When a cellaring time is given for a wine, is that taken as from the point
of release or from the vintage? i.e. if a 1998 is released in 2000 and the
cellaring time given is 5 years, is that 1998 + 5 or 2000 + 5?

Many thanks,

Aaron

I have always assume it was bottle time post release.

I have always assume it was bottle time post release.

On 30 Apr 2005 04:43:36 -0700, "Barbara S Koe" >
wrote:

>I have always assume it was bottle time post release.

Like in the 95 brunello reserves have had 3-4 years of cellar time?

On 30 Apr 2005 04:43:36 -0700, "Barbara S Koe" >
wrote:

>I have always assume it was bottle time post release.

Like in the 95 brunello reserves have had 3-4 years of cellar time?

"ajd" > wrote in message
...
> When a cellaring time is given for a wine, is that taken as from the point
> of release or from the vintage? i.e. if a 1998 is released in 2000 and
> the cellaring time given is 5 years, is that 1998 + 5 or 2000 + 5?

It depends. Strictly speaking, total cellaring time begins when the grapes
are crushed. Within weeks of then the wine sits in cask in the cellar of
the winery where it may remain for one to four years - sometimes longer -
before bottling.

OTOH, winemakers sometimes recommend cellaring time for optimum enjoyment of
their wines at maturity. That would generally be from the time the wine was
released to the market, and assumes normal wine cellar conditions. In your
example that would be 2000+5, at which time your 1998 vintage wine would be
7 years old.

Tom S

"ajd" > wrote in message
...
> When a cellaring time is given for a wine, is that taken as from the point
> of release or from the vintage? i.e. if a 1998 is released in 2000 and
> the cellaring time given is 5 years, is that 1998 + 5 or 2000 + 5?

It depends. Strictly speaking, total cellaring time begins when the grapes
are crushed. Within weeks of then the wine sits in cask in the cellar of
the winery where it may remain for one to four years - sometimes longer -
before bottling.

OTOH, winemakers sometimes recommend cellaring time for optimum enjoyment of
their wines at maturity. That would generally be from the time the wine was
released to the market, and assumes normal wine cellar conditions. In your
example that would be 2000+5, at which time your 1998 vintage wine would be
7 years old.

Tom S

How do you know when a wine was bottled? Or when it was released?
Usually the vintage date is the only one known because bottling and
release dates are not printed on the label. Therefore I always count X
years from the vintage date.

How do you know when a wine was bottled? Or when it was released?
Usually the vintage date is the only one known because bottling and
release dates are not printed on the label. Therefore I always count X
years from the vintage date.

Well - this, to me, is the most reasonable and valid way of measuring
cellaring time because, as you say, the vintage is the only concrete piece
of information you have about the wine. I was wondering if this was
standard or not.


"AyTee" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> How do you know when a wine was bottled? Or when it was released?
> Usually the vintage date is the only one known because bottling and
> release dates are not printed on the label. Therefore I always count X
> years from the vintage date.
>

Well - this, to me, is the most reasonable and valid way of measuring
cellaring time because, as you say, the vintage is the only concrete piece
of information you have about the wine. I was wondering if this was
standard or not.


"AyTee" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> How do you know when a wine was bottled? Or when it was released?
> Usually the vintage date is the only one known because bottling and
> release dates are not printed on the label. Therefore I always count X
> years from the vintage date.
>

Mike Tommasi wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 20:53:47 +1200, "ajd"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>When a cellaring time is given for a wine, is that taken as from the point
>>of release or from the vintage? i.e. if a 1998 is released in 2000 and the
>>cellaring time given is 5 years, is that 1998 + 5 or 2000 + 5?
>
>
> Cellaring time is counted from vintage year. Which is the only
> explicit indication on the bottle.

