Fortunately I am nursing a bottle of each of the two champagnes you mention, for a special occasion (which looks like it won't be football related). The Belle Epoque is a 2004 which I got at a good price from Pernod Ricard. The Bollinger Grand Annee is a 1999.
According to Cellar Tracker both should be at their best until 2020. Would you agree?
Nice! Storage of the good stuff is never something I have to worry about! If I've splashed out on some - it gets drunk. Anyway, both the ones you mention are good to drink or keep. The thing is do you have ideal storage conditions? Temperature variation is a big no no, which is why a shed or garage is hopeless. So if you haven't got a cellar at a steady 7-10 centigrade or a custom wine fridge I'd drink asap. Another thing, some experts say store champagne standing upright. But others think the vintage stuff needs go be on its side so that the cork doesn't dry out.
Afka, 1 to 3 hours is good for most rioja. It doesn't make much difference opening the bottle. You need to pour it into a decanter or vase. It makes a difference IMO, makes the wine smoother
Fortunately I am nursing a bottle of each of the two champagnes you mention, for a special occasion (which looks like it won't be football related). The Belle Epoque is a 2004 which I got at a good price from Pernod Ricard. The Bollinger Grand Annee is a 1999.
According to Cellar Tracker both should be at their best until 2020. Would you agree?
Nice! Storage of the good stuff is never something I have to worry about! If I've splashed out on some - it gets drunk. Anyway, both the ones you mention are good to drink or keep. The thing is do you have ideal storage conditions? Temperature variation is a big no no, which is why a shed or garage is hopeless. So if you haven't got a cellar at a steady 7-10 centigrade or a custom wine fridge I'd drink asap. Another thing, some experts say store champagne standing upright. But others think the vintage stuff needs go be on its side so that the cork doesn't dry out.
Fortunately do have these in a small wine fridge, which sits inside the wine room. (wine room just about manages to keep reasonable temp variation, and is dark.) Must admit I thought the store upright thing had been largely dismissed
Afka, 1 to 3 hours is good for most rioja. It doesn't make much difference opening the bottle. You need to pour it into a decanter or vase. It makes a difference IMO, makes the wine smoother
Or just pour a glass out to give the wine still in the bottle a greater amount of contact with air...
Hi Prague. Never had Belle Epoque. Just think of drinking windows as a bell curve, somewhere in the middle at the top of the curve is where the wine becomes most balanced and integrated. Towards the end of many critics drinking windows you begin to lose all primary flavours and tertiary notes takeover: So in champagne they can be light but a bit musty for me.
Personally I prefer to drink champagnes way before the end of their drinking window. I had a Veuve 2004 last Thursday, and whilst my partner loved it's lightness, I found it had lost too much fruit.
Never tried Belle Epoque but reading about it I'd tend to drink it way earlier than last projected year. Grand Anee nearly always needs time on release: Although the 05 was beautiful on release, looks like 07 needs time as did the 04. I don't know the 99 vintage but reading about 99 Grand Anee sounds like it'll be super now... especially with lobster.
Also another issue with champagne is disgorgement date. Often a late release with late disgorgement is said to not have as much window to drink. As far as I know Grand Anee is released once and there's no later disgorgement. I'd guess the same with Belle Epoque.
Often people argue an earlier disgorgement matures better. But for us normal tasters I reckon both yours will have been disgorged just before first release, and be cracking to compare side by side: With Grand Annee drunk last and winning by a mile. I'd personally drink both this year.
Right, well it's 20th wedding anniv. in June so that's one of them gone ...with sushi, probably. Thanks for the advice. I hope to get you some tips on Mikulov next week. Someone who has worked in the biz there.
Fortunately I am nursing a bottle of each of the two champagnes you mention, for a special occasion (which looks like it won't be football related). The Belle Epoque is a 2004 which I got at a good price from Pernod Ricard. The Bollinger Grand Annee is a 1999.
According to Cellar Tracker both should be at their best until 2020. Would you agree?
