WineBoard
Cal Cabs Thrashed In Decanter! - Printable Version

+- WineBoard (https://www.wines.com/wineboard)
+-- Forum: TASTING NOTES & WINE SPECIFIC FORUMS (https://www.wines.com/wineboard/forum-200.html)
+--- Forum: Cabernet Sauvignon (https://www.wines.com/wineboard/forum-19.html)
+--- Thread: Cal Cabs Thrashed In Decanter! (/thread-4187.html)



- Van The Man - 03-17-1999

I had a chance to catch up on some reading this weekend with bad weather and a bad knee slowing me down a bit. And I picked up the latest issue of Decanter, a UK based wine rag which I enjoy the most of all the rags I get because is is LOADED with meat and potatoes as opposed to a bunch of glitz and glamour. (Marshall Manning, this would be one you'd like, its all wine, every time)

The March '99 issue has Jancis Robinson on the cover as "Woman of the Year 1999) and a big blurb "140 California Cabernets rated." So, I flip to the article and zow! Not pretty at all. There was some discussion on the recently re-planted Napa Valley and some discussion on other appellations and then an overall discussion about the wines that were tasted. The tasting was done by 13 UK based tasters, 4 of which were MW, another reason I like this magazine.

Here were some comments which are kept to a minimum due to copyright considerations:

"These cabernets were not built for ageing, the best may last for 5 years..."

"To drink California Cabernet, you have to love it; it's neither cheap nor top value."

"Premium these wines may be, but they are not the top wines at auction."

Perhaps the most damning point of the article was that winemaking was at fault and therefore prices were way out of whack. One writer offered that the raw material was "top stuff" but that the wines were over extracted, overoaked and unripe. Kieth Isaac MW pointed out that the wines overall, were at best, decent reds which offered unbalanced drinking. One writer pointed out that California Cab winemakers seemed as though they were trying to see how much depth, concentration and overextraction they could put in a bottle and that "they are trying too hard."

On the subject of price, all writers seemed perplexed at the prices these wines are commanding and noted that many winemakers around the world often ask "what's the best wine I can make from the fruit I have" while in California they seem to ask "what's the most money I can make" as opposed to wine. The writers unanimously indicated that the wines were good wines at a $12 to $14 price point but that they were overpriced when they get to $20 and that they would buy from other regions like Chile where there are still good values.

On the positive side, the article did say that the oak level seems to be better integrated, that Napa and Paso Robles were places to watch and that the '95 Mondavi Reserve and '96 Staglin were wines to look for as they got the highest rating from the magazine, 5 stars.

Overall, not the most flattering piece to say the least. However, it's not really a surprise, is it? I think the consensus amongst many is that the wines are made to be drunk young and that many of the prices they are getting these days are simply absurd.

From my perspective, I will add that I don't believe all California wine is over priced and of average pedigree. I think there are still good values and excellent wines coming from California. But I find myself buying less and less and less California wine every day.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


- Bucko - 03-17-1999

I can't argue with anything they said except that CA Cabs DO age - I'm drinking my 84s and 85s currently.

There are a lot of good wines at $15 that people overlook. Some of the flashy $75 CA Cabs are overpriced and not structured for aging.

What drives me crazy is the fact that the vast majority of French wines are not made for aging either. Only the upper echelon wines do so, just as some upper echelon CA Cabs e.g. Monte Bello.

Bucko


- Van The Man - 03-17-1999

I agree Bucko. And I think it's an oversimplification for them to say, across the board, CA Cabs don't age. And of course, "age" is and of itself is a variable not a definition.

I think that their insinuation was that today's CA Cabs, in general, don't have the stuffing to go the long haul, say 20 years. Furthermore, when you look at the CA Cabs commanding the prices some of them are andthen line them up against similarly priced Classified Bordeaux, 9 out of 10 times, you'll get more value for the dough provided you concider "ageworthiness" of value.

But you are SO right! 95% of the worlds wine is meant to be drunk immediately after it's purchased so to pick on CA wines for this in general would be unfair. But like I said, I think they are looking at what $75 would get you in Bordeaux vs. $75 in CA. <shrug>


- misterjive - 04-07-1999

A few things in life are certain: death, taxes, and the Tae Bo guy on every channel after 3AM. Another certainty is that every year, someone will slam California wines for not being ageworthy. This argument is made with all the authority of a Nostradamus, as the people who often espouse this opinion appear to think that they possess 20/20 foresight. My contention is that you never know what a wine will taste like in 10 years until you pop it in 10 years.

