“It’s still youthful” has been Parker’s stock defense to his recommendations of New World glop for at least a decade now. No report yet on whether a single one of those wines has crossed the threshold from “still youthful” to, you know, tasting like an actual mature wine, although plenty have gone straight from “still youthful” to “dead as a doornail.”
So maybe he’d better start thinking of another basis for recommending these besides tasting half their age at age 10.
Hi Keith, in your estimation, which 2002 Napa Cabs in a particular are dead?
Would love to see your list.
TIA.
m
I wasn’t talking about 2002 Napa cabs.
As this is a thread about 2002 cabs you will understand the confusion. Which of the “New World glop” are you referring to, and are these wines you have had? Are the 2002 Napa Cabs “New World glop”?
One small fix (I don’t know how to interlineate text), otherwise I’m 100 points on ^this^.
At the end of last year, the X-Pensive Winos drank a slew of 10-year old plus ‘culty’ Cabernets, pretty much all of which showed as the same oak-flavored grape jelly. We posted our results here and on eBob (Monumental Cult Cab Wine Dinner - Harlan, Colgin, Araujo, Etc With Interesting Results - WINE TALK - WineBerserkers). I think our comments about these wines are among those the Emperor is ridiculing as foolish.
Hence my post above. A 10 year old Cab should will still be pretty young (thus it’s silly to put one forth as an ‘aged’ wine) but it should also start showing some evolution. The fact that it tastes like a 5 year old version of itself isn’t a plus, esp since the traditional knock on cali wines is that they don’t age well… they last, but don’t evolve in interesting ways.
Mike and Curtis - you both missed Keith’s point in your rush to take offense.
-
What point of Keith’s did I miss? I do not know what New World glop means. I have to assume it at least in part refers to 2002 Napa Cabs given the context of the thread, but what do I know?
-
Where do you see me taking offense? I am merely asking for edification and clarification.
-
Do you like and drink Napa Cabs? Given you sensitivity let me stress this is not me taking offense at what you wrote, but your answer will help me better understand where you are coming from.
Curtis - do you have a point? Your posts would indicate not… all you’ve done is ask people to justify why they’ve said what they said. And yes, you missed Keith’s point. No, I’m not going to do your work for you. Re-read it without trying to pick it apart and find fault. It’s pretty obvious.
It’s not obvious to me. But then again I drink 2002 Napa Cabs (a 2002 Sloan just last week). I also do not consider Napa Cabs to be “New World glop”.
Also, given that you made the statement, “the traditional knock on cali wines is that they don’t age well… they last, but don’t evolve in interesting ways” makes it fair for me to ask how much Cali wine you drink.
Keith stated, "although plenty have gone straight from “still youthful” to “dead as a doornail.” It is not clear which wines he was referring to, New World glop, 2002 Napa Cabs, or both, and whether or not this is based on his personal tasting experience.
I know this is all painfully obvious to you, even though it isn’t to me. I am sorry I am challenging your patience. Perhaps I will wait for Keith to answer the question I asked him. I do not think I am smart enough to understand any answer you give me.
As one who has drank enough 2002 Cabernet to make judgment, I find the youthful thing good, not negative. I drink wine for what it IS not will be. The 2002 Bryant remains one of my all time favorite wines of my short pathetic life.
Nothing wrong with you guys doing so. What has transpired above is tantamount to me popping into a 1998 vs 1999 Bordeaux thread. I wouldn’t, as I realize I haven’t a clue.
At the end of the day I am glad you guys hate the wines I like. Really I am.
BTW, I was not being defensive. Just curious how the statement was formed—and I still am.
Note: I have met Keith, like Keith and respect Keith’s opinion on many wine issues but unless Keith is a closet Napa Cabernet drinker, I take his opinions on all things Napa with a grain of salt. (I am sure, as he would my opinions on 1999 Burgundy)
Cheerio(s)!
Well, of course anyone would take opinions of a vintage that does not occur for another 8987 years with a grain of salt.
