The Wine's the Thing
Mitch Kornfeld
2/8

Tannic Monsters from the Id

Sci-fi fans will remember that in Forbidden Planet, it was monsters from the id that caused the untimely demise of the Krell. In the movie, which contrary to popular belief starred Leslie Nielsen not Anne Francis, the Captain (Nielson) had to ask what the id was because in that future time the term had fallen into obsolescence. It was not so long ago, in our time, that this Freudian term would show up in conversation, but Freudian theory doesn't have the influence it once did, and I haven't heard the id mentioned in years. 

At the Super Bowl gathering I just attended (at the home of our esteemed editor's lawyer) we drank a 1991 Petite Sirah that I had decanted and brought along. Petite Sirah is a rather tannic variety and it was not so long ago that it was responsible for its share of tannic monsters. The intervening nine years smoothed out the 1991 nicely, which wasn't unexpected, but what was unexpected was the drinkability of a 1999 California Syrah that our lawyer friend served. It was a good wine and a tasty wine but I don't think that when Super bowl XLIV rolls around in 2010 it will be in anywhere near as nice a condition as the Petite Sirah was. It just doesn't have the tannin and the stuffing to go as far as the Petite did and that got me wondering about "modern" wines.

It has only been in the last few years that I have seen reds from such age-worthy varieties as Syrah make it to market in under two years. I don't know when this particular '99 Syrah arrived in the stores, but it could have been in calendar year 2000. I know for a fact that the '91 Petite was not on the shelves in calendar 1992. I'd say it was in the Fall of 1993 at the earliest, but more probably in 1994, and keep in mind that this is how a wine that retailed for a whole $7.99 was treated back then (it's now $14 or $15). 

Even then, in the early to mid 1990's the only one-to-one- and-a-half year old red wines you saw on the shelves were Italian Bardolinos and Valpolicellas, and Beaujolais (and its late and surprisingly unlamented -- but that's another story -- California version, Gamay Beaujolais). Everyone knew that they weren't made for aging, and their producers didn't try to make them into the agers they were not, but with nearly every other red wine they at least took a shot at giving them some ageability. Why? Because ageability was synonymous with high quality.

Quick, name a famous wine whose name begins with "Chateau." Picked a Bordeaux? Of course you did. (If you said Chateau Montelena 1973 Napa Valley Cabernet Sauvignon you're either a wisenheimer, you know too much, and/or you ought to be writing your own column instead of reading this.) Now pick a year. Did you say 1982? How about '61? Any '45's in the audience? Between Bordeaux and Roger Maris I would have said 1961. Let's go with a '61 Chateau Mouton-Rothschild, or perhaps a Chateau Latour, a neighbor with a nice easy name. What do they have in common, other than they are nearly forty-year-old great Cabernet Sauvignons from Pauillac, Bordeaux? Hint: Do you think that they were friendly and agreeable wines when they were released in 1964? The answer is of course not. They were tannic monsters, but when they got a little age on them and started to hit their strides their greatness began to come out. All the really old and famous First Growth Bordeaux you hear about, those 19th Century bottles that get auctioned off for tens of thousands of dollars apiece, they're of the same ilk. They're cabernet-based wines from great years that started off their lives sporting impenetrable cloaks of tannin.

It's no secret how to get those tannins in there. Most of the tannin comes from the grape skins. In a good year, when a wine is concentrated from low yields, the tannins will be high. Low yields can be achieved naturally or by direct intervention of the winegrower or by a combination of the two. When making the wine the longer the grape skins stay in contact with the fermenting juice (fermenting juice is called "the must") the greater will be the extraction of tannins. If you have skin contact measured in hours you get very little tannin and the resulting wine is called a blush wine or a rosé. If you have skin contact for three weeks you're into tannic monster territory. The "average" red you find on the shelves probably had between one and two weeks skin contact. The modern trend, as you may have guessed, has been towards shorter times of skin contact. Tannin can also be added by using new oak barrels to age the wine. Remember how leather is tanned to preserve it? Remember that the tanning agent came from tree bark? Tannin comes from wood.

