Glover's Vineyard

Gardener Valley Road Upper Moutere

Home | Cabernet | Pinot Noir  | other Varieties |  Online Wine Shop  |   Terms of trade  |   Reviews  |   Newsletters | Links

Newsletter July 2002

Beware the dreaded Black Hole

Greetings,

Recently I was informed that one of our wines was off and in order to cut their losses they drank the whole case immediately. Although I don’t altogether blame them, for reasons I will outline below, I feel that this decision was not the smart one.
* * *
How often have you opened a bottle and decided that you wished you had done it earlier or conversely you wished that you had left it longer?
In the second case the night does not have to one of despair and desolation. Sure leave the rest of the box for a later time but with the bottle that you have taken the cork out of give it a little (or lot) of air time. This does not mean just taking the cork out and putting it by the heater. The wine surface area exposed to the air is negligible and not a great deal happens. Give it heaps! From a great height pour the entire contents of the bottle into a decanter. Has the smell improved? More fruit but not enough? Then do it again and, if necessary, again. Then put the decanter near the fire for a while. The effect is not quite as good as a few years bottle age but, with a wine with any sort of structure it usually helps. Or , if you aren’t initially game to commit the whole bottle to this inhumane treatment, put a little in a glass, cover it with your hand, and give it a massive shake. Then smell the contents. A milder alternative is to take a glass out and leave the rest of the bottle until the next day.
* * *
How do you tell whether it is too early or too late for a wine or put another way when is drink time. It is not as easy as it seems. Some wines may seem thin or dried out and one assumes that they are knackered. This is not necessarily the case. Most wine drinkers have heard of a wine going through a tunnel (or entering the black hole). Often with a white like a chardonnay it is at about a year after bottling and may last a varying amount of time. I suspect a wine enters the tunnel at the point where it has lost most of its primary fruit and leaves it when it has had time to pick up secondary characters. Of course a wine needs some structure: tannin, acid, sugar, SO2, or even sulphides to ensure that it lives long enough to emerge from the tunnel. At that point the structure component comes more into balance with the (complexed) wine. In the case of tannin, the actual level of tannin 
in solution actually falls and fruit components become more evident. I have seen (10yo) wines that have (remarkably) lost all their tannins and pure (Ribeena in one case) fruit characters exposed. During their time in the tunnel they have seemed quite dumb. So there is a way to estimate drink time. If the wine is unyielding but has no structure components as listed above then it has probably had it. If it has structure of some sort there is a chance, particularly in the case of tannin, that it will come right. Giving it varying degrees of air time as outlined above will give some indication of its longevity and maybe even give one hope for its future. I met a guy once who claimed that he had a formula for bottle age as a function of time spent in a blender. It seems a bit bizarre but it might not be far off the mark.
* * *
In the case of red wines one of the more important factors determining tannin levels is skin time, the total time spent on skins. Generally speaking colour levels continue to increase up to day 8 or so and therefore , unless you want a wine for very early drinking one may as well leave it up until that point. After then colour drops marginally, while the tannin level continues to rise. Most wine for ageing has skin time between this point and about a month. The colour is stabilised by the tannins so there are benefits in some extended maturation on skins. There is a trade off between early drinkability and stability. In general our wines spend two weeks on skins which usually gives a tannin level that I think is appropriate and also gives a good environment to at least partially complete malolactic fermentation. There have been a few exceptions to this rule. In 1991 the Pinot stayed on for 3 weeks and developed a massive tannin load On observation of this the Cabernet, which was picked later, was only allowed 3 days on skins - and was equally tannic. Such was the (very hot) year. The evolution of those wines has been similar. It is only in the last year or two that the primary fruit has begun to peek through. But it has - and big-time. The other exception was 1997 when the Pinots were left on for a month with the consequent high tannin levels. The theory was, and it is well documented , that the tannins eventually build up to a point were they polymerise and fall out. That was the theory! The wines , which were in the first couple of years reasonably enjoyable for lovers of big tannic wines, have now entered a tunnel where they are going to be for some time. In retrospect it wasn’t that smart a thing to do because when one drags a five year old wine out of their cellar they expect it to be at least showing a little indication of where it is going.
* * * 
But now a little more about Black holes. There has possibly been a heap written on this subject because the problem is extremely widespread. The wines outlined above are in exalted company. At Christmas time we had a couple of good 1994 Bordeaux Decru-Beaucaillou and Cos D’estournel , wineries right up in the top of the pecking order. Robert Parker, who is not known for a high tannin tolerance declared them stars of the vintage. When we drunk them with both it was the same : “ There is no one home - Come back in 5 years - minimum!” I guess I have always known of the black hole phenomenon without giving it much thought. With my own wines, I sample them often in the first couple of years (a) because they are new and I want to become fully aquainted with them and (b) because we are selling them there is always a bottle or two open. After this time new wines enter the scene and if one wants to drink an old one it may as well be a fully mature one.
The same is true of the wines that I buy. I sample them to find out what to buy and, because I have a preference for properly structured wines that go the distance, I tend to let them do just that, and consequently not taste them in their black hole phase.
I have a (possibly totally spurious) model for the black hole in red wines. They are like a Hubbard serial with its raisins and yoghurt covered raisins YCRs. The wine has its Fruit goodies FG , little tannins LT and its Tannin Covered Fruit Goodies TCFGs or TCY(ummies)s for short. During the first stage of development of a wine the LTs disappear at a faster rate than the FGs so that at about three years the wine tastes pretty good. Then the FGs disappear leaving the rather harsh exterior of the TCYs. This coating is breaking down as well but it is taking its time. The wine has now entered the black hole. Eventually the break down is complete and the FGs at the centre of the TCYs emerge and it is all happiness again. As a big bonus, the wine, having taken its time in getting to this point is in a nice reduced state and probably has an extremely good potential lifespan, during which the remaining FGs will be converted into something quite different.
The concept of a black hole does not just apply to red wines. A traditionally made Semillon from the Hunter Valley should, in general be drunk in its first year or after five. In the intervening time, this high acid, low fruit variety is simply not home. Why plant a high acid, low fruit variety at all you may ask. Well the proof is in the pudding. Old Hunter Semillons have often been confused with top flight Burgundies , different variety I know but the aged examples can be similar. One of the very best examples of these is Tyrells Vat 1 Semillon, which is available (in limited amounts) in New Zealand. To my palate , contrary to the general rule, it would give any New Zealand white a run for its money.

