Ramon F Herrera wrote:

> Despite being completely partial to red wine, I have been known to
> enjoy a glass of white from time to time. It is my understanding that
> when it comes to red, normally, "the older, the better" rule applies.


No, that's not at all correct. Most wines, regardless of color, are made for
current drinking, and will rapidly start to go downhill if not consumed with
a year or two of purchasing.

And even for the better, more expensive reds, they will get better only for
a certain number of years. Then they too will go downhill. For how many
years they will continue to improve depends on the particular type of wine,
who made it, and what vintage it is, and is never easy to determine.
Deciding when to open that prized expensive fine red you bought is a
difficult problem--too soon and you drink it before it reaches it full
potential; too late and it's faded and going downhill.

You often see messages here from someone who has found (perhaps in the
cellar of a deceased relative) a 20-year-or-so-old bottle of an inexpensive
red wine, like Mouton-Cadet. He wants to know how much the wine is worth and
how to go about selling it. The sad truth is that the wine is way past its
best days, is worth nothing, and is probably undrinkable.


> But what about white wine and age?


The same is true for whites. Most are made for current drinking and only a
few benefit from aging. The only differences are that the number of reds
that improve with age outnumber the whites that improve with age, and that
most ageworthy whites take less time to reach their full potential than
ageworthy reds do.

--
Ken Blake
Please reply to the newsgroup