Chardonnay and the Age of Reason

A friend called the other day to say he had pulled an 18-year-old Chardonnay from his cellar and enjoyed it thoroughly.

OK, I knew telling this story would require a heap of explanation. And I even toyed with the idea of adding the disclaimer, as on the TV truck commercials: DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME.

Chardonnay can improve with age, and I happen to like nicely aged Chardonnay myself. But these days, it’s a rare Chardonnay that will make it to age 5, let alone 18. So it amazes me to hear so many people say they like their Chardonnays with bottle age--and then rattle off the names of a bunch of wines I know will die a lot faster than they realize.

Many of these people will buy such wines, age them and then, when the wines turn out to be barely drinkable, alibi for the odd, oxidized, fading flavors. They’ll blame them on the cork or the glassware, or they’ll say, “It’s just a bad bottle.”

*

There are more myths associated with aging Chardonnay than just about any white wine. Here are three:

Chardonnay Myth No. 1: The more expensive a Chardonnay is, the more it needs bottle age.

The Reality: A Chardonnay may be expensive because it’s in limited supply, coming from a superb but small vineyard. But all too often the price reflects other factors.

For example, new French oak barrels are expensive. Some winemakers put all their Chardonnay into such cooperage and feel no shame in passing the cost along to you. (Not me; I don’t buy oaky Chardonnay.) And oaky, buttery Chardonnays usually don’t age very well.

Another example: Many French white Burgundies that are fine to drink when they are young are also too expensive to simply quaff on a Thursday evening. So people wait for “an occasion” to serve them. Thanks to the myth-spouters, these people begin to believe that the longer they wait, the better the wine will be.

This leads to Corollary Truism No. 1, which was stated by Justin Meyer, owner/winemaker at Silver Oak Cellars in the Napa Valley. To wit: “The French have done a great job on us. They tell us that the more we pay for a wine, the longer we have to wait to drink it.” The truth is that a lot of expensive Chardonnays are at their peak the day they’re released and it’s all downhill from there.

Chardonnay Myth No. 2: The smokier and oakier the aroma, the more the Chardonnay needs bottle age.

The Reality: A smoky aroma won’t, in itself, destroy a wine. But wines aged in heavily charred barrels can be so smoked they smell of vanilla bean and charred toast. These elements usually overwhelm the fruit and leave it smelling more like a tree after a forest fire than something made from grapes. Aging will merely remove any remnant of fruit that might have been there, leaving a washed-out taste of butter and char.

This leads to Corollary Truism No. 2, stated by the late August Sebastiani, whose winery in Sonoma County back in the 1960s and 1970s had very few new oak barrels: “If I wanted wood, I’d chew a toothpick.” A similar sentiment is credited to John Parducci about 1975, and Napa Valley winemaker Louis Martini also reportedly said this. (Is it mere coincidence that all three are of Italian extraction?)

Chardonnay Myth No. 3: Lighter-styled Chardonnays don’t age.

The Reality: This is the worst myth of all, because it seems plausible. The fact is, no wine that is unbalanced (i.e., has too much of one thing and not enough of a broad spectrum of elements) will age well. So if you have a Chardonnay that’s relatively sweet when young, expect it to be very sweet later in life, and thus not a very happy dinner companion.

Balance, however, creates in a wine harmonies on which its development in the bottle can crescendo. The components in balanced wines are normally pianissimo, but there are a multitude of them, including fruit and good acidity.

The Chardonnay my friend enjoyed was a 1977 Stony Hill Vineyards, which he said was still as fresh and vibrant as 10 years ago! And the 1992 version is sensational wine. Both were delicate wines in youth.

That same week I had a 1988 Trefethen Vineyards Chardonnay and a 1986 Freemark Abbey Winery Chardonnay. Both were still lively and youthful, holding up beautifully. A week later, a 1981 St. Clement Vineyards Chardonnay was also in great shape, fruity and crisp.

I can think of very few “big-style” California Chardonnays that could make it half the length of time these wines did.

In the 1970s most California producers made Chardonnay in a more delicate style than is usual today. Oak was not the major element it is now; few wines underwent the sort of processing that goes on today--processing that is aimed at making a wine appear pristine but robs it of fruit flavors.

Today, most Chardonnay is obvious and fat. There are few delicate ones. But delicacy should never be equated with simplicity, which leads to Corollary Truism No. 3: The fact that a wine lacks obvious and easy-to-spot elements is no reason to denigrate it. It might be a late-bloomer waiting years to reveal its charms, which can be more interesting than any young Chardonnay could ever offer.

If you’d like to try an older Chardonnay, you may have to buy the right ones and wait, since most of the good aging wines are now aging in private cellars. But there are still a few. The above-named four remain the leaders in that style.

*

Stony Hill is all but unobtainable, but the 1992 Trefethen ($18) is one of the most wonderful examples of the old, lean style of Chardonnay that almost surely will reward patience. It has ripe peach and spice components and a very crisp aftertaste that today matches nicely with fish in lemon butter sauce. A decade will enhance it.

Likewise, try 1992 Freemark Abbey ($16), a tart, flavorful wine with a lemony edge. Or the steely, lime-scented 1991 Mayacamas Vineyards ($20), or the richer, spicy but still closed-in 1992 Long Vineyards ($29), or the earthy and clove-scented 1992 Hanzell Vineyards ($24).

A bit richer, but still a wine that will evolve and grow, is the attractive 1993 Cuvaison Vineyards ($20), with great balance, a delicate entry and a lot of spicy fruit leading to a crisp finish.

If you happen to be in the Napa Valley in the next few months, St. Clement has re-released its 1989 “Abbott’s Vineyard” Chardonnay. The winery tasting-room-only price for magnums is $30.40. The wine is magnificent.

Since the government now mandates a warning label on all wines, I suggest a wine lover’s warning on Chardonnays, reading: “Age at your own risk.”

Wine of the Week

1993 Rosemount Shiraz-Cabernet ($7)-- This is an exceptional light red wine, the best Shiraz-Cabernet that Australian winemaker Philip Shaw has made. It has berry-ish fruit, untainted by oak flavoring, and a faint hint of chocolate in the finish.

Rosemount Estate Winery is located in the warm Upper Hunter Valley of Australia, where the Shiraz grape generally produces rather coarse and earthy wines. Past Rosemount vintages were fermented by partial carbonic maceration, which is used for Nouveau-type wines such as Beaujolais. The wines were a bit too tutti-frutti for me to recommend highly.

In 1993, however, Shaw made the wine by more traditional methods. Even though this wine is 65% Shiraz, which would lead you to expect the usual coarse Upper Hunter Valley style, it’s generous and tasty, deep and complex, but it retains the fruity quaffability of Shaw’s past vintages. One of Shaw’s secrets is that he has included a high percentage of Cabernet Sauvignon from McLaren Vale, a cooler region near Adelaide.

For best enjoyment, drink this wine within the next two years. Serve, slightly chilled, with grilled salmon, sausages or hamburgers. This wine is often seen for less than $6 and occasionally closer to $5. About 40,000 cases were imported. The 1994 version (untasted as yet) will soon be on store shelves.