Vinha Velha = Old Vines ... is it better?

[Roy Hersh]

In 1925, the Quinta do Noval "Nacional" vineyard was replanted after it had been decimated by the root louse known as Phylloxera (a "disease" currently discussed in other threads on FTLOP). In 1931, this small 2.5 hectare parcel of Nacional vines, which remained ungrafted; produced what is known today as the most legendary Vintage Port. This brings up a serious conundrum: given that the aforementioned '31 Nacional came from six year old vines ... what gives with all the attention being paid to the old vines in the Douro and elsewhere in the wine world?

Quinta de Vargellas Vinha Velha Vintage Port and Quinta do Crasto's Douro Vinha Velha Reserve (DOC red wine) both immediately come to mind as just two of many examples of marketing their old vines. There is no denying that both of these wines are pretty special stuff. But is it due to the old vines or like the 1931 Nacional, is it just a matter of great location, soil, exposition to the sun, etc?

Does it really matter if Port or Douro wines are produced from Old Vines? Today, Quinta do Noval's Nacional vineyard comprises an average age of just 35 years old and the Nacional bottlings are arguably the best made in the Douro. So, let's see what you think!

[JacobH]

But is it due to the old vines or like the 1931 Nacional, is it just a matter of great location, soil, exposition to the sun, etc?

Roy, I wonder whether the fact that these parts of the vineyards are known for their special vines becomes a sort
of self-fulfilling prophecy? I can easily imagine that, unconsciously at least, more care goes into the farming of these vines and the production of wines from them than at other areas, which would have a tendency to produce better wines, irrespective of whether there are substantially better conditions or whether the old vines produce considerably better wine. Of course testing such a theory would be pretty much impossible, but it’s just a thought!

[Kris Henderson]

Great terroir will produce great wine no matter the age of the vines. I can't say I've had the opportunity to taste two Douro wines or Ports with the only difference being the age of the vines. I have however tasted the 2004 Vietti Barbera d'Alba Scarrone and 2004 Vietti Barbera d'Alba Vigna Vecchia Scarrone side by side. The Vigna Vecchia version was considerably more open with more intense flavors and aromas. It also showed bigger structure and more complexity. At least in this case there was something added by the old vines.

[Eric Ifune]

I've heard that both young vines and old vines give good fruit. The vine vigour is low in both cases. Middle aged vines seem to be too vigourous. Threre are many methods now for reducing vine vigour, spacing, trelising, pruning, cover crops, ect. I think with modern vinyard management fine fruit can be grown with different vine ages. It's probably just easier with old vines.

[Frederick Blais]

First we have to define what is OLD VINES? Just like in California, the expression is overused for the Zinfandel. For some old vines are around 25 years old as they uproot at 30, for others 50,75... It has become a marketing tool that indicates quality... just like the Reserva word in many countries.

As general rules :
the younger the vines, the more cluster it produce.
the younger the vines, less the root system is developed and less deep it is.
the younger the vines, canopy is not yet big enough to protect the berries from the sun heat.

These 3 facts are proving that older vines makes it easier to manage your vineyard as less intervention is needed. In the Douro, older vines does bring better quality, especially for dry wines as it is more resistant to heat waves. It was especially true with the trio of very hot years from 2003 to 2005.

For some, from 35 years the vines start to be the best and it's averaging the best yield to make good wines, as for others, 35yo vines are not producing enough to be profitable...

[Roy Hersh]

Then how do you explain the 1931 Nacional, Fred?

[Frederick Blais]

First I think that there is always an exception to every rules.

Second, you've probably noticed too tasting all the pre-blended barrels, there is no real stuff coming from very young vines in the Douro.

Third, can Noval Nacional 31 be a myth all around? Is it possible that the Nacional parcel was 5 years old in 1931 but that it did not make 100% of the wine that year?

Fourth Can it be that young vines are not showing great in wines when young but amazing after 70 years?

All in all, have you ever seen someone shining the merit of young vines trough a wine and uprooting his vineyard every 10 years making it more like a crop field?

Bordeaux that has probably the best terroir, or proved that he could manage it in the best way had real trouble between 1962 and 1978 to do anything great. Because they where changing most of the vines from white to red combined with hail damage that render too many vineyards with very young vines.

Is Nacional 31 a real exception or a well built myth that they have all advantage keeping only for them?

[Andy Velebil]

There are a number of factors that come up with this question and there really is no right or wrong answer. But here are some things to keep in mind about the long-standing myth of young vs. old.

Young vines tend to do very well in their youth, just like kids. There is less leaf coverage produced, they are very vigorous, healthy, and they go full speed ahead. However, this can have a down side with too much growth and to many clusters. That leads to a LOT of crop management work and if not closely monitored can produce a poor crop. But if managed right can lead to an excellent crop.

Old vines are less vigorous and require a lot less work by the field workers to manage. This makes it much easier to produce better quality grapes with far less intervention. Obviously a large producer with many many hectares is going to have a harder time managing that larger young crop than a very small young crop (i.e Nacional vineyard).

