"Mushy-quality tannins": An interview with Chuck Wagner

His words, not mine. At least he’s honest.

In no other industry would a manufacturer be criticized for making something that his customers liked.

On the other hand, before the Caymus wines went ‘mushy’ they were pretty popular too.

I’m not a winemaker, nor do I play one on TV, but it seems to me phenolic ripeness is a good thing.

One of my favorite parts of enjoying wine is the sweet/sour experience. But I certainly understand how some wouldn’t miss the sour. I also love very spicy foods and I get that others don’t like heat. I guess I do not totally agree with his final point: “I think our style is super friendly and super luscious and textured. Just exhilarating. To think we’d trade this in and go for more astringency and acidity on the palate as a throwback to yesteryear — I just couldn’t see that as a good thing in any way.” I believe there are some good things about some of those characteristics, but it is a tradeoff. They are not universally bad.

I recall a wine critic describing Fratelli Revello Barolo as “Like the icing without the cake”. Which I think was a quite useful way to shape how (depending on your viewpoint) that might be a good or bad thing.

"You and others have had great success with that style. But there are some today who advocate a return to the older style, seeking “freshness” and lower alcohol. How do you feel about this debate?

I think there are some nutty sommeliers out there."

I’m guessing Chuck isn’t a charter member of the AFWE.

In any event, he clearly understands what he’s doing and why he’s doing it, and a significant % of the CA Cabernet wine market agrees with his approach…

Bruce

How about Jeff Koons?

Translation: residual sugar and mega purple

I am no Caymus fan, but do you have proof he uses mega purple?

No proof, just lots of discussion ‘round these parts with buddies who know far more about producing wine than I do.

So rumor. Got it. Useless.

…or experts who are very familiar with the processes involved in creating certain characteristics and/or flaws in a high-production wine…

1988 Napa Caymus and 1991 Special Selection were two early epiphany wines for me. Stopped buying in 1995 until I tried a 2012. It was an alcoholic, chocolaty mess.

I’m not sure this is true. In just about any hobby or field, there is the popular product, and the cognoscenti who look down on it. Go to an audiophile board and take a look at what the folks think about Bose or Beats. Or see what self-professed foodies think about chain restaurants. This is not unique.

He clearly added too much mega purple in the 2012 but adjusted for the 2013. So he does learn.

• 2013 Caymus Cabernet Sauvignon - USA, California, Napa Valley (11/21/2015)
  Purchased at a client dinner. I don’t normally drink the “purple drank” but we were with a group that likes fruity bold wines. Two words came to mind upon tasting this wine: syrup and vanilla. The oak in this wine was insane and not anywhere near integrated. The fruit was a goopy mess, sweet and cloying. Even the folks we were with who like these kinds of wine didn’t like this. Granted, it was drank young, but I don’t think this wine has the structure to go anywhere. FAIR. (82 pts.)

Posted from CellarTracker

Names and facts or it is just useless rumor.

And what exactly are we going to do with these sacred truths we seek?

Many people do criticize the various Wagner family products, but to judge by the recent Meomi sale, somebody must like them. Parker seems to like Caymus and the Spectator likes Meomi.

Maybe this is like when the Guggenheim had that motorcycle show. Art critics said, Is this art? But you had trouble getting in.

Don’t forget that Frank Prial ripped California a new one in 1982 and now we see those wines, like the '78s, as a golden age.