WTN: Cabernet Sauvignon Tasting--lengthy

(Also posted on another forum. )

Participated in a nice tasting of eight California Cabernet Sauvignons plus two ringers (from Australia) at Fowler's in Durham (arranged by Carolina Wine Company of Raleigh). Tasted blind. $15 if reserved ahead of time. $25 for walk-ins. We were asked to pick out our favorites and rank them 1 to 5 and also write comments if we chose. I turned in my comments so have only the rankings and sketchy memories to impart. Some of my preferences showed a change from past tastings. I attribute part of it to the youth of the Cal cabs (all from 2001 or 2002).

2001 FERRARI-CARANO "TRESOR"[/b] $39.99; $29.99 by the case My notes indicated that I thought this was a blended red. It had a very nice nose but both the nose and palate indicated blackberries or plum rather than black currants. I gave it one of my two highest scores of the tasting--18/20. I probably should have scored my top two at 19 to allow for more range. I was vindicated when I got the key revealing what the wines were and this was the only Bordeaux-type blend (all five classic Bordeaux grapes) or Meritage in the group. Some others may not have been 100% Cabernet Sauvignon but all were others were listed as C.S. I put this down as my second favorite of the tasting because it didn't taste like a traditional C.S. and this was supposedly a C.S. tasting.

Next up 2002 LARKMEAD CABERNET SAUVIGNON ESTATE $39.99 net
I liked this one too. Because I turned in my comments, I'm not certain if it was this one or the third one we tried that impressed me with the start and finish but that seemed a little thin mid-palate. However, I had this tied for third or fourth place of the ten with a score of 17.5/20. Interesting notes from wineshop owner and Robert Parker:
Larkmead Vineyards dates fromt he 19th Century and in the 1960s, Andre Tchelistchoff (important in California wine industry) considered it one of Napa's four finest properties. Recently, under winemaker Andy Smith, it has again risen to the top rank. Parker calls Larkmead's 2002s brilliant, rating the estate Cabernet 93 points. He says its a hedonistic Cabernet that will have huge crowd appeal and should fare well in blind tastings (as it did with me).

The third we tried was 2002 DOG RIDGE DV3 CABERNET SAUVIGNON from Australia. $34.99 or $24.99 by the case (the Australian wines were the least expensive in the tasting) I rated this 17-17.5/20 and tied for fifth or sixth place.

Fourth up was 2002 JORDAN C.S. $44.99/$39.99 case price. I gave it 16-16.5/20. May have found it too tannic or the nose too reticent. (None of the wines were decanted beforehand but the bottles had been open for about three hours by the time I got there).

Fifth wine was 2004 THORPE CABERNET SAUVIGNON RESERVE $29.99/$24.99 by the case.
My lowest score of the tasting--15/20. However, I did like the Thorpe Shiraz which won high honors at a Sydney tasting.

Sixth up was 2001 HESS COLLECION C.S. $39.99/$35.99 by the case. I gavfe it 17/20 and tied for fifth/sixth with the Dog Ridge DV3.

Seventh was 2001 DEL BONDIO "BELLA OAKS LANE" CABERNET $39.99/$29.99 I had it tied for third or fourth place with 17.5/20. Notes we were given say that the Del Bondio family have been grape growers in the very best part of Napa (the Rutherford Bench) right behind Robert Mondavi's winery for three generations. Recently they began making small quantities of their own C.S. from their very best grapes with incredibly reasonable pricing. (This was my first taste of the "Bella Oaks" but it has been very popular at other CWC tastings.)

Eighth tasting was 2002 BV GEORGE DE LATOUR $89.99/$79.99 by the case. When we tried a dozen 1994 Cabernets thanks to Winoweenie at the Finger Lakes offline, this was my favorite. I think I rated it lower this time because it was too young and is one that shows much better with a decade or so.
I gave it 17/20.