Granted, some Cali Cabs burn brightly and briefly, and others (priced just as high) are not even that bright. Like a lot of US stocks, a great number of California Cabernets are overpriced and overrated.

But the winemaking on the West Coast of the world's last mad empire (to quote Dylan Thomas) remains consistently innovative, and the vintages stay strong year after year (can anyone say the same about the Old World winemaking regions in the nineties?).

I had a talk recently with a very knowledgeable Frenchman, a once and future resident, in fact, of Bordeaux. I asked him what he thought about California Cabs, if they impressed him as often as they did me. He looked at me as if I had just launched into an explanation of my pet theory that the earth is really flat after all. He said that it would be silly for him to drink these Cabs when good Bordeaux was around. After all, in his manner of thinking, Cabernet Sauvigon is not a wine on its own, but a grape searching for a blend. (Then the question becomes whether or not the CA meritages can stand with the best of Bordeaux, but I am afraid this question, had I posed it, would have been met with great guffaws of laughter from the Frenchman).

I think it is stupid to slam wines by category. I think California in the post-WWII period got very big very fast in the world of wine, in the same way that New York got big in the world of art during this same period. Of course there is a backlash brewing and erupting from time to time. But even to put the conflict in these terms reaffirms a false dichotomy between Old World and New. Plenty of California Cabs are made in emulation of the great wines of Bordeaux, and as stated, plenty of French wines are averse to aging. Chauvinism on both sides of the Atlantic must be avoided like the plague.
I guess all of this is to say that I find value and ageworthiness all over the place, and I will keep laying down California Cabs along with my Bordeaux, Barolo, Brunello, etc.


- Van The Man - 04-07-1999

Misterjive -

Pretty hard to argue with anything you said. Especially the "innovative" part.

I can tell you this however. I do agree with the article that many of these wines are somewhat overpriced especially if you are looking at them relative to many Classified Bordeaux and some of the better Cru Bourgeois. And I can also tell you this, it's not the fault necessarily of the wineries, but in fact, the market. WE cause high prices by increasing demand. And franfly, I don't buy the 1st Growth any longer either. Not because of quality but due to the prices. $300 is just not a good price for a bottle of wine for me. :-)

On the subject of ageing, I can't agree that California Cabernet will age as well as Classified Bordeaux. They simply, for the most part, aren't built for it. Sure, there are some, but it's hard to find a bottle of Claret from any of the Classified Chateau that won't go the long haul in a good vintage. Conversely, one has to search a bit for a 20 year wine these days from California. Maybe not 15 years ago, but for today, the wines are, in large part, built for the restaurant crowd who love a young and flashy wine.

One last comment. When Chuck Wagner came out and said he took the huge price increases he did because his wines were "on par" with the 1st Growth Bordeaux, I nearly choked from laughter. May, just maybe his best vintage of Special Select MIGHT match up well with say, a '91 Lafite, a '92 Mouton, an '87 Latour, an '84 Haut Brion or an '80 Margaux, but I'd doubt it. On another page I participate on, we all nearly blew up our PCs laughing at the prospect that Charlie's wines are equal to even some of the Classified Chateau.

Make no mistake about it, the prices are a result of demand, which is how a free market should work and not the result of across the board quality.


- Randy Caparoso - 04-16-1999

First of all, I don't dig any wine that I perceived as overpriced; but like everyone else, I give a lot of leeway to the established "giants" of the Cab world (Mouton, Ridge Monte Bello, Penfolds 707, etc.). Give these guys their just due.

However, I can only give a snort and a hoot whenever I read blanket statements that "California wines are overpriced when compared to wines from France, Chile, Australia, etc." And what do Brits know about Safeway and corner wine store price tags in America? Do they push their carts down our aisles? What they say may pertain to what they see in their Oddbins or what-not, but certainly not to the average American wine drinker.

Because our situation is such that: To get anything near the quality or even "breed" of a $14-$20 B.V. Rutherford, Chateau Souverain, Buena Vista, or a Gallo Barrelli, you have to spend at least $30 for anything from Bordeaux. $14-$20 Bordeaux crus certainly exist, but frankly I find them closer to Vendange and Napa Ridge in quality, which we can get for $5.99!

Medium to top drawer Bordeaux was overpriced 20 years ago, and they're even more overpriced now!

