Chris Seiber wrote:
Looking through this thread, it’s amazing how underrated 1999 is. In my personal opinion of course. I should hunt around for bargains.
Two of my favorites from the 1999 vintage are the Forman and Spottswoode. I have a few of each left and I am always on the lookout for more.
Thanks,
Ed
91/94/92 are clearly the upper tier IMO.
97/96 are a smidgen behind.
93/90/95 are fairly pedestrian vintages.
98/99 are the years I moved to California. They mark the decades worst. Mother Nature telling me something.
94
97
92
91
96
90
95
93
99
98
I’m a big fan of this vintage. I have been buying it up as I find it. For my taste, I put it in my top tier with 1991 and 1994. Off the top of my head, my favorites have been Togni, Corrison, Long Meadow Ranch, Dutch Henry. I’m sure there were others as I drank a lot of this vintage.
I brought a Laurel Glen Cabernet Sauvignon 1997, for dinner last night at the bar of Union Square Cafe.
A most excellent showing of traditional and rich California cabernet, but about as far out as I will venture, in terms of newer vintages.
I opened one by accident last year (I thought I had pulled a 1984) and found it very young and atypically rich. Still enjoyable but I wish I had held for another decade.
My ranking, as well, though I probably prefer more '92s. The problem in my mind with '94s is that although it was a great vintage, the style of wine, especially in Napa, had decidedly moved to the higher oak, extraction, and alcohol profile. That was the turning point vintage, imo.
Odd to note that the Laurel Glen is twenty years old, yet barely a toddler.
Victor Hong wrote:
Odd to note that the Laurel Glen is twenty years old, yet barely a toddler.
Victor, the Laurel Glen Cabs from the 1990-1995 are all fantastic. I have not tried as many from 1996 or 1997. I am always on the lookout for any from these years because they are aging very well and they taste fantastic. And they are usually priced very well for the quality that is in the bottle.
Thanks,
Ed
Agreed – a terrific and under-appreciated wine from that era. I had the 1996 Laurel Glen last weekend (along side the 1996 Sociando). It was delicious and has many years of life ahead.
I just took a bunch off Winebid recently for $40 each.
Last year, I bought it on auction for as little as $12 each.
Look at the latest stuff on Winebid, particularly the 1994 vintage.
91/94/92 are upper tier
97/96/95 are a slightly behind
93/90 are ok
98/99 are not great but producer specific
91 and 95 for me.I’ll put the 95 Insignia up against any wine from that decade.
I still drink as much Cal Cab as anything.
It’s a tough question as one has to decide whether there’s a plus to earlier plateau of drinkability and whether one believes there was a larger supply of quality wines after the beginning of the decade.
At the top I’ll give the edge to 94 over 91 as I think both were great and settle the tie by credit for the fact that there were more great wines in 94 and that they drank really well well in their first decade. So…
94
91
97 next. Some wines missed, but there are a lot of stellar wines, with the caveat that the are a tad more opulent than vintages befor.
95 next. Just below 97. More classical structure in some wines than 97
92 next
90 next, slight edge over …
96
99 some good wines. But some have fallen apart and there are more pruned wines in this vintage than any of the others
93 meh vintage. Even fewer really good wines than 99
98 worst, and it isn’t close. Too many watery, thin wines and some with vegetal streaks
94
91
96
97
95
99
92
93
98
90
From my experiences, 92 is getting a little more love than it should, and 97 a little less than it should. There are still many 97s drinking well, though the acclaim as best vintage of ever is not warranted. I think that 1996 is often relatively overlooked despite being a very lovely vintage that has aged rather well. I like 95, though some wines lack verve. At the top end, I think quality is quite good and fairly consistent. I think 1999 is right about on that same level, and superior to 93, 98, and 90. I’ve found few redeeming wines from 90, and won’t even take a flyer on them at this point. You can still get wines from 1987 for a reasonable price, and it’s superior even now to 90. 1998 has decent quality at the top end, though not good quality along the middling products. You can get good deals on Insignia and “cults” in this hated vintage, and those bottles are usually rock solid. Not mind-blowing, but still very good. It’s a rich get richer vintage to me. The peak of Napa did fine, the rest did not and many show a little green and rather thin.
Those of you who are touting 1992 as a stunner, please let me know if you had any of that vintage recently and if so, what would you suggest hunting down? My track record has not been that great with 1992 over the past five years or so, including a few from magnum or, rather “en magnum”. I’d be interested in hunting some wines down for a follow up taste or five.
1992 Ridge Monte Bello is killer
1994
1991
1992
1990
Being on or near the bottom of this list is still very admirable. If you find any 1992 bottlings in good shape and at a good price, hesitate not.
That’s one I’ve had in the past five years or so. I went on a Ridge kick there for a bit. I’ve had 91, 92, 94, 95, 96, 97, 99. I found the 92 good, but not on the level of the 91, 94, 96. The 91 I had was fading, but still showed what it once was. The 95 is a lovely wine with nice balance and a solid spine of acidity, but perhaps in the next tear. I thought the 92 was good, but a simpler less exciting version than the 94-96 wines. More in the vein of 1999 which, while very good, is just not a world beater. I thought the loser of the group was 1997, which I found overly dry, lighter than expected and, while spicy, a bit simple.