Both are at their best when in a glass and being drunk!
Seriously, I wouldn't keep vintage champers much past fifteen years and probably not that long, especially if you don't know what conditions they've been stored under for all their life in bottle. Find a good reason and drink them.
I'd tend to agree with you Addicks for the best producers/vintages, but I'd add the common marques such as Veuve/Moet/Laurent Perrier/Heidseck/Taitinger even Pol Roger are way better - for our non-MW pallets - drunk between 2-4 years after release.
Bolli are heavily influenced by Burgundy and the only house to have their own cooper to keep their Burgundy barrels going. Their wine making naturally adds secondary and tertiary flavours which allows their Vintage champers to develop beautifully over 10-20 years: Plus their vineyards are in way better sites, and they own the majority unlike those often almost 'soft' makers mentioned above.
Krug, if memory serves me right, are the only commonly available one out there who vinify in oak barrels in champagne: Roderer use foudres. Grand Annee you can get for 60-70, whilst Krug NV is 120-140. On the rare occasions I'd get to drink great champers like Grand Annee, I'd always buy it above Krug NV with price diff and it's lack of vintage. And if I had the money buy Bolli Vielles Francaise above any Krug, and lay it down for at least 5-10 years. dependent on vintage.... but I don't sigh.
But generally I spend my money on great white Burgundy. But unfortunately this years price hikes, in a vintage not as good as 2014 for white, has taken it past my justifiable pocket spend. Sigh.
One thing I'm wondering is whether the wine buffs here have ever done blind tastings? I always considered myself a whisky man, and can pick out all the subtle differences between different whiskies when drunk side by side.
One thing i noticed is that when drinking blind (so I don't know what whisky is in each glass, rather than actually having my eyes shut) I don't rank them in flavour preference how i might have expected.just going off the names Cured me of any form of whisky snobbery, as some blends ranked higher than malts, whereas before I was in the malt=good, blend=cack camp.
I've had some very rare and expensive malts which were amazing. I wonder how i might have rated them if I didn't know they were rare and expensive though?
I don't have a great palate, and we all have our different favourites, but i was just wondering how easy it was to pick a great vintage over a not so great vintage, when drunk side by side and when you did not know what was on each glass?
I saw Oz Clarke try to identify various types of chanteuneuf du pape blind (about 20 of them) and he was a broken man by the end of it. He could just about guess the wine colour. Amusing telly. It was the series he did with James May.
One thing I'm wondering is whether the wine buffs here have ever done blind tastings? I always considered myself a whisky man, and can pick out all the subtle differences between different whiskies when drunk side by side.
One thing i noticed is that when drinking blind (so I don't know what whisky is in each glass, rather than actually having my eyes shut) I don't rank them in flavour preference how i might have expected.just going off the names Cured me of any form of whisky snobbery, as some blends ranked higher than malts, whereas before I was in the malt=good, blend=cack camp.
I've had some very rare and expensive malts which were amazing. I wonder how i might have rated them if I didn't know they were rare and expensive though?
I don't have a great palate, and we all have our different favourites, but i was just wondering how easy it was to pick a great vintage over a not so great vintage, when drunk side by side and when you did not know what was on each glass?
I saw Oz Clarke try to identify various types of chanteuneuf du pape blind (about 20 of them) and he was a broken man by the end of it. He could just about guess the wine colour. Amusing telly. It was the series he did with James May.
The big spirits companies' market research shows that after three measures, blind, many people can't successfully distinguish between whisky and brandy.
Equally perplexing for me, Staropramen (with whom I currently work) claim that in blind taste tests many Czech beer drinkers will prefer it over Pilsner Urquell.
My buddy wanted to persuade me that beer in cans is every bit as good as the same beer from a bottle. We did a blind taste test. He won.
On the other hand when the Dutch supermarket Albert started flogging Oudinot champagne at half the price M&S do - and the regional director of M&S told me that the Albert one was produced from 3rd level/quality grapes (whatever that means),- I blind tasted those, and we all were able to distinguish which one was the proper one.
