X-pensive Winos return with a tasting of "old school" California cabs

[G. Greenbaum]

This group may just be the best thing about LA!

Ahem!!! I resemble that remark.

Great tasting and excellent write up. I've been lucky to taste a number of older CA cabs and have to agree with those that find the style almost lost in today's $100/btl oak shakes.

[Aaron Malo]

Thanks to Marshall for starting this thread. I have been delayed in chiming in. Sorry for that.

I just pulled up the email I sent to the Winos on the morning of the 12th. In that email, I noted the great work of Marc Abrams in organizing this dinner and the incredible generosity of Mark Kaplan in contributing (I think) all of the 1984 wines. Ours is a merry band of drunks to be sure, and it never ceases to amaze me how generous some of the folks in this group can be. But for my association with these fellows, I would likely not have ever tried several of the wines that I truly enjoy and frequently purchase these days (Kracher, Maybach, SQN and Lilian all come to mind). And then there are nights like this one, where I simply would never have access to the wines tasted, but for our group. The X-Pensive Winos truly are all about everything that is good about wine groups (or maybe "support groups" is the more accurate term). Here's to us!

I found the wines fascinating. I was shocked (even if Marshall wasn't) by how really delilcious the 1970 BV was. In some tasting notes I find people talking about how "complex" or "nuanced" old wines can be. And that is certainly true. For some it might even justify aging those wines before drinking them. But with me, it's important to track not only complexity and subtlety, but also pure drinking pleasure -- Did I really enjoy the damn wine? And the 42 year old 1970 BV passed that test. It was a wine that tasted not just interesting, but good. If you've got a bottle, go drink it. It's good stuff.

(On a related aside, a few years back I brought an older Kistler chard to one of our dinners and it was paired up against a younger flashier chard (an Aubert, if I recall correctly). I noted how much more complex and interesting the Kistler was, and Brother Page responded by noting that while that was true, he tends to pick his wines in the same manner 20 year old guys pick their women -- not so much looking for complexity, nuance and elegance, but more selecting based upon lots and lots of fun and (ultimately) satisfaction. He had a legitimate point, though not one I've shared with the fair Mrs. Malo.)

Also passing the "not just intersting, but also fun and satisfying" test for me was the 1978 Heitz Martha's. I admit it. I'm a sucker for the older Heitz Martha's. For me, this was an "eye opener" kind of wine that, for the first time, really demonstrated terroir to me when I first sampled it in the early 1990's. This bottle of the 1978 was everything I could hope for in such a wine. Nice menthol/eucalyptus notes, complex flavor profile, still good fruit, and lots of pleasure. A great bottle of wine.

I also very much enjoyed the 1984 Diamond Creek Red Rock Terrace. It was great. But frankly, I don't recall much more than that -- I really liked it, but I don't recall exactly why.

I was a little disappointed in the 1987 Monty. I've had that wine a couple of times and been absolutely blown away by it. (Most notably at a dinner where someone had a magnum of the stuff -- man, I wish I could remember who that was so I could get access to some more of it.) This bottle was good, but not great, though I thought it was better than the other 1987's.

This was a great night and a lot of fun. For me, it was interesting to see how light (almost delicate) these delicous wines were after so many years in bottle. Yet they were still really satisfying wines. We didn't have any 20-year-olds in our mix, but Br. Kaplan was kind enough to bring his 20-something year old son (who was younger than all the wines, I think). And even he liked the wines. I don't know that the wines of the 1990's and 2000's will hold up as well as these did, but I can't wait to find out.

Well done, as always, by the Winos.

-- Aaron

[Howard Cooper]

[quote="BTraub]Actually, I date the current ultra-ripe style from 1997, a hot year that resulted in a lot of very ripe wines that got a lot of really high scores (and not just from Parker), and I think encouraged letting the grapes hang to achieve that level of ripeness in future vintages (maybe not possible in 1998 or 2000, but certainly from 2001 on, right after the time when the 1997's got their big publicity from the critics). I think the jury is still out on those wines, some are doing OK, but many are not.[/quote]

I see it more as kindah sortah '92, but more realistically as '94 as over-the-top, extracted "cult" wines exploded in that supposed vintage of the century. 1997, in my mind, was the apogee of the style. I actually think that in the early '00's, some folks started to pull back some and while there are still a plethora of super ripe, extracted Cabs out there, more and more I see signs that some are pulling back to a degree.[/quote]


I understand all of your points but I think there was another stylistic shift around 2002. A lot of new producers, some that I really enjoy, entered the market. These were rather expensive but not truly cults. In many cases, I believe these wines were stylistically built to drink well at a very early age. I have had some producers tell me that I should be drinking the '04s and this was in 2010. Again, I am not criticizing these wines, and they certainly seem to have developed a place in the market......I just would rather drink my aged wines. As for some of these newer producers, I am hoping that they will age well but only time will tell.