If the wine has the extraction of fruit flavors to go along with the tannins you have the makings of a great wine. Obviously, it's a question of balance and if there's not enough fruit to stand up to the tannins you have a problem. Good fruit flavors come from ripe grapes. This is basically what is meant by the phrase "a good year." The weather conditions were such that the grapes could fully ripen. Good concentration from low yields also helps out the fruit. Tannins will fade over time but so will the fruit. If the fruit drops out completely and the tannin is still there you will be left with a charmless wine (as we saw with the '91 Chianti from last weeks' column). In fact your task in evaluating a young red is trying to figure out if there is enough fruit to stand up to the tannins. Alas, the job has gotten easier in recent years in that there are far less tannic monsters than there used to be, witness the '99 Syrah.

There are still big wines out there, still wines with plenty of stuffing and tannins, but there are more and more wines out there that are ready to drink as soon as they hit the shelves. All in all this is a good thing. A modern wine with less, or no oak, is (or should be) less expensive than wines that got the full oak treatment. It's also a good thing that there are many good wines that you can casually buy and drink with dinner the same night. This fosters a more casual attitude towards wine, and while I like the romance and mystique of wine as much as the next guy, staying grounded in reality and remembering that it's just the fermented juice of the grape is a good idea too. In countries where they drink a lot of wine, say France, Italy, Spain, and Argentina, they have this attitude. They drink wines in two classes, "everyday" wines and "special occasion" wines, or "weekday" and "weekend" wines, if you prefer. Generally we can say the weekday wines are ready to drink when you buy them, and the weekend wines, let's say all of the red weekend wines, need aging.

The really big wines get better and better as they age, but only to a point. You cannot age a wine forever. After a while even the best ones will begin to decline. They are a beverage of pleasure and are made to be drunk. Try thinking of those tannins as pointy and sharp molecules. As a wine ages they get less pointy and become rounder. The more aging, the rounder they get. Some of them fall out of solution entirely and will be left behind as sediment. What you are left with is a rich, plush, caressing, and velvety mature wine.

Now let's say you're in your favorite wine store and you've got your heart set on buying a $25 1997 California Cabernet Sauvignon. You read the back label and it says something like: "This fine Cabernet Sauvignon will perfectly fit all of your red wine uses. It will be at its best beginning in 2004 and will continue to offer excellent drinking throughout the rest of the decade." It's 2001 and you don't really want to open it until at least 2004 and you live in an apartment, what do you do? Interests rates are low. You could buy a house with a nice cool cellar to store your wines. This seems like a great idea to me but it's not practical for most people. You could try, as I've seen advised on more than one occasion, wrapping the bottle in at least one inch (2.54 cm.) thickness of newspaper and storing it (on its side) on the floor of an interior closet. You might make it through to 2004 this way. I haven't tried this method and at $25 a bottle or $300 a case I'm a bit wary of it. You could handle it the way I did, and get yourself a storage facility.

Look in the back of any wine magazine and you'll see the ads for them. You can get a small one for under $1,000, and you can spend as much as you want on a larger one. For $1,500 to $2,000 you can get a very nice 200 bottle model with tasteful hardwood veneer that will provide you with excellent service. When the right time comes, say Super Bowl XLIV, you can take out that '97 Cabernet Sauvignon and fully appreciate all the charms it has to offer. In addition to the immense satisfaction you get from drinking a cabernet from a great year at its peak, you get the satisfaction of knowing that: 1. The wine is completely unavailable at any price, and 2. The then currently on the market '04 goes for $45 a bottle, so you've "saved" $20. If you do that only twenty times a year you will make back your investment within five years. It's a good argument to use when you're trying to convince your spouse why you have to spend $1,895 to get one. My storage facility, from a now defunct company called "La Cave," cost $900 in 1983 and has given me trouble-free service. It holds 120 bottles (and is somehow always full) and has paid for itself several times over. Best of luck in convincing your spouse. Of course if he or she really wants that house a cellar can hold...

P.S. If you were really wondering, the 1991 Petite Sirah was a Foppiano Sonoma. It was a lovely wine from an underrated grape variety and an underrated producer. You'll get to read all about Petite Sirah next week.

© Mitch Kornfeld 2001 All rights reserved


Previously by Mitch Kornfeld...

New York Wine and Restaurant Deals (01/30/01)

Dad's Cardinal Zins and Other Clichés (01/20/01)

Some Basics for a Winter's Eve (01/12/01)

And if They're Spanish That's Fine (01/05/01)

Hello Carbon Dioxide (12/29/00)

Wines for Christmas (12/22/00)

Nouveau Beaujolais, Etc. (11/24/00)

Going to a Tasting 101 (12/01/00)