We've all heard of peopel paying huge amounts for an 1804 bottle of
Chateau Margaux, only to find it tastes of vinegar - has anyone ever
tried recreating period wine using the grapes and methods of the
time ? I'd pay for a bottle of 'mock' Caecubian, or an 1850s Hock -
wouldn't it be great to taste a wine as experienced by our
predecessors ?

Mike Gooding
--------------------

Mike Gooding wrote:
> We've all heard of peopel paying huge amounts for an 1804 bottle of
> Chateau Margaux, only to find it tastes of vinegar - has anyone ever
> tried recreating period wine using the grapes and methods of the
> time ? I'd pay for a bottle of 'mock' Caecubian, or an 1850s Hock -
> wouldn't it be great to taste a wine as experienced by our
> predecessors ?
>

Wouldn't you first need to have vineyards of old franc de pieds vines?

That seems obstacle enough to me...

-E

On Jul 22, 5:41*am, Mike Gooding > wrote:
> We've all heard of peopel paying huge amounts for an 1804 bottle of
> Chateau Margaux, only to find it tastes of vinegar - has anyone ever
> tried recreating period wine using the grapes and methods of the
> time ? *I'd pay for a bottle of 'mock' Caecubian, or an 1850s Hock -
> wouldn't it be great to taste a wine as experienced by our
> predecessors ?

Beside the problem in using the exact varieties and clones of the
grapes used in the past, one would have to use exactly the same
methods of fermentation, wood aging, etc., and I doubt if all of this
information could be obtained in exacting detail for many wines.

There are still a few wines from the far past that still are good.
Michael Broadbent has tasted the 1727 Rudesheimer Apostelwein from the
huge cask in the Bremer Ratskeller which was still decent. Of course,
being in cask, the wine in the cask must be topped off with high
quality Riesling now and then, so this is not a pure 1727 wine.
Broadbent also tasted a bottle of 1846 Schloss Johannisberger ,
presented by Prince Metternich, and it still was very good. Several
vintage Maderias from at least 1789 on are still outstanding. Several
vintages of Constantia from the late 1700s and early 1800s have been
reported to still be very good. True Tokaji Essencia , back to at
least the early 1700s likely is still good. One could find a few
examples, such as the 1811, at auction many years ago. Much of the
really old examples seem to have been lost during WWII.

cwdjrxyz wrote on Wed, 22 Jul 2009 11:43:15 -0700 (PDT):

> On Jul 22, 5:41 am, Mike Gooding >
> wrote:
>> We've all heard of peopel paying huge amounts for an 1804
>> bottle of Chateau Margaux, only to find it tastes of vinegar
>> - has anyone ever tried recreating period wine using the
>> grapes and methods of the time ? I'd pay for a bottle of
>> 'mock' Caecubian, or an 1850s Hock - wouldn't it be great to
>> taste a wine as experienced by our predecessors ?

> Beside the problem in using the exact varieties and clones of
> the grapes used in the past, one would have to use exactly the
> same methods of fermentation, wood aging, etc., and I doubt if
> all of this information could be obtained in exacting detail
> for many wines.

I dont want to pay for ancient wines and I'm not well enough
known to be offerred them :-( However, I sometimes wonder if they are
as good as writers say or is it just sentiment that would be disproved
by a blind test if anyone could bring themselves to do it?

--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

On Jul 23, 10:19*am, "James Silverton" >
wrote:
> *cwdjrxyz *wrote *on Wed, 22 Jul 2009 11:43:15 -0700 (PDT):
>
> > On Jul 22, 5:41 am, Mike Gooding >
> > wrote:
> >> We've all heard of peopel paying huge amounts for an 1804
> >> bottle of Chateau Margaux, only to find it tastes of vinegar
> >> - has anyone ever tried recreating period wine using the
> >> grapes and methods of the time ? *I'd pay for a bottle of
> >> 'mock' Caecubian, or an 1850s Hock - wouldn't it be great to
> >> taste a wine as experienced by our predecessors ?
> > Beside the problem in using the exact varieties and clones of
> > the grapes used in the past, one would have to use exactly the
> > same methods of fermentation, wood aging, etc., and I doubt if
> > all of this information could be obtained in exacting detail
> > for many wines.
>
> * * * * I dont want to pay for ancient wines and I'm not well enough
> known to be offerred them :-( *However, I sometimes wonder if they are
> as good as writers say or is it just sentiment that would be disproved
> by a blind test if anyone could bring themselves to do it?
>
> --
>
> James Silverton
> Potomac, Maryland
>
> Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not


I like blind tasting. But not sure that it "proves" anything one way
or the other in this context. What ancient wines are you testing? What
are you going to pair them with? If a panel prefers a 1959 Mouton
tasted blind next to a 1900 does it mean anything?