Australian Cabernets, on the other hand, I have to admit are still currently underpriced, as a rule. Chilean Cabs -- while decent drinking, other than Patrick Campbell's Terra Rosa (one of the best buys in the world today, period) I'd have to say that although Chileans are generally priced at $8 to $12, they also taste like $8 to $12 -- usually, more thin and vegetal than anything else.

Back to the Brits: One of the MWs commented that the greatest must-to-avoids (I think Herman's Hermits coined the phrase) are Cabernets from the Russian River Valley. They only tasted two (both by De Loach). Granted, even though most of us do not associated the Russian River with Cabernet Sauvignon, to comment that "all Russian River Cab should be pulled out and replanted with plum trees" based upon only two samples is just, well, asinine. Whatever happened to English logic? Besides, how many of us who have tasted De Loach's OFS Cab can honestly say it is such awful stuff? In fact, it's pretty good in its own way. On the other hand, I've tasted tons of Bordeaux crus, for instance, that reminded me of drippings of old VW bus engine oil, but I would never suggest to these hard working vintners that they should pull out the vines from their centuries old estates just because they churned out a bad vintage or two (or more)!

What do they teach'em these days in MW school?

How about something positive? Well, I subscribe to Decanter precisely because they give me a different perspective. I've always thought, for instance, that Paso Robles Cabernets (especially Justin's sleek, elegant style) have been disgracefully underrated by our own press (who are obviously obsessed by size and glamour -- particular that of Napa Valley's). It was gratifying to read the Brits' comments on those wines.

And lately, there have been a few California producers -- such as Jordan and Clos du Bois -- who probably have not been quite living up to their reputation in recent years. Not that things can't be turned back around. But leave it to those stern and unruly Brits to call a spade a spade.

But statements like, "until Californians embrace a global marketing strategy these wines are going to remain poor value" -- oh, spare us! Low to medium priced California Cabernets have always provided wine drinkers with respite from all the ugly stuff France used to send over. Superpremium Cabs, of course, are soaring into mad and crazy levels. But it's nowhere the French grand crus, with their ocean of suppy, haven't already been long before!


- Thomas - 04-17-1999

Perhaps the Brits subscribe to the Bordelais belief that Cabernet Sauvignon is a grape looking for a blend. I mean, they used to own Bordeaux, so they likely feel proprietary about it. They also likely do not understand a forward variety like Cabernet when on its own.

I believe Cabernet Sauvignon often needs toning down (blending). Twenty -- or is it thirty now -- years ago California Cabernets were interesting for their difference and for their spunk. But as I aged, not the wines, I began to discover the joys of blending the powerful variety to round it out and give it finesse. Now, I truly find many Cabernets -- from wherever -- overwhelming, and I haven't even talked price.

For those of us who drink wine every day, sometimes more than once a day, not just California Cabernets but most California variteals seem expensive, unless they are the old "fighting varietals"; then they often seem weakly demonstrative of their variety.


- Van The Man - 04-17-1999

>>$14-$20 Bordeaux crus certainly exist, but frankly I find them closer to Vendange and Napa Ridge in quality, which we can get for $5.99!<<

Randy - JOOC, when's the last time you bought Napa Ridge? $5.99 was the price something like 4 years ago! ;-)

All kidding aside, I don't agree with this. There were a number of Classifed Bordeaux from '95 and even '96 to a certain degree that were under $20 that were WAY better than any of the fighting varietals. WAY better. How 'bout Chateau Du Tertre? I think I paid $15 for the '95 and this was/is a killer bottle of wine and it will be for many years to come. The '96 wasn't on par with the '95 but at $18 it's still light years ahead of Napa Ridge and Vendage. <g> Chateau Dauzac, another hell of a good wine for the money and much deeper, complex and infinitely more interesting than the CA fighting varietals you cite. '95 Chateau Greysac? '95 Chateau la Cardonne? And how about some of the second wines like the '95 La Bastide Dauzac or even the second wine of Calon Segur? <scratching my head to remember the exact name.> And there are quite a few others from '95, second wines that is, that were/are just super and much better values for the money IMO.

