Tim James: More on the death – and survival – of old vineyards
By Tim James, 14 July 2025
-
Share:
6
In response to the piece I wrote about the death of the old vineyards that produced Alheit’s Radio Lazarus, a reader named Gareth commented: “I do wonder if there are any other celebrated labels that might suffer the same fate?” An important question, that’s been tumbling round in my head, and now I’m getting round to saying something about it.
Incidentally, the matter of vineyards coming to the end of their lives came up at the Cape Town launch last week of the latest vintage of an undoubtedly celebrated label, Kanonkop Paul Sauer. The vineyard – a cluster of blocks – that produces this great wine was planted nearly 40 years ago. The vines have undoubtedly been carefully looked after, tended well and not pushed to produce vine-weakening volumes, and should produce fine wines, perhaps in ever-reducing volumes, for many years to come. But already coming into maturity are vines planted in similar varietal proportions in virtually identical conditions nearby (the Kanonkop team is satisfied that they are showing the same character), and this should ensure the long-term survival of Paul Sauer. Presumably, as the orginal vines start reaching their life-limit, they will be progressvely replaced.
I suppose the easy answer to the question about other celebrated labels also sinking as the vineyard dies is – yes, if they are single-origin wines, like Radio Lazarus, they will inevitably disappear, sooner or later (though usually not as suddenly). Unless, of course, extending the life and vigour of the vines as much as possible is accompanied by, over time, planting new vines in the gaps left behind by dead or removed vines. This is, for example, what happened to the Stellenbosch chenin vineyard that produces Sadie’s Mev Kirsten. Much of it was planted in the 1920s, but, more recently 100 or so new vines were interplanted each year. Now about 25% of that vineyard consists of younger vines – though the average age remains pretty old. Another Sadie vineyard – the (mostly) very old mixed-varietal Swartland vines producing ‘T Voetpad – suffered terribly in the drought years. In 2019, to help the exhausted vines, the whole modest grape production was dropped, and no wine was made. Expensive and laborious restoration, with some interplanting, followed; the vineyard is reviving and small volumes of wine have been made from it. But without extraordinary, expensive commitment, it would have been the end of that wine. An interplanting programme continues on, where possible, all the Sadie-managed vineyards, focusing on different vineyards in turn – and it will do so on the youthful home vineyards too, if disease or virus strikes a vine necessitating its removal.
The older vineyards making grand wines have mostly received excellent viticultural attention in recent years; many but not all needed restoration to some degree, many had previously been pushed to crop heavily. It happened, for example, at the very old Wellington vineyard that gives the grapes for Leeu Passant’s Cinsault, where Rosa Kruger and the Mullineuxs worked hard at revitalising the vineyard, including some interplanting in the gaps. Andrea pointed out to me that the challenge with interplanting is always root-development, given competition from neighbouring vines; the type of soil there made interplanting easier.
That vineyard is, of course, registered as a Heritage Vineyard by SAWIS and the Old Vine Project, allowing the bottle seal which gives the date of the original planting. One of the rules is that not more than 15% of such a vineyard can be interplanted with new vines. Viticulturist Rosa Kruger tells me that in her experience farmers are not continuously interplanting – they might perhaps do it once or twice, with a number of vines, in a vineyard’s lifetime. But not more than a total of 15% of the vineyard if it is to maintain its status as a registered Heritage Vineyard.
This inevitably means that sustainability of a vineyard is impossible and it will eventually need to be replaced in its entirety. The vineyard will survive through a total replanting, but it will be another 35 years before it will qualify for another Heritage Vineyard seal – and the currently celebrated old-vines label and wine will disappear.
Average age of the vines in a vineyard is what counts in Europe. If you look up famous vineyards (I’ve just tried doing it with Romanée-Conti in Burgundy, for example), you will usually be told the average age of the vines, and it’s hard to find any mention of the first planting – especially, of course, when the vineyard has been in more-or-less continuous production for centuries. There is no way that Romanée-Conti could ever afford to be without production, so there must be a rigorous replanting/interplanting programme to ensure continuity.
South Africa is unique in having the Heritage Vineyard seal and proudly displaying the planting date of a vineyard on a bottle of wine. It is indeed intuitively a pleasing and special thing. But I wonder if there shouldn’t also be an attempt to create another, equally prestigious recognition, involving the (substantial) average age of a vineyard, allowing for progressive replanting/interplanting and taking into account vines of all ages.
- Tim James is one of South Africa’s leading wine commentators, contributing to various local and international wine publications. His book Wines of South Africa – Tradition and Revolution appeared in 2013.
-
Share:
Related articles
Opinion & Analysis
Tim James: Organic wines then and now
27 October 2025
Browsing aimlessly through the past, I paused at a report I’d made (in Grape 22) on a 2004 tasting of organic wines. Whether it was the first such journalistic tasting...
1
Opinion & Analysis
Tim James: The joy of magnums – and other bottles
21 October 2025
There’s something essentially celebratory about large-format bottles from the outset. It must be because, being unusual and large, they carry a suggestion of excess, and more specifically because, well, they...
3
Opinion & Analysis
Tim James: Five summer white wines under R170 – how do they stack up?
13 October 2025
Summer is more or less here in Cape Town, with occasional backward glances to winter, and I believe that it’s been resident in Johannesburg, for example, for some time already....
