Agreed for 1998 and 2000.
For drinking right now I am liking 2002s & 2001s. 2004s are showing well too. A lot of the fat-ness is gone. In many I find some of the fruits went with it.
2005s and 2006s need time. 2007s are over-rated and 2008s are drinking beautifully real young.
There are many 2003s that have turned into a great drink and value. One must search for them, but they all exist.
1998 Robert Mondavi Reserve Cab Sav @ Blicker Pierce for $50, all you want.
My personal vintage chart, for what it is worth
VINTAGE…ON RELEASE…NOW…DRINK/HOLD
1997…96…92…DRINK
1998…65…78…DRINK
1999…88…90…DRINK
2000…72…87…DRINK
2001…96…96…DRINK/HOLD (best vintage since 91)
2002…95…92…DRINK
2003…88…89…DRINK/HOLD
2004…91…87…DRINK
2005…93…92…HOLD
2006…88…90…HOLD
2007…96…91…HOLD (going through phase)
2008…89…92…HOLD
2009…(88-92)
2010…(87-91)
2011…(89-94)
Great vintage chart. I tend to agree in a lot of ways. Some of the off vintages were not nearly as bad as panned unless you are wedded to a particular ripe Parker/WS style. I think 05 and 08 have been largely underrated. I’ve always been an 05 fan I think 02(my biggest difference with your chart because i want less lushness and more acidity) and 04 are overrated typically for my palate by a lot. 06 has been a bit hit or miss for me, but mostly hit. I’ve even had some nice wines from 00 and 03. 07s have been hit or miss for me, more miss, but some are great. Many are Parkerized for me. So far based on my limited experience with 09s, i’d be at the low end of your range or lower. Just havent loved 09 napas so far, but some of those are from barrel. Any thoughts on 2010 and 2011 would be welcome. I have no experience there, but would love input on which would be more classically styled, because jammy fruit bombs arent my thing.
I thing the original statement is correct. I love older California Cabernet, but only from a relatively few producers. Most fade. Now, if we are talking about 1974 Sterling (made by Forman), 1976 Phelps, 1978 Diamond Creek, 1991 Montelena, 1984 or 1991 Ridge Monte Bello (or Jimsomere, heck any Ridge), and these are wines I have had relatively recently, different story. But, the original post is correct because it said “most.”
Well, I’m not sure what point you are making here. I could say “most 1990 Bordeaux are past their prime” and in the big sense it would certainly be true, but for the purpose of this board it’s misleading. For the wines that people here are generally buying, I think Cabs from before 2000 are doing just fine. Read the notes that just went up on 94 Alluvium. Is that somehow an exceptional wine that ages well against all odds? I only have a few dozen bottles of CA Cabs but they are all from the 80s and 90s save a few Dehlingers and I can’t think of one that has been over the hill.
All generalities, all about high end Napa Cabs
1997 - acclaimed on release, the wines went in to a stupor 2-3 years ago but some are starting to emerge with more elegance
1998 - unless you’ve recently tried one you liked, I’d avoid. No potential upside now.
1999 - always seemed a bit rough around the edges and tannic. Take a peek, but I’m betting more time required.
2000 - uneven with some winners right now but better choices are out there.
2001 - Similar to 1999 but coming into its own more quickly. Good choice for drinking now a more fully developed, excellent vintage
2002 - overrated in my opinion, lush and fun, party wines since release and real crowd pleasers but perhaps a bit simple. IMO some of the most famous “cults” over did it this year
2003 - under the radar vintage. Coming off the plump 02s, many new enthusiasts were let down by the more understated 03s and (especially on release) they were much lighter but they gained heft and complexity. Uneven across the Valley as some wineries seemed to try to make a 2002 vintage style wine with 2003 fruit.
2004 - fruit forward and drinking well right now. Similar in character to the 02s but “better”
2005 - one of my favorites from the decade. Sort of has it all going on and while really nice now, it continues to improve
2006 - Somewhere between 02s and 04s. The jury is out on ageability but drinking nice now
2007 - great vintage, but shutting down
2008 - IMO better than 07 showing more earth and spice than the preceeding vintage did. More approachable now and probably more ageable as well.
I am starting to wonder if 05 Cab will become the US equivalent of Bordeaux 1945 (maybe not quite that good, but similar in style.) Both vintages had larger than usual yields. Both had a long harvest window. Both were very fruity early. Neither had prolonged heat. Neither were considered long agers when they were released and were praised for their soft texture and up front fruit flavors. The 05s have become the favorite of a few local winemakers I know, none of whom thought they would develop the balance they have. They might surpass the 07s in time.
