> I was talking with someone who runs a wine making business about
> time required to brew the kits that they supply to their customers, and
> about bulk aging vs bottle aging. He said that they have their kits
> for thier customers to bottle in 4 weeks even if they used a '6 week kit'
Many operators that run on-premise shops are clueless about wine making.
Their first batch is often made when they open their doors for business.
> His belief is that wine ages in the bottle better than in bulk. I
> have always thought the opposite but I have been making wine only
> for 2 and a bit years and therefore am unclear on this.
Real wine benefits from both types of aging, but it typically does better
in bulk, which is why many good commercial wines are held in bulk 2 years
or more. If it wasn't of great benefit wineries would bottle for economic
reasons, their inventory doesn't generate any revenue sitting in their
cellar and their casks represent a huge expense.
I just bottled my 1995 Chardonnay a few days ago and other my other whites
in September. I will be bottling red varieties this week to free up
storage for my 1996 efforts. Personally, I think rushing wine into the
bottle is a mistake; the further wine develops in bulk, the quicker it will
come around in the bottle.
I have little use for wine kits. I don't think it matters much what you do
to them, after concentrating and pasteurization there is very little of
what makes the grape distinctive left. Which is why they taste pretty much