Dangerous game, tasting...so much potential to end up looking like a prat.
I am terrible at blind tastings... Apart from my favourite white wines Pinot Gris and Riesling: For me the difference between the merely very good wines from these grapes and superb are what my palette loves.
I know people in the business who say that Oz Clarke is great, generous and generally very nice. He doesn't claim to know everything in blind tastings and has been happy before to allow himself to be tested on TV. Robert Parker jr reckons he has a tasting pallet equivalent to photographic memory since something like the 82 Bordeaux vintage. Every time they've managed to test him he's flunked appallingly getting the majority wrong, and scoring well below what a computer would do with random answers. Whilst Parker is clearly a very talented Taster and Wine Writer, he's a walking example/metaphor of 'marketing bullshit'.
Neil Martin who writes for Parker in Burgundy is much more honest and interesting without the wine-hyperbole. If I did a blind tasting of white Burgundy and New World rivals - that'd be my unlikely heaven - I'd probably plump for a 15-20 quid Chardonnay from Franschhoek and think it was a top Premier Cru. Hence the unbelievable prices of white Burgundy is leading me towards the Hugenots in Franschhoek.
I saw this programme once with s professional tea grader. Turned out he actually had significantly better than average number of smell receptors, hence his ability to taste. My sense of smell is appalling, hence my lack of refinement when it comes to tasting i guess.
On the other hand, i can quite easily quaff away on cheap wine!
Amongst my eclectic wine collection I have of all things a bottle of 1973 Black Tower.....purchased back in the day when it was quite the thing to do. I'm tempted to chill and open....purely out of curiosity you understand. Would never have been a much to write home about wine in the first place of course......I wonder how well it's kept? Any ideas?
As it's a wine that'll have been chapitilised - added sugar to help fermentation - to the death of any acidity structure and fruit, plus probably sweet grape juice added to it after fermentation: sussreserve. I'd guess it'll be insipid taste of nothing with a little bitter sugar but unlike most 70's Bordeaux bar a few, actually drinkable.
That's an absolute guess but try - though sniff before you drink!
I'd tend to agree with you Addicks for the best producers/vintages, but I'd add the common marques such as Veuve/Moet/Laurent Perrier/Heidseck/Taitinger even Pol Roger are way better - for our non-MW pallets - drunk between 2-4 years after release.
Bolli are heavily influenced by Burgundy and the only house to have their own cooper to keep their Burgundy barrels going. Their wine making naturally adds secondary and tertiary flavours which allows their Vintage champers to develop beautifully over 10-20 years: Plus their vineyards are in way better sites, and they own the majority unlike those often almost 'soft' makers mentioned above.
Krug, if memory serves me right, are the only commonly available one out there who vinify in oak barrels in champagne: Roderer use foudres. Grand Annee you can get for 60-70, whilst Krug NV is 120-140. On the rare occasions I'd get to drink great champers like Grand Annee, I'd always buy it above Krug NV with price diff and it's lack of vintage. And if I had the money buy Bolli Vielles Francaise above any Krug, and lay it down for at least 5-10 years. dependent on vintage.... but I don't sigh.
But generally I spend my money on great white Burgundy. But unfortunately this years price hikes, in a vintage not as good as 2014 for white, has taken it past my justifiable pocket spend. Sigh.
I echo your sentiments on Grande Année v Krug.
For anyone thinking of following Colin's advice and laying down some Vielles Vignes Françaises, if you don't have good storage conditions (stable temperature, little or no vibration, preferably in the dark) don't do it. For the amount of money involved, (little change from £500 for a bottle) you've got to know it will be drinkable when you get round to opening it. Interestingly, this is a blanc de noirs which means it's a white champagne made from all red grapes. This is generally reckoned to produce a lesser wine that using a mix of red and white grapes or all white (blanc de blancs). Vielles Françaises would appear to be 'the exception that proves the rule'.
