WTN: Dining in

1995 La Jota, Petite Sirah:
At 13, this tastes pretty much as it did at 2; good grip, some nice spice notes, solid fruit and all in a relatively simple package that has changed little since it was bottled. Perhaps, it is a bit less bright, a touch drier and a trifle more integrated – none of which is sufficient reason to cellar this bottle so long. Good with burgers but I’d not buy it again.

2005 Luneau-Papin, Muscadet Dom. Pierre de la Grange:
Smells like spring water and unripe pineapple; crisp but full flavored, focused yet nuanced, carries considerable body and is, oh so long in the mouth. 12% alcohol, less than $10 and world class. A joy to drink and the essence of freshness. Tomato and ricotta salata salad went well.

2003 Radikon, Ribolla Gialla (500ml):
Diane told me we were having sausages with white beans and spinach – it’s a somewhat soupy concoction with some fairly angular flavors – and some good crusty olive bread, so I decided to pull this bottle. Try as I might, I can not describe the smells and flavors of this wine with any degree of accuracy. But it is tannic (rather unusual for a white wine), full flavored, tastes as though someone had laced it with the essence of mineral water, is ever so slightly sherried and is absolutely captivating. For some reason, it makes me feel like I lived centuries ago and was having a flagon of wine with my medieval banquet. Suffice to say that this is not for everyone, that its complexity is infinite, and that I’d gladly trade my Riedel for a chalice. I love this stuff.

Best, Jim

[David M. Bueker]

Lovely. I've got to get my hands on some more Radikon.

Jim, I've had the same thing happen before: set a Petite Sirah aside for years because it seemed to promise long-range improvement but then it tastes just about the same it did a decade before. Just about the same thing now and again with Amarone: a little change but not a lot.

For some reason I passed on the 20005 L-P Pierre de la Grange but did buy the 2004, which I see I put aside in a don't-touch-it-for-a-few-years part of my cellar. I'm wondering, though, if this one is meant for cellaring.

Jim, I've had the same thing happen before: set a Petite Sirah aside for years because it seemed to promise long-range improvement but then it tastes just about the same it did a decade before.

So here's a question then, since you guys seem to have some long term experience: is it simply that they take a long time to evolve, or that they don't evolve at all for a good while and then collapse? And is this a common phenomenon? I actually had a similar experience with a humble but solid wine: the 2001 Bogle. Had in 2003, then again in 2006 - a touch softer perhaps, but practically un-evolved. I've got another bottle I was holding for 2010 or so. Will certainly post a note.

Interesting to here that Amarone sometimes does this too. All my experience with Amarone has been young ones so far.

Jim, I've had the same thing happen before: set a Petite Sirah aside for years because it seemed to promise long-range improvement but then it tastes just about the same it did a decade before.

So here's a question then, since you guys seem to have some long term experience: is it simply that they take a long time to evolve, or that they don't evolve at all for a good while and then collapse? And is this a common phenomenon? I actually had a similar experience with a humble but solid wine: the 2001 Bogle. Had in 2003, then again in 2006 - a touch softer perhaps, but practically un-evolved. I've got another bottle I was holding for 2010 or so. Will certainly post a note.

Interesting to here that Amarone sometimes does this too. All my experience with Amarone has been young ones so far.

Ryan,
This is just one guy's opinion . . .
Petite sirah is for drinking today. Buy it and open it - in all but the rarest of cases, it ain't getting any better. (One of those rarities is very old Ridge PS - very old!)
No comment on Amarone as I drink very little of it.
Best, Jim

[David M. Bueker]

Of course the thing is that the exception is so compelling ( the '71 and '74 Ridge York Creek PS are two of the greatest wines I have ever had) that it gives me faith to try aging other versions. I have had mixed success.

Of course the thing is that the exception is so compelling ( the '71 and '74 Ridge York Creek PS are two of the greatest wines I have ever had) that it gives me faith to try aging other versions. I have had mixed success.

I wonder if those old Ridge PS were all PS?
Best, Jim

Despite my poor luck with old Petite Sirahs, I confess that last month I ventured on another PS cellar experiment. I ordered from Garagiste four bottles of 2004 Carver Sutro Petite Sirah Palisades Vineyard on the strength of Jon Rimmerman's hoopla and a Wine Advocate "93+" score. Apparently the Robert thinks some PS's do age. The verbiage with the score says to drink this one "2011-2036."

I'll get back with you in 2036.

Despite my poor luck with old Petite Sirahs, I confess that last month I ventured on another PS cellar experiment. I ordered from Garagiste four bottles of 2004 Carver Sutro Petite Sirah Palisades Vineyard on the strength of Jon Rimmerman's hoopla and a Wine Advocate "93+" score. Apparently the Robert thinks some PS's do age. The verbiage with the score says to drink this one "2011-2036."

I'll get back with you in 2036.

