Old Vines: Always A Plus?

I was just reading Jenise's post on Vinfolio. After hurrying to place my order for 12 cases , I got thinking about the comment about the 60 year-old vines and other folks who use this as a marketing tool and sign of quality.

In a discussion with a winemaker who has 120 year-old vines on his property, he stated that his old vines did not make as good a wine as his new vines (15 years old). He indicated that the old vines were on old, unimproved rootstock, the clones were nothing like those one can purchase today, and the old vines had been through hell, i.e. various diseases etc. He said you could taste it in the wine and he's much happier with the new stuff's quality.

I suppose there are three categories of old vines, the well preserved ones, the not so well preserved ones, and those who have reached the end of their life cycle regardless of treatment, but it seems that "old vines" is used pretty indiscriminately on labels. Since it is an unregulated term, it can be abused, uh, used at will.

That's a question complex I think I'd like to raise with winemakers when I come across those using the term "old vines."

Any thoughts?

I do tend to like, it seems, much "Old Vines" Zinfandel. There is just something odd and intribuing about many of these wines, across the regions and brands.

(Except Bogle. Bogle Old Vines Zin tastes strongly of Welch's to me. Bleh).

Gary,
We like to think that the old vines are those which have been well tended. These are the ones which are allowed to age gracefully and because they are producing less fruit, the fruit they produce is remarkable.

Like you say, that's not always the case. It comes down to marketing.

Marketing will get you pick up the bottle once. It's the quality of what's inside that will gain you repeat customers.

[Jenise]

No. I think most would agree that old vines, good ones anyway, give wines depth that newer vines have yet to acquire. What would the great Bordeauxs be without old vines? But whether all wines benefit from that advantage might be a matter of taste--unlike Brian, I dislike OV Zinfandels, they're too heavy for my tastes and what he calls 'odd' is just plain wierd to me.

"What is old?" said jesting Pilate. To me, wine of real character requires that the vines be of at least a certain age. That's why AOC regulations in some areas of France put a lower limit on the age of vines that can be given the AC designation. In the US, though, the "old vines" designation carries no legal meaning, so virtually any wine can bear that name. Typically, I only see it used wrt to Zinfandel, and many of my favorite Zins come from old, head-pruned vineyards. I also really like some wines made from old vines in the Languedoc. One curious consequence of the times that we live in is that the oldest grape vines typically were grown on their own rootstock, so represent something that's otherwise almost impossible to find: wine made from vinifera vines on vinifera rootstock. People who know more about this sort of thing than I do have mentioned that non-grafted vines tend to give rise to lower alcohol wines so there does seem to be a real consequence to the kind of rootstock that vines grow on.

Mark Lipton

Difficult to respond to this one, as you're attempting to isolate a single element of a wine amongst an endless amount of others.

Are old vines always good? No, of course not. Can they be a major component of how a particular wine tastes? Yes, they can. Or that component can be so manipulated as to be submerged into mediocrity.

And yes, sure, a lot of it is hype. But anyone who has had the fortunate ability to taste a fairly wide array of "old vine" wines has to have noticed different characteristics amongst old and new vine grape style, and the wine that results.

Let's get away from the zinfandel category and look at syrah. Tahbilk, from Nagambie Lakes/Goulburn/Victoria in Australia, has a separate release of old vines syrah they produce. They are undeniably old vines, by anyone's designation or definition, because they were planted back in the 1800s. Each year there is a little bit less release, because each year the vines produce less and less fruit, and more vines succumb to old age and disease. Taste the old vines production next to the more prolific and much younger vines' production, and you can clearly pick out which is which, for they are entirely different creatures.

The old vines are more like trees, with thick, gnarled trunks; they produce very little canopy and very little fruit, but the fruit that does come is incredibly intense and concentrated, and usually makes the same kind of wine.

On one of the vineyards my company owns there is a single hillside vineyard of old vines Petite Sirah, all on its original rootstock too. It is small, looks scraggly, and produces very little fruit, but fruit of that same intensity---such intensity, I might add, that it is used selectively as a blender with other wines from younger vines, because it adds an element missing from those wines. And those of us familiar with the wines can always tell when some of that PS is in a blend, for it is distinctive.

And tagging on what Mark said in his post, I especially love the characteristics that age brings in Mourvedre/Monastrell and Grenache.

Finally, if vines are in any way like people (armchair anthromorphing, anyone?) isn't it almost always the case that maturity in a person brings more depth and complexity? (Mind you, a doddering old man is saying this. )

On the old vine vs new vine issue, I always have in the back of my mind a comment from Fiona Morrison Thienpont, Master of Wine and owner of Le Pin with her husband (she handles the vineyard, he handles the wine) -- she said she thinks that the better wines are made from the newer vines. Old vines just don't have that energy to produce the quality of grapes that come from newer stock.
cheers, Bonnie

On the old vine vs new vine issue, I always have in the back of my mind a comment from Fiona Morrison Thienpont, Master of Wine and owner of Le Pin with her husband (she handles the vineyard, he handles the wine) -- she said she thinks that the better wines are made from the newer vines. Old vines just don't have that energy to produce the quality of grapes that come from newer stock.
cheers, Bonnie

This echoes what my friend said and is the reason I tossed out this question for consideration.

A good old-vine wine will be better than a bad young-vine wine -- and vice versa.

I can argue either way here.

The usual argument for old vines is reduced output producing concentrated flavours, although you can do green harvesting on young vines.

Young vines are less likely to be virused.

But old vines, in many cases, only survived to be old because that block was recognised as producing superior wines.

If a bottle boasts old vines on its label then I want to read on the back label just how old.

I tend to like old-vine Zinfandel and old-vine red Burgundy. What I am looking for with these wines is concentrated flavor from sparse bunches of grapes that receive more sunlight per grape or cluster. One would assume too (maybe incorrectly) that the roots go deeper and may reach nutrients that are not present for the younger vines.

I used to think so until I learned that the 1978 Monfortino was made on very (very) young vines.

That wine was as profound as they come.

In such a case, I would disagree with those that simply take the argument that old vines that are misused are inferior. Sometimes, young vines truly are amazing.

Best,
Joe

Although I'm no expert most winemakers I know believe that vines produce deliciously flamboyant flavors when young and then after that it's mostly about time. Old Vines (see JC's point) may or may not have further access to nutrients and also clearly have further access to water reserves in the soil during short-term periods of drought.