Similarly with the ninth wine--2002 ROBERT MONDAVI CABERNET RESERVE $119.99/$99.99 by the case. I have really been impressed with this wine at other tastings (different vintages) but gave only 16.5/20 this time. I have tried the regular Robert Mondavi Napa Cabernet in restaurants and find it too tannic at this age.

The tenth wine was my favorite of the tasting at 18/20--2001 SILVER OAK "ALEXANDER VALLEY" C.S. $69.99/$64.99 by the case. I believe it was this one that came through with some of the classic C.S. descriptors--cedar and tobacco--along with the fruit. In the past I tried both the Silver Oak Napa and Alexander Valley and prefered the Napa and did not rate either as high as I did this one on Saturday.


My ratings were
2001 Silver Oak "Alexander Valley" 1st place
2001 Ferrari-Carano "Tresor" (Bordeaux blend) 2nd place
Tie between 2002 Larkmead Cabernet Sauvignon Estate and 2001 Del Bondio "Bella Oaks Lane"
for third and fourth
Tie for fifth and sixth between 2002 Dog Ridge DV3 Cabernet Sauvignon and 2001 Hess Collection Cabernet Sauvignon

Thanks for the very timely review, JC. I had the '01 Larkmead cab the other night and loved it. I see that 2002 is more readily available and I almost went for it but I think I'll do a mail order for some of the 2001 instead.

Good to see you have arrived at the reincarneted WLDG Jane. I shall hereafter call this the NWLDG for New WLDG. Welcome and Shall we meet at Mo'Cool 2006?

I would love to attend Mo'Cool again but can't say for certain if I will be able to attend.

Five of my top six were listed as getting the most votes. The Silver Oaks Alexander Valley, my top wine, was the only one left out. The Del Bondio Bella Oaks Lane Cabernet Sauvignon was #1 with Larkmead Estate C.S. #2--I had these tied for third and fourth. The Ferrari-Carano "Tresor" (Bordeaux blend) which I had second was the third place finisher. I suspect that the more expensive ones such as BV George de Latour and Robert Mondavi C.S. reserve had a poorer showing because of their youth. I have admired both wines with some age on them but thought they didn't show as well Saturday.

Five of my top six were listed as getting the most votes. The Silver Oaks Alexander Valley, my top wine, was the only one left out. The Del Bondio Bella Oaks Lane Cabernet Sauvignon was #1 with Larkmead Estate C.S. #2--I had these tied for third and fourth. The Ferrari-Carano "Tresor" (Bordeaux blend) which I had second was the third place finisher. I suspect that the more expensive ones such as BV George de Latour and Robert Mondavi C.S. reserve had a poorer showing because of their youth. I have admired both wines with some age on them but thought they didn't show as well Saturday.

Got a question. Where is the justification for saying that wine is young and just needs age to strut it's stuff? In case of the 2002 Mondavi, the track record for the reserve is broken because the fruit is now from rather young vines and the fruit is being picked at significantly higher sugars (I assume to try and compensate for the young vine fruit and keep the price up). Since this is all very new (from a wine making perspective), why is there the assumption that the aging capability will be unchanged from prior vintages that incorporated much higher levels of fruit from mature vines, picked at more traditional sugar levels.

In the case of the 2002 BV Reserve, though the fruit is still from mature vines, BV chose to pick at super-ripe levels. The wine smells and tastes nothing like the 2001 or any BV (except perhaps the 76 & 86) that I've had...and I've had every vintage from 68 through the present (plus a few before that). The wine smells and tastes overripe and the alcohol just bubbles up from the nose. The same is true for the 2003. And you can forget the 2004. They really screwed that one up. Almost no nose and rather light. What little is there more resembles BV's Port.

Has anyone tasted the 1996 Heitz Marthas lately? It was made from fruit picked from 3.5 year vines (sold at $120). I remember vividly the 1974 Villa Mt. Eden Cab. Highly rated at the time, but fell apart quite young. It was made from 4 year old vines.

