One thing to consider when getting into wine is the aging of it, and even if you should age a particular bottle you purchase.  Wine Spectator says wine will generally keep, if kept cool–an that means reds as well as whites.  But, Wine can and does transform.  It is never the same from one day to the next.  Hence, it is alive.

Vinography waxes philosophic:

While it rambles a little more than usual for him, his article “What Makes a Wine Ageworthy” captures part of the essence of what makes wine magical, namely that some wines, given time, transform into wholly different wines that transcend their prior selves.

But as much as I enjoyed this article, I think it reduces the question into terms that are far too stark and rigid for the average wine drinker.

Kramer posits that essentially there are two kinds of wine, those that endure, and those that transform. Fair enough. Not all wines will truly transcend their beginnings in a way that is almost wholly unrecognizable from the way they tasted to start.

But implicit in his argument, it seems to me, is that unless you have one of those wines that will predictably transform (thanks to the prerequisite he describes as “mid-palate density”) don’t bother aging your wines, or at the very least, don’t expect much of them if you do.

Now he didn’t say this specifically, and I’m happy to give him enough benefit of the doubt to the possibility that he didn’t even mean it. But nonetheless I see an opportunity to step in and make a point here, so I’m going to dive into what I’m calling a gap in his thinking.