Last night I opened a 1986 Guigal Cotes du Rhone that I had purchased at auction a month or so ago. I can’t say I was expecting much.
After the swampy, reductive notes blew off it was very pleasant and smooth although perhaps not really worth cellaring for 23 years to achieve. Very difficult to describe, but violet style floral aromas that had an element of spice with a sort of forest aroma. Also a bit like blue berries but with out the intensity. Nice but not wonderful. Cork was a total disaster and required all sorts of tools to remove.
Thanks so much for sharing the results of the bottle aging process for the 86 Guigal Cotes du Rhone. It is a really useful post since so little CDR cellaring over the long term takes place and there is little chance to learn enough about how they age compared to the wines from the more desierable Rhone appelations. I shared a bit on the aging result of an 89 Coudoulet de Beaucastel n a recent post on my blog http://winezag.wordpress.com/2009/06/23/cote-du-rhones-for-the-ages/
The giant question for me is why not do more cellaring of these wines. Why tie up $50-$350 for 20 years in primo bottles of Rhone and leave the $10 CDRs for tonight’s drinking when you can achieve benefits of advance flavors and aromas that can be pleasing and unusual?
Hi Adam,
I try to post regularly about this sort of stuff because of the general lack of information on wine aging. Generally whats out there seems to be myth a lot of the time.
You raise a good point about cellaring expensive wines. I have often thought it ridiculous that the most expensive wines are not ready for immediate drinking at their peak potential. The difficulty and cost as I see it comes in getting the fruit quality and that rarity brings the expense.
However on the question of cheaper wines being able to be cellared, I find that generally most perform OK. If you start with reasonable structure most seem to be alright. For me acidity seems to be key, not just high acid but good balance of acid.