Which Variety Best Reflects Vine Age???

We all know, we've been assured by certain pundits, that PinotNoir...errrr...Nebbiolo....uhhhhh....Riesling...mmmm...Zinfandel....ahhhh...NapaVllyCabernet as a variety reflects its terroir better than any other grape. We have not been told, of course, why that chosen variety best reflects terroir, though I have some (unproven) suspicions.

Reading Camuto's article on Mazzoni of Ghemme in WS, he asserts that Nebbiolo expresses itself w/ age and doesn't start to show it's quality until the vines reach 15 yrs of age (which just happens to be the age of his vines). I've heard it stated that a Zin vine doesn't really start to achieve its quality until 25 yrs of age.

So....as a variation on the above shibboleth:

Which variety best reflects the age of the vine and at what age does it reach its best quality??

Extra credit: Why does that variety best reflect the vine's age???

No unsupported claims or guesses are allowed...only want the true facts!!!

Tom

Well, Tom, if you want only "true facts" about your question, you won't have many papers to grade!

[David M. Bueker]

Who the heck knows.

Who the heck knows.

Uhhhh...that, David, is a perfectly good answer, I think.
But just thought I'd toss it out there.
Tom

[David M. Bueker]

Is it different if the vine is grafted or un grafted?

what question best reflects the asker's age?

[Robin Garr]

David's answer is correct, if harshly put.

Thinking out loud, though, it's a great question for contemplation. I think I'm with you, Tom, in one of your points: California Zinfandel - or maybe better yet, ancient California field-blend vineyards - typically show me a character more different from young-vines wines, and infinitely more preferable, than almost any other that I can think of.

I've also had some awesome ancient-vines Shiraz in Australia that were far more persuasive than their younger-vine cousins, but that may in part be due to drinking them with the winemakers in their wineries/cellar doors.

[David M. Bueker]

If I was being harsh I would not have used the word "heck."

I can't answer your questions, Tom, but I feel that old-vine Zinfandel and old-vine red Burgundy distinguish themselves from wines from younger vines. I don't have enough experience with other varieties to make conclusions.

If I was being harsh I would not have used the word "heck."

David, you de man .

[David M. Bueker]

Jane,

I can tell you from first hand experience that Riesling vines show real improvement in wine quality when the vines get past 20 years or so.

Next, somebody should explain the word terroir to everyone's satsfaction. I've never understood it well enough to use it in my conversations pertaining to wine. Oh, and I don't miss that feat.

From a historical perspective, in the late 1860s, I believe, Ch. Lafite purchased a property from neighboring Ch. Mouton called Carruades. Lafite tore out all of Mouton's vines and replanted with their own clones. I believe the wines made from this property were segregated for 15-20 years before being incorporated into the rest of Lafite. Since then, with phylloxera and all, whenever any section of the Lafite vineyard is replanted, the wines from the younger vines are still called Carruades.
* Sorry for the "I believes", but I'm relying on my memory from a book I read almost 40 years ago.

[David M. Bueker]

Lots of wineries segregate the younger vines. Comtes de Vogue makes a Chambolle Musigny 1er Cru from the young vines (under 25 years) in Musigny. It's a great wine, but does not mean that Pinot Noir is the best at conveying the effects of vine age.

There is a lot of empirical observation that suggests that the “age of the vine” is a determining factor in the quality of fruit. It only makes a lot of sense. The deeper the roots etc.
Let’s just say a young vine is planted in a suitable location and is taken care of with a lot of TLC. Within its first year of growth a well-adapted root system for its location should develop. By the end of its fourth year of growth a functional relationship (or equilibrium) between the roots and microbial activity of the upper part of the vine should about be established. So if the vine-grower respects the developing vine-soil-climate relationship (or equilibrium) and regulates the harvest yield, by pruning, green harvesting, canopy management and using other viticulture techniques the vines “old wood” should establish a sufficient “reserve” or so called “stuffing” to produce a “desirable crop” year after year.
Older vines might be less sensitive to climatic variations and thus perform much more consistently when it comes to sufficiently establishing a “reserve” (or “stuffing) that is a prerequisite to produce a “favorable” crop that is desirable in the production of “quality wine”.

Salute

[Robin Garr]

If I was being harsh I would not have used the word "heck."

Darn good point.

[David M. Bueker]

We have engaged in lots of interesting conversation about how vine age affects wine quality, but no shock there is no answer coming through to the questions posed in the OP.

It's worth mentioning that while vine age tends to help quality, there have been more than a few "first crop" wines from very young vines that were extraordinary. That first crop tends to be rather small - i.e. natural yield restrictions. Older vines also tend to set a smaller crop (unless they are clones that were specifically selected for their large crop). I am no true disciple of the RMP "low yields are everything" school, but there is certainly something to be said for moderate yields as a factor in high quality wine.