Does vine age influence wine quality? 18 October 2005

It’s always a good idea to challenge these ideas that just continue without explanation or justification – so thanks for asking. First, let me say that in this case I was looking for a reason why the Tokara Red had some indications that it wasn’t going to be a long-lived wine, and I thought one explanation might be that it came from young vines. It happened that way round!

It is not just winewriters who have this belief, in fact. It is built into many of the appellation rules in France, for example, which state the minimum age of vines allowed (usually three years, sometimes more) for wine production. And most of the top producers divert young-vine wine to a second label. But, this is generally for unirrigated vineyards, which Hans suggests is a different matter.

To some extent the prejudice might relate to yield: young vines tend to produce more generously, and there is a feeling (also challenged by some people) that this is detrimental to quality. Of course, canopy management, irrigation, etc, can change all this. There is quite a lot of hype about genuinely old vines producing their best wine – again this might relate to much lower yields, and perhaps to the idea that the roots are going deeper and therefore finding more and more interesting nutrients (also not a totally convincing idea to everyone). I think in this country the produce of the older chenin blanc vineyards tends to support the idea that old vines, for whatever reason, produce better wine than younger ones.

There's some useful recent experience in Australia, perhaps, where huge international success has led to a great deal of new plantings and of lots of young-vine wine being rushed into expensive bottles. I have seen many comments from Australian show judges (who tend to be pretty technically competent) about what they regard as the consequent lack of concentration and quality.

It should also be pointed out, incidentally, that some people who make remarks like mine about the Tokara, also accept that very young vineyards CAN also produce superbly for a year or two, then go into a bit of a decline for a while. Klein Constantia’s first Sauvignon Blanc, for example, was probably one of its best, and certainly quite long-lived.

I would hazard a guess that there is something like ‘vine balance’ that comes into it all. In its extreme youth there might be a real balance, not only between the amount of fruit the vine bears and its vegetative capacity, but also some in more fundamental relationship with the soil. That this balance is disrupted for some years, while the vine comes into harmony with its environment – once that harmony is achieved, the wine it produces will be better.

That’s about all I can do to justify my original statement. I don’t know of any research into the matter. If anyone out there can offer some more authoritative views than mine (pro or con), I’d be delighted to hear from you. Till then, I'll be a little more careful about making glib statements in this regard!

Yes, I am still an avid reader of Grape over here in Kiwi land. Certainly, it is a much better read than any of the glossy picture books that we receive here that masquerade as serious wine commentary.

I read your reply to Hans Moser regarding ‘Does vine age influence wine quality?’ And was pleasantly surprised by the lucid and well reasoned response you made. The reason I say ‘surprised’ is that it has annoyed me over the years how wine writers (without sufficient technical knowledge) latch on to these unproven truths to make wholly unreasoned assumptions pertaining to wine quality. In this instance you have substantiated that assumption, albeit by falling back on a collection of anecdotal evidence.

It is worth noting that one of the most revered vintages produced by Domaine de la Romanee Conti from the Romanee Conti vineyard was the 1953. This vineyard was wholly replanted in the late 1940s. Now you may say that the exception is one that proves the rule. However, I would reason that ‘vine balance’ (as you stated in your reply) is how great wines are produced but also believe that ‘vine balance’ and young vines need not be mutually exclusive events. One can certainly impose this balance when vines are young via early shoot thinning, bunch thinning, lateral removal, shoot positioning and even ‘bunch sculpture’ (i.e. thinning late ripening shoulders from bunches and positioning bunches so that they hang freely). This requires the attention of extremely dedicated, experienced, hands. Only a few of these hands exist and therefore this type of approach is never seen on a large scale and seldom on a small. More often than not these hands are pushing pens rather than holding secateurs.

Incidentally, it is interesting to note another possible reason, and I quote the Burgundy experience again, why older vines generally produce better wines than younger. Most producers in Burgundy treat their young and old vines identically and don't impose this balance on their younger plantings. Their vines are almost always planted in an east/west row orientation resulting in the southern side of the canopy receiving efficient doses of sunlight, whilst the north is in constant shade, creating uneven ripening. However, once the vines age various old age syndromes set in such as viruses and dieback producing a far more open canopy which allows more light to the northern side of the canopy and hence evening up the ripening process.

Knowing this, it rekindles ones drive when faced with a parcel of young vines or establishing a new vineyard that a great and long lived wine can be produced. Only if the human element in that complex relationship called terroir is given its due importance, and one doesn't wait and rely solely on the site's inherent and supposed qualities, can this long gestation to greatness be overcome.