Something people rarely think about is with a field of young vines the workers have very little experience in how those vines behave. Whereas with an old vine the workers (or company) has had 20, 30, or 80+ years of experience with those vines. That makes a HUGE difference. They know how they behave in different weather patterns, they know when to fertilize and when not to, when to do canopy management, etc. With young vines the workers are really flying by the seat of their pants for many years, until they learn how they behave.

The real issue comes up when vines reach that juvenile, shall we say teenage, stage. From many viticulturists and winemakers that I’ve talked to all seem to agree that this is the bad years for vines. They tend to do strange things for no reason, kinda like teenagers. They’ve all said this is the hardest time to get good grapes out of them. But again, when all goes right there can be some outstanding grapes in this range to.

So yes young vines can produce great things and so can old ones. See no right or wrong answer :hello:

[Tom Archer]

can Noval Nacional 31 be a myth all around?

It certainly seems to be an awful long time time since anyone had a superlative experiance from drinking this wine.

Could it just be that after getting an excellent result from the rest of the vineyard, people assumed that the elusive Nacional variant had to be even better, without ever putting the theory to the test?

It would be hard for any writer, after receiving such a royal treat, to state that the wine had failed to impress; so can anyone find a record of the two being tasted blind, back to back, and the Nacional triumphing?

Tom

[Roy Hersh]

I had the two side by side in a tasting in 2004. I was clear that I preferred the regular bottling and KNEW which they were (not blind) so I was not taken by the cache of the Nacional. It was still a very very solid VP but the regular bottling which I have had a half dozen times from various sources, was definitely better on that day.

As to the '31 Nacional, I've spoken to James Suckling, about it and also Cristiano Van Zeller, Bruce Guimaraens (David's father ... see newsletter) and Christian Seely ... all in person re: their impressions of the wine as I knew all four had tried it at least once. I've also read reports from various Port makers from the 1930s -1980s and journalists report who've written about it. There is a reason why it is a legend, the same way the 1963 and someday the 1994 also will be looked at with similar reverence.

Not a myth.

[Roy Hersh]

But this thread is not about one particular wine. It is really about OLD vines being better or not. We see "old vines" on Douro wines, Zinfandels here in the USA and wines from France, Italy and elsewhere too ... prominently displayed on labels of wine bottles.

Of course I am focusing on Port and wine from the Douro though as mentioned in the first post. Nacional ('31) was just an example. There are others like Vargellas, Crasto etc., as well.

[Marc J.]

It just seems to me that older vines produce a more concentrated wine. With that being said, the mix of grape varieties in the Nacional vineyard is a little different and I do believe that this is also a factor in that particulat plot of land producing a unique wine. Old vines alone, to my mind, will not produce outstanding wine unless the mix of grapes is correct & the vinification is done in a careful, thoughtful manner.

Marc

[Tom Archer]

My understanding has always been that older vines tend to produce fewer and slightly smaller grapes with slightly more concentrated juice within - although I havn't personally made a proper study of this.

I feel sure that the vinha velha/old vines tag is more than just a marketing angle, although the willingness of the world's more industrial vineyards to grub out and re-plant vines of a certain age, does suggest that the reduced yield is often inadequately compensated by any improvement in quality.

I also suspect that the difference in quality varies significantly, depending on the climate of the year in question. There might be dry seasons when the younger vines, with less extensive root systems, produce better grapes than the older vines with root systems that can tap into deep ground water.

Ultimately, theory and science aside, the proof of the pudding is in the tasting!

Tom

[Frederick Blais]

There is a reason why it is a legend, the same way the 1963 and someday the 1994 also will be looked at with similar reverence.

Not a myth.

Will you share what the reason is?

And BTW, average age vine of Nacional Vineyard is around 35 years. So it is not really Old Vines. To close the case on Nacional, yes it is an exceptional wines, because it is ungrafted makes it a unique wine. But ask anyone to take 4 hectars of their best vines, look after them like it was their own baby and produce the best port out of it. I think any producer would make a better port out of it than they with do with their regular one. But how many can affort it? And how many are interested in doing so?

You can see how many cult wines are getting hight praise, it is because they mainly care about a really small vineyard, that's the easy quick way to make a special wine fast. When you see Latour releasing 300k bottles of his grand cru, that's amazing wine, but 2000 bottles, too many have achieved it yet.

Back on the young vines can producer great wine. I was able to taste Messorio 1998, a super toscan made from 100% merlot from 7 years old vines at that time. It was compared to Petrus by Parker. In a blind tasting side by side with Harlan Estate 1997, Grange Penfolds 1998 and Messorio1998 , none was able had success to tell which was which. All were fruity, extracted, lots of oak and low acidity. So then you can ask, how much for the vines, how much for the wine making? And I did not like any of those wines.

[Derek T.]

As anyone who knows me will be aware I am a sucker for the old and traditional when faced with things that are young and new.

