Whither CalCabs? More musings

Recently, I received the latest issue of "Connoisseur's Guide to California Wines" (CGCW), one of the older publications that reviews (mostly) California wines. In their Aug. 2005 issue, they reviewed 163 recently released California Cabernets, almost all of which came from the highly touted 2001-2 vintages. Of these 163, 1 (the 2002 Diamond Creek Gravelly Meadow) received their highest accolade of ***, whereas

16 received a rating of ** and 56 received a grade of *. If we take these three rankings as meaning bottles meriting serious attention, then 73/163 (44%) made the grade with less than 1% achieving the highest status and ~10% reaching **. Granted, many of the heavy hitters (Ridge, Phelps, Montelena e.g.) were missing from this issue, but as a survey of what's on the market I believe that it gives us an accurate picture.

Much has been written in recent years about the tremendous strides made in winemaking in CA, so I decided to see it this was reflected in increasingly positive reviews in CGCW by digging out an older issue of CGCW (Vol. 6 from 1981) that looked at Cabs from the '76-'77 vintages (drought years that produced some very good wines, but which weren't heralded as great years). What I found was that, of 212 wines reviewed,

1 (
Reply to
Mark Lipton
Loading thread data ...

"Mark Lipton" in news:delc3t$k8s$ snipped-for-privacy@mailhub227.itcs.purdue.edu... | Recently, I received the latest issue of "Connoisseur's | Guide to California Wines" (CGCW), one of the older | publications that reviews

Not to intrude and just as a point of trivia, that is one of those several independent US wine newsletters present in the 1970s, which did not exist according to some newer US wine fans (more notable for vocal opinions than for history). Also those publications were reviewed systematically later (1984) in a landmark book on California wine that everyone interested read and discussed at the time. (Including some newsletter publishers, complaining of how they fared in the review.)

Also I've heard many platitudes lately about the "tremendous strides made by California wine" that seemed to come from people who didn't have a very clear picture of California wine before these Tremendous Strides (again therefore more notable for vocal opinions than for history). I agree that the contemporary prices are impressively high. (Maybe those are the Tremendous Strides, and I had misunderstood.)

Reply to
Max Hauser

I totally agree with you on the concept of inconsistancy with mediocrity. That is a shame.

I do like many a Napa Winery and their wines. Some are still downright exciting. Hartwell in Stags Leap is one of them. They have excellent Cabernet. Another that I like a lot is the El Molino Pinot Noir. Recently I found a few old world style whites at Stony Hill and El Molino. Also the Martinelli of Russian River has a great Gverts.

The problem is the majority are now corporate wineries. With such its all about cost savings. Franciscian used to be a favorite of mine and the Estancia Merigage in the early 90's was my everyday drinking wine. I think that they were about $12 a bottle back then. Today its not as good and cost more like $30 Bottle USA.

Instead if mostly Free Run juice they press, crush and get every bit of juice to make wines so that they can triple production. They leave to complexity behind seeking more cases to sell. That is my opinion.

Therefore my last trip to Napa I did the road less traveled wines. Not the standard Silver Oak...now at 100000 cases since they have to pay off Justin Meyer buy pumping up the cases.

I love the French wines which even the mid priced have more complexity than most of the top wines of Napa. They just don't drink young as well as California. But rarely does a California.wine develop as well as a nice Bordeaux or Burg.

Reply to
Richard Neidich

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.