The intrigue, and sometimes pleasure of tasting older wines so often lies in the surprises they spring.

Earlier this week, I was reminded of how true this is when I joined the panel on Wine magazine’s annual retrospective of five year old whites and ten year old reds; that is 2005 and 2000. The line up in each numbered 42 wines, selected on the basis of pedigree with one or two wild cards thrown in.

Generally, neither vintage has among the best of  reputations: 2000, the year of the great fires on the Simonsberg and Cape Peninsula, was extremely hot; red wines were noted for good colour and fruit but high alcohols; many were considered to be early drinkers.

Five years down the line, 2005 defied generalisation. In a report I described it as `the driest, wettest, earliest and hottest, depending on exactly where you are.’ Even within short distances, there were marked differences. If the vintage defied generalisation, so too did quality of the line up including sauvignon blanc, semillon, white blends, chenin blanc and chardonnay. Colours were an immediate indication of this variation, ranging from exceptionally pale straw with green lights, the sort of hue one might expect from a wine of the vintage, rather than five years old.

One might have expected such wines to be closed with screwcaps but they weren’t; in fact this closure is used on only 11 of all 84 wines – and all white. I’ve read recently that today 65% of all bottled production is closed with screwcaps, so there’s been an enormous shift in the past five years.

As for advice on which style or variety might yield the best wines, that again is a difficult ask; there were good and not so good in each, though ratings often came down to personal preference. For wines rated at four stars and above, the individual taster’s score will, in some cases, show wide variation.

Given whites especially are sensitive to less than ideal storage conditions, one should also be wary of bottle variation. A wine that didn’t show well on this occasion might be a different story another time, another bottle.

Conclusions? And mind these are my personal views, sauvignons from a top site will do well even in a difficult year; the best chenins prove the benefit of ageing and we’ve come quite a way with chardonnay since 2005. That said, the majority of these whites aren’t going to improve any further, even if the best should make enjoyable drinking over the next two to three years.

The 42 reds – pinot noir, pinotage, shiraz, merlot, red blends and cabernet sauvignon – delivered much more consistency and most are still going strong showing well-defined individuality. If I have one criticism, it’s that many have aged without developing more interesting secondary character, but two five star wines, a four and a half star and a slew of four stars, across all categories, should convey the extent of our enjoyment. Given the whipping dog status of both merlot and pinotage, it was good to find both, albeit from few entries, provided the major positive surprises. If any group disappointed me, it was the blends, where true individuality is a sadly rare feature.

There was no mention of burnt rubber - though there was of Brett! – and possibly more of cork taint than there would be in current releases. Though there must’ve been a good deal of new oak, in the best wines it is now harmoniously integrated. But make no mistake, 2000 reds are big wines – my guess is the majority clock in between 14% and 15.5% alcohol, so they are best served around 16ºC.

All in all, this tasting provided a very worthwhile experience – and I do hope there are some of those top scorers in our cellar!