I for one am happy to see that Fowler's is still going strong -- long a focal point or clearing house for gastronomy in that pleasant region. (I understood a couple of years ago that it had changed hands, but haven't been there since.)

A few years earlier, at that compact family-run wine / specialty / cookware / deli / philosophy vendor, I met one of the Fowlers standing behind a vast block of cream cheese on a counter, and who mentioned something about it. I'd read Thomas Mann's Confessions of Felix Krull, Confidence Man which had a late scene over a course of cream cheese. I mentioned that, and without missing a beat the gentleman replied with a quotation from Buddenbrooks. I wish we had more places like that in northern California.

Quote from Steve Bosquit:

"Got a question. Where is the justification for saying that wine is young and just needs age to strut it's stuff? In case of the 2002 Mondavi, the track record for the reserve is broken because the fruit is now from rather young vines and the fruit is being picked at significantly higher sugars (I assume to try and compensate for the young vine fruit and keep the price up). Since this is all very new (from a wine making perspective), why is there the assumption that the aging capability will be unchanged from prior vintages that incorporated much higher levels of fruit from mature vines, picked at more traditional sugar levels.

In the case of the 2002 BV Reserve, though the fruit is still from mature vines, BV chose to pick at super-ripe levels. The wine smells and tastes nothing like the 2001 or any BV (except perhaps the 76 & 86) that I've had...and I've had every vintage from 68 through the present (plus a few before that). The wine smells and tastes overripe and the alcohol just bubbles up from the nose. The same is true for the 2003. And you can forget the 2004. They really screwed that one up. Almost no nose and rather light. What little is there more resembles BV's Port. "


Steve, I think it's a case of you being more familiar than I am with recent trends in California winemaking. I had assumed that up until the recent sale of Robert Mondavi, winemaking style had remained the same as in the past. I know at one point Robert Mondavi received some flack from the "critics" for sticking to a refined, more traditional style of winemaking. I was unaware that the Georges de Latour from Beaulieu had changed style in recent years (really liked that '94!) I don't get to taste the high-end Cal cabs every vintage so would not have an opinion on the 2002-2004 vintages beyond my impressions of the 2002 at this tasting. I thought perhaps the wine just needed some cellar time.

Quote from Max Hauser:

"I for one am happy to see that Fowler's is still going strong -- long a focal point or clearing house for gastronomy in that pleasant region. (I understood a couple of years ago that it had changed hands, but haven't been there since.) "

I'm not sure Fowler's is still going strong. I think I heard a few months ago that it was closing. An Internet search would probably be able to answer whether it is still in busines..

Quote from Steve Bosquit:

"Got a question. Where is the justification for saying that wine is young and just needs age to strut it's stuff? In case of the 2002 Mondavi, the track record for the reserve is broken because the fruit is now from rather young vines and the fruit is being picked at significantly higher sugars (I assume to try and compensate for the young vine fruit and keep the price up). Since this is all very new (from a wine making perspective), why is there the assumption that the aging capability will be unchanged from prior vintages that incorporated much higher levels of fruit from mature vines, picked at more traditional sugar levels.

In the case of the 2002 BV Reserve, though the fruit is still from mature vines, BV chose to pick at super-ripe levels. The wine smells and tastes nothing like the 2001 or any BV (except perhaps the 76 & 86) that I've had...and I've had every vintage from 68 through the present (plus a few before that). The wine smells and tastes overripe and the alcohol just bubbles up from the nose. The same is true for the 2003. And you can forget the 2004. They really screwed that one up. Almost no nose and rather light. What little is there more resembles BV's Port. "


Steve, I think it's a case of you being more familiar than I am with recent trends in California winemaking. I had assumed that up until the recent sale of Robert Mondavi, winemaking style had remained the same as in the past. I know at one point Robert Mondavi received some flack from the "critics" for sticking to a refined, more traditional style of winemaking. I was unaware that the Georges de Latour from Beaulieu had changed style in recent years (really liked that '94!) I don't get to taste the high-end Cal cabs every vintage so would not have an opinion on the 2002-2004 vintages beyond my impressions of the 2002 at this tasting. I thought perhaps the wine just needed some cellar time.