To me, it depends on who's talking about it. When I see Paul Draper's
advice on the back label of Ridge wines, I do assume that he means time
from harvest when talking about cellaring time. OTOH, when a critic
like Robert Parker talks about wine reaching maturity in 5-10 years, I
assume that he means from the time of the review (which is also dated).
I can't say that I've ever seen any "official" ruling on the subject,
though. I also take all such advice with a liberal dose of salt, since
the temperature at which you store the wine (and perhaps the amount of
variation in that temperature) will change the rate of development of
the wine and hence it's "drinking plateau."

Mark Lipton

Mike Tommasi wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 20:53:47 +1200, "ajd"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>When a cellaring time is given for a wine, is that taken as from the point
>>of release or from the vintage? i.e. if a 1998 is released in 2000 and the
>>cellaring time given is 5 years, is that 1998 + 5 or 2000 + 5?
>
>
> Cellaring time is counted from vintage year. Which is the only
> explicit indication on the bottle.

To me, it depends on who's talking about it. When I see Paul Draper's
advice on the back label of Ridge wines, I do assume that he means time
from harvest when talking about cellaring time. OTOH, when a critic
like Robert Parker talks about wine reaching maturity in 5-10 years, I
assume that he means from the time of the review (which is also dated).
I can't say that I've ever seen any "official" ruling on the subject,
though. I also take all such advice with a liberal dose of salt, since
the temperature at which you store the wine (and perhaps the amount of
variation in that temperature) will change the rate of development of
the wine and hence it's "drinking plateau."

Mark Lipton

In article >, says...
>
>Mike Tommasi wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 20:53:47 +1200, "ajd"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>When a cellaring time is given for a wine, is that taken as from the point
>>>of release or from the vintage? i.e. if a 1998 is released in 2000 and
the
>>>cellaring time given is 5 years, is that 1998 + 5 or 2000 + 5?
>>
>>
>> Cellaring time is counted from vintage year. Which is the only
>> explicit indication on the bottle.
>
>To me, it depends on who's talking about it. When I see Paul Draper's
>advice on the back label of Ridge wines, I do assume that he means time
>from harvest when talking about cellaring time. OTOH, when a critic
>like Robert Parker talks about wine reaching maturity in 5-10 years, I
>assume that he means from the time of the review (which is also dated).
> I can't say that I've ever seen any "official" ruling on the subject,
>though. I also take all such advice with a liberal dose of salt, since
>the temperature at which you store the wine (and perhaps the amount of
>variation in that temperature) will change the rate of development of
>the wine and hence it's "drinking plateau."
>
>Mark Lipton

AND, one also has to consider how they like a particular wine, grape, or
blend. If they are talking about a Chardonnay, or maybe a Zinfandel (just two
examples of many), they may like them young with vibrant fruit, or may like
some years on them, where many aspects "meld" together. My guess is that most
lists are rough expectations from the winemaker, as to a point, at which
aspects like tannins will abate and smooth out, while fruit will still be very
much in evidence - just a guide based on knowledge of the wine in tastings by
the staff, and not necessarily how a consumer might like it. Probably, buying
several bottles of a wine that one likes, or expects to like, then monitoring
its changes/developments is the best way to judge.

Some years ago, I did a tasting of Gil Nickles' Cabs and Chards from his Far
Niente lable. Of the twenty, or so, folk in the tasting, I liked the younger
Chards, because of their intense fruit, but choose the older Cabs. Everyone
else liked the smooth, well-balanced older Chards, and went for the young
Cabs, for their "aging potential." It was 19:1 in each case. I had no problems
with all of the others' choices, but they were not mine.