Clint, the chances of me being here 2036 are less than the chances PS with develop and age well. But, you never know . . .
Best, Jim

[David M. Bueker]

Of course the thing is that the exception is so compelling ( the '71 and '74 Ridge York Creek PS are two of the greatest wines I have ever had) that it gives me faith to try aging other versions. I have had mixed success.

I wonder if those old Ridge PS were all PS?
Best, Jim

I am fairly certain the '71 & '74 were 100%. A look at an old label on CellarTracker doesn't show a varietal breakdown, so 100% would be likely given the Ridge labeling schemes. The '95-'97 versions are 100%.

Jim, I've had the same thing happen before: set a Petite Sirah aside for years because it seemed to promise long-range improvement but then it tastes just about the same it did a decade before.

So here's a question then, since you guys seem to have some long term experience: is it simply that they take a long time to evolve, or that they don't evolve at all for a good while and then collapse? And is this a common phenomenon? I actually had a similar experience with a humble but solid wine: the 2001 Bogle. Had in 2003, then again in 2006 - a touch softer perhaps, but practically un-evolved. I've got another bottle I was holding for 2010 or so. Will certainly post a note.

Interesting to here that Amarone sometimes does this too. All my experience with Amarone has been young ones so far.

Bogle is about as entry-level as PS gets, and is by far the largest volume producer of PS, meaning that there's some pretty substantial batch variation. Would you age a $12 Cru Bourgeois? I wouldn't age Bogle's entry level. You'll notice a difference in 2010.

See also the discussion on the Rogov forum here.

Bogle is about as entry-level as PS gets, and is by far the largest volume producer of PS, meaning that there's some pretty substantial batch variation. Would you age a $12 Cru Bourgeois? I wouldn't age Bogle's entry level. You'll notice a difference in 2010.

Age $12 Cru Bourgeois? Maybe, if I though it had something interesting to offer. The Bogle 'experiment' was a result of my very first round of cellar stocking, and I put 'humble' bottles like that away as a sort of experiment, but also so I'd start having some short-term agers to drink while waiting for my better stuff. Also, I adore mature wines, even simple ones. Quite frankly, if I had the money and the cellar space, I would buy additional bottles of about 1/10 of all the 'everyday' stuff I drink, and put it away for short term aging. It should be noted that the 2001 Bogle is an excellent wine, with a great deal more richness, depth, and complexity than any other vintage of Bogle I've tasted. It has also been very reliable from bottle to bottle over the years. By comparison, I just this past week had a bottle of the 2006. Wouldn't even consider buying another bottle. At any rate, I'm hoping for a difference in 2010, I I expect good things. Best Wishes!

Hope springs eternal. A few days ago I picked up my several-months-old orders from Garagiste, including three bottles of 2004 CARVER SUTRO PETITE SIRAH NAPA VALLEY PALISADES VINEYARD, which I ordered on the strength of Jon Rimmerman's hyperbole and a Wine Advocate rating of 93+, the plus of course being a bet on the future. Snippets from Parker's TN verbage: "tannic, powerful....[drink] 2011-2036." We shall see.

Hi all,

Drink them Petites young !

Your tales above reflect such a common experience. The exceptions to the "don't age 'em" rule are maddeningly real for me too. One incredible 1991 release from Z-Moore that just keeps going on and on, getting better. Four or five truly special ones from Ridge. But nearly every other one, every special or gargantuan bottle, I completely wasted by trying to age them into something like an old special Ridge PS. But it was not to be. I gave up buying Petite Sirah at all, except for occasionally Rockland (for drinking young).

Particularly insulting was the path taken by Sean Thackery's "Doomed Vines" PS (1994 ?), which on release was the best young PS I had ever tried. It stunned a roomful of friends on release. We scrounged and cobbled together near four cases total, absolutely convinced it would be "The One to Keep Forever". After three years, it was all liquid razor blades, fruit having all gone and every one we've had since is pure misery. Didn't see that coming back then.

BTW, I have some older Ridge PS stashed (from 70's, 80's, 90's only) and would be happy to open any of them for a board event. Don't know who's a left-coaster, but if you're coming to L.A., some of these are very special, and some, ummm - not.

So here's a question then, since you guys seem to have some long term experience: is it simply that they take a long time to evolve, or that they don't evolve at all for a good while and then collapse? And is this a common phenomenon?

One way to approach this question, Ryan, is to consider the fate of the grape (most likely Durif but possibly Peloursin) in its country of origin, France. Both Durif and Peloursin are rarely planted there any more, and winemakers will tell you that that is because of the mostly indifferent wines made from them. It is always possible that, like Primitivo/Zinfandel, the grape finds a unique expression in California, but odds are good that the wines made from it in CA don't really have much ageworthiness to them, either. Of course, one could say much the same about most of the Zin and Cab S grown in CA, so that's really not much of a knock against PS, either.

Mark Lipton