There's all sorts of issues with ancient (I'll define as preWWII for
my purposes) - storage issues, fake bottles, etc. There's one
prominent advocate of old wines who I'm convinced is totally deluded/
unable to taste. But I also believe notes from people I trust on much
older bottles that they like. If '59 Mouton blind elicits guesses as
'82 Bordeaux and seems to gain in glass over night, what's to stop
that same bottle for aging another 50 years?

And of course there are different criteria one can choose. I don't
think anyone who likes Madiera doesn't like good 19th century
versions. But with red claret there are people who prefer young, and
others who prefer with a lot of age. So who did the blind tasting
would make a big difference.

DaleW wrote on Thu, 23 Jul 2009 08:07:31 -0700 (PDT):

> On Jul 23, 10:19 am, "James Silverton" >
> wrote:
>> cwdjrxyz wrote on Wed, 22 Jul 2009 11:43:15 -0700 (PDT):
>>
> >> On Jul 22, 5:41 am, Mike Gooding
> >> > wrote:
> >>> We've all heard of peopel paying huge amounts for an 1804
> >>> bottle of Chateau Margaux, only to find it tastes of
> >>> vinegar - has anyone ever tried recreating period wine
> >>> using the grapes and methods of the time ? I'd pay for a
> >>> bottle of 'mock' Caecubian, or an 1850s Hock - wouldn't it
> >>> be great to taste a wine as experienced by our
> >>> predecessors ?
> >> Beside the problem in using the exact varieties and clones
> >> of the grapes used in the past, one would have to use
> >> exactly the same methods of fermentation, wood aging, etc.,
> >> and I doubt if all of this information could be obtained in
> >> exacting detail for many wines.
>>
>> I dont want to pay for ancient wines and I'm not well
>> enough known to be offerred them :-( However, I sometimes
>> wonder if they are as good as writers say or is it just
>> sentiment that would be disproved by a blind test if anyone
>> could bring themselves to do it?
>>
>> --
>>
>> James Silverton
>> Potomac, Maryland
>>
>> Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

> I like blind tasting. But not sure that it "proves" anything
> one way or the other in this context. What ancient wines are
> you testing? What are you going to pair them with? If a panel
> prefers a 1959 Mouton tasted blind next to a 1900 does it mean
> anything?

> There's all sorts of issues with ancient (I'll define as
> preWWII for my purposes) - storage issues, fake bottles, etc.
> There's one prominent advocate of old wines who I'm convinced
> is totally deluded/ unable to taste. But I also believe notes
> from people I trust on much older bottles that they like. If
> '59 Mouton blind elicits guesses as '82 Bordeaux and seems to
> gain in glass over night, what's to stop that same bottle for
> aging another 50 years?

Oh, I haven't done it but I just wondered if a taster would say a
hundred-year old wine was "still very good" if they did not know in
advance what it was. Blind tasting of these expensive items is probably
impractical but I still suspect that sentiment plays a large part in the
comments.

--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:47:03 -0400, "James Silverton"
> wrote:


>Oh, I haven't done it but I just wondered if a taster would say a
>hundred-year old wine was "still very good" if they did not know in
>advance what it was. Blind tasting of these expensive items is probably
>impractical but I still suspect that sentiment plays a large part in the
>comments.

The BBC did a three programme series called "Wine" recently. Programme
1 was on Berry Brothers & Rudd. Much of it concerned their slightly
prickly relationship with Cos d'Estournel in the 2007 campaign.

The programme ended with a blind tasting at a dinner for in the BBR
shop in St James. The guests were people who buy expensive wine rather
than wine experts and the guest of honour was Jean-Guillaume Prats.

The blind wine was 1870 Cos, freshly decanted and those at the table
guessed as follows.

J-G P: Immediately, Bordeaux, Medoc.

They then went round the table

1st guest, younger than suspected, 1982 or maybe 1989
2nd 1989
3rd 1982
4th Older than the others thought, probably late 1940s
5th 1955
6th 1950s
7th 1964

Back to J-G P - his view was that it was seriously old, possibly 1949,
before settling back on a Pauillac or St Estephe from 1928 or 29

When told it was 1870 Cos he was the least surprised and said that his
father had considered it to have been the greatest Cos ever.

James