A Lot of Hot Air

Decanting based solely on price has a bad aroma

by Christopher Cook

Decanting wines seems to run in cycles, and around here, it appears to be heading back into vogue. At three restaurants where I have eaten lately, they are now decanting some red wines but not others, and unfortunately for the most preposterous reason.
Two of those restaurants do it, the servers admitted with not a trace of shame, by price!
If you buy a red wine that’s more than $50 a bottle, the wine will be
decanted at your table with flourish and fanfare, and as a bonus they will bring the bigger, more expensive wine glasses.
When I asked what happens if I buy a $35 bottle of wine, I was told that it would not “qualify” to be decanted, and that I would get the “regular” wine glasses.
This is one of the most pretentious things I’ve ever heard. The purpose of decanting wine has never had anything to do with money.
True, the original need to decant wine has dwindled in the last 50 years for several reasons, one being that winemaking technology has improved. A hundred years ago, before modern filtration systems were developed, and in an era when people actually liked to age their wines for decades (rather than merely months, as is now popular) before drinking them, time caused the wine to throw off much more sediment than does young wine.
But as people began drinking even the most serious wines younger and fruitier, there was less reason to decant. Then in the 1990s, decanting was revived for an opposite reason: as way of rapidly blowing air through a lot of tight, young wines to get them to open up faster. Paris’ most exclusive restaurant, Taillevent, was among the first to decant for this reason, and soon others followed.
Of course, there are many clear-thinking and reasonable restaurants in the Detroit area that decant a wine regardless of price, and because it’s a logical thing to do, and that would balk at the notion that expensive wine equals more attention. The weird part of that formula is that price is just about the last factor that dictates both quality or how a wine should be handled.
A case in point: At one of those recent dinners, I was asked to order the wine. I found a 2004 d’Arenberg “The Derelict Vineyard” grenache from McLaren Vale in Australia, a fabulous wine with food for $36. It arrived without ceremony and was poured.
Then someone at the table pointed to a $120 bottle on the wine list, a small Napa Valley producer of cabernet sauvignon, and ordered not one but two bottles. Suddenly, there was flurry of new glassware, a sommelier and two assistants appeared, and the wine was treated with awe and reverence as it was poured.
Truth is, it was over-ripe, rather flat, and unlively, and had virtually no ability to pair with food. Its $120 price tag was most likely more about the mortgage on Napa Valley land and the grapes used in making it: They were from the most famous and expensive vineyard in Napa, the To Kalon.
Unfortunately, the wine wasn’t well made. And it certainly didn’t need to be decanted.
But the d’Arenberg certainly could have used that same burst of air as well as the larger glasses. But even without them, it was unquestionably the better wine.

2004 d’Arenberg “The Derelict Vineyard” Grenache ($25): Deep fruit aromas, concentrated blackberry and blueberry flavors with anise and pepper notes, great complexity and texture, and solid structure, acidity, and balance. Long finish. Fabulous wine!
2004 Dry Creek Vineyard Cabernet Sauvignon ($22): Complex wine notable for its rich, layered flavors of which concentrated cassis is most prominent, a good tannin structure suggesting an ageable wine, and a long, plush finish.
2004 Château Souverain Cabernet Sauvignon (Alexander Valley, $22): Solid wine dominated in aroma and in the mouth by blackberry and cherry notes, great balance and structure, from a winery that’s never flashy and always steady.