When Did California Change, and Who Held Out?

[mmarcellus]

@Doug Schulman

@NoahR

And which winemakers (other than, say, Ridge, Corison, and maybe Dunn/Togni/Forman) held out longest?

While I do refer to most of these as relatively “old school”, I don’t think anyone makes red wines they way they were in the '70s and '80s anymore, except maybe Ridge. For Cabernet, no one does. Same with Pinot Noir. ABV alone tells that story (not that it’s the only aspect that has changed, but it is really easy to look at and see that the wines are now grown and structured very differently).

I think that pre-sale, Mayacamas would definitely qualify as one who stuck to their guns. We’ll see about post sale.

Re Pinot Noir, I’m an East Coaster so maybe I just didn’t get any of the good stuff, but Pinot Noir from California that I drank really sucked back then. Say what you will about current California Pinot Noir (as I often do) back then it was never anywhere the quality level of Cabernet or, for that matter, of many other varieties

[Adam_Lee]

@John Morris

@K John Joseph

@John Morris

Thanks, Adam. Here’s what your data looks like in a graph – which really shows how dramatic the rise in ripeness has been. Even the very cool 2011 vintage, when many wines supposedly were underripe, had higher brix than vintages in the 1980s.

It also shows the uptick people perceived anecdotally after 1996, but the real rocket rise starts around 2000.

Even so, we’re talking across what, all of Napa? I looked at listed ABV for a bunch of top wines from 1991-1997 relatively recently and was surprised at the number already over 14% by that period among better producers. Small sample size and I didn’t track results, and yes I know listed ABV is inaccurate, but it was still a bit surprising.

I assume Adam’s Brix figures reflect the grapes at harvest. 26 Brix, the rough average level from 2013-16, equates to 15.9% ABV, but I don’t think the finished wines are averaging 15.9%. That tells you that something is being done to lower alcohol along the way – watering or reverse osmosis, probably. Or some residual sugar may be left, though I’d guess that is less likely.

For reference, 23 Brix (the kind of level in the 80s) = 13.9%, other things being equal.

John,

The numbers I cite are from the California Grape Crush Report. They are indeed brix at harvest, though different people take them at slightly different times (for instance, I usually wait and take sugars 48ish hours after crush so there can be a soak up). That makes specific alcohol conversion figures difficult. But I do think that looking at the brix numbers as a whole, and comparing them to other brix numbers as a whole, is useful.

Adam Lee

[Victor_Hong]

Of course, these numbers do not factor in chaptalization.

[NoahR]

This is phenomenal Information. Thanks to all and particularly Adam.

Adam: what are your thoughts about California rootstocks and their relationship to ripeness and potential alcohol? Do you think this is an issue of weather/global warming, plant biological factors, or more winemaking style and preferences? The casual narrative seems to have always attributed this to the rise of Parker and winemakers whose full-throated styles were deemed popular by him.

[Victor_Hong]

Because of these tell-all threads, almost a year has passed, since I was able to pick up good early-1990’s California cabernet sauvignon for $10 per bottle.

[John_Morris]

@NoahR

This is phenomenal Information. Thanks to all and particularly Adam.

Adam: what are your thoughts about California rootstocks and their relationship to ripeness and potential alcohol? Do you think this is an issue of weather/global warming, plant biological factors, or more winemaking style and preferences? The casual narrative seems to have always attributed this to the rise of Parker and winemakers whose full-throated styles were deemed popular by him.

I’m not Adam, but I know Roy Piper maintained that, on the newer rootstocks, grapes need to be at higher sugar levels to achieve physiological (flavor) ripeness.

I’ve always been a bit suspicious of that, since what people consider an ideal flavor profile has plainly shifted a lot over the past several decades. It seemed to me that Roy might be attributing to botany what is really a change in human preferences.

[GregT]

Right. I forgot to mention the replanting. I don’t know how to separate that information from everything else as there are too many variables to point to only one. I think a lot of it simply had to do with people jumping into the business and wanting not to lose money. Also 1997 was the last vintage I really paid attention to, not because I didn’t like the wines, but because they were, like Mark mentioned, not going anywhere.

I remember Henry well and always loved the food but never understood the match with big reds. Haven’t seen him for a while and I still get his BYO invites but I’m out of range now.

[Chris_Seiber]

@Carlos Delpin

IMHO 1996 is the last vintage that relates to the 1980’s. In 1997, be it because of the vintage or because of winemaking, the era of increased extraction began.