Quote from Max Hauser:

"I for one am happy to see that Fowler's is still going strong -- long a focal point or clearing house for gastronomy in that pleasant region. (I understood a couple of years ago that it had changed hands, but haven't been there since.) "

I'm not sure Fowler's is still going strong. I think I heard a few months ago that it was closing. An Internet search would probably be able to answer whether it is still in busines..

Max. That's my big problem with so many CA reds these days. The winemaking has changed dramtically, at least since 2002. Prior to that, it was down right rare to see 14% (or more) on any Cab or Pinot. Nearly all the fruit being picked is overripe. And overripe fruit (in general) just does not have the structure to age as well. And the winemakers know it. And any professional critic should know that. But they don't really care. The wineries are currently stuck with 5-10 year old vines and owe a great deal of money as a result of having to replant virtually everything...in such as sort span of time. Back in 1994 most producers still had older vines they could use...as they had delayed (as long as possible) the replanting they knew was coming. Even up until 1997, most producers still had significant older vines to draw upon. But by 2000, much of what was there, had recently been replanted. 2000 and 2001 would probably have lived up to the hype (at least more universally) had the older vines still been there. But most were gone. Did the prices drop? Hell no. A really good example is the Mondavi Oakville Cab. This was created to use the young vines that had been recently re-planted to To-Kalon. Then as the number of old vines shrank to less than 5%, Mondavi created the To-Kalon reserve (which was the only wine made from the older vines). By that time, the Reserve was being made from 5+ year old vines (and fooling almost every critic). When the Oakville bottling debuted, it was from 3 year old vines and was absolutely horrid. Mondavi tried to cover it up by using a ton of oak...and that actually fooled a fair number of critics. But that wine remained awful for several more years.

Then, someone (and I don’t who) got the bright idea that they could “Fatten Up” the wines just by letting them over-ripen. Since I don’t drink or taste the BIG boys (such as Bryant and Screaming Eagle), I have no way of knowing whether they were doing this earlier. I do know that the first vintage of Screaming Eagle (that RP raved about) was made from 3 year old vines. In any case, this “Trick” seemed to widen to almost universal proportions with the 2002 vintage. The lack of rains in the fall (Global Warming?) has meant that wineries can now use this “Trick” more and more…even in rather cool vintages such as 2003.

What annoys me is that the wines are no longer recognizable as being the named varietal. Cabs and Pinots now taste Syrah and/or some sort of non-descript Zin blend. If you were just entering the wine world starting with the 2002 vintage, you’d never know anything had changed. But changed it has…for the worse. At least for collectors such as myself who like older wines and are willing to store them properly. But most wines made from over-ripe (and/or young vine) fruit just do not hold up. My favorite example is the 78 Chateau Montelena Cab. It was 14.3% and hot from the git-go. But I bought some to see how it would do. I bought a number of higher alcohol wines over the years, for the very same reason. None of them aged worth a damn. The fruit dried up and the alcohol came to totally dominate. But I’ve also noted that 14%is not the magic point. It’s whether the fruit is physiologically ripe. If the acids and fruit do not balance, the fruit won’t hold. And once you get past 23 to 23.5 Brix, you’re probably not going to hit that balance point. And once you go over that, it means the winemakers have to add more acid. And the more they have to add, the harder it is for them to get it right. Nearly every dry red I’ve tried to age with than 13.5% alcohol, just did not do that well.

Of course many (if not most) winemakers will say I’m full of it. But then, my experience is that most winemakers have mediocre palates…that get worse as they get older. There certainly are some great exceptions, but far too few of them for my liking.