Talking about storage, don't get those wine racks in the kitchen (see picture for an example) for long term storage. The temperature fluctuations and the vibration from the fridge or freezer motor will knacker your wine in no time. Almost anywhere in the house will be better than the kitchen.
Amongst my eclectic wine collection I have of all things a bottle of 1973 Black Tower.....purchased back in the day when it was quite the thing to do. I'm tempted to chill and open....purely out of curiosity you understand. Would never have been a much to write home about wine in the first place of course......I wonder how well it's kept? Any ideas?
Just Googled it and found a post from 2008 by an expert expressing that it would most likely be undrinkable and have no collectible value......and that was 9 years ago! Pretty much as I expected to be honest.
As it's a wine that'll have been chapitilised - added sugar to help fermentation - to the death of any acidity structure and fruit, plus probably sweet grape juice added to it after fermentation: sussreserve. I'd guess it'll be insipid taste of nothing with a little bitter sugar but unlike most 70's Bordeaux bar a few, actually drinkable.
That's an absolute guess but try - though sniff before you drink!
Thanks Colin......I think I'll skip the experience and just keep it out of curiosity value.
Always been a beer drinker but doctor has since told me to stay clear due to acid reflux. Situation at work (outsourcing) means I tend to find myself in Waitrose wine bar every lunch time so will start posting what we're drinking. Have so far learnt I hate rose and much prefer red over white. Ironically we were drinking with Oz Clarke down there at Xmas as he was promoting his new book. A very nice bloke.
Addicks it's exagerated about storage over 2-5 years. You don't want quick fluctuations and you don't want temps that reach above 18 degrees: really and hopefully 16. Honestly if you saw what happens to wine in the trade outside of bonded warehouses.... and the bullshit they tell customers. As long as it's not in sunlight and not getting in to the mid-high 20s you are often OK.
Champagne is a lot more durable than fine Burgundy. Due to it's acidity, and anerobic secondary fermentation you have less wine faults than say white Burgundy: oxidation and cork drying out will be accelerated by hot temps. But I'm not advocating storing your wine anywhere like a kitchen exposed fully to central heating.
If you bought a Vielles Francaise Bollinger, I'd say keep it in a reliable bonded warehouse not via a broker but via a true traditional wine merchant. If you come to drink it fine, if you sell it you'll probably make a profit: no cgt on wine but you'll pay 10% in merchant seller's fees.
A Grand Anee I'd be happy to keep for 2-4 years in somewhere where I know temp doesn't go over 18 or fluctuate hugely daily: Hopefully say an unheated cellar in a Victorian house, where you've recorded/observed temps over the seasons before putting anything of real value down there/But also a dark area where no radiator is near, and neither a large window.
Personally anything I need to keep that's £25+ - ex vat & duty - I keep in a bonded warehouse. Plenty of wine I've kept in a dark alcove in the house with no radiator near: 4-5 years later it's been fine. I monitor temp and whilst it's not good high summer, most of the time it's below 16 degrees. It's been fine for good Riesling with good sweetness & acidity: say 15 quid inc. I don't fully recommend it but don't worry too much..... apart from many 15 quid wines should not be kept that long!
As often Jancis Robinson provides excellent info on her free pages:
I've reverted to my favourite the temperillo rioja of the yellow label that normally retails around 8 quid. I have that from the fridge and I enjoy it but I'm interested to know what additives are in it if anyone can help me.
As it's a wine that'll have been chapitilised - added sugar to help fermentation - to the death of any acidity structure and fruit, plus probably sweet grape juice added to it after fermentation: sussreserve. I'd guess it'll be insipid taste of nothing with a little bitter sugar but unlike most 70's Bordeaux bar a few, actually drinkable.
That's an absolute guess but try - though sniff before you drink!
Thanks Colin......I think I'll skip the experience and just keep it out of curiosity value.
Incidentally Colin......you used the word chapitilised......is that a word or a typo?
