One man’s “representative” is another man’s “curated”.
Gents, don’t kid yourselves one moment to think this thread was about wine.
The op did not even know what vintage all these wines yielded from.
Just a few hours ago, the whole 2010 vintage in California Cabs was crap. Then it was the 2009.
Greg dal Piaz selected these. If there was a theme it was that they weren’t overripe and they tasted like cab. I think he also wanted to show that the less expensive wines might be the best. He’s a fan of the Stuhlmuller and the Chappellet, he indicated.
It probably wasn’t clear from the original post, but David Zylberberg brought the Arnot-Roberts, which was poured as a mystery wine after we’d finished the basic flight of eight.
Everything was tasted blindly.
(God forbid we should talk about wine.)
I don’t follow contemporary cal cab too closely - I like and generally drink bottles from Mount Eden and Ridge every year (and these days, adding Arnot-Roberts SCM cab to that list) but the price and style of most stuff I’ve encountered these days is just so wildly out of line with my palate that, to be honest, I don’t know if 2009 or 2010 or 2008 is good or bad or whatever. That being said, I knew this had been advertised as a tasting of wines that were supposed to show more cabernet character, so I was surprised how much I disliked nearly all the wines on the table. I drink a ton of older cal cab, but I find that there’s a pretty clear dividing line in 1997; 1996 and older I tend to like very much, 1997 and younger tends to taste sweet or pruney to my palate. There are exceptions, of course, but it works as a general rule.
I quite liked the Stuhlmuller, which was the only wine that even held an echo of what I think of as characteristic of the older cabs. There was a core of sweetish fruit, but not too much, and lots of cedary/herbal stuff going on in the background. Plenty of structure, too. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if in 15 years, this was drinking like the 1996’s are today. It didn’t wow me, but its a young wine. If Greg’s intent in including the Stuhmuller was to point out how underrated that producer is, he succeeded. And I didn’t get the porty notes that John described, certainly not at the end of the tasting when we were discussing and the wines had gotten some air.
But otherwise, blech! The Caymus was syrupy sweet and had a plush, thick mouthfeel and quite simply checked none of the boxes I’m looking for in wine, let alone GOOD wine. I can see why it appeals to people - it tastes like blueberry syrup, and blueberry syrup is delicious! On pancakes. Wine after wine was sweet, ponderous - even when the acid was there to “balance” the wine, there was this leaden fruit upfront. The wines weren’t very savory. They were simple and pandering, lowest common denominator stuff. My palate doesn’t always align with John’s subjectively, but objectively I tend to agree with his impressions, but this time, I can’t agree. I cannot imagine these wines transforming into the wines I like, ever. It’s like they’ve selectively emphasized the worst features of california cabernet.
The only three wines that were even remotely interesting were the Midsummer, the Chappellet, and the Mondavi. The Midsummer was hated by the group - rarely is there such consensus in any direction - and I was (I believe) a lone outlier. It had a ton of oak, and not much concentration, but I found its lack of “sweetness” made it stick out from the group in a good way. I thought it was much better with air - I agreed with the group that when it first opened it was thin and oak-dominated. Greg said that the Midsummer is made by a progeny of Heitz, and it makes sense that I scored it above the group because I very much like Heitz, even the younger bottles. The Chappellet was what it was, a dark, structured, oaky, brooding thing. I didn’t enjoy it, but I understand why others did. It was hard to reconcile what was in the glass in front of me with the 1987 Chappellet I had a few months ago, which was a lacy, mineral, elegant drink. Lastly, the Mondavi had a lot of cabernet character, the only question was the concentration; John thought it was nice and full, but consensus at our end of the table was that it was hollow, and much discussion ensued as to when the Mondavi Reserve lost that certain “something” that it had from the 70s into the 90s, and whether replanting at To-Kalon was at fault.
So, David and Keith should get along famously.
Sure sounds like it
You can’t identify the 1987 Chappellet with the 2009 Chappellet. They are completely different. The 1987 Chappellet was far less dense, less extracted, probably saw less new oak, and had much higher acid.
Times have a-changed in Napa. Most of the pre-1997 wines you drink are probably 13.5-14.0 listed abv. Most of the new releases in 2007-2009 are in the 14.5-15.1 listed abv., are picked later for “phenolic ripeness” which reduces green and savory notes and increases the sweet flavors of the fruit. From my experience with the 2002s and forward, it’s leading to wines that hang onto primary fruit notes for a longer period of time than those found in the 1991-1996 window. By the way, if you like 1996 now, wait three years and buy 1999s.