Cheers!
Marshall [/quote]

Thanks guys. I think a reason it is hard to pinpoint dates is that how well California wines age vary so much by producer. The producers you guys tasted have long track records of aging well and most of them still make wines that age well. On the other hand, I have had a lot of wines from the late 70s and early 80s that did not last so well either (eg some William Hill, but also a lot of others). Good luck finding a stylistic shift in Ridge, Montelena, Mayacamas, etc., where the wines stopped aging.

On some wineries, however, I do wonder if there have been shifts. For example, I had a 1976 Phelps regular Cabernet along with a 1994 Insignia a couple of years back and wonder if the 1994 will ever age as well as the 1976 (or some other Phelps wines from the 80s have done). I have 1994, 1996, and 1997 Insignia and am a little worried about them. I hope I am wrong. So, I think it is really wine by wine.

[Brad Kane]

I have 1994, 1996, and 1997 Insignia and am a little worried about them. I hope I am wrong. So, I think it is really wine by wine.

Sell, imo and buy twice as much old stuff with the proceeds. I really don't think those wines have or will age well. I've been disappointed with the '94 and '95 for eight years now, but ymmv.

Eight years ago we held a '94 horizontal here in NY that caused a stir by how average the wines showed. For many, it solidified the opinion that post '91-'92, the style that prevails, with a few exceptions, will not age well. That was further backed up by a '95 horizontal a year later where, again, the wines hadn't held up well.

[Matt Neel]

Eight years ago we held a '94 horizontal here in NY that caused a stir by how average the wines showed. For many, it solidified the opinion that post '91-'92, the style that prevails, with a few exceptions, will not age well. That was further backed up by a '95 horizontal a year later where, again, the wines hadn't held up well.

Interesting, Brad. I just happened to post notes on CT a few minutes ago on a Montelena vertical (not the one we joined at Beacon, which notes are still pending...). The '94 was a big letdown, hot and blank. The '95, though, was just behind the '92 for me as WOTN, to my very great surprise. Neither of the '90 or '91 showed well that night for me, though. I expected them to come out on top. I'll start a new thread soon with the notes.

[Marshall Gelb]

Thanks to Marshall for starting this thread. I have been delayed in chiming in. Sorry for that.

I just pulled up the email I sent to the Winos on the morning of the 12th. In that email, I noted the great work of Marc Abrams in organizing this dinner and the incredible generosity of Mark Kaplan in contributing (I think) all of the 1984 wines. Ours is a merry band of drunks to be sure, and it never ceases to amaze me how generous some of the folks in this group can be. But for my association with these fellows, I would likely not have ever tried several of the wines that I truly enjoy and frequently purchase these days (Kracher, Maybach, SQN and Lilian all come to mind). And then there are nights like this one, where I simply would never have access to the wines tasted, but for our group. The X-Pensive Winos truly are all about everything that is good about wine groups (or maybe "support groups" is the more accurate term). Here's to us!

I found the wines fascinating. I was shocked (even if Marshall wasn't) by how really delilcious the 1970 BV was. In some tasting notes I find people talking about how "complex" or "nuanced" old wines can be. And that is certainly true. For some it might even justify aging those wines before drinking them. But with me, it's important to track not only complexity and subtlety, but also pure drinking pleasure -- Did I really enjoy the damn wine? And the 42 year old 1970 BV passed that test. It was a wine that tasted not just interesting, but good. If you've got a bottle, go drink it. It's good stuff.

(On a related aside, a few years back I brought an older Kistler chard to one of our dinners and it was paired up against a younger flashier chard (an Aubert, if I recall correctly). I noted how much more complex and interesting the Kistler was, and Brother Page responded by noting that while that was true, he tends to pick his wines in the same manner 20 year old guys pick their women -- not so much looking for complexity, nuance and elegance, but more selecting based upon lots and lots of fun and (ultimately) satisfaction. He had a legitimate point, though not one I've shared with the fair Mrs. Malo.)