Everyone says this, but then 98 and 00 were cool, low alcohol vintages and 99 was beautifully balanced. All three quite underrated.

I feel like 2001 forward is the real change, with 1997 just having been a really ripe forward (in many cases imbalanced) vintage.

Maybe what happened is that the critical hype over the bigness of the 97s had arrived in time for winemakers to start seeking out that style in the 2000s?

[NoahR]

@John Morris

@NoahR

This is phenomenal Information. Thanks to all and particularly Adam.

Adam: what are your thoughts about California rootstocks and their relationship to ripeness and potential alcohol? Do you think this is an issue of weather/global warming, plant biological factors, or more winemaking style and preferences? The casual narrative seems to have always attributed this to the rise of Parker and winemakers whose full-throated styles were deemed popular by him.

I’m not Adam, but I know Roy Piper maintained that, on the newer rootstocks, grapes need to be at higher sugar levels to achieve physiological (flavor) ripeness.

I’ve always been a bit suspicious of that, since what people consider an ideal flavor profile has plainly shifted a lot over the past several decades. It seemed to me that Roy might be attributing to botany what is really a change in human preferences.

This is exactly the sort of thing I am wondering about. Corison’s Kronos Vineyard, for example, is entirely on St George rootstock. Wondering how much of the Cali Ripeness is due to replanting on more blowsy rootstock and the replanting that happened after Phylloxera in 90’s.

[Tom_DeBiase]

Some interesting opinions here and there are no wrong answers. For me I saw a real change in STYLE after the huge price increases in the mid 90’s. I think it was Caymus whose wine literally doubled one vintage to another. Around that time I bought the 94 Insignia for $35.00, couple years later it was in the $70’s.

If you are going to raise prices so dramatically I feel that many winemakers wanted to make the wine “worth” the increases. How, bigger wines, higher alcohol, more extraction, more severe barrel regime, more toast and oak flavors etc. It happened faster with many but not all of the cults but also seemed to filter down to many less costly labels. Did it make the wines better, well if you like that style yes. If not then the past 20 - 25 years have been, in general, a disappointment.

Land, grapes and wine are so expensive in Napa these days I think it will be much more difficult to reverse this trend compared to other regions in CA. Its not like someone is going to make a classically styled Napa cab from prime acreage and sell it for 50 bucks.

Tom

[Victor_Hong]

Around 1996, producers also began aggressively to select and segment their plots, in order to produce reserve bottlings from what used to be “standard” juice.

[Alicia_C]

@NoahR

@John Morris

@NoahR

This is phenomenal Information. Thanks to all and particularly Adam.

Adam: what are your thoughts about California rootstocks and their relationship to ripeness and potential alcohol? Do you think this is an issue of weather/global warming, plant biological factors, or more winemaking style and preferences? The casual narrative seems to have always attributed this to the rise of Parker and winemakers whose full-throated styles were deemed popular by him.

I’m not Adam, but I know Roy Piper maintained that, on the newer rootstocks, grapes need to be at higher sugar levels to achieve physiological (flavor) ripeness.

I’ve always been a bit suspicious of that, since what people consider an ideal flavor profile has plainly shifted a lot over the past several decades. It seemed to me that Roy might be attributing to botany what is really a change in human preferences.

This is exactly the sort of thing I am wondering about. Corison’s Kronos Vineyard, for example, is entirely on St George rootstock. Wondering how much of the Cali Ripeness is due to replanting on more blowsy rootstock and the replanting that happened after Phylloxera in 90’s.

That’s interesting Noah, because for me (and my crazy palate when it comes to Napa Cabs), the Kronos wines always tasted bigger than her Napa Cabs (which come from other vineyards, that I assumed weren’t on St. George … but maybe I’m wrong?).

[Dennis_Borczon]

All excellent answers above, many of them technically interesting. I have a different perspective, based on some personal experiences. Comes down to this…

Follow the money.

I went to a Spectator Wine Experience event in NYC in 1996, Had the usual lineup of gangsters and Bordeaux estates. There was one new winery inserted in the lineup, pouring a small production wine few people had ever heard of or tasted. Owner was Jean Phillips, and I think she poured about 1/3 of her total 1994 production at that event. Think release price was something like $60 a bottle (gasp!), pretty pricey in those days when you could get 1990 Petrus all day long at $100. Had an odd label, more like modern art than some grand old pile of bricks in Europe. The wine was plush, velvety, with immediately appealing upfront fruit and a spectacular long finish that tasted like bottled California sunshine. Keep in mind the Bordelaise were flogging 1993 and 1994 vintages at the same time. The contrast was like turning on a halogen floodlight in a room of musty encyclopedias.