What I find interesting is the concept that 1997 is the year Napa cabs got fat, overripe, and overextracted. Many of the top-tier wines from that vintage are still in the 13.5-14.1 listed abv., including great wines like Colgin Herb Lamb, Montelena Estate, Mondavi Reserve, Pride Mountain Reserve Claret and Cabernet Sauvignon, Beringer Private Reserve, and Jones Family, among many others. The Dunns were at 13%, and Shafer Hillside was at a paltry 14.5% compared to a listed 15.5% plus nowadays.
I’m not convinced 1997 was a turning point for ripeness and extraction so much as it was a year with poor acids…or at least that’s what it’s seemed to me. That’s rampant speculation based on personal experience and not labs though. YMMV
I think in many cases the division started earlier in the '90s, but agree that something changed that I don’t like in the making of many/most California Cabernets. I recently sold all that I own from '92 forward except Shafer Hillside (and I have some doubt about their more recent vintages). Several hundred bottles. I doubt that in the future I will regret the sale.
I also enjoy reading hyperbolic comments about wines, especially those the writer dislikes. Too many fetishize wines that they like. David Strange writes the best notes about wines he hates. So, I got and appreciated the Bea Arthur reference.
Texier wines definitely do not suck. Quite the contrary.
KJJ – I agree with you as a general matter. I find it tragic to see what’s become of cabernet in Napa. But, while the 09 Signature evidently clocks in at 14.9%, but I don’t recall anyone finding it hot.
Well, you wouldn’t expect the current release to resemble a 25-year-old wine! I thought the 09 had both depth and balance and I’m going to try to track down a couple of bottles at $40-$50 I think it’s worth a roll of the dice. I think there’s a good chance it will age with grace.
To me, the stylistic divide would probably be 2001 forward.
I think 1999 was an excellent vintage with many balanced and ageworthy wines, and 98 and 00 are underrated, with a surprising number of wines that are good now in a cool vintage, leaner, more old-fashioned style, and offer crazy value today at auction for those who like that style.
I think 1997 is somewhat of an outlier in the pre 2001 era, though maybe the lavish praise for the vintage played a role in the 2001+ stylistic changes at some wineries?
I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views. I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty, and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all Texiers, everywhere, suck.
I have not been able to find the reference, but I read something about 10 years ago saying that the average alcohol level in Napa wines had risen by more than 1% in a decade, so the shift to more ripeness clearly predates 2001. I wasn’t drinking enough California wines in the period to have an opinion about when things changed.
A related question: We hear that a lot of consumers don’t like the green bell pepper/green olive note that cab can have, and that that was one factor pushing winemakers to pick later. Does anyone know if there was market research on that? Or was it critics that recoiled at it?
And you will continue to live in fear that you will be served one blind and (horrors!) you will like it.
It will never end. You will live your life in fear. Never free from Texier anxiety.
Can most drinkers really discern 1% difference in alcohol? Not challenging, just curious…
I suspect most drinkers can taste the difference in phenolics that occurs from the additional ripeness that leads to the higher sugars . . .
No.
I’ll split David and Billtexkrautman. I think it would be very difficult to tell the difference between 14.5 and 15.5 if both wines are ripe, dense, tannic, and as balanced as possible given the mass. I think you’d notice a major difference between 12.5% and 13.5% because the acids, extraction, and phenolic ripeness differ more dramatically.
You absolutely had a shift even from the mid-70s to the mid-80s. A great 1974 Mondavi Reserve was in at 12.4% abv or so, and by 1987, Beringer Private Reserve was tipping the scales at 13.5%. Then, it kind of stayed put for a while, and then began to creep upwards in the late 90s. I think 2001 probably was the real shift in style, since 1999 more closely resembled 1996 than 1997, though you’ve got weather to blame to some degree there. I’d generally prefer 2001 to 1997 at this point, since most 2001s are hanging on very well, while I can’t say the same for 1997. I think in 4 years the 2001 will still be relatively better, though more primary for a longer period of time.
I recall that Adam Lee always had some handy stats about average alcohol levels in California year to year (he wouldn’t have been talking about cabs, but maybe he has access to that as well?).
I highly doubt if people can taste the 1% difference in alcohol per se, but I do think that if you poured a half dozen each of 14% and 15% alcohol cabernets from the same vintage (or pinots, or zins), you would probably see an overall difference in the two groups. Partly the greater ripeness and lower acids, and partly that the producers making the higher alcohol ones would tend to be aiming for a different style (for example, might also be using more oak).
Looks like I missed all the fun.
I mis-read Mr. Zylberberg’s name as it is a similar one to one of my customers who posts here. I held my breath as I went down through the scores, still thinking it was my customer’s notes. Relieved that my wine was not included, I got out fast!