Also passing the "not just intersting, but also fun and satisfying" test for me was the 1978 Heitz Martha's. I admit it. I'm a sucker for the older Heitz Martha's. For me, this was an "eye opener" kind of wine that, for the first time, really demonstrated terroir to me when I first sampled it in the early 1990's. This bottle of the 1978 was everything I could hope for in such a wine. Nice menthol/eucalyptus notes, complex flavor profile, still good fruit, and lots of pleasure. A great bottle of wine.

I also very much enjoyed the 1984 Diamond Creek Red Rock Terrace. It was great. But frankly, I don't recall much more than that -- I really liked it, but I don't recall exactly why.

I was a little disappointed in the 1987 Monty. I've had that wine a couple of times and been absolutely blown away by it. (Most notably at a dinner where someone had a magnum of the stuff -- man, I wish I could remember who that was so I could get access to some more of it.) This bottle was good, but not great, though I thought it was better than the other 1987's.

This was a great night and a lot of fun. For me, it was interesting to see how light (almost delicate) these delicous wines were after so many years in bottle. Yet they were still really satisfying wines. We didn't have any 20-year-olds in our mix, but Br. Kaplan was kind enough to bring his 20-something year old son (who was younger than all the wines, I think). And even he liked the wines. I don't know that the wines of the 1990's and 2000's will hold up as well as these did, but I can't wait to find out.

Well done, as always, by the Winos.

-- Aaron

Aaron; Outstanding post and recap! You simply must post more often....really enjoy your writing.


Cheers!
Marshall

[Stephen Gelber]

Good notes here by Marshall, and a well thought out dinner by Marc. This was an "answer" dinner to one we did several months ago which was a 1991-2001 CA Cult cab evening, concluding a two-part examination of the Kaplan Theory, and this turned out to be another fantastic evening.
My sentiments are consistent with what has already been laid out by the group, with some slight variance; for example, I found the '70 BV GdlT so surprisingly delicious that I finished what was in my glass before others were noticing that theirs was falling apart. On the basis of what I tasted, it was outstanding, and my WOTN. I am a huge fan of the '78 Heitz MV, and while I loved the wine, I found this particular bottle to have less of a eucalyptus profile than others. I also really enjoyed the Ridge Montebello, which opened up after about 25 minutes in the glass, and I liked the Phelps quite a bit too.
I found Flight Two on the whole slightly less interesting, with the Dunn Howell Mountain not only the best wine on the table, but one of the best, most resolved bottles of DHM I've ever had. The Diamond Creek RRT also showed very well. The others may have had a better chance, but there may have been a conflict with the food course that prevented them from showing their best.
Flight Three was again a notch less interesting, though could have been stronger. As others have said, this was not the best bottle of Montelena many of us have had, and the Dominus was a minor disappointment. Both were still utterly pleasurable and matched well with the food. Too bad we didn't have an '87 Beringer PR or Mondavi Reserve in the mix, but alas.

All in all another fine evening with the Winos, and a very good meal from Comme Ca. I believe the same 13 of us (with one exception) have been been getting together on a monthly basis for almost 7 years (one of the historians can correct me here) -- ever since, according to David Rauch, I had the "hair-brained idea of a having a Syrah-athon bringing together a bunch of weirdos (I) met on the internet" -- and we have managed to continually mix up the themes based on our individual tastes and passions to keep it interesting enough for each of us to eagerly look forward to our dinner every fourth week. I know I do. The food is good, the wines are good, the talk is good, the friendships are good, and we still continue to have new experiences and learn from them. What could be better?

[steven elzer]

Another outstanding tasting organized by the x-pensive winos. I love these old wines and am glad to see so many show so well. I miss you all a great deal and look forward to joining you again soon.

[Marshall Gelb]

Glad to see you comment! I still have a decent stash of older wines and look forward to the time when you rejoin the group on a full time basis.


Cheers!
Marshall

[Mike Grammer]

Splendid notes, Marshall, and well done. Would have been fascinated to try all these in context.

Mark K----where were the single malts??

Kwa Heri,

Mike