>>Because our situation is such that: To get anything near the quality or even "breed" of a $14-$20 B.V. Rutherford, Chateau Souverain, Buena Vista, or a Gallo Barrelli, you have to spend at least $30 for anything from Bordeaux.<<

Again, I really don't agree here. Sure, if your looking at the tradtional biggies like Pichon Baron, Pichon Lalande, Cos, Talbot, Calon, etc., you're gonna lay out some hard earned cash. But dollar for dollar, especially when you start getting up into the big time dollars that Napa Valley vintners in particular are KILLING themselves trying to get to, Bordeaux offers more value. And I say that with all due respect to Napa Valley. Tell me about even one Cal Cab from Napa Valley that will stand toe to toe with the '95 Chateau Kirwan from Margaux for the $29 I paid for it? I'll be drinking that wine in 30 years while Cal Cabs are dried up and gone.

But that's where the crux of the debate comes into focus. Exactly how does one define "value?"

I recently got into a very interesting debate with a guy in the biz from Napa on another board. We went through the same thing that you and I are doing and when it was all said and done, we agreed completely on the whole issue. He basically said that California (particularly Napa) Cabs are a style in and of their own and that people will pay top dollar for that style, that is, big, highly extracted, oppulent almost fat fruit in a bottle that will drink well over and 5 year life....and "What," he asked "is wrong with that?" I say nothing is wrong with that.

But for my dollar, I need and want something I can lay down by the case, enjoy a bottle on release and then go to it every year or two and track it's development and remember the wine through the 12 bottles I owned. I have purchased too much California Cab that over the years I've ended up being disappointed in and therefore, I'll still buy some of them, but rarely in case quantities.

As for your rant on "stereotypes and generalizations," I agree with you 100%. To paint all Cal Cab with one brush is not wise. But I still believe that the market is driving prices up and let me say it this way, it's getting more and more difficult everyday to find excellent values in California Cabs from California.

And for the record, I still buy some of it, not as much as I used to. And I still find Zinfandel, particularly from the Russian River Valley to be one of the greatest values in wine from anywhere in the world, period.

But this, as with many discussions involving wine, is an interesting topic that's a lot of fun to discuss IMO.


- Randy Caparoso - 04-17-1999

Van,

We're getting into some real grey areas here, since you obviously like Greysac, Dauzac, La Cardonne, etc. Where we differ is that I do NOT think these wines are worth $15, $18, $25 or whatever. I happen to think that B.V. Rutherford and Chateau Souverain, pound for pound, are better; and that Greysac and their like taste, to me, like $8-$10 wine.

So granted that there is such a thing as a "Bordeaux taste" and a "California Cab" (especially if you measure wine -- as most people DON'T -- purely on the basis of longevity), as someone who truly ultimately prefers the taste of Bordeaux, I'll still stand by my broad statement that Bordeaux cru are generally $10 to $20 more than California Cabs of like quality (I've done enough blind tastings over the past 20 years to prove it to myself). Furthermore, although you may spend $30 to $75 for top drawer California Cabernet, Bordeaux grand crus of like quality (but not the same, of course) are anywhere from $40 to $150!

Let's put this another way: I agree that California Cabs are generally overpriced; but for a good 20 years or so, Bordeaux crus have been WAY overpriced... and getting worse.

Now foodie: There's no question that in most parts of the world, Cabernet Sauvignon is delicious when blended with Merlot, Franc, Malbec, etc. But it's just too simplistic to say that ALL Cabernet Sauvignon is best blended. Who am I, for instance, to argue with the great Andre Tchelistcheff who throughout his lifetime in California could never find a blend in his particular part of Napa Valley that was anywhere near as good as his 100% Georges de Latour? In the Alexander Valley, by the same token, Justin Meyer's Silver Oaks would most likely be diminished, rather than improved, by the use of blending grapes.

In fact, no matter what the Brits or French may say, generally speaking in California the best Cabernets have been those wines pretty much close to 100% varietal. I'm not saying that Quintessa and Opus One aren't darn good. But ask yourself in all honesty: do you really like them better than Caymus Special Selection, Beringer Private Reserve, Ridge Monte Bello, and other top echelon Californians?

Here's another way of looking at it: things like Mouton and Petrus are pretty close to 100% varietals. Should we be so bold as to suggest that they should use more blending grapes? Of course not, because like Silver Oak, B.V. Private Reserve, etc., these French chateaux are defined by what they are. So why mess a good thing up?

The overall question should always be: does it taste good, and is the price fair for what you want? Well, it seems to me that there are a lot of people who think a $55 Ridge Monte Bello is worth the price; in fact, a better buy than a $155 Latour. Sure, the Latour is likely to prove better in 20 years. But who's waiting that long?


