Blog

Before I get into the California Cabernets that I tasted this past month at two separate events, I would like to remind everyone that I will be hosting another All-Star/Top 100. weekend October 21st.23rd , 2005. For those of you who missed it or for any new readers, you can read about last year’s incredible event on The Top 100+ Wines of the Century aka The Big One

This year’s event will not be quite as extravagant as last year’s but will feature many wines from the same, great producers, but there will be different vintages and bottlings and some new faces, of course. There will only be three meals (no doubleheader on Saturday), and we will not feature more than 100 wines for the weekend as opposed to the 150 we approached last year. It will be another incredible weekend and hopefully give everyone reason to come to New York this Fall and enjoy the city in all of its autumnal splendor. If you are interested in being one of the first to hear about this amazing weekend, then email me back ASAP, so I can get you on the advance notification list. There will only be 30-40 seats available, so space will be very limited. I am sure you will at least want to take a peek and see what we will be putting together!

Back to our regular programming Earlier this month, we did a tremendous perspective of 1970’s California Cabernet at BLT Steak, thanks to my West Coast friends, Andy and Matt, who relinquished a few gems from their magnificent cellars. Things got off to a bumpy start at BLT Steak, as the Champagne was being served in regular wine glasses (until I noticed), and then I discovered that the food was being served family style, aka help yourself. Now, don get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with that, and there was plenty of delicious food, but it was a surprise to me and a first, so it made me a little uncomfortable when the food came out and I saw what was happening. It bothered me so much at the time that I flipped out a little in the back, which I am proud to say was the first time that ever happened. Normally, I am pretty easy to please at these dinners. It was too crowded in the private room for them to really serve us, but thankfully everyone was relaxed and fine with the whole format, so it was no big deal. These dinners do bring out the best in everyone. As I said before, the food was excellent, as Laurent Tourondel is a great chef, and I highly recommend that you bring a coat to check for reasons that I will leave to the imagination.

I quickly settled down to get into the first flight, which started with a 1978 B.V. Private Reserve. This was the only bottle NOT provided by my friends, as Andy discovered that he did not have it in his cellar after all, so we went on the internet and found the best-priced bottle we could find. It was shot. When it comes to wine, the best price on the internet is not necessarily a good thing (DQ). We quickly recovered to enjoy an excellent 1978 Mondavi Reserve, which had a fresh nose, was purple in color and had a nutty, bready quality with touches of caramel and chocolate. There was a touch of earth and minerals to its palate, which was full of rich, cassis fruit. The wine was meaty, rich and smooth with a kick of alcohol and integrated tannins. The wine was fully mature with good grit to its palate and a drop of honey (93). The 1978 Heitz Martha’s Vineyard. closed out the first flight with a very complex yet shy nose. There was some signature mint and eucalyptus, good tannins and alcohol there, and a little chocolate rounding out the nose. The palate was meaty, rich and hearty, younger than the Mondavi and more wound, but ultimately not as satisfying. Some floor wax/cleaner flavors marked it a bit (92).

We started the second flight with an amazingly fresh 1978 Diamond Creek Volcanic Hill.. There was pure fruit full of grape and cassis, light earth and nut. The nose was incredibly youthful. There was good structure to the palate; the wine was very slaty, chalky and minerally, very much on the rocky and earthy side of the flavor wheel. There was good flesh to the finish, but overall the fruit was taut on the palate, and one could see the volcanic. side of this wine, which did not hold as well in the glass as some of the other wines (91). The 1978 Chateau Montelena Cabernet Sauvignon Napa Valley. (they made a Sonoma this year as well) was again amazing, just like it had shown a couple month’s ago at an Angry Man dinner. The nose was rich, hearty and smoky, full of nut, cedar, cassis and plum. It left an intense impression with its rock solid t n a, meaty core and marinated, grilled and medium-rare nose. There was great power to the palate, which was intense, full-bodied and long. The wine was balanced and gritty with a touch of emerging coffee flavors (95). The 1978 Caymus Special Selection. was perfumy, according to Bob. The nose was very sandy, minerally and leathery with some plummy fruit behind it and a touch of cedar and alcohol buried in its shy, wound personality. The wine was spicy on the palate, a bit hot in a sandpaper way. It had the biggest finish of any wine so far, and a monster fruit profile. as Matt (who was in from Cali) noted. Some green olives crept in, but the fruit did continue to ripen as the wine expanded in the glass (94).

