Which California Cali Cab vintage do you prefer? 96 or 97

I much prefer 1996 to 1997, in fact, for my palate, it’s not even a contest. Most 1997s seem to be fruitless and old - while 1996s are fresh and young.

I realize this is a generality (1997 Monte Bello is nice, Seavey is nice…) but to me, I much prefer 96s.

How about you, for current drinking?

I’m amazed how at auctions 1997 continues to have this “rep” of greatness - I understand that on release (I wasnt drinking wine in college) there were similarities to 02 and 04 (?)…and they were pretty tasty.

But now?

Hard to say…

Looking at CT, my average scores for CA cabs are .6 points higher for 97 when compared to 96.

Unless I try 100+ wines from each year, it would be hard for me to make a sound opinion on the vintage.

What do I know? Geez, Peter just ask Pobega.

No question the 1996’s. I feel the exact same way you do PMC.

96 by a country mile

never really enjoyed 97 as a whole and just chalked it up to personal vintage profile preferences. 96’s are somewhat reasonable as well.

just got some Jones Family for $67.50 per

Other than the 97 Montelena I can’t think of any 97 that’s better than a 96.

1996 for me.

Amazingly enough, I can actually answer this one! '97 was supposed to be such a great year, but it apparently fell off quickly, and just don’t age well in general. They do seem flat, flabby, and overripe compared to other years, and especially '96, which was not touted as a great year on release, I believe.

Joining the parade. Big edge to '96. I have a few cases of '96 and a few bottles of '97 (Ridge and Spottswoode, I think) in my cellar.

I really like the Ridge MB and Monty Estate MB, but I cant say either is “better” now than the 1996.

Interesting that most people so far prefer 96s given auction pricing.

I’ve never really given this one any thought. I wasn’t buying wine when 96’s or 97’s were current releases so everything I’ve picked up has been auction or private party purchases. That being said, being a relative novice I bought into the hype and purchases quite a bit of 97 and relatively few 96 (mostly Whitehall Lane). I have always enjoyed Insignia, Caymus SS and Jarvis from 97 and just had a 97 Whitehall Reserve the other night which was very good. Whitehall Leonardini and Flora Springs Trilogy would probably top my list of 96’s - both have been very good. Bottom line - I don’t feel that I’ve had enough exposure to 96 to make a qualified opinion.

Considering value, 96 wins by a long shot. The 97 premium might be worth it on some wines, but def. not all.

Haven’t had a ton of either but my general impression is '96 is better. Some of those wines still seem young while the '97’s can be in odd places.

OH LORD! Did you really admit that on a public website!

Looking at my CT notes and scores, for me it’s a mixed back. I have truly enjoyed a lot of 97s, but of late, it seems like I’m drinking more 96s and enjoying them as well.

1996, and i always have preferred the middle 90’s over the lauded 1997.

Not comparing '97 to '96, as I haven’t had many wines from both vintages, but the '97s I’ve had lately have been anything but “fruitless and old”. Even lower end wines like Beringer Knight’s Valley and Gallo Stefani have been drinking well and could still use some time. The BV Tapestry I had a little while ago was drinking fine and still has a lot of time left. Based on those, I haven’t really broken into the higher end '97s I have.

Maybe it’s just the individual wines I laid down vs you, maybe yours were just in a strange place or maybe my cellar is slow…

Andy

1996 is the winner in my book as well.

Andy, that 97 Bella was def. fruity!

1997 gets my vote, but not by a long shot. Remember at the time, 1996 was considered an off year too, not sure how because there are a lot of great 1996 wines! Think 1997 is just a more age worthy vintage, 1996 wines are drinking better today. The Montelena is a case in point, 96 good to go, 97, very tight . . .