- Randy Caparoso - 04-17-1999

Okay, okay, Van. I meant to say $95 Ridge Monte Bello. Cut me some slack.

But try to understand our differences. I would never, for instance, buy a Chateau Kirwan. Why?

1. Because it doesn't thrill me (at least not as much as a $15 Kunde or Justin Cabernet Sauvignon).

2. Because I don't cellar wine for more than a year or two (so I would never appreciate its longevity).

3. Because I've drunk tons of 20, 30, 40 and even 50 year old Bordeaux crus over the years, and I truly fail to see what's the big deal. To me they taste like... old wine.

So we're really coming at this issue from opposite sides. Personally, though, I think the way I drink is pretty much that of the majority of people -- who like their bang now, not later.


- Van The Man - 04-18-1999

Randy -

I think I understand where you're coming from....

>>2. Because I don't cellar wine for more than a year or two (so I would never appreciate its longevity).

3. Because I've drunk tons of 20, 30, 40 and even 50 year old Bordeaux crus over the years, and I truly fail to see what's the big deal. To me they taste like... old wine.<<

And I can say I think what you're saying is right. If you enjoy the style, those wines DO offer a better value than Bordeaux. I agree with you 100%.

For me, I've had a number of old wines that were wonderfully delicious and exciting and offered interesting complexities in their age. I've also had some wines that tasted as you say, "like old wine." <g>

So I think I see what you're saying and I think your right....if you like the thrill of a flashy, up front and young wine, than yeah, Cal Cabs really are better values....and may be better wines in fact as I believe they show better in their youth.

One thing I'm curious about, I saw your comparing Caymus SS to blends, do you think that Caymus SS is an interesting, complex and dynamic wine?

I used to have a HUGE collection of the stuff. I bought everything they released for 6 or 8 years in 24s. After holding and participating in several verticle tastings, one on SS going all the way back to '78, I decided to sell the stuff. In truth, I find the wine, both the SS and the Napa, to be about the most boring, uninteresting wine made in California if not the world.....ESPECIALLY for the dough. I still have a little SS remaining because the guy I sold the other stuff to didn't quite offer what I thought the wines were worth.

Since you enjoy and prefer younger wines, it may not be an issue with you, but if you ever want to bore yourself to sleep, try lining up 6 vintages of the wine and trying them all....blinded. And then try to tell the difference. The only way you can is that when Caymus Cabs age....they do indeed taste like old wine.

One last thing on prices, and I see in your description you are a pro wine buyer so you prolly know this, but Bordeaux prices are coming down. They got a bit too greedy over the last couple of vintages taking prices too high. I think we're going to see a significant correction bringing 1st Growth back down to around the $100 mark for young claret on futures. There's also a new trend in Bordeaux to make the clarets a bit more approachable in their youth so when offered a choice between a 1st Growth and Caymus SS, Opus One, etc., I'd take 1st Growth EVERY day of my life.

I gotta hand it to California Vintners in that they've done an EXCELLENT job as their wines and prices are bullet proof right now. It's hard to imagine but I think we'll see it in that the top wines of Napa will be more expensive than Bordeaux 1st Growth and they will take over in the next 2 years or so. Incredible.


- Thomas - 04-18-1999

Randy, if all winemakers were as talented as Andre T, perhaps the discussion would be moot. And of course, there are always exceptions.
Remember where Andre T. got his training. Subtlety marked his wines, which is what I prefer in Cabernet Sauvignon, at any price.
The point is, this is a personal preference. Although pros (even MW pros) in England or elsewhere are supposed to be objective, they often aren't. That is likely why they trashed the Cabernets.


- Jerry D Mead - 04-19-1999

Re Andre...don't forget that he was always learning and changing. When he returned to BV after an absense of so many years...he asked Joel why they were still doing certain things the way they were...and Joel said, "Because that's the way you did them."

Andre said, " My God...I've changed...why haven't you?"

And don't forget that it was under Andre's eye that French oak began to appear in the equation and that small amounts of Merlot appeared in blends that were previously 100% Cabernet.

Andre was the most open-minded winemaker of his stature I ever met. He even let me win a "Brett" argument at a wine judging 30 years ago, when I was a real beginner.

He spoke against a Zin for having Brett and that therefore it should not be considered for a medal...his influence had everyone else changing their votes and agreeing to eliminate the wine.

I argued that nevertheless it was the most delicious ZIN we had tasted and as such it should be rewarded (I used the old "should Yquem be thrown out because it has volatility" argument).