As it's a wine that'll have been chapitilised - added sugar to help fermentation - to the death of any acidity structure and fruit, plus probably sweet grape juice added to it after fermentation: sussreserve. I'd guess it'll be insipid taste of nothing with a little bitter sugar but unlike most 70's Bordeaux bar a few, actually drinkable.
That's an absolute guess but try - though sniff before you drink!
Thanks Colin......I think I'll skip the experience and just keep it out of curiosity value.
Incidentally Colin......you used the word chapitilised......is that a word or a typo?
Once you get over £20 quid a bottle I refuse to believe there is any discernible taste benefit and you are paying for the brand you are drinking.
My Bulgarian mate (he who is mates with Kishi) gave me a long lecture arguing exactly the opposite. He says that the more expensive the wine, the more actual grapes have been used. Less expensive means more sugar and other cheating. He had brought me a Napa Valley red wine from a small vineyard. I don't know much about Californian wines but I must say it was one of the best wines I have ever drunk. Afterwards I looked it up on Cellar Tracker and saw that people are paying $60 a bottle for it (retail, not in restaurants, I presume). I wouldn't pay that sort of money easily, but it made me think about his argument, which I had never heard before. (He'd learnt it from a mate who is in the business)
I am curious of which Napa wine you had. I am a winemaker in Napa and might know about it.
As for telling the difference... most cannot and I try and tell those people that not being able to tell is a blessing, for they will save a lot of money.
I usually can tell, but even us winemakers can go down in flames in blind tastings now and then.
The biggest reasons $25 are better than most $10 (assuming the same varietal) is that cheap industrial wines often have so much SO2 added that it really messes with the flavor. Not to mention is the prime cause of wine headaches. More expensive wines use less and that is one reason those headaches tend to drop off once you get out of the $10-15 range.
There are a lot of Biodynamic red wines from the Languedoc of France that are yummy and use little to no manipulation or much SO2 and can be had for $15.
Napa you lucky devil. Was going to post this before reading your post, so wasn't really for you who probably know the documentary. Andrew Jefford and Jane Anson are great to read online and in Decanter the magazine. She mentioned a documentary from 1991, that ignited interest in wine again in our era. Will watch it in France at the in laws on Saturday:
Once you get over £20 quid a bottle I refuse to believe there is any discernible taste benefit and you are paying for the brand you are drinking.
My Bulgarian mate (he who is mates with Kishi) gave me a long lecture arguing exactly the opposite. He says that the more expensive the wine, the more actual grapes have been used. Less expensive means more sugar and other cheating. He had brought me a Napa Valley red wine from a small vineyard. I don't know much about Californian wines but I must say it was one of the best wines I have ever drunk. Afterwards I looked it up on Cellar Tracker and saw that people are paying $60 a bottle for it (retail, not in restaurants, I presume). I wouldn't pay that sort of money easily, but it made me think about his argument, which I had never heard before. (He'd learnt it from a mate who is in the business)
I am curious of which Napa wine you had. I am a winemaker in Napa and might know about it.
As for telling the difference... most cannot and I try and tell those people that not being able to tell is a blessing, for they will save a lot of money.
I usually can tell, but even us winemakers can go down in flames in blind tastings now and then.
The biggest reasons $25 are better than most $10 (assuming the same varietal) is that cheap industrial wines often have so much SO2 added that it really messes with the flavor. Not to mention is the prime cause of wine headaches. More expensive wines use less and that is one reason those headaches tend to drop off once you get out of the $10-15 range.
There are a lot of Biodynamic red wines from the Languedoc of France that are yummy and use little to no manipulation or much SO2 and can be had for $15.
Our own Addick winemaker!
Once Roland and the SMT have gone, you should bring out a special label
Comments
Another thing, some experts say store champagne standing upright. But others think the vintage stuff needs go be on its side so that the cork doesn't dry out.
How long should you open bottle before pouring? Or pour in glass before drinking? Or does it make no flippin difference at all?