Hunt

Hunt wrote:
> In article >, says...
>
>>Mike Tommasi wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 20:53:47 +1200, "ajd"
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>When a cellaring time is given for a wine, is that taken as from the point
>>>>of release or from the vintage? i.e. if a 1998 is released in 2000 and
>
> the
>
>>>>cellaring time given is 5 years, is that 1998 + 5 or 2000 + 5?
>>>
>>>
>>>Cellaring time is counted from vintage year. Which is the only
>>>explicit indication on the bottle.
>>
>>To me, it depends on who's talking about it. When I see Paul Draper's
>>advice on the back label of Ridge wines, I do assume that he means time
>
>>from harvest when talking about cellaring time. OTOH, when a critic
>
>>like Robert Parker talks about wine reaching maturity in 5-10 years, I
>>assume that he means from the time of the review (which is also dated).
>> I can't say that I've ever seen any "official" ruling on the subject,
>>though. I also take all such advice with a liberal dose of salt, since
>>the temperature at which you store the wine (and perhaps the amount of
>>variation in that temperature) will change the rate of development of
>>the wine and hence it's "drinking plateau."
>>
>>Mark Lipton
>
>
> AND, one also has to consider how they like a particular wine, grape, or
> blend. If they are talking about a Chardonnay, or maybe a Zinfandel (just two
> examples of many), they may like them young with vibrant fruit, or may like
> some years on them, where many aspects "meld" together. My guess is that most
> lists are rough expectations from the winemaker, as to a point, at which
> aspects like tannins will abate and smooth out, while fruit will still be very
> much in evidence - just a guide based on knowledge of the wine in tastings by
> the staff, and not necessarily how a consumer might like it. Probably, buying
> several bottles of a wine that one likes, or expects to like, then monitoring
> its changes/developments is the best way to judge.

No probably about it: the soundest strategy toward finding a wine's
optimum drinking window is to buy several bottles (3+) and open one
periodically to judge the wine's progress. Of course, to know "optimal"
one must be willing to hold at least one bottle into its decline, but
sacrifices must be made in the name of science ;-)
>
> Some years ago, I did a tasting of Gil Nickles' Cabs and Chards from his Far
> Niente lable. Of the twenty, or so, folk in the tasting, I liked the younger
> Chards, because of their intense fruit, but choose the older Cabs. Everyone
> else liked the smooth, well-balanced older Chards, and went for the young
> Cabs, for their "aging potential." It was 19:1 in each case. I had no problems
> with all of the others' choices, but they were not mine.

Yeah, I've been the one dissenter in a number of tastings, usually when
I prefer the old, funky French wine to the young, oaky fruitbomb it's
being compared to.

Mark Lipton

Hunt wrote:
> In article >, says...
>
>>Mike Tommasi wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 20:53:47 +1200, "ajd"
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>When a cellaring time is given for a wine, is that taken as from the point
>>>>of release or from the vintage? i.e. if a 1998 is released in 2000 and
>
> the
>
>>>>cellaring time given is 5 years, is that 1998 + 5 or 2000 + 5?
>>>
>>>
>>>Cellaring time is counted from vintage year. Which is the only
>>>explicit indication on the bottle.
>>
>>To me, it depends on who's talking about it. When I see Paul Draper's
>>advice on the back label of Ridge wines, I do assume that he means time
>
>>from harvest when talking about cellaring time. OTOH, when a critic
>
>>like Robert Parker talks about wine reaching maturity in 5-10 years, I
>>assume that he means from the time of the review (which is also dated).
>> I can't say that I've ever seen any "official" ruling on the subject,
>>though. I also take all such advice with a liberal dose of salt, since
>>the temperature at which you store the wine (and perhaps the amount of
>>variation in that temperature) will change the rate of development of
>>the wine and hence it's "drinking plateau."
>>
>>Mark Lipton
>
>
> AND, one also has to consider how they like a particular wine, grape, or
> blend. If they are talking about a Chardonnay, or maybe a Zinfandel (just two
> examples of many), they may like them young with vibrant fruit, or may like
> some years on them, where many aspects "meld" together. My guess is that most
> lists are rough expectations from the winemaker, as to a point, at which
> aspects like tannins will abate and smooth out, while fruit will still be very
> much in evidence - just a guide based on knowledge of the wine in tastings by
> the staff, and not necessarily how a consumer might like it. Probably, buying
> several bottles of a wine that one likes, or expects to like, then monitoring
> its changes/developments is the best way to judge.

