Araujo Estate Cabernet Sauvignon

So I received a solicitation in the mail yesterday from Araujo Estate Wines (of Napa Valley) asking if I wanted to buy three bottles of their 2005 Cabernet Sauvignon at $265 each. Now, I’m a big fan of full bodied California Cabs and Cab blends (my current favorites are from Lancaster Estate in Alexander Valley, Chateau Montelena and Caymus Vineyards in Napa Valley, and Justin Vineyard in Paso Robles, to give you some idea of my taste), but I’ve never paid more retail than $125 for a 750 ml bottle before. I know Araujo is supposed to make really great wine, but is their Cabernet really worth anything near $265 a bottle? Have any of you tried a recent vintage and can compare it to others around at less than half that price?

Steve,
Worth is subjective. All I can tell you is that I dropped off the list a about 3 years ago (not worth it to me) and before that I stayed on only to resell my allocation at cost to a friend for another couple of years. Even he finally decided it wasn't worth it for him.
Redwinger

I didn't buy any 2000s and was never invited back. Good thing as the wine had become too rich for my blood. For the record, it always was my favorite Napa cab along with Montelena.

Araujo is not what you would call full-bodied, not in comparison to some of the higher octane cabs. But Eisele vineyard is relatively near Montelena and the wines are about the same weight.

I have tried just about every Araujo vintage since 1992. Most recently, the 02 and 03 from half-bottle were impressive, if still incredibly young. I have not opened an 04 or 01, though I have plenty in the cellar. The 2000 from 750 ml is drinking wonderfully now, but it is not significantly better than Napa cabs at half the price. It is, however, cut from different cloth. The mid-90s vintages are all aging nicely. I've not had the early vintages in some time, but 91 and 92 are waiting in the cellar.

A reason to buy Araujo is the historic greatness of Eisele Vineyard. Very few CA vineyards have a track record for greatness and age-worthiness that compared to Eisele. There are people who use the "Cult" barometer to suggest that Araujo does not measure up to its cultish peers. But these people are not concerned with terroir, longevity, or history - only ratings, envy and auction prices.

The question is, do you want to drink the historic vineyard and its clonal selection? Perhaps the nuance is not enough to differentiate itself from other similarly structured Napa cabs. Maybe only the terroirists appreciate that nuance. Most people will be wowed by cheaper, well endowed cabs that likely have a bit less complexity, a bit clunkier structure, perhaps a touch more obviously expressive French oak. Or they will fail to find fault when there is a bit of greenness to the tannin or youthful forwardness in the fruit.

None of this minutiae of differentiation makes the premium "worth it". The only time that is it worth the price is if you have the money to buy it. That goes for a $100 cab or a $40 cab. Whether an extra nuance is worth twice the price or 10x the price is a meaningless exercise. Basically, at this level, one is paying for priviledge. Whether it is the name on the label that you buy, or the experience of the wine that you drink, you are not paying for the inherent value of the wine itself.

You have to decide for yourself whether this particular experience is one that you would appreciate in comparison to other cabs you like to drink. If the answer is yes, then you have to ask yourself if you want to pay that price, irrespective of its comparison in cost to anything else. If the answer is no, you would not appreciate the experience of what Eisele uniquely offers (say, because you have no point of reference), then you are unlikely to find the extra dollar investment worth the price.

I think Bernard has written a textbook answer to the question: Is a classic wine "worth" the price. Bravo!

I find that generally the cheaper a wine is the better it is. This may seem an odd answer. But I'll explain it this way: if a wine maker or producer is trying to squeeze every dollar out of you and/or their product, where does their real passion lie? Someone once said, you cannot have two masters. Either your passionate about making wine or your passionate about making money. If a wine costs too much money I think it can even be technically perfect but its got no soul.

Happy imbibation!
Agostino

That may be true in Italy (and maybe definitely in Spain), but "cheaper" in American wines generally means industrial plonk from Central Valley grapes. Not always, of course, and your definition of "cheaper" may vary, but ...

That may be true in Italy (and maybe definitely in Spain), but "cheaper" in American wines generally means industrial plonk from Central Valley grapes. Not always, of course, and your definition of "cheaper" may vary, but ...

Brian,

I have to disagree with you about "cheaper American wines meaning Central Valley grapes". I am not going to preach about the $5 wines but I will say that there are a heck of a lot of west coast wines coming in under $20 that are stupendous. I would only take time in this post to point in the direction of ESJ wines. not a lot under $20, but there are some. Heck, I could point out a dozen that wouldn't embarrass and will come in under $15.

Brian, your getting technical on me. I think you know what I meant....

You guys are right. I know there is good sub $20 wine out there.

I find that generally the cheaper a wine is the better it is. Agostino

This is ridiculous on the face of it. The attitude is pure contrarian fantasy, not borne by experience.