We put the 1978 vintage behind us as we began the third flight, which brought us back to B.V., a 1976 B.V. Private Reserve, to be exact. The 1976 had a simpler nose, the stewed tomato thing. Matt pinpointed, going on to call it typical 76 B.V.. It did have some leather, chalk dust, carob and oak in its nose as well, and the palate was caramelized, possessing no tannins whatsoever anymore on its short finish. A touch of lemon juice and weird spice emerged in the nose, and Bob called it undrinkable, which he modified to not that bad, but not pleasant.. The wine was average at this stage in its life (85). The 1976 Caymus Special Selection. had the same perfume of 78, Bob noted right away. The 1976 seemed both more mountainous and ripe to me at first, and there were distinct charcoal, chocolate, cassis and nut-crusted bread aromas. There were some light traces of olives on the palate, which was very dry despite a flash of blackcurrant fruit. The palate was still rich, fleshy and gritty, and Adrian noted a touch of mint. (93). The 1976 Joseph Phelps Insignia. had an exotic nose full of perfumed, leathery and nutty fruit. The wine was sexy with its perfumed cassis, plum and vanilla aromas. The wine had an incredible finish, a lip-smacking, great finish that was long, defined, gritty, sturdy and spicy. Jim had a La Mission. flashback, and it was a good call as the wine did have that touch of gravel and ripe, chunky fruit of La Miss. The wine was indubitably great (96). The 1975 Joseph Phelps Eisele Vineyard. also had an exotic nose, with that Italian pastry/marzipan quality in its bready and spiny nose. There was no mistaking its alcohol, and there were truffles and a scallop edge, I curiously wrote. The palate was sturdy, gritty, rough and rugged and seemed like it needed more time to open up. It was a touch dry, and the fruit was on the earthier side in the mouth (94+).

The fourth flight was all about the fours, the 1974s. The 1974 Mondavi Reserve was an off bottle, although the nature of its off-ness. was debated a bit; i.e., was it corked, cooked or miscellaneous other. I thought it was corked first and foremost (DQ). The 1974 Mount Eden Estate had a gorgeous nose full of fireplace and cinnamon aromas, spice, smoke, earth and oatmeal. Bob picked up on its leather flavors, and there was also nice touches of menthol and earth ones (93). The 1974 Mayacamas had that pungent Mayacamas nose, I wrote. It was forceful, alcoholic and loaded with anise and mountainous, dark, dank, deep purple fruit not a ripe purple, but rather a deep purple. The palate was very alcoholic, sturdy and long yet still smooth. The tannins were buried here, but definitely there (94). It was 1974 Heitz Martha’s Vineyard. time. Is there a more storied and fabled Cabernet in all of California? Perhaps the 1941 Inglenook, but there is a much smaller group of storytellers for that wine than the 1974 Heitz. This bottle lived up to the hype. It had huge mint. in the nose, a veritable printing press for currency, I thought, and then I had my own flashback of Mouton Rothschilds from the 40s and 50s. Bob joked a julep at Churchill Downs.. I think those are enough references for its minty qualities! The wine was meaty, rich, smooth, chocolaty and delicately spicy. The wine also gave me an acupuncture impression with its precision and prickle on the palate. Chocolaty, meaty and rich got written again by me you get the idea (97).

It was a tough act to follow, and the 1970 B.V. Private Reserve had the dubious distinction of being the first wine in the last flight. Bob said that this was B.V.’s last chance. here, and he took the words right out of my mouth! The nose showed more promise with its butter, caramel, honey, musk and oak aromas. The palate was fairly rich, hearty and spiny. The rich, caramel flavors, tannins and earth qualities were all solid. The 1970 saved B.V.’s day, but it did not hold in the glass as well as its initial impression gave me (91). The 1970 Mayacamas had a bit of a urinal aspect to its nose, that floor wax/chemical/anise gone bad thing all in one. The wine was quite tannic, and there were those same chemical flavors along with tree bark, leather and spice. The wine was a bit weird, but its chemical components did start to blend into its other qualities with time in the glass (92?). The 1970 Heitz Martha’s vineyard had a good stink, according to Adrian. Raw and uncensored?. I asked, playfully. The nose was rich, chocolaty, meaty and minty sensing a signature style here? There were eucalyptus flavors and a sun-dried meat quality to its palate (94). The 1971 Ridge Monte Bello. was the grand finale, and any one lucky enough to have a 1970 Monte Bello. or 1971 Ridge Eisele Vineyard. know that Ridge is as good as any Cali Cab producer from this era. The 1971 had a firm, intense and deep nose and flirted with an oaky, woodsy, barky edge. There was an exotic touch of banana and some weirdness at first. The wine needed some time in the glass to overcome its weirdness and integrate into an alcoholic, spicy, long, fine and classic California Cabernet (94).

This evening yet again proved that some of California’s pioneer producers, especially Heitz, Phelps, Montelena and Ridge, deserve a little more credit in today’s cultish world of California Cabernet. These are great wines that were made in a style true to the earth and the grape, a style that may be becoming a bit of a lost art when it comes to today’s producers. Given the price of these wines on average compared to some of the new releases out there, I have one final piece of advice: buy.

