The Beverages & More in Pleasant Hill has some '99 Harlan for $260. Surprising, as they tend to overprice many their higher end wines, and this one usually goes for $300-$400 at retail. Grabbed a bottle last week. Its
*very* forward and open, drinking beautifully right now, but has the structure to go the long haul. I can still taste the mocha & cocoa flavors and powerful fruit a week later.
For sheer pleasure of consumption, it is the best young cabernet based wine to have ever passed my lips.
I think I'll pass too. If I come across that much extra money, I think I saw 1996 Lafite in the same range, or maybe bottles of 93 and 98 Latour, each about half that price. I might even be able to find a Cheval Blanc in the range if I look hard enough.
Still, I've seen worse. Not going to insult folks who love their cult cabs. The prices aren't required to bear any relation to anything else. If you have the money, it's your choice.
I have to agree. There is something about the longevity of French Wines vs. California Wines.
California wines drink well young and some improve for 3-7 years. Rarely do they live well beyond 10-15. Meanwhile Bordeauxs are mostly babies at that time point in their lifecycle.
Burgs vs my favorite Oregon Pinots are the same way.
I love my cal and oregon wines...but when it comes to complexity...you can't beat French wine development. It must be the soil.
I think it's more the winemaking. California wines are made to drink young. Most people are not willing and able to cellar them. Many wineries also cannot afford to cellar them, since they need quite a reputation to sell wine that is not drinkable now. A few have such reputations, but most do not. So they are mostly made to be fruity and soft and drinkable young. That means that often they do not have the tannins to age well. Chateau Montelena claims that they have wines in their library that are aging very well after 20+ years, but I've never tasted one so old. Many people seem skeptical of the claim.
Back to the issue of cost, though. Why are wine drinkers willing to pay $400 for a bottle of Harlan? Is it a prestige thing? I realize supply and demand is at work here and small supply plays a big role. (The French chateaus produce thousands of cases of wine compared to hundreds for the cult cabs.) However, at what point does one realize that there are dozens, if not hundreds, of quality California cabs on the market in the $100 range? I even think $100 is pushing it, but given how much wine I see selling at places like Turnbull and Silver Oak maybe $100 is not unreasonable.
I have noticed lots of California chardonnay selling for $50+, too. Some of it is very good (I like Lewis "Barcaglia Lane" and Peter Michael "Belle Cote") but at those prices I think you should be getting something special. And this is in the midst of a wine glut?!
It is quite true - Montelena is one of my favourite cal-cabs, and one of the few that I'd make a first growth if there were such a thing in the land of fruits and nuts. It is long lived and I have had several 70s vintages that are still going strong.
Silver Oak is, IMHO, over rated and not nearly as long lived. I see people and critics oohing and ahhing over S.O. and have always wondered what the fuss was. Decent but not even in the same class as Montelena.
Sadly, my own holdings of Montelena now extend only to the 80s vintages.
Just tasted a 1986 Dunn Howell Mountain with a friend. It was still quite lively lush and still very bright blackberry and cedar notes. No sign that this wine was showing any sign of fading. In fact of the 4 of us that tasted this we felt it could still use a few more years of cellaring and would easily stand up another 10-15 years.
DrinksForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.