burgundy, much less a DRC, even if the grape vines are tended to and the wine is made by the folks at DRC.

Here is my somewhat simplistic approach to explaining terroir and hence to answering your question. Ultimately, it is all about organic chemistry. Wine is fermented fruit juice, and the best wines are made from the fermented juice of Vitis Vinifera grapes. The vine which produces the grape gives the grape its aroma and flavor profile from the production of volatile organic acids, sugars, and other complex organic molecules. The production of these chemical compounds depends on both nature and nurture, that is to say, the genetic attributes of the plant as well as the environment in which it is grown. Throw in the hand of man in farming the grape as part of the environmental component. So, by harvest time each grape has a relatively unique set of organic acids and sugars, and complex chemicals and molecules (including tannins), ready to influence the wine made from its juice. It is the short and long term reactions and interactions among these multiple chemicals, sugars, and organic compounds which make a wine what it is, and influence its ability to postively evolve with age. As heat influences chemical reactions, this now neatly brings in the effects of bottle temperature during the aging process.

The bottom line is that the unique set of organic acids, sugars, and other compounds and molecules in each grape at harvest, determined by the grape variety (nature, or genes) and site and vintage (nurture, or environement), with the influence of the winemaker, will give a wine that either is simple or complex, or evolves with age or merely ages.

Hope this helps, but the more I think about it, the more I like to think of it as an existential mystery! [cheers.gif]

Alex

26

I think there also is a difference between whether or not a wine is evolving and whether or not a wine is getting better with age…

I’ve had older wines that have evolved into a whole new wine - and that “new” wine is not necessarily a better wine…but it definitely evolved :slight_smile:

As for complexity - I don’t really know what, from a winemakers perspective, can make a wine complex - but I know complexity (for me at least) when I taste it…I would recommend for anyone ever looking for an intro into complex wine to take a taste of the 2004 Clos D’Agon Blanco…wowsa…

For me complexity is simply where there is a lot going on - a lot of different smells and tastes etc. and they all go together well…perhaps that is why wines that are overly dominant in one area are called one dimensional…

27

Lots of thought provoking discussion here. I have some deeper views and may chime in at a later date, but for now I want to bring up the point that some heralded wines are deemed ageworthy due to their structure and impenitrability. You hear people say, “when revealed the 86 Chateau _____ tasted like a new wine! I was shocked.” I’m not sure this is a good thing. Just because a wine doesn’t budge or shows primal after long periods of time doesn’t necessarily mean it is great; it can mean that it’s evolution is protractced or glacially slow (a bad thing for us mortals).

Matt H. noted the concept of balance and I think that is a key for longevity. For wines to evolve positively (because indeed, as Bruce L points out, they chemically evolve with age regardless), there needs to be a solid foundation (like a child that needs an education and discipline, but also joy and love to be nurtured into maturity).

Whether or not this aging is at all desirable is a matter of taste. I personally enjoy my wine at a phase where it still retains its primary fruit profile (perhaps not as glycerin or loaded at infancy) while layering complexity, gaining pitch and richness and secondary/tertiary aromas.

28

Great wines need concentration and balance. Excellent clones, great terroir, perfect weather, draconian selection, old vines. Great question.

29

1999 Bond Vecina. Had it tonight. Would NEVER have guessed it was more than 3-4 years old. No evolution. Fresh, viscous, dark, tannic, but not all that different from an 05 right about now.

30

Well, here’s another thread on the exact same topic, from a different place:

http://dat.erobertparker.com/bboard/showthread.php?t=226876" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The short answer is that nobody is absolutely 100% certain. “Aging” seems precise, but it’s not. There are many things that happen - various molecules polymerize, others break apart, others oxidize, others don’t, so if you search the scientific literature for explanations, and to some degree I have, you come up completely frustrated.

So let’s agree that “aging” means something like transforming into something different and something better. As a few people stated - a wine can keep well but not really evolve into a better wine.

A sweet white can age nicely - the bright sugar/citrus notes you might get initially become different. A big tannic red can also age, but that’s a slightly different process. Some of the things are exactly the same, but there are tannins that aren’t as available in the white. Some people say they polymerize and fall out as sediment. Other people say they mop up excess oxygen. Other people say they actually break up into smaller molecules rather than polymerize.

And then you have red wines w/out major tannins, like the Beaujolais I’m drinking right now, and they age magnificently, but obviously not on the big heavy tannins. So the whole tannin thing for red wines becomes questionable.

Moreover, you have wine w/out appreciable sugar and w/out appreciable tannin - say a dry Muscadet or white Burgundy or something similar, and they can also age. But what do they age on? Saying that a wine needs balance, needs acidity, needs fruit, needs whatever is nice but isn’t particularly helpful IMHO. I’ve spent a fair bit of time looking thru whatever scientific lit I can and surprisingly, there isn’t a hell of a lot of research into exactly what goes on in a wine as it ages. And with all due respect to Jancis, putting up a chart of the grapes that can age is essentially meaningless. It’s a chart of the grapes that to date have given her examples of ageworthiness, which is a very different thing entirely.

As far as WA goes, one of my nearly transcendent wine experiences in the last 2 years happened with a bottle I had. A friend brought over some Margaux and some other high ranking Bordeaux from like 1982 and some other great year, while one of the other guys brought over a middling but good 2000. We disposed of them fast and I pulled out a completely random wine I had no hopes for. It was just outstanding - they all guessed it must be some older Right Bank Bordeaux but nobody knew what. It was a 1987 Columbia Crest Barrel Select Merlot, clocked in at 13.3% alc, and it was frankly magnificent. Who knew? Monday morning I called Columbia Crest to buy all they had and they just laughed - they hadn’t even heard of that wine for years and it’s not made any more. So whatever they did, it was the right thing and it was only their fifth vintage.

31

I think Jancis Robinson said that there should be studies on how wine ages because it is not understood very well. I think she said it on Wine Library TV.

32

I agree. The problem is, who funds the studies? Cool thing to do a PhD on though, if one were so inclined.

33

Bronco wines in Napa should fund the studies or how about the Rothschilds, I know the economy is bad but do you suppose they are still doing okay?

34

Honestly, I never though about it. How many universities have oenology departments? I know about Davis. Could several universities just study certain wines over determined periods of time and study the molecular changes with whatever funding they have so it does not all fall on one?