Thanks again everyone. The list I’m selecting from has 2001 Heitz Bella Oaks, Martha’s and Trailside as well as a 2001 Montelena estate. Sounds like this will be an excellent vintage. If I can tap expertise one more time, do you all think the Martha’s will be too coiled up at this point? I find the other two Heitz offerings much more approachable young, but again this isn’t my strong suit at all…
Any initial thoughts on 2009, 2010, and 2011 so far?
The 2009-2011 span is the most challenging since 1998-2000 at the least, and at the worst was the most challenging anyone can ever remember. The reason why it is likely the wines from this trio will be better than 1998-2000 is because of the enormous advances in viticulture and winemaking in the last decade. In the prior period, many people were still religiously picking at 23-24 brix regardless of flavor, and since those were cold years, the favors were green. Now, people hang fruit regardless of brix to get the green out and will sit through almost any rain, whereas rain scared everyone back then and most picked before it hit. Second, there is far more willingness to drop unripe or overripe fruit in the vineyard and there is a better understanding of how to deal with mold and other issues like too much or too little water. Also, since there are more rich people in the business now than then, more wineries can make the sacrifice of declassifying poor batches of Cab. Less of this happened a decade ago. I do not know of a single good winery of any moderate size that does not have at least one or two vegetative Cab lots in 2011; the difference is that much of that will be declassified this time. At the same time, many winemakers I know also made the best batches of Cab in the last three vintages in 2011, including myself. 2011 is like “the best of times, the worst of times.” Overall, ripeness levels are down in 2009-2011. Ripeness, but not alcohol, because there was little need for water adds in the last three years to bring down brix levels, but the final alcohol number will be about the same for top Napa Cab, about 14.8-15.2% (regardless of what labels say.) The difference is that many of the candied, confectionary, prune flavors will be replaced by more black fruit and structure. I find the fruit character of 2009 to be… Washingtonian, if that makes any sense. If 2009-2011 happened ten to twenty years ago, the results would have been dreadful. On the other hand, if 1998-2000 happened now, I bet much better wines would come out of it.
Anthony,
No I do not think the 2001 Martha’s Vineyard will be too coiled up. It should be drinking great now and that would certainly be my choice from your list.
I think your vintage chart is great ![[thankyou.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/d/df165fe9c1593d19166ae7e1ffe5e272089cc07b.gif "thankyou"){kind=small}
I noticed you have made several adjustments
since I last saw it.
How often do you update/re evaluate?
Cheers
Rip
1997: Delicious, ripe, and fruit forward. Best bottles remain incredible and well balanced, others falling apart. The 1994s people have in their cellar probably have more potential for additional aging than the 1997s. Someone mentioned 1997 Spottswoode. I had that about 5 months ago, perfect storage, great bottle for 1 hour, then it fell apart. Aging is a concern, but for drinking right now, the 1997s are delicious from most top producers.
1998: pass.
1999: A more austere and tannic vintage. For perspective, Laube loved 1999 when it came out, largely (I think) because it had nice fruit, but was a structured vintage. Not as jammy or fruit forward, but the 1999s will age fairly well and you can get good deals on them. I think 1999 is a forgotten vintage, but a pretty decent one if you like a slightly more rustic style (for napa).
2000: pass
2001: I thought these would age better than the 2002s, and many have. 2001 was acclaimed as a great vintage at the time. The wines fall in a pretty wide range. Some are nearly over-the-top and laden with fruit. But, most are very well balanced and have retained decent structure and very nice fruit. My one complaint is that many I have had seem a bit more evolved than they should be. Still, almost all are very well balanced and delicious right now. That said, notes are all over the place on how these are drinking. Some people are really digging them, while others are panning them. I like them a lot.
2002: Initially a “party wine” vintage as many have suggested. I think they are a lot more than that. They are definitely well endowed in the fruit department. But I disagree with some on the “party wine” statement. The 2002s have very solid underlying structure and are showing quite a bit younger than the 2001s to me. Their vibrant fruit is still present, and most finish with very nice tannic grip. I also think that 2002 is a very consistent vintage. You know what you are going to get with most bottles. I think the 2002s are coming around very well. The top wines of the vintage are murderous, although some of the big cults are a touch extracted and thick.