Personally I prefer to drink champagnes way before the end of their drinking window. I had a Veuve 2004 last Thursday, and whilst my partner loved it's lightness, I found it had lost too much fruit.
Never tried Belle Epoque but reading about it I'd tend to drink it way earlier than last projected year. Grand Anee nearly always needs time on release: Although the 05 was beautiful on release, looks like 07 needs time as did the 04. I don't know the 99 vintage but reading about 99 Grand Anee sounds like it'll be super now... especially with lobster.
But of course it's all personal taste.
Often people argue an earlier disgorgement matures better. But for us normal tasters I reckon both yours will have been disgorged just before first release, and be cracking to compare side by side: With Grand Annee drunk last and winning by a mile. I'd personally drink both this year.
Right, well it's 20th wedding anniv. in June so that's one of them gone ...with sushi, probably. Thanks for the advice. I hope to get you some tips on Mikulov next week. Someone who has worked in the biz there.
Seriously, I wouldn't keep vintage champers much past fifteen years and probably not that long, especially if you don't know what conditions they've been stored under for all their life in bottle. Find a good reason and drink them.
Bolli are heavily influenced by Burgundy and the only house to have their own cooper to keep their Burgundy barrels going. Their wine making naturally adds secondary and tertiary flavours which allows their Vintage champers to develop beautifully over 10-20 years: Plus their vineyards are in way better sites, and they own the majority unlike those often almost 'soft' makers mentioned above.
Krug, if memory serves me right, are the only commonly available one out there who vinify in oak barrels in champagne: Roderer use foudres. Grand Annee you can get for 60-70, whilst Krug NV is 120-140. On the rare occasions I'd get to drink great champers like Grand Annee, I'd always buy it above Krug NV with price diff and it's lack of vintage. And if I had the money buy Bolli Vielles Francaise above any Krug, and lay it down for at least 5-10 years. dependent on vintage.... but I don't sigh.
But generally I spend my money on great white Burgundy. But unfortunately this years price hikes, in a vintage not as good as 2014 for white, has taken it past my justifiable pocket spend. Sigh.
One thing i noticed is that when drinking blind (so I don't know what whisky is in each glass, rather than actually having my eyes shut) I don't rank them in flavour preference how i might have expected.just going off the names
Cured me of any form of whisky snobbery, as some blends ranked higher than malts, whereas before I was in the malt=good, blend=cack camp.
I've had some very rare and expensive malts which were amazing. I wonder how i might have rated them if I didn't know they were rare and expensive though?
I don't have a great palate, and we all have our different favourites, but i was just wondering how easy it was to pick a great vintage over a not so great vintage, when drunk side by side and when you did not know what was on each glass?
I saw Oz Clarke try to identify various types of chanteuneuf du pape blind (about 20 of them) and he was a broken man by the end of it. He could just about guess the wine colour. Amusing telly. It was the series he did with James May.
Equally perplexing for me, Staropramen (with whom I currently work) claim that in blind taste tests many Czech beer drinkers will prefer it over Pilsner Urquell.
My buddy wanted to persuade me that beer in cans is every bit as good as the same beer from a bottle. We did a blind taste test. He won.
On the other hand when the Dutch supermarket Albert started flogging Oudinot champagne at half the price M&S do - and the regional director of M&S told me that the Albert one was produced from 3rd level/quality grapes (whatever that means),- I blind tasted those, and we all were able to distinguish which one was the proper one.
Dangerous game, tasting...so much potential to end up looking like a prat.
I know people in the business who say that Oz Clarke is great, generous and generally very nice. He doesn't claim to know everything in blind tastings and has been happy before to allow himself to be tested on TV. Robert Parker jr reckons he has a tasting pallet equivalent to photographic memory since something like the 82 Bordeaux vintage. Every time they've managed to test him he's flunked appallingly getting the majority wrong, and scoring well below what a computer would do with random answers. Whilst Parker is clearly a very talented Taster and Wine Writer, he's a walking example/metaphor of 'marketing bullshit'.