Two weeks later, we hosted a blind, no holds barred tasting of 1995 California Cabernets at the Warwick hotel. These tastings are always a lot of fun, as the labels cannot influence one’s judgment. At any blind tasting of a similar peer group, it is as if the wines are standing before you naked, and any predispositions are thrown out the window. We always have everyone vote on their top five favorites of the evening, awarding five points for every first place vote and one point for every fifth place vote, etc. We then unveil the wines from least favorite overall to the group’s favorite, which always adds some fun drama to the evening. It is nice when drama can be fun, as that is a rare occurrence! Remember, we did not know the identity of any wine until the end of the tasting and after all the votes were submitted.

The first wine had a touch of bubblegum to its cassis and cedar aromas. There was sweet fruit and traces of tobacco, and that bubblegum touch became more definitive. It was perfumed and feminine in style with some traces of cherry fruit emerging. The palate had black cherry flavors to match and a lot of alcohol at first. The wine did not seem that well integrated but was still very good, although it did lack some fat in the middle. The wine became more exotic and cinnamon joined the party, but in the end the wine was more one-dimensional and simple than most of the other wines but still tasty. My brother James put his foot in his mouth while commenting to the group about this wine when he said that number one comes too quickly in the mouth.. You can make these things up! The wine was the 1995 Behrens Hitchcock TLK Ranch, and it finished tied for last place with the dreaded goose egg: no votes (90). The second wine had a smoky, cedary nose with lots of pine and forest action. The nose was both mild and intense at the same time, penetrating like a needle in one’s jugular. There were also leather, earth, tobacco, cedar and herbs emerging. Its chocolate and black fruits also entered stage right, but in a secondary, supporting way, as did a bit of wild grass. The palate was sturdy and long with nice cedar flavors and length. The flavors were fresh in a good grassy kind of way, and this wine was my favorite of the first five. It was the 1995 Shafer Hillside Select, which got 43 votes and a second place finish overall. However, given the reputation of this wine, I thought it left a less than incredible impression a la 1994, 1997 or 1999 in similar, recent tastings. It was a trend that would continue (94+). The third wine in the first flight was more herbal and stinky, containing a bit of rotten, green fruit (a bit, I must stress). Justin pegged its cranberry quality, which it did have with its underripe notes. The nose was definitely dirty, possessing underlying redeeming qualities of cedar, earth and tobacco. The palate was sturdy and balanced but lighter, probably as good as it gets right now with its cedar, rock and earth flavors. The nose did blow off, and the wine did level out. I guessed Togni, but it was the 1995 Chateau Montelena, which got only seven votes, which was enough for an 11th place finish (out of fifteen wines) (91). The fourth wine was also a bit green but more in a grassy way, accompanied by some morning dew. There were blackberry, cassis and almond aromas, all light. Justin also got the grass. and chalk. as well. The wine was a bit unpleasant on the palate, and Justin wondered whether the wine was flawed. It was too grassy, light and a bit bitter on the finish. Someone in the crowd called it dirty laundry socks, and Dave found it lacking in structure.. There were no fans of the 1995 Philip Togni, the other wine that tied for last place with no votes. I am still waiting for my first good bottle from this heralded producer (85). The fifth wine, and last in the first flight, elicited an initial wow. from me because it was so much more in my face (make that nose) than any of the previous wines. It jumped from the glass with its coffee, chocolate, vanilla and oak. With time, the oak started to become a bit much, however, and Justin agreed that the wine was dominated by the char from the barrels.. For lovers of vanilla and smoke, there were good flavors, length and balance on the palate, but this was a wine which had about as much char as I can handle without it being overboard, although I could see how it would please a lot of people. Dave admired how it was drinking now, while Justin called it the most integrated. but concurred that it was a bit oaky for his taste. It was the 1995 Venge Reserve, which got 21 votes and a respectable tie for seventh place (92).