* * * 
So to a drink time schedule for the Pinot Noirs.
I know nothing about the 1989 or 1990. I do not have any but they were both alive and well a couple of years ago. The 1991, as mentioned above, has really hit its straps. It will drink well from now for a few years. The 1993,1994 are much the same but give them air time (just one decant should do). The 1992 is still closed, needs severe air time but promises to be magnificent(We had a 9 litre for Michael’s wedding a couple of years ago and it was great). 1995 was a light year and although the wines are in good stead and may last for ages, they taste good now so drink them. The same for the (three) 1996’s. None in 1998. The 99’s are starting to taste quite nice by now but they too will probably enter the tunnel in the next year or two. After that they will need at least three years or so. The 2000 is reasonably approachable already, especially with air time. It is, at this stage at least, quite a different beast than anything before it. It too will probably enter a tunnel at some point but I suspect that it will not be as long or as dark in there.. That brings us to the problematical 1997’s , as mentioned above. They will probably need another five years, so if you can’t wait that long, or have consumed yours already , without satisfaction, then get in touch and I will try to work something out. One knows that nothing is as certain as death or taxes, but I am confident that these wines will have their day. The reason for this is the fruit that went into them. It was a very good vintage.
And drink time for the Cabernet Sauvignons.
I have not tried all the Cabernets in recent times, but being Cabernets, their longevity is not in question. The 89, 90 and 94 are fully mature, lovely wines. The 91 is a big beast, just out of the tunnel. It will live a long time. The 92 and 93 I tried last night and are much as I would have expected. They are both emerging from their respective black holes and another two years should complete the process. At the moment ,while still having reasonable tannins, enough of the TCYs have broken down to reveal some lovely primary fruit. They are not the biggest or most intense Cabernets in the line up but should provide satisfaction from now on in, especially with food/air time. The 97 and 98 are quite tight and should be given more time. The 99, a big wine, is tasting good right now but I think is probably headed for the tunnel soon. The 2000, just released, is a finer sort of wine, reflecting the vintage. The tasting notes are attached. It is probably one to drink before the 97, 98, or 99.
There are also two years of Shiraz, 1998 and 2000. I haven’t had all that much experience of this variety and will have to wait a little while to see what happens. They are not as tannic as the other two varieties but I suspect that they too are going to be long lived. After seeing the benefit of a couple of years in the bottle for the 1998 I would not be rushing out to demolish the 2000s . The 1998 tasted wonderful to me a couple of months ago and I am interested in tracing its development. With only 9 bottles in my cellar I am going to have to be very careful.

That’s all for now..
Dave

Newsletter July 2000

Newsletter November 1999