2003: Polarizing vintage. Drink 'em up. The better wines are very good now, but few think 2003s are meant to age.
2004: I think 2004 is an inconsistent vintage. For the most part, the wines are big and jammy and made for early consumption. If you like an unctious mouthfeel, have at them. A few wines are strangely austere and lacking in pleasure (Pride Cab.). Most possess rich chocolate covered fruit notes, with largely hidden tannins and pretty low acid levels. At 7 many are still drinking really young. I wonder when they will fall off, since the fruit seems to mask most of the wines’ structure. Remind me a bit of 1997 and 2002 (but worse, and largely lacking the “it” factor).
2005: I think 2005 is another decent, but not overwhelmingly good vintage. High yields, better balance than many 2004s, but not particularly special to me, and fairly inconsistent, unless you stick with better producers. The wines are good, have nice balance, are not generally overwhelmed by fruit, and are drinking fairly well at a young age. I think these will get better for 5 years, then hang around for another 5-10. Pretty nice vintage.
2006: Not sure why, but I’ve probably only had about 10 2006s, so I’m not sure I can give you a good breakdown. From my experience, the wines are pretty good, pretty big, fairly well structured, and generally good. If I recall, most were harvested late, and are structured, but pretty thick. The wines I had have all been good, but I’m not sure I’m the best source for 2006.
2007: I’ve probably had 60-70 2007s at this point, and am pretty comfortable arguing the quality of this vintage with anyone. Here’s my take: The 2007 vintage is superb, but a taste-before-you-spend vintage with a large variation in structure in the wines. Certain wines, like Alatmura, Revana, and various others are very extracted, nearly sweet, and coat-your-mouth fruity. Those wines have barely-there structure and remind me of 1997s on release. Those, however, seem to me to be the exception to the rule. Most of the 2007s I’ve had show very good structure, quite present tannins, and moderate acid. Frankly, I think unlike 1997s, the better 2007s will age for decades. It does seem to be a matter of winemaker interpretation though. The 2007 Dominus is a polarizing wine, but will undoubtedly age for decades. The 2007 Insignia will similarly age for decades. Montelena, Ridge, and many others are also right there. Dozens of other wines are built for the long haul, but also have wonderful fruit and stunning depth. The flabby over-extracted wines are, to me, the exception to the rule (unlike 2004). I’d be confident putting my money where my mouth is and saying that, in ten years, 2007 will reign supreme among the last decade of vintages.
2008: I’ve likewise tasted a bunch of 2008s on release and recently, although perhaps not as many as 2007. I think that 2008 was lost in the hubbub surrounding 2007. The 2008’s are delicious, for the most part, and slightly more fruit focused than the 2007s without being overly jammy. Wines from better producers are right their with their 2007 counterparts, although there is significantly more variance in quality at the mid-level range. These will drink better younger than 2007. It’s a thumbs up vintage, and bargains are there for the taking if you look hard enough. In retrospect, the 2008 vintage will get a bunch of love.
My favorite Napa Cab is Dunn Howell Mountain, Here’s my vintage chart for that wine since 1997
1997 - Hold
1998 - Hold
1999 - Hold
2000 - Hold
2001 - Hold
2002 - Hold
2003 - Hold
2004 - Hold
2005 - Hold
2006 - Hold
2007 - Hold
I hope this helps. If you’re looking for the older vintages of the Dunn HM, here’s my chart for the prior five years:
1996 - Hold
1995 - Hold
1994 - Hold
1993 - Hold
1992 - Hold
Which has always begged the question for me: Why is Dunn HM anyone’s favorite Napa Cab?
Roy, did an excellent synopsis a few posts up. He sees far more wines and talks to more winemakers than I do. I can really only speak about our own wines and experiences at this early stage…
2009 - reminds me in quality and character to our 05s
2010 - we think perhaps the best wines we’ve ever made
2011 - I don’t have the experience to judge the wines yet, but my winemaker likes them. There is just so little quantity. If we bottle as single vineyard as we usually do, we’ll only have ~ 60 cases of 2011 Baconbrook.
To upstage anyone liking Jordan or Sliver Joke.
No - when his stuff is ready to drink, it is awesome. I bought a case of the 89 HM at a Butterfields auction a couple of years back, and it was singing. My tongue-in-cheek post notwithstanding, I actually think the 1992 and 1993 is drinking pretty good right now, too.
I think the better question is why would anyone buy current releases of Dunn HM.