Ms Phillips was asked about the unusual name, she replied something like “Why walk on the ground when you can soar?” She got a standing ovation from the crowd.

This for me was the beginning of the gold rush. Helen Turley started the revolution, but not too many people took notice until SE and the other cults smacked us all upside the head with the notion that great cabernet can taste delicious TODAY, not just in a decade or two. Of course what was a good thing became inflated over time, much like (dare I say it?) the '90s notion that a boob job was the ultimate California graduation present. Thank god for the Kardashians, they have finally moved popular culture onto other areas of anatomy.

Was it not perfect that the same state that gave us Sutter’s Mill and the 49ers has given us a modern day equivalent?

Go ahead, flame away for my politically incorrect thoughts…

[DougS]

@RG Barron

@Doug Schulman

@NoahR

And which winemakers (other than, say, Ridge, Corison, and maybe Dunn/Togni/Forman) held out longest?

While I do refer to most of these as relatively “old school”, I don’t think anyone makes red wines they way they were in the '70s and '80s anymore, except maybe Ridge. For Cabernet, no one does. Same with Pinot Noir. ABV alone tells that story (not that it’s the only aspect that has changed, but it is really easy to look at and see that the wines are now grown and structured very differently).

From someone who enjoys Ridge wines regularly, can I ask what, specifically, they do differently?

Ridge was my only example of someone who might not have changed anything, and I specifically meant the Zin-based wines. I do think the ABVs are higher on their Cabernets than they were historically, but the Zin-based stuff might not have changed. I’m not sure.

[NoahR]

If the thought was that great Napa Cabs can taste goodbye TODAY, then why are people still trading 1997 Harlan and decade-old SE at auction for ridiculous prices? Shouldn’t these be garage sale wines by now?

[DougS]

@mmarcellus

@Doug Schulman

@NoahR

And which winemakers (other than, say, Ridge, Corison, and maybe Dunn/Togni/Forman) held out longest?

While I do refer to most of these as relatively “old school”, I don’t think anyone makes red wines they way they were in the '70s and '80s anymore, except maybe Ridge. For Cabernet, no one does. Same with Pinot Noir. ABV alone tells that story (not that it’s the only aspect that has changed, but it is really easy to look at and see that the wines are now grown and structured very differently).

I think that pre-sale, Mayacamas would definitely qualify as one who stuck to their guns. We’ll see about post sale.

Re Pinot Noir, I’m an East Coaster so maybe I just didn’t get any of the good stuff, but Pinot Noir from California that I drank really sucked back then. Say what you will about current California Pinot Noir (as I often do) back then it was never anywhere the quality level of Cabernet or, for that matter, of many other varieties

Mayacamas…I’m not familiar with their reds, so I can’t comment from a taste perspective. Do their Cabernets show a significant amount of vegetal character? Their winemaking looks pretty old-school. ABVs look that way too. I’m glad you pointed that out as it seems to be one other very plausible exception.

As for California Pinot Noir from back then, I don’t know about the '70s and '80s too much, but there was some made in the '60s (supposedly Pinot Noir, anyway) that was good enough to still be good now. That’s better than most modern examples can do.

[PeterJ]

Re GregT’s post above: >>“At this point, if you own land in Napa, and even more if you buy land in Napa, you’re going to make Cab and you’re going to make a style that’s going to sell. It would be pretty stupid to do otherwise because you’ll end up with a garage full of your own wine that you can’t move and you’ll never recoup your investment. So although they could probably do something extraordinary with say, Sangiovese, that’s not going to come from Napa.”<<

I’m not all that knowledgeable about viticulture and have wondered why there’s so much Sauvignon Blanc grown in the Napa area given the land value and relatively lower return compared with Cab Sauv.

Is this just tradition, or related to something to do with crop rotation, or an issue of specific vineyard location? Does anyone plant NEW Sauv Blanc there at this point?

[Howard_Cooper]

@GregT

Noah - were you trying any of the wines back then? It’s not about Parker so much as it was about learning and the explosion of wineries. Back in the 1970s there were very few and the market was pretty small and they were modeling on Bordeaux, notwithstanding the fact that the climate was so different.