I don't have the technical knowledge to argue the merits of old v new vines from a wine quality perspective but what I do know is that the first picture below makes me feel warm and fuzzy whilst the second leaves me rather cold...





Give me old vines anytime

Derek

[John Owlett]

The article on "Vine Age" from the third edition of the "Oxford Companion to Wine" (Oxford University Press, 2006) seems to confirm what Eric writes about young and old vines' both giving the lower yield that helps with making great wine.

The article was written by Richard Smart (PhD) and Julia Harding (MW). Here is a short extract:

"The concept that older vines make better wine is much used in marketing wine in the Old World ... and has more recently been adopted in the New World. ... Conversely, some winemakers observe that young vineyards produce their highest quality in the first year or two of production, perhaps at least partly because yields are relatively low at this point. ... Both of these apparently opposed viewpoints may be correct. ...

"Champagnol (Elements de physiologie de la vigne et de viticulture generale) defines three stage of root growth. During the first stage the root system colonizes available space, and this take until the seventh to tenth year. ... In the so-called adult stage, there is little change in the volume of soil exploited, but the final, senescent stage sees a reduction in root activity."

Later,

Dr Owl

----------------------------
John Owlett, Southampton, UK

[Andy Velebil]

This is a great read and some really good discussion, I do hope more people chime in on this topic

[Roy Hersh]

Harlan Estate 1997, Grange Penfolds 1998

Frederick,

I have had both, only once each and was somewhat unimpressed with the 1997 Harlan. Typically, I find for my palate, that it is truly one of the greatest cult Cabs made in CA. The 1994 and 1995 both show why. There are other vintages that win over my palate too, but the fine vintage of 1997 was "controversial" for Harlan and it is often times a "love or disappointment" vintage for fans and opponents of the Harlan cult.
As to the 1998 Penfold's Grange, I found this to be a stellar bottling. It is not 1978 or even 1985, 1991, 1992 ... but the vintage is still so very young at this stage, I hope you decented the bottle for six or more hours! Great stuff, and this coming from someone who does not drink much Aussie wine anymore, in fact, 95% are my own bottles of Henschke Cabs and Shiraz with a solid dose of HOGs in the cellar.

Back to old vines ...

[Roy Hersh]

John O. added:

Conversely, some winemakers observe that young vineyards produce their highest quality in the first year or two of production

Dr. Smart is correct in this context, except imho when it comes to Port. I believe that it is the 3rd leaf, in which the fine Port is represented. Rarely if ever is this Port publicly released, unlike some table wines which are rushed to market from such young vines. I have had some examples at two or three properties from experimental vineyards and new plantings where the grow tubes had just been removed for their 3rd vintage. I am not advocating drinking Port or especially not, having shippers cultivate and market Port of this type. However, it was certainly very tasty juice ... in every case I have been fortunate to try them.

Older vines certainly yield less wine, no question there and nobody in their right mind would argue this. I have been shown and discussed in great detail, the phenolic ripeness of old vine grapes vs. younger vines. It is a fascinating topic. As most know, it has a lot to do with cover on the vines, are there many leaves left in place to shade the bunches or does the vineyard manager prefer them to derive as much direct sun light and warmth as possible. The cover can help when temperatures get up in the 115+ range and the vines shut down and go dormant for awhile, until rain or cooler weather takes over. The old vines have a tough time in theory, but when you consider how much deeper they can reach for nourishing water compared to the young vines ... it can make a difference in their ability to survive extreme conditions.

Additionally, when you get into the ratio of skin and pulp to juice in grapes from old vines vs young, that is where one can really determine why the old vines produce such different wine. It is in this particular differential, in which I personally believe the concentration is best depicted. Extraction levels too will show greater depth with old vines. However it should be noted, that not every grape is better on old vines than young. There are varieties which prevail and exhibit greater juice when from young vines.

[Frederick Blais]

I had a talk recently with a winemaker about this topic.

He replied that vine are like human. When young, they are vigourous, they need to learn, behave, habits... but sometimes, some can learn extremely fast and impress how good they do for their age. Then they grow stronger, get strength, become more resistant and eventually reach their peak performance and quality. Then starts the slow slope down where wisdom compensate for vigorosity, so you get less quantity but more quality.

The clone selection is very important too. He was once working with 80 year old vines planted by his grand father. He never understood why he was never able to make any good wine with it... with time he understood he had to plant new vineyard to achieve what the land could do.

Another important point is the elements you put in your vineyard. If you basically kill all herbs and insect around the vines, you basically end up having a dead land. Which mean you need to feed your vines with nitrate and all sort of stuff to keep it alive because it can't get its nutrients from the soil. The plant is like us when we would drink water full of salt, it needs more water. At this point, old vines/young vines... not much difference, there has been too much human action on the vineyard, and this is just a tip of the iceberg.

I'll try to write a bit about grafted vs ungrafted roots another day. He brought me so much interesting points about why it is better and why the grafted vine is "suffering".