How Old is Old-Vine?

Here's a question for those of you who aren't in the wine biz: What does the term "old-vine" mean when used to describe wine? Does it mean the wine was made from the fruit of a vineyard of a particular age? Does it mean the wine is somehow better than a younger-vine wine? Should it cost more by virtue of its age?

There's actually no legal definition of "old-vine," which means that any winery can use that term on its labels--regardless of the age of the vines used to make the wine. If you want to label wine made from your 10-year-old vineyard as "old vine," you can go right ahead and do it. I'm well-versed in the wine industry debate on this subject, but I wonder how consumers feel. I'd love to hear from readers who can answer the following questions:

1) Were you aware (before reading this) that there's no legal definition of "old-vine" wine?

2) Do you think there should be regulations in place to keep vintners from misusing the term?

3) Do you think "old-vine" wines are better in quality than standard wines?

Inquiring Wine Broads want to know!

Comments

[Wine Scamp]

Boy, this is a popular topic in the blogosphere right now...

1) I did know that there was no legal definition of "old vines."

2)I do think there should be regulation of the term.

3) My understanding is that aged vines produce less grapes, but more concentrated fruit, thereby producing more intensely-flavored wine. This is argued, I understand, but it makes sense to brag of your century old vines in Lodi the way Graves brags of its poor soil, doesn't it?

[koppenwine]

I am GM at August Briggs in Calistoga; this is a timely subject for us, as we are considering putting "Old Vines" on our Zinfandel label. It comes from 2 vineyards, both here in Calistoga; one turned 100 years old this year, the other is 60 years old.
From what I've heard over the years, vines over 30 years old are generally considered "old," I think because this is about the time that yields begin to drop slightly and vines are often pulled out (usually of course by this time they often also have some disease/malady that also hurts productivity).
I think that the 30+ year age is reasonable, but I would not be in favor of any regulation - we have enough of those already. I think it should be up to the reputation of the producer to decide and explain age and what it brings to the wine.
Regarding the benefits of old vines, I would agree that it is not only the age of the vines that matters, but where they are, just like any other vine. Ancient vines in the south central valley still won't produce great wine.

[el jefe]

1. Yes. Just like "Reserve", "New and Improved!" and "Whiter and Brighter!"

2. No. Otherwise, next they will be regulating "Yummy!"

3. No. Care in the vineyard and care in the winery matter more. I suspect many "old vine" wines taste better because gnarly old vines are more fun to hang around with.

[Dr. Vino]

While defining "old vines" may have escaped the regulators in various (every?) country, I think an equally important question is how is wine from old-vine fruit different? And maybe which grape varieties perform well in their advanced age?

I got some preliminary responses to these questions at an old-vine Grenache lunch in NYC recently:

http://drvino.com/2007/10/16/grenache-the-ultimate-back-up-player-breaks-out/