As time went on, they found out that sunlight eliminated some of the green qualities in the Cab family, and riper, cleaner grapes made better wine. So people pushed that and pushed it and some wines got hyper-ripe. If you make a big, thick wine and get high points or at least a lot of buzz, maybe I’ll try it. But now you have a bit of a name, so two or three other people ask you to make their wine. Helen Turley made Pahlmeyer in the 1990s. The early and mid 90s Merlots were some of the best ever from CA. She also made Turley Zins until she stepped out of that role sometime in the mid 90s. Those were super-ripe and flashy wines.

Other people became interested in making Zin like that so similar wines hit the market. She mentored other winemakers, who emulated her style and yet more wines hit the market.

That happened with a few wine makers, so their philosophies were spread around. And then of course, you had the M&A people from Wall Street who wanted to flash money, so “cult” wines were born. In the crash in the early 2000s, coupled with 9/11, some of those wines lost their market and never recovered.

Some wines changed styles in the mid to later 1990s but that’s in part also a function of the explosion of wineries. At Grgich alcohol levels went up in the late 1990s. A few years later Pahlmeyer got new vineyards and wine makers. But more than that, a lot of new wineries or wine producers came into being and a lot of those newcomers hired the same people who had made their reps making the wines that were selling. Most of those new wineries didn’t even exist in 1991 and earlier, so it’s not necessarily accurate to talk about a style shift, although it is true that some wines did change style. But BV only changed in 2007 and they pre-date pretty much everyone except for a small handful.

So if you’re talking about “holding out”, it doesn’t really make a lot of sense for many wineries because they weren’t there before and had nothing to hold out against. And you’re mostly talking about Napa Cab and perhaps Zin. In 1970, there were 250 bonded wineries in CA. Then comes the Paris tasting in 1976 and the number increases to around 500 in 1980. Today there are over 4500.

At this point, if you own land in Napa, and even more if you buy land in Napa, you’re going to make Cab and you’re going to make a style that’s going to sell. It would be pretty stupid to do otherwise because you’ll end up with a garage full of your own wine that you can’t move and you’ll never recoup your investment. So although they could probably do something extraordinary with say, Sangiovese, that’s not going to come from Napa.

But there’s ever more diversity in California and I think the wine making is better than ever.

As far as 1997, when those came out they were mostly just flat out delicious. That may have been the peak year for ready-to-drink Cab-based wines. They had a great string of vintages up to that one, but that kind of capped it. Then after a few years, the wines weren’t improving. Today I think the 1994s, which were highly lauded on release, as well as the 1991s and 1992s, have turned out to be better long-term bets.

But did you buy the wine to age or to drink at peak? If those wines peaked early, the thing to do was to drink them early. Some CA Cabs, and especially Napa Cabs, can age and improve for years. But most probably are good to go right away. And not everyone likes aged Cab/Merlot as much as they like it young.

Great response. But there was actually one failed era of over the top wines that dates back to the late 70s or early 80s. During the first Zinfandel craze of that period, high alcohol Zinfandels, esp. from warmer regions like Amador county were really hot (in more ways than one). People were buying Zins at 15, 16 or 17 percent alcohol. The wines fell apart after just a few years and the entire market for Zinfandel just fell apart. The only thing that saved a lot of old Zinfandel vines was the white wine craze and a winery called Sutter Home that decide to make a white (actually and sweet) that became the next big craze.

[Howard_Cooper]

@Mark Golodetz

For me, it started with Helen Turley’s first vintage at B. R. Cohn, the 1984. A friend brought a bottle to a tasting, and we immediately realized that this wine was different to anything we had tasted before. There was a really appealing richness, and plushness to it, and tannins and acids were held in check, and it was an easy wine to drink and enjoy. For what we lost in complexity in depth was more than made up for with easy pleasure. Not an equation I would subscribe to now, but its uniqueness at the time made it alluring.

Certainly not as big as wines today, but wasn’t Silver Oak of that era made in a similar style of richness and plushness. I have not had the B.R. Cohn, but remember drinking Silver Oak for the first time at a restaurant in the Napa Valley in 1984.

[Howard_Cooper]

@Doug Schulman

I don’t think anyone makes red wines they way they were in the '70s and '80s anymore, except maybe Ridge. For Cabernet, no one does.

How about Forman and Stony Hill?