All that said, it's easy to understand what draws people to these wines. They are big in every way -- nearly all of them were still very drinkable after being open for 18 hours. In fact, several were better after sitting out overnight on the counter, which suggests lots of aging potential. In fact, based on this tasting, from now on I start my Napa cab shopping at K&L by sorting them by vintage and buying the really old stuff, ratings be damned (there are
Here's what we had, with my personal favorites in bold:
- 1993 Frog's Leap Napa Valley Cabernet Sauvignon $40: demonstrates that age can redeem even basic bottles of $40 Napa cab. While it didn't have a very long finish, it had a lovely nose, good complexity, could almost be confused with something French.
- 2010 Robert Mondavi Oakville Cabernet Sauvignon $40: in contrast to the Frog's Leap, this was my least favorite of the night. Sweet, obvious, clumsy, I would not guessed a badly made Zinfandel if I'd tried it blind. And this got a 94 from Robert Parker, and a 91 from Tanzer! A travesty.
- 2005 Robert Mondavi "Reserve" Napa Valley Cabernet Sauvignon $90: the first of the $100 contenders, this is a long-time favorite of mine. Ever reliable, classy, made with restraint and a requirement of aging. This was still too young, but by the next day, it was really showing that in 10 years it will outclass everything else we had. 94 pts. Wine Enthusiast, 92 pts Wine Spectator.
- 2007 Heitz Napa Valley Cabernet Sauvignon $40: now this is how a reasonably priced Napa cab should be made. This had more than a hint of the things you want in a great Napa cab -- graphite, fine tannins, a promise of aging potential. Heitz is among the most established of old-line Napa cab wineries, and this makes me want to try more of what they make.
- 2010 Hewitt Rutherford Cabernet Sauvignon $100: this was the one in the large decanter. I thought it was outclassed by the Mondavi Reserve on the one hand, and the Barbour on the other. But this did get better after standing overnight, so perhaps with age the story would change. 95 Wine Spectator, #4 on their Best of 2013 list.
- 2004 Larrivet Haut-Brion, Pessac-Léognan $33: my one French ringer for the evening, and a great illustration of why you'll get better value from Bordeaux than from Napa. A cab-merlot blend, this had all the barnyard complexity on the nose, as well as interest on the palate, that most of the $40 Napa wines lacked. And this was ready to drink. 90 pts. Wine Spectator, 89 pts Robert Parker.
- 1995 Beringer "Private Reserve" Napa Valley Cabernet Sauvignon $90: ah, here was the promise of classic, expensive, Napa cab. Pencil shavings, dust, varietal purity, still vibrant and a little tight. All you have to do is wait 20 years before you open! 95 pts Wine Enthusiast, 93 pts Robert Parker.
- 1985 Sullivan Vineyards Napa Valley Cabernet Sauvignon $40: special thanks to Orion for bringing this one, verging on 30 years old. Wonderful, probably my favorite of the night. Had lots of Bordeaux character, complex musty nose, wonderful mellowness, but still with enough acid to call food to mind. Again, age makes the difference.
- 2010 Terra Valentine "Estate" Spring Mountain District Cabernet Sauvignon $35: the first of what I thought of as the three sweetest wines of the evening, this did get better and more interesting the next day, so perhaps age will redeem it. But right now, it's too sweet and clumsy. Totally outclassed by #6 and #4, in my book.
- 2010 Turnbull "Oakville" Napa Valley Cabernet Sauvignon $50: unlike the Terra Valentine, this started too sweet and clumsy, and stayed that way even the next day. 93 pts Robert Parker, 92 pts Wine Enthusiast.
- 2009 Barbour Cabernet Sauvignon Napa Valley $100: very interesting. Definitely on the sweet, fruit driven side, but much more interesting than #9 and #10, and became even more so the next day. Crafted by the cult winemakers, Celia Welch and Heidi Peterson Barrett. This one I would love to try in 10 more years. But at the price, I would opt for the Mondavi or Beringer Reserves. 90 pts Tanzer.
No comments:
Post a Comment