Andre reconsidered and said the wine should at least come back for the medal round (and all the other panelists reversed themselves once again and agreed)and I think the wine ended up getting a silver or bronze, if I recall correctly (I'd have given it gold!).

It turned out to be a Lytton Springs...I don't remember the vintage now...it was back when Dick Sherwin and Dee Sindt (there's a name from the past...anyone remember the former editor of "Wine World" magazine? Quite a looker she was.) owned it.

Forgive the nostalgia...I get carried away sometimes. You ought to hear me go on about old time Rock and R&B...

JDM


- Thomas - 04-19-1999

WC, you are forgiven the nostaglia, if only that this is your venue...

Your post brings up a good point: change and growth. As I said earlier, thirty years ago California winemakers with their big Cabernets and such made a unique statement. But after all is said and done, finesse and subtlety is more difficult to produce and, for me, far more elegant and interesting.

We used to have a saying in Brooklyn, "Beat me over the head with a Louisville Slugger." Said with sarcasm it meant, "I get the point, now can you tone it down some." That is how I have come to feel about big reds from California.


- Randy Caparoso - 04-19-1999

Well, I have Tchelistcheff stories of my own. I first interviewed him in 1981 -- as a very, very young wine columnist -- and remember aking him to compare a Keenan Cabernet with a Palmer (I deliberately picked an enormous contrast) so that he could pronounce some basic differences between California Cab and Bordeaux for my readers. He was very, very kind. I knew the Keenan was pretty raw-gut stuff (Joe Cafaro was making it at the time), but Andre refused to say anything but positive things. In other words, although I knew the Keenan was outrageously "Californian" (in spite of its 2 or 3 puffs in Connoisseurs' Guide) and I was trying to get him to go out on a limb a little, all Andre would say is that it's a little "gaudy."

The last time I saw Andre (about a year before he passed on), I was seated next to him for a commemorative B.V. vertical; and I asked him, "So Andre, could you explain to me what I have been reading lately from people like Dr. Smart who speculate that vineyards like Martha's and de Pins probably could be improved if they were allowed to have increased yields via improved trellissing and spacing." This time, Andre was not so patient. His eyebrows began to work overtime as he began to almost chastise me -- saying "Young man, you have got to understand that there are NO miracles in winemaking. Vineyards like Madame de Pins and Martha's are like living beings, and they are willing and able to give only so much, no matter what man may try to do to them! So must not believe everything you read!"

By the way, that day the '68 Reserve, as always, tasted abosolutely the best. All in all, the day was memorable. I had a blown up (2' by 3') photo of him with me holding our Keenan Cabs (which always hang over my dining room table), and that last time I got him to sign it.

Well, back to the issues: I believe Tchlistcheff embraced change, but he was also very practical. If a wine tasted better with Merlot in it, then he did it. If not, he didn't. Which is why B.V. Reserves remained that way for so long. Simple as that.

Van: You may be disappointed, but I do think that Caymus Special Selection is great, solid wine. Ageability, I think is moot, because almost across the board California wines (Cabs, Pinots, Zins, etc.) are best drunk in relative baby-hood (when compared to France's great growth). How about another simplification? Re: the best California wines taste better than the best French wines in youth (say, less than 10 years old) -- even to the French! (The Brits -- they're another bag altogether). But after a decade or two -- no question, the great French wines prevail. This happens, by the way, in blind (and especially double blind) tasting after blind tasting -- so it's not just my personal opinion. I'd even venture to say that even the snooty Brits could be caught with their knickers down -- mixing Margauxs with Mondavi's - in this situation!


- Van The Man - 04-19-1999

>>How about another simplification? Re: the best California wines taste better than the best French wines in youth (say, less than 10 years old) -- even to the French!<<

Oh heck, I wouldn't argue with that Randy. I'm right there with you. And I think that's part of the style. At the risk of yet one more stereotype, I think the brits are known for their love of old claret which is why you see some of these pronouncements. But I would not argue one iota with your generalization except that some of the '95 clarets are marvelous in their youth and will get better. The '96 are a bit harder and of course, everything prior to '95 really needs a little time, yes, even the tough vintages like '91, '92 and '93.

As for the Caymuss SS, I'm by no means "disappointed." Afterall, one of the wonderful things about wine is that everyone has individual preferences. But, this is a wine I think has priced itself out of it's league IMO. Yup, can't argue with you, it's a solid wine. And even considering the "California Cab Style," I think it's too expensive. And the Napa, again, solid wine, is to me, a solid $25 wine, not a $65 wine.