Kwispedoor | 15 July 2025
You make a good point with your last sentence, Tim. Having heritage certification for the age of old vineyards, but not for the average age of old vineyards, will probably create its own issues. Losing the heritage seal if you interplant by more than 15% will result in producers pushing old & diseased vines too for far, for too little juice. Worse, it’ll eventually prompt some farmers to rather uproot those old vineyards. More so if disease or low production (both very likely) become a significant problem. A new replanted vineyard will eventually produce grapes again (after the farmer possibly having left the land fallow for a few years and then allowing for the vineyard to establish itself), but it might take many years, if ever, for the grapes to deliver the same quality again, making a mess of the brand’s reputation and economic viability. Establishing a heritage seal for average vine age will definitely keep more old vines in the ground and aid significantly in building long term brand reputation/gravitas.
Michael Fridjhon | 16 July 2025
A thoughtful and thought-provoking piece Tim. I think it would be prudent and prescient for the industry to look to an acceptable way of determining average age of vineyards so that heritage sites can benefit from interplanting and supplementation. This may have to include a proviso that nothing younger than say 8-12 years old can be included the heritage wine.
In this respect the point about Romanée-Conti is relevant. The vineyard was the last on original roots in Burgundy and in the end it succumbed from the absence of treatments in the 1939-45 war. No Romanée-Conti was produced under the label until I think 1952.
So when the site info says an average age of 53 years with some vines of over 70 this means that there are still some of the post-war plantings in production, but there has probably been an ongoing maintenance and replanting programme which achieves a very credible average age. Serious producers would, in all likelihood, declassify fruit from younger blocks for several years – so the average age would probably exclude the very youngest vines if they were not included in the cuvée.
Angela Lloyd | 16 July 2025
Is it generally accepted, or a legal requirement, that interplanted vines in a heritage vineyard are massale selection rather than clones?
David Clarke | 21 July 2025
Interesting article, Tim. I had several thoughts tumbling around my head while reading:
(1) There is a huge difference in establishment periods of vineyards in Europe vs South Africa (apparently Romanée-Conti was planted in the mid13th century – therefore the average age of the plants currently producing fruit really is the only meaningful measurement)
(2) The lack of an equivalent to the SAWIS data in other parts of the world makes it impossible to rely on anything but the producer’s word on the average age of their vines.
(3) Any certification is only as good as the criteria it sets. SAWIS doesn’t collect data when interplanting is less than 15% of the total vineyard, so I think impossible to certify “average”. This would require certification of the planting date of every vine in every potential OVP vineyard. Seems unlikely.
(4) Interplanting old vineyards appears to be a (could be very wrong) modern practice in recent South African history – one would assume it have happened before commercial nurseries and importing of new vine material – I’d be interested to find out how many of the OVP vineyards have been interplanted like the few examples in the article.
(5) The 15% rule (or the 85% rule – depends on your perspective) allows for a margin for error in labelling a natural product that can vary from year to year, or can vary in the same way every year. It is not unusual to have a small percentage of other varieties in an otherwise single variety-labelled wine. Some producers routinely use a small percentage of younger wine when bottling (only the one vintage declared on the label of course). It has been decided (I’d actually like to know how this number was arrived at) that you can do all this as long as it does not exceed 15% of the total. That is the margin for error, or correction, or style. Why would vineyard age be any different?
Anyway, as I’ve already said, interesting article, Tim. Happy to entertain opposing thoughts to the above, I have probably missed a huge point in the original article. I am sure you’ll correct me 🙂
Tim James | 21 July 2025
Thanks Dave. I can’t see real disagreement, but perhaps different emphasis. In fact am not sure what your point is.
1. I agree that average age of vines is sometimes the only possible approach in classic Europe, precisely because of the sensible practice of interplanting/replanting. The fact seems to me to post a warning to SA if it wants old vineyards to be sustainable (as averagely old – the only possibility) rather than need total replanting when they inevitaby become decrepit. Incidentally, Romanée-Conti was obliged by circumstances to be completely replanted in 1947. Wikipedia currently gives the average age of its vines as 53. If they had fetishised that original planting date and not done quite a bit of replanting (more than interplanting would be my guess), the average age would have been 78. Take a lesson from Romanée-Conti.
2 & 3. Indeed. And Sawis data is only relevant for the initial planting. I agree that it’s effectively impossible to certify average age. I wasn’t suggesting there’s an easy answer to what I see as the OVP’s problem.
4. I’m sure you’re right that interplanting/partial replanting is rare in modern SA. Firstly, there has been little concern till now for vineyards to age beneficially. Secondly and probably irrelevantly, it can be difficult to interplant successfully, especially without available water. As I said in the article Rosa Kruger knows of very little, if any.
5. Average vineyard age (I presume that‘s what you mean) would be different from declaring the origin date of the vineyard, because you could easily have a large part of the vineyard (even the majority if the minority is very old) being comparatively young while the average is over 35 years. Even my arithmetic level can see that. The OVP rule says no more than 15% can differ in age from the declared foundation age.
The more I think about this all, the more I’m sure that the OVP has to find some way of doing more than celebrate planting date. It has to make a vineyard, in its totality, viable for – effectively – ever.
Tim James | 21 July 2025
An obvious final point occurs to me, Dave. You correctly say that it is “impossible to rely on anything but the producer’s word on the average age of their vines”. I’m afraid that that it going to be increasingly true with regard to the 15%/85% rule. There is no effective monitoring of uprootings and/or plantings. There would be absolutely nothing (perhaps an unlikely site inspection and an even more unlikely court case) to stop a farmer replanting more than 15% of a Heritage Vineyard and not declaring it. It would be in their interest to do so. The OVP also has to rely on the producer’s word.