Simple answer. WWJD?
I age wine to knock the edge off the acid and tannins. I like more age on my cabernet than I like for zins and field blends. I like the 4-7 year window for zinfandel and if I think a bottle will age longer I will hold one back and see how it evolves. This where buying multiple bottles of a release helps you determine when to drink it so you can drink it as it ages. There is no wrong answer to this, its your palette
I’ve been drinking zinfandel for 40 years. Other than Ridge, and possibly some Turley, Bedrocks and Carlisles, I would not age them for more than 5 years.
It is a wine that’s meant to be drunk young, while you wait for your cabernets and Bordeaux to age longer.
“Zinfandel is about emotion, where cabernet is more analytical.”
And even then, many California cabs won’t make it 10.
Interesting you tasted a wine made by Morgan and then his father, Joel. I just finished the book, Zinfandel - The History and Mystery from 1991 which focuses on Joel Peterson, Paul Draper and the other zin producers of that era. Highly recommended.
Just grab a glass of water and run his hands over it and have more wine.
I visited Piedmont twice some years ago as a lowly tourist (not a journalist or person of deep pockets). Producer after producer commented on how they (and most Italians) like to drink their wines much younger than Americans do. I remember in 2003, the daughter of Francesco Rinaldi commenting on how enjoyable the 1998/1999 Baroli were for current drinking. Most notable for me was Beppe (Giuseppe ) Rinaldi telling me he preferred Barolo around 8-10 years of age and that after 10 years it became a gamble. Beppe Rinaldi didn’t strike me as a man who would spout BS for a wine tourist. I didn’t feel it was my place to tell them they were drinking their wines too young.
I do think it’s a somewhat unique American experience to prefer Barolo quite so old (which I also find odd), but at the same time, the English often like their Bordeaux to be ancient, so it’s all relative.
I also think much of this is changing as serious wine is becoming much more approachable young in part due to global warming and in part due to better wine making practices. You could age your Comte Liger Belair, but who does, and why would they?
This was the first time I ever head somebody claiming this to be a “unique American experience”. From what I’ve seen, it’s a pretty global thing - and was normal for so many decades in Italy before they started making wines that could be enjoyed in their youth as well.
When I visited Produttori, I asked mr. Cravanzola, who was showing us around, whether they have any older bottles left. He said no, because they always sell all their production down to the very last bottle - which is a shame, because he thought their wines age so remarkably well. However, he said he knew a shop or two in Alba where he could always go and pick up a bottle whenever in need for older Barbaresco. So definitely not a “unique American” thing, even today.
My philosophy as well, though you’ve got about 5 years on me in experience.
Looks like a good book, will check it out.
Brian, I absolutely agree that you should be drinking your wine when you want it, at the stage of development you prefer, without reference to any consensus among the cognoscenti. And I have no idea when those particular bottles were/are “best” as they are not wines I have in my cellar, or really have much interest in.
For myself only, almost every wine I buy needs time in the cellar. And not just a little time either. The lone exception is champagne, which becomes magical when aged but is also (often? usually?) a delight when young. The lion’s share of red wines in my cellar (75-85%) is bordeaux, burgundy, borolo/barb, chianti/sangio, and rioja, and almost without exception I won’t open one at less than 10 years of age, and usually the rule of thumb is closer to 20. Different strokes and all that.
You could age your Comte Liger Belair, but who does, and why would they?
If you give me 5 $300+ bottles of recently released wine, a $75 wine budget for a 6th bottle, and 6 paper bags — I’ll bet >80% of the people on this board won’t reliably find the $75 wine. I and others from the board with me have witnessed this first hand with individuals now considered to be ‘professional’ critics. So, no slight to the board intended. Perhaps a modest slight to the critic intended. 
I don’t find the differential between ‘the best / most expensive’ wine and a lesser producer who hit it out of the park when the wines are young. When it first came out, we used to joke that the 1994 Bryant Family tasted like a better Zinfandel than most Zinfandels. It’s no different today. Why spend $300+ for a newly released wine to drink next week where a paper bag and a $75 selection will give you 99.X% of the same experience? That’s even more true for less experienced people.
As far as aging goes, you only have to have so many great older bottles of wine to understand why people would age them. I would rather drink a bottle of 1982 Beychevelle or Pichon Lalande than a bottle of their 2016. If you feel differently, it doesn’t mean you’re wrong, less sophisticated, or have bad taste — it does, however, suggest you might save your money and buy fewer expensive wines and more paper bags.
To be clear, I meant drinking them with as much age as Americans do. I have a number of friends who love Barolo from the 50s and 60s, and it’s an common theme; I’ve never seen enthusiasm like that anywhere else for Barolo that old, including from the winemakers themselves. I am happy to be shown to be wrong.
That does not at all mean that people in other countries don’t age Barolo, which is not what I said.
I’m not sure what point you were making here with respect to CLB - or is it just about the price?
Well, compared to how small country Finland is, we have a thriving community of Nebbiolo lovers here. Every year we have multiple verticals and other tastings that focus only on aged Nebbiolo, i.e. wines from 1980-1950, occasionally even older bottles. Not just Barolo, but also Barbaresco, Alto Piemonte, Carema and Lombardy. And I don’t think we’re the only people in the world doing that.
It was just about expensive wines, generally — as, I thought you just pulled out CLB as a general concept as opposed to a specific wine. But, I may have misinterpreted.
Completely disagree and rarely if ever drink blind. For me a big part of the joy I get is knowing exactly what Im drinking, who made it, where its from and when i got it. I understand some people like to drink out of paper bags. Have at it
The best Produttori I have tasted was a 1964
What a coincidence! The best Produttori I’ve tasted was a 1964 as well! ![[highfive.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/d/db21b9263a9105e51f6f8b11e61dd4de095611f9.gif "highfive"){kind=small}
(Well, not really a coincidence, considering 1964 is one of the greatest vintages in the past 100 years…) 
My Bedrock experience isn’t vast, but what I’ve had on release has been fantastic. They seem to also have the stuff to age, so I have to assume some will find excellent mature sweet spots. To me, that’s fun. Most consumers do drink their wine soon after purchase. One thing to consider: your '11 Bedrock may develop into something special in the future. If and when are questions. There’s always another question. Much to strategize about. How much, what balance of young and mature wine do you actually drink? Not much point buying an aging a much larger number of wines than you would actually open. If, another decade from now you went to open a mature wine, would you grab for one of the bottles you took a risk on aging or one you had a reasonable degree of certainty would be showing well at that point? Which wines would likely be those “bad pennies” that, while on paper would good guesses to age, but you may never get around to opening?
I agree with the rest of your post, other than that I’m not really sure there is some strong “groupthink” about aging new world wines. Most people around here seem to drink them younger, and when the topic of aging new world - and particularly California - wines comes up around here, all or most of the disdain is directed at the idea that they are worth aging.
Could anyone show me a few WB threads where there is strong groupthink or consensus in favor of aging California wines? If much of this thread is about reacting to groupthink, we might pause first and see if that even exists.
50 years ago, Barolo and Barbaresco were very different wines than those produced these days. Back then you really needed age to make them approachable. But then they were glorious.