Neil Martin who writes for Parker in Burgundy is much more honest and interesting without the wine-hyperbole. If I did a blind tasting of white Burgundy and New World rivals - that'd be my unlikely heaven - I'd probably plump for a 15-20 quid Chardonnay from Franschhoek and think it was a top Premier Cru. Hence the unbelievable prices of white Burgundy is leading me towards the Hugenots in Franschhoek.
On the other hand, i can quite easily quaff away on cheap wine!
I'm tempted to chill and open....purely out of curiosity you understand.
Would never have been a much to write home about wine in the first place of course......I wonder how well it's kept?
Any ideas?
That's an absolute guess but try - though sniff before you drink!
For anyone thinking of following Colin's advice and laying down some Vielles Vignes Françaises, if you don't have good storage conditions (stable temperature, little or no vibration, preferably in the dark) don't do it. For the amount of money involved, (little change from £500 for a bottle) you've got to know it will be drinkable when you get round to opening it. Interestingly, this is a blanc de noirs which means it's a white champagne made from all red grapes. This is generally reckoned to produce a lesser wine that using a mix of red and white grapes or all white (blanc de blancs). Vielles Françaises would appear to be 'the exception that proves the rule'.
Talking about storage, don't get those wine racks in the kitchen (see picture for an example) for long term storage. The temperature fluctuations and the vibration from the fridge or freezer motor will knacker your wine in no time. Almost anywhere in the house will be better than the kitchen.
Pretty much as I expected to be honest.
Champagne is a lot more durable than fine Burgundy. Due to it's acidity, and anerobic secondary fermentation you have less wine faults than say white Burgundy: oxidation and cork drying out will be accelerated by hot temps. But I'm not advocating storing your wine anywhere like a kitchen exposed fully to central heating.
If you bought a Vielles Francaise Bollinger, I'd say keep it in a reliable bonded warehouse not via a broker but via a true traditional wine merchant. If you come to drink it fine, if you sell it you'll probably make a profit: no cgt on wine but you'll pay 10% in merchant seller's fees.
A Grand Anee I'd be happy to keep for 2-4 years in somewhere where I know temp doesn't go over 18 or fluctuate hugely daily: Hopefully say an unheated cellar in a Victorian house, where you've recorded/observed temps over the seasons before putting anything of real value down there/But also a dark area where no radiator is near, and neither a large window.
Personally anything I need to keep that's £25+ - ex vat & duty - I keep in a bonded warehouse. Plenty of wine I've kept in a dark alcove in the house with no radiator near: 4-5 years later it's been fine. I monitor temp and whilst it's not good high summer, most of the time it's below 16 degrees. It's been fine for good Riesling with good sweetness & acidity: say 15 quid inc. I don't fully recommend it but don't worry too much..... apart from many 15 quid wines should not be kept that long!
As often Jancis Robinson provides excellent info on her free pages:
http://www.jancisrobinson.com/learn/drinking-wine/how-to-store-wine
As for telling the difference... most cannot and I try and tell those people that not being able to tell is a blessing, for they will save a lot of money.
I usually can tell, but even us winemakers can go down in flames in blind tastings now and then.
The biggest reasons $25 are better than most $10 (assuming the same varietal) is that cheap industrial wines often have so much SO2 added that it really messes with the flavor. Not to mention is the prime cause of wine headaches. More expensive wines use less and that is one reason those headaches tend to drop off once you get out of the $10-15 range.
There are a lot of Biodynamic red wines from the Languedoc of France that are yummy and use little to no manipulation or much SO2 and can be had for $15.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=njm1LkXP2sg
Original Anson article:
http://www.decanter.com/wine-news/opinion/news-blogs-anson/anson-on-thursday-inside-the-worlds-greatest-wine-library-293869/
Now all I have to do is find the bloody 'Chateau Chunder' doco somewhere. It's on the Aussie wine revolution from around the 1970s. Any help anyone?
Once Roland and the SMT have gone, you should bring out a special label