If you want your wines to taste and age like old world wines - buy old world wines IMO. I think there remains some sentiment that Northern Cali wines should be made to taste and age like old world wines - kind of untouchable for a decade or so and then showing there beauty at age 15 to 20? That really hasn’t been my experience - I have had some older Calis but starting in the 90s there seemed to be a change in general in the way the wines age. I am a believer that most Cali wines do best from age 5 to 10. Some age longer but the great thing about Cali wines is that when made well the heat of the vintages requires fairly ripe fruit to match phenolic ripeness. That for me is the beauty - great ripe fruit along with a well made wine. Once the fruit starts to fade they lose some of their allure at least for me. Old world wines (especially Burgs and Bords - the latter I have the most experience with) just seem to act differently. So to describe Cali wines as new world glop seems to me to miss the point of why anyone would drink them. But I like them all - quality is the key for me - drinking an 00 Ceretto Bricco Asili Barbaresco right now with my Osso Buco and Saffron Risotto.
I’ve been drinking California Cabernets for almost 40 years, starting as a teenager in a wine drinking family and friends environment. The new-styled, fruit dominant, low acid, high alcohol, heavily oaked wines that Parker champions don’t hold up over time, let alone improve much, in my experience. I believe in the 10 year rule: most of these styled Cabs will decline thereafter, sometimes precipitously. Parker is invested in this style of winemaking and in his ridiculous longevity prognostications, hence his tweet. Two years ago, Sloan '02 won a blind X-Pensive Winos tasting (I demurred, preferring a Cariad, if memory serves). The ‘01 tasted at the Winos’ dinner linked in my post above was a “hot fucking mess” (not my comment, by the way, although I agree). If anyone really likes these types of wines, I sold over 400 bottles (not only Cabs) of California wine a week ago to Benchmark for a fair price, which hopefully they will pass along at retail.
Too many things to quote here. The idea that one who wants to taste wines with some age on them should only be drinking old world wine is way off IMO. California and Washington to a lesser degree used to make red wine that evolved and bloomed into something different as it went through life. Aging doesn’t mean keeping tannic structure and remaining as fruity as one year in the bottle. I believe that is Keith’s point on many of these modern styled wines. Bottle- plateau- die.
Not as many as I’d like, but I’ve tasted some older Napa cabs before the Parkerization of the region and they evolved beautifully. I tasted a 1986 Woodward Canyon wine which was like drinking a great old Bordeaux. Last year’s was a high alcohol, slurpee syrup mess which I guess someone could tweet some nonsense about “tasting like 5 years old” whatever that means, and deciding it to be a leading indicator about the aging capability of the wine as 2002 Napa Cabs.
Keith seems to have made a point which illustrates a larger issue, as he often does. I applaud him for doing so.
I drink plenty of California wines, including Napa cabernets. Heitz Martha’s is one of my favorite cabernets from anywhere. But once again, I didn’t say anything about Napa cabernets (as if it would even be possible to generalize about a group that covers such a broad swath of the style spectrum). I was speaking solely to the logic of claiming that a wine will age well on the grounds that it is still youthful at age 10. Like Rick, I’m a little puzzled why this wasn’t obvious.
Actually Keith, I’m a bit confused now as well. If you’re not talking about Napa Cabs, then what are you talking about?
For folks claiming Napa cabs shouldn’t (or can’t) have grace, elegance and ethereal qualities with age probably haven’t had the great cabs from the '70’s and before. (I’m referring to comments above that California wines with age shouldn’t be compared to great aged wines from Bordeaux).
I’m with Keith on the more recent ones–glop. But bring me a '70’s great cab any day next to a great aged Bordeaux.
Wilfred - but has anyone here claimed that? I’ve had those 70s cabs including the 73 Stags Leap and 74 Heitz “Martha’s”. They’re amazing. But the thing is… they matured. Wines that remain static or simply get older (but without positively evolving) aren’t aging. That’s the core of the comments I started to make above about the tweet - a wine that is tasting young at 10 isn’t an argument for that wine aging. It’s an argument that the wine’s not dead, but it simply makes no sense to say a wine’s aging well when it’s showing little sign of evolving secondary aromas and flavors.
I agree, though I would use tertiary as secondary aromas are present at bottling, but that’s nitpicking. It also doesn’t mean the wine’s not aging well as those traits may develop later.
Of course. Actually, I took RP’s tweet merely to indicate that the wines weren’t dead or dying, so I think picking it apart is a bit silly at some level. The question about the modernist/cult Cali cabs and age won’t really be answered for 5-15 more years. At 15-25 ageworthy wines should either be moving toward mature flavors or fully mature. If they still taste young or just taste older but still primary, eh. And if the were going to die, they’ll have done it in 20 years from vintage.