No probably about it: the soundest strategy toward finding a wine's
optimum drinking window is to buy several bottles (3+) and open one
periodically to judge the wine's progress. Of course, to know "optimal"
one must be willing to hold at least one bottle into its decline, but
sacrifices must be made in the name of science ;-)
>
> Some years ago, I did a tasting of Gil Nickles' Cabs and Chards from his Far
> Niente lable. Of the twenty, or so, folk in the tasting, I liked the younger
> Chards, because of their intense fruit, but choose the older Cabs. Everyone
> else liked the smooth, well-balanced older Chards, and went for the young
> Cabs, for their "aging potential." It was 19:1 in each case. I had no problems
> with all of the others' choices, but they were not mine.

Yeah, I've been the one dissenter in a number of tastings, usually when
I prefer the old, funky French wine to the young, oaky fruitbomb it's
being compared to.

Mark Lipton

"Hunt" in ...
> In article >,
>>
>>To me, it depends on who's talking about it. ...
>>
>>Mark Lipton
>
> AND, one also has to consider how they like a particular wine,
> grape, or blend. If they are talking about a Chardonnay, or maybe
> a Zinfandel (just two examples of many), they may like them
> young with vibrant fruit, or may like some years on them ...
>
> Some years ago, I did a tasting of Gil Nickles' Cabs and Chards
> from his Far Niente lable. Of the twenty, or so, folk in the tasting,
> I liked the younger Chards, because of their intense fruit, but choose
> the older Cabs. Everyone else liked the smooth, well-balanced older
> Chards, and went for the young Cabs, for their "aging potential."
> It was 19:1 in each case. I had no problems with all of the others'
> choices, but they were not mine.
>
> Hunt

That's an excellent point, Hunt. Surely many of us see this when we are
trying to assess wines seriously to our own taste. In blind tastings of new
products on the market (which I do regularly), exactly as with your account
above, I sometimes find myself preferring a wine because of its appeal right
now, but sometimes because it's obviously an ager with a future full of
promise.

This underscores the problem of comparing wine assessments, each of which is
distilled into a single ranking or number. It reveals little about weights
or preferences that went in to it, what wines it was tasted with, etc etc.

-- Max

In article >, says...
>
>"Hunt" in ...
>> In article >,
>>>
>>>To me, it depends on who's talking about it. ...
>>>
>>>Mark Lipton
>>
>> AND, one also has to consider how they like a particular wine,
>> grape, or blend. If they are talking about a Chardonnay, or maybe
>> a Zinfandel (just two examples of many), they may like them
>> young with vibrant fruit, or may like some years on them ...
>>
>> Some years ago, I did a tasting of Gil Nickles' Cabs and Chards
>> from his Far Niente lable. Of the twenty, or so, folk in the tasting,
>> I liked the younger Chards, because of their intense fruit, but choose
>> the older Cabs. Everyone else liked the smooth, well-balanced older
>> Chards, and went for the young Cabs, for their "aging potential."
>> It was 19:1 in each case. I had no problems with all of the others'
>> choices, but they were not mine.
>>
>> Hunt
>
>That's an excellent point, Hunt. Surely many of us see this when we are
>trying to assess wines seriously to our own taste. In blind tastings of new
>products on the market (which I do regularly), exactly as with your account
>above, I sometimes find myself preferring a wine because of its appeal right
>now, but sometimes because it's obviously an ager with a future full of
>promise.
>
>This underscores the problem of comparing wine assessments, each of which is
>distilled into a single ranking or number. It reveals little about weights
>or preferences that went in to it, what wines it was tasted with, etc etc.
>
>-- Max

Yes, that is one good reason for my liking DaleW's TNs and ratings, vis-a-vis,
say the WS 100pt scale. I care less about a grade, and more about what it is
that I am likely to encounter. Don't tell that RP gave some wine 95pts, just
tell me what it tastes like.

Hunt