Nothing makes my heart flutter more than 1994 California red wines, a beautiful balance
of fruit, mineral earthiness, spice, complexity, strength, and elegance. The over-powering
styles of alcoholic heat, jammy over-ripeness, and excessive oakiness had yet to burgeon.
Is the 2007 showing like that, per some hype? Thank you.
Victor,
I seem to remember drinking a 94? cab with you when we met. Maybe Whitehall Lane?
I love Cal Cab. 94 was probably my favorite vintage followed by 91. The 2007 has some really excellent wines in my opinion. However I think there was obviously a stylistic change in most wines between 94 & 97 with many wines becoming more ripe. I also think that the climate in 07 might have lent to more ripeness than 94. I think at the current 8-12 year mark, a lot of 2007s are excellent. But I would not expect them to be as strong at year 15 and beyond as many 94s. Though I am finding that many of the 94s I’m drinking would have been best consumed a few years back, even though they are really good still.
Yes, Whitehall Lane, Morisoli Vineyard. As a related matter, I just bought some 1994 Judd’s Hill
Juliana Vineyard Merlot for $15 each. I am fearful to venture into newer vintages, because of
that style change. Thank you.
My question arose from seeing 2007 Laurel Glen Cabernet Sauvignon for $25 per bottle.
This seems not the Counterpoint bottling.
I don’t drink a great deal of California Cabernet but I am very high on the 2007 vintage across most red varieties in California. It’s a vintage that just seems to have a depth of structure that stands out above most surrounding vintages.
Adjusted for the aging difference, how have the 2007’s compared versus the 1994’s, so far? Thank you.
Victor,
I wasn’t drinking 1994 California Cabernet at 8-9 years of age so unfortunately i don’t have a reference point.
Clayton
I hope to drink them at 89 years of age, if fortunate.
If you want a vintage to compare to 1994 in Napa or California, I would suggest 2001 or 2010, not 2007. There are sometimes exceptions but I have had some disappointing 2007’s.
I’m not so familiar with the 2010’s or 2007’s - what is commonality between 2010 and 1994?
I liked 1994 too, and would like to find other years, that are somewhat available.
Good thread.
I can only talk about Arrowood Reserve Speciale in this instance. I found the '94, '99, and '02 to be very similar in their fruit profile and a little less similar in structure. Both the '99 and '02 had less backbone, but were more approachable when young. The '07 had more dark fruit and was more fruit forward, so it was also approachable young and the structure / backbone was similar to my recollection. From what I’ve tasted, 2010 is a MUCH bolder vintage than any of the aforementioned years.
I have had only great experiences with 2007 Napa wines. Have not had the opportunity to taste many 1994s however…
California 1994 is the largest region/year allocation of my collection.
After that, Bordeaux 1989 and 1990 follow closely.
1994 CA Cab was the first vintages I went deep on. On release I thought that they were fantastic. However, somewhere in the early 2000’s I had the impression that many of them were already in decline and at the time were really no longer what excited me. I divested of many and as a result have only had a handful in the last decade or so. For my taste I’ve not regretted the decision.
1991 is (and probably always will be) my benchmark for CA Cab. 1994 was the beginning of the trend that culminated in the 97 vintage, which all but completely put me off of CA cab for over a decade. Still sitting on a few bottles (Mondavi Reserve, Montelena, and maybe a few Dunn HM’s) though and will pop one shortly to see if I made a mistake.
Regards,
Andy Kei!!or
I’ve only had 1 or 2 94’s so i can’t compare 07 to them but to me 07 is more like 97. The wines have really evolved over the last 2 years and I’m drinking mine up save for the producers that are a bit more classic in style and built to age( Spotts, Forman,). I don’t think most are built to last.
If I’m back filling older vintages I’m looking for 06 and 10 primarily. The 06’s have really woken up and are becoming really nice wines based on my experience over the last year or so- Forman, Bressler, Larkmead, Drinkward.
Cheers
To me, '07 is more like '02 - forward and easy to drink young, with less tannin so they mature faster. 1997 was a year I remember as being hugely tannic, so much so that the usual suspects in my cellar seemed like they’d never resolve. Ended up trading my '97 Arrowood for '01, and my '97 Shafer HSS for '85 Graham’s Port and something long forgotten. Pretty sure I took whatever Caymus SS I had from that vintage to BYOB dinners or sold it. Not saying they were bad wines, just not exactly in my wheelhouse.
I can’t say I’ve come across any vintage, post 1997, that competes with the 1990-1997 years in California. However, I must admit that because I particularly love 1994-1997, I’m continually on the look out for wines from those years rather than buying any recent vintages. The wines I’ve had continue to develop and are still going strong.
Last night I drank a 1994 Oakville Ranch Robert’s Blend that was stunning. Recently purchased for $30, I would put this up against any recent $100 Napa cabs/blends. Beautiful bouquet with mouth filling cassis. I will continue to seek these wines out!
Look at the wave of older Judd’s Hill red wines which recently landed on Winebid.
I bought a case of the 1994 Judd’s Hill Juliana Vineyard Merlot. Except for one
bottle, the wine has been wonderful.
Can’t believe I missed this thread.
Victor - I think you know the answer at least a little bit. For my money, the 2007s are nothing like the 1994s. A gross generalization to be sure, but the 2007s are of a different type. The wines from 1994 and even 1995 were the of the last CA, or Napa Cab-based wines before most became slightly bigger and riper, the shoulders on the bottles became slightly higher, and the fruit became a little softer.
Again, gross generalization, but if I had to compare, I think the 2007s are more like the 1997s, which were nice and tasty on release but in many cases aren’t holding up as well as the 1994s.
I agree with you - 1994 was a great vintage.
Of course there are many many more wineries around today. So if you look at those that were around for both vintages, and primarily from Napa - say Montelena, Insignia, Dunn, B.V., Pahlmeyer, Dalla Valle, Monte Bello, Beringer, Staglin, Grgich, Corison, I’d go with the 1994s for most of them. Montelena, Dalla Valle, Corison, and Monte Bello are probably the most consistent. Dunn, B.V., Paylmeyer, Grgich had some tweaks, at least in that vintage. When I did a blind comparison of 2006 to 2007, I preferred the earlier vintage, including Dunn. I think that was the year that Rolland had the first influence on BV, and Grgich had shifted style years before.
Regarding stuff that wasn’t around then - Maybach and the wines from Bevan, etc., they seem different stylistically from most of those mainstream 1994s.
BTW - don’t forget 1991 and 1992!
Thank you. I recently took down a big slug of these.
For $10 each, downside seems slight.