Dominus and Cardinale have been good in the last year
1997 Togni last year was fantastic.
last weekend i had '97 pahlmeyer merlot and thought it was drinking really nice…the nose was great and didn’t detect any over ripeness of fruits. might be showing little bit of its age but very drinkable and enjoyed it very much
IMO, they all developed as expected. If you palate have not changed, you will still like the ones that you liked upon release. They are jammy and very ripe in general.
+1. One of the greatest California wines I have ever tasted.
'92 and '94 are also great, the wines to seek at auction.
+1 for '97 Togni. Had in the last year, and everything that’s great about old school Napa cab with some age on it. Couldn’t be further from “sweet” or “alcoholic”.
I should know better but here I go… Victor your extensive posting on his board strikes me as that of being from someone who chooses his words extraordinarily carefully. Posts like the OP strike me as intentionally vague and frankly trolling.
I await his response to post #16 in this thread.
Yes, I liked the 1997 Laurel Glen very much, but far prefer the prior, more traditional vintages. The 1997 Laurel Glen seems Old World California, when compared to other wines of the same vintage, such as Pride or Karl Lawrence.
1993 was the first Togni wine that I tasted, and also a gem, in slightly more laid back style.
Understood. I do try to judge a wine on its own merits but, not having tried either the of '97 Pride or Karl Lawrence, lack your perspective.
You really should try some of the '97 Togni. It’s made in an Old World European (leaning) style and quite delicious.
Togni, Dunn, Corison, and a few others are more restrained than some of the opulent wines that emerged in the late 1990s. One reason Mondavi was criticized by Laube sometime in the very early 2000s, I don’t remember the year, was that his wines weren’t benchmarks any more. I didn’t think much of it until a few years later when I had a Mondavi Reserve, and I remember thinking that I should pay more attention to that wine because there wasn’t anything wrong with it.
I suppose it depends on the context.
For example, drinking the Pahlmeyer 1994 and 1997 side by side, both the Merlot and the Proprietary Red, I preferred the former, as did the rest of the people sharing the wine. Both were good though. Dunn was the opposite. I haven’t been drinking that many lately but it was Phelps Insignia that made me think that with time, the vintage was probably at its best when young. Subsequently, it’s not been consistent - of those where I’ve had the 1997 with a 1994 or 1995 or 1996 at over 15 years in, my tendency was often to go with the earlier date, although not in every case, particularly in blind tastings. Viader, Dalle Valle, and Montelena were mostly what I had.
But it was a lush vintage when young and it didn’t seem like the wines would gain a lot by age because they were so drinkable early on, so I drank up most of my 1997s.
I had an Arrowood merlot speciale from 97 recently. It was really good, but that’s a wine that’s not seen much. Not sure they make it any more either.
Nearly all 97’s purchased on release are gone, but I’ve backfilled a few randomly. One that I really liked was Chappellet’s cab. As well as arrowoods various cab bottlings, but I think those are fading compared to how nice they were at about age 10
I might add that late 90s Spring Mountain Reserve is still drinking very well, especially 97.
I had a 1997 Etude a couple of weeks ago which was just superb; so much better than I had expected. Even fine the next day…
I had a 1997 Etude a couple of weeks ago which was just superb; so much better than I had expected. Even fine the next day…
Overall the 1997 vintage is, for me, one of the weaker 1990s vintages in Napa twenty years later. Other vintages (1991, 1992, 1993, 1995 and 1996 and possibly 1994, but I’m not as bullish on it as some) held up better.