The next flight began with a wine which had a shy nose, more on the alcohol and cedar side, a touch spiny with hints of anise, vanilla extract and some member of the cinnamon spice family. The wine was a little buttery on the palate with edges of cassis in its rich, supple profile. The wine was very tasty, smooth and with decent length. It did give me the impression of being a wine at its peak, though. It was the 1995 Joseph Phelps Insignia, a wine that has almost always finished in the top five in these tastings, but tonight it only got 12 votes, good enough for only tenth place. It was in my top five, for what it’s worth (94). The seventh wine of the night and second of this flight was another stinky nose, pungent but not green. It was a good dirty with some coffee, earth and mild stalk aromas. The palate was round and easy, not terribly defining but still possessing tasty bell pepper flavors. It was one of Justin’s favorites, who sensed some Cabernet Franc and called it a kinky, whips and chains wine.. It was the 1995 Arrowood Reserve Speciale, which got seventeen votes and finished with a ninth place medal (92). The next wine caused Justin to comment that this was the first blockbuster.. I saw it, as the wine was very aromatic in that showboat, opulent, banana split style that made me think Bryant or Colgin. The wine was very lush on the palate, smooth, elegantly long and fine. It was very tasty and sexy juice, which Justin called exotic.. As the wine stayed in the glass, it became more and more upfront, making me think that now is a good time to be enjoying the 1995 Colgin, which got 27 votes and finished in sixth place (93). It was at this point that I made the observation that besides wines #2 (Shafer) and #6 (Insignia), there did not seem to be that much tannin expression in these wines on this night, and #6 wasn even that much. More on that later. The next wine had big-time underarm in its nose at first it was very distinctive, but some exotic, cinnamon fruit as well. Justin politically corrected me with earthy complexity.. That it did have, with a kiss of citrus and some meaty, cassisy, blueberry syrupy fruit to round out its nose. The palate had no fruit whatsoever, though, and was all finish, which was good, but not exciting. Someone noted its Gruaud Larose like. qualities, which I saw, but the wine was either shut down or never going to be great. It was the 1995 Ridge Monte Bello, which received only 6 votes and a 12th place finish (90+). We had made it two-thirds of the way through with the next wine, one that Justin noted had a chemical/nail polish/varnish. thing happening, but in a good way. The nose was super chunky, meaty, smooth, chocolaty and full of cherry fruit. I found its fruit sexy with its caramel and chocolate in the nose. The palate was smooth and satiny with light grit. Our own Andy commented how there were equal parts of fruit and stiffness, and she went on to add that the wine was long, but not as long as I.d love.. Hmmmmm. Someone else liked the cotton candy. flavors in the 1995 Etude, which was tied with the Venge for seventh place with 21 votes (93+).

I began the last flight with a sense of anticipation that the heavyweights were finally here for the sipping since I did not experience one outstanding wine (95 points or more on the JK-ometer) yet. The first wine of the last flight finally delivered, with a deep, smoky, earthy nose and heavy, underlying fruit. There was beef, plum, cassis and blackberry aromas, and its finish was the most serious of the night so far. Justin was thinking Colgin, while another wondered Pride Reserve. The style of wine was, indeed, mountainous, with a big presence of tannins and alcohol. It was the 1995 Araujo Eisele Vineyard, which won the overall tasting by a comfortable margin with 55 frac12; votes (95). The next wine had a big, in-your-face nose with a hint of green as well as some smoke, earth, banana and coffee on the pot a little too long. The flavors and aromas reeked of Helen Turley. The wine was smooth, gritty and balanced yet somewhat simple overall in its personality, although the finish did gain in the glass for this bottle of 1995 Bryant Family. The wine got 38 votes, still good enough for a third place finish (93+). The lucky thirteenth wine of the night had my kind of nose, I wrote, with complexity and balance of fruit and finish. There was a touch of date, grilled meat, coffee, earth, some sort of nut syrup and caramel rounding out its delicious nose. The wine was tasty, balanced and smooth on the palate with similar flavors and nice grit and chalk components. It was another great show for the regular. bottling of Dalla Valle, and the 1995 Dalla Valle Napa Valley. (not Maya) finished in a close fourth place with 36 frac12; votes (95). The second to last wine of the night was an off-bottle and not representative of what the 1995 Dunn Howell Mountain. brings to the table. However, it still got three votes and finished ahead of two other wines gotta love the theory of relativity as it applies to wine (DQ). Last up was my wine ofthe night, but it finished in fifth place overall with 35 votes. It was a close race between 3-4-5. The palate was the most tannic and long. There was exquisite definition in its meaty and balanced texture. Its mountainous fruit was akin to the morning after cup of coffee and cigarette all in one (95+).

So the group had Araujo in first by a healthy margin, followed by Shafer Hillside, Bryant, Dalla Valle and Pride Reserve. I had it Pride Reserve, Araujo and Dalla Valle tied (yes I was the half-point guy), Shafer Hillside and then Insignia. I then asked myself, Where the F is Harlan???. Oops. I am sure the Harlan would have had something to say about the top five. I wonder why I did that did I really miss it or perhaps I was having a moment of frugality in regard to the event’s price? Oh, well. The thing about this tasting that surprised me the most was how mature most of these wines seemed. When 1995 came out, many were saying it was very close to 1994 in quality, etc., but as time has gone on, the 1994s have distanced themselves from the 95s as a much greater vintage, I feel. Only my top four or five wines even had hopes of continuing to improve with age, and it was not necessarily that certain of a fact for those said wines, and this was a cross-section of some of the most highly-rated wines of the vintage. It seems when it comes to 1995 California Cabernets, it might be best to drink up sooner rather than later.