But hey Randy, if it was "Van The Man, Inc.," I can't say I wouldn't be doing the exact same thing. <g>

I think we're in agreement on the major thoughts here though.


- Randy Caparoso - 04-19-1999

Now that we've come to some agreement, Van, it's confession time: I NEVER buy wines like Caymus Special Selection. In fact, I never drink them -- I just come across them in tastings. I have to say they're great because obviously lots of people say that, I'm a little too humble to say that they're wrong (believe it or not).

Although I'm actually a Pinot and Zin man myself, I do have some favorite California Cab growths (which are invariably the ones you see on my wine lists). In descending order:

1. Viader (the ideal for me -- sleek, elegant, balanced, buoyant)

2. Ridge Monte Bello (can be big and muscular, but still very elegant and deep)

3. Rubicon (that is, the bright, fleshy '93, '94 and probably future vintages only of this vineyard of great breeding -- the previous ones we're thick and mean)

4. Laurel Glen Sonoma Mountain (love its roundness and dense juiciness)

So these four probably sum up my personal taste, and tell you about me -- which is all about feel and texture, which I value above even sheer intensity, intrinsic balance, and (as you know) longevity. I also tend to like (but not buy so often) Corison, Etude, Spottswoode, and Shafer Hillside; and I find the Quintessa project to be a little more interesting than, say, the Mondavi Reserves and Opus Ones (the latter two, which I tend to find almost too finely sculpted... veering on soulessness).

As for Bordeaux, my all time favorites are probably the Pichons -- Lalande and Baron (such sass and succulence, besides class). Lynch Bages is also good for me. Margaux is the best (but of course, unaffordable); and the best of the affordables is Haut Marbuzet. That's me in a clamshell!


- Van The Man - 04-20-1999

I like all the Cal Wines you mentioned there Randy and have in fact purchased all of them. Same for the Clarets as well.

I too enjoy Zins and Pinots and think the Zins especially offer perhaps the best wine value in the world today. I've been buying every '97 Zin, 'specially RRV zin in as much quantity as I have room for....which isn't a lot. Many of these wines are no more than $20 which is darned near what decent "house wine" costs these days.

As for Pinots, I confess that I don't know enough about the grape. I do buy some from the RRV and have a fairly sizeable collection of Joseph Swan Pinots. I usually buy at least a case of every one he makes and then a few others from around the area. And now here is something I think we can agree on, California Pinot Noir and I s'pose Oregon to a degree offers WAY more value than Bourgogne, oui? Good grief, I have MAYBE a dozen bottles of red Burgundy and only a handful of white. One can only afford so many pleasures I s'pose. <g>


- Randy Caparoso - 04-21-1999

Oui, mon. Bourgogne is way, way out of line. You and Bucko tend to like those tiny little Russian River Valley PN growers (Swan and Rochioli, although I don't know if you buy Williams Selyem and Dehlinger) a lot more than me. I've actually been a little more impressed by the recent bottlings ('97s) by De Loach O.F.S. and Jordan "J" (no kidding!). I also recently tried a '96 Moshin RRV Pinot, which shares those familial regional traits of smoked/pepperminty/Christmasy fragrances, mixtures of red and than black berry perfumes (with a nod towards the black), and rounded, broad textures.

But ultimately, I do think that there are more high quality Dry Creek Zins producers than RRV Zin producers. And there also more (and more consistent) high quality Santa Barbara/Arroyo Grande Pinot Noir producers than RRV PN producers; and from I've seen, the Sonoma Coast and Mendocino may prove even better yet (although today's evidence is still sketch). But, there, I've said it. The Russian River is a very good area for grapes (well, maybe not so much for Cabernet!), but to me it will always be "premier," rather than "grand."


- Randy Caparoso - 04-21-1999

By the way, Van, did you get a look at the latest Decanter (April '99)? In this one, they have a story called "Brits Vs. Yanks - Wine Tasters on Trial," in which they endeavor to discover the difference between American and British tastes. Only they didn't actually used any "Yanks" -- they put together a panel of New Yorkers!

I surprised they didn't surmise that Yanks are less "Yank" than Brits! Somebody really ought to clue these editors (as well meaning as they are) in. They wanted real contrast, they should have reached across the Great Plains -- rather than stopped in Manhattan.