Bernard, first of all I didn't say "All cheap wines are good." I said "The cheaper a wine is the better it is." That allows for alot of interpretation but gives the general point. And it is "borne by experience." I'll even give a concrete example. I had a big tasting with lots of fancy Barolos (I recall an Albino Rocca single-vineyard and a Brovia), an aged Brunello from '95 and some others. The tasters were a mix of novices and conosseurs. There were two unanymous winners (it was a blind tasting too): #1 was a nebbiolo from Valtellina, Aldo Rainoldi Inferno Riserva 1997, incredible wine. # 2 was a Nebbiolo from Ghemme, Antichi Vigneti di Cantalupo - Collis Brecleme 1997. These wines were way cheaper than the overblown Barolo's and Brunello.

Just like I don't think you can buy love, I don't think you can buy good wine. A lot of it is in people's heads. People follow critic's numbers, prices, marketing, prestige and don't even know what they really like.
The US market is the richest wine market in the world. Cash hungry wineries from around the world make wines they think will sell in the American market. The result is superficiality. Then you have the marketing machine going: Parker, Wine Spectator, unsuspecting proxies on cellar tracker, sommeliers, etc. and soon you have all these people shelling out big bucks convinced their drinking the best wines in the world. They've finally made it: Mercedes, big house, expensive wine. There you have it. Everybody gets what they want indeed. You want a thick, oaky, smooth, complex wine that needs at least 15 years to mature (it always needs just a couple more years when you open it doesn't it?) - you got it.

I know by experience that a lot of my favorite producers, here in Italy at least, don't even send wine samples to Gambero Rosso and other guides that could potentially double their profits. They don't seem to care. And their wines are fantastic and reasonably priced. They don't use concentrators or any other odd techniques or powders. Its just fermented grape juice. That's all wine is, so why the huge price differences we're seeing today? Demand, you holler. And what is demand, its mostly from marketing, perception. Feeding of the ego.

I know. My ego's huge, I fight it every day. I'm a former Parker head. I used to buy all the wines with the big numbers. But sometimes I'd be tasting one and think - why is this not as exciting as the desription I've read. Oh, maybe I have to wait 5 years, maybe 10. In the meantime I figured out I'd been bamboozled. Because like I said, you're either passionate about making wine or passionate about making money. [applause]

Agostino, I'd be willing to give you the benfit of the doubt for writing in a language that is not your first language, but you seem competent in English. So I won't wear gloves.

Either you meant that you'd rather pay less for a wine than more for the same wine (a rather simplistic interpretation), or you said you'd rather drink a cheaper wine than a more expensive wine, no other criteria imposed on the selection. I will allow that you are not trite, so I assume you meant the former.

OK. You would rather drink 2 Buck Chuck than Chateau Latour. (Is that a fair summary of your attitude? OK, I didn't think so.)

You'd rather drink 2 Buck Chuck than Huet Clos du Bourg?

You'd rather drink 2 Buck Chuck than JJ Prum?

You'd rather drink 2 Buck Chuck than Etude Cabernet?

You'd rather drink 2 Buck Chuck than Catena Alta Malbec?

You'd rather drink 2 Buck Chuck than Marquis Phillips Shiraz/Merlot blend?

You'd rather drink 2 Buck Chuck than Bolla Valpolicella?

You'd rather drink 2 Buck Chuck than Almaden Mountain Chablis?

You'd rather drink 2 Buck Chuck than Kool-Aid?

The reductio ad absurdum argument eventually catches up to you. Where do you get off the train?

Ok, I recognize that with wine there is little correlation between quality and price. Some extra expense comes out of such things as using French oak rather than American, and out of being super selective with the grapes (with perhaps the winemaker hand selecting the grapes used). Since one of the people writing in this chain is from Italy, I’ll add that with one of my favorite wines, Amarone, I understand the wine making process is so difficult there is a premium charge just for that. And of course location is everything, so a premium Cab out of Napa Valley will cost twice as much as one I personally think might taste almost as good but comes out of Paso Robles. But I don’t buy designer clothes or designer cars or designer wines just for the name brand. If the quality is there, I’m willing to pay extra for the product. I don’t agree that cheaper is always better, nor that a fancy name alone justifies a extra-premium price. My wife and I have recently opened bottles of ’98 and ’99 Chateau Montelena Cabernet Sauvignon (Bernard says Araujo is similar in some respects to Chateau Montelena) and we loved them (in fact I’m sad to read the winery is up for sale). If I buy the Araujo Cab, and it knocks my socks off, then I’ll agree the money is well spent. However, if I don’t notice much of a difference, I’d rather save the money so I can pay my gasoline bill. If I understand Bernard right, some years of Araujo are great, some years, it’s not much better than other Napa Valley Cabs at half the price. However, he believes the over-all track record makes the wine worth the extra-premium price. Others don’t think its worth the price. So perhaps this was a silly question, and I’ll just have to buy some, wait a few years, then give it a try,so I can answer the question myself. Thanks everyone.