I like this answer.
I was going to say 2001, as well.
A favorite cab of mine, that I have been drinking for a long time, used to be (and still is) known for having an almost impossibly long waiting time for ‘maturity.’
I like to pop a new release bottle each year, and when the 2001 of that wine hit, I recall an immediate, “What the hell? Where did all this soft tannin and vanilla/oak come from?”
Precisely 2001, I am with Chris!
Yes, I got rid of all of my Insignias from the 1990s when I figured out that they would not develop with age like the wonderful Phelps reds from the 70s and 80s.
I think it was earlier, in some cases as early as 1994.
One thing to consider about Sauv Blanc - you can crop it MUCH higher than you would ‘high end’ bordeaux reds and therefore get a lot more tonnage per acre. And you can get it to market much faster than cabs, for instance. Therefore, from a cash flow standpoint, it works well . . .
Cheers.
A great thread - thanks for starting. And such great information thus far.
It was always my belief that 1997 was the ‘turning point’ in Napa reds - at this point, the wines began to be picked later and made it a ‘riper’ style.
I think it’s a bit of a ‘challenge’ to pinpoint when the change took place, but the factors mentioned above - change in rootstocks, Parker scores, Spectator scores - may have played a large part in this.
One other thing to mention is the advent of ‘technologies’ that allowed one to pick riper but will deliver a ‘sound’ product. I’m wondering at what time reverse osmosis hit the scene? Ultra filtration to allow for VA removal? And new ‘chemicals’ that allowed for a ‘softening’ of tannins, allowing for wines to be drinkable younger?
Let the discussion rage on!
Not sure about Napa, but hasn’t Leoville las Cases been using reverse osmosis since the 80s?
AxR1 is one of the most important aspects of this question.
1997 was the first uh-oh year for me. One cult Napa Cab got 100 Parker points and many of the bottles had VA to the point of unpleasantness. Another cult cab which was never excessive fell victim to its subregion being brutally hot in 1997. Bryant 1997 was in a new super ripe style that some people found unpleasant. On release I thought it awful. How much of this was weather and how much seeking Parker 100’s which quadrupled your wine’s price? I don’t know because I don’t agree that 1998 through 2000 were good years. For my palate only, YMMV, 1998 is clunky and weird. 1999 is correct with Bordeaux like structure but linear and boring. 2000 is tied with 1988 as the worst Napa cab vintage during my years of buying Napa cab, I’ve had a couple of very thin ones that should not have been released. Then came the great 2001 vintage but two of my favorite cabs from different wineries both suffered in 2001 from brett getting into the barrels possibly from failure to top off, both had to be filtered leaving a wine far inferior to what had been in barrel, and both fired their consultants. Meanwhile Laube was suddenly handing out 75 points here and there because of perceived flaws including endemic TCA. Cult cab prices to mailing list members were getting obscene and after the 1996 vintage none of this was fun any more for me.
I don’t like the winemaker’s style of some of the new high end cabs and I don’t mean ripeness. Except Blankiet now looks interesting to me for early 2000’s at current prices, I sort of wish I had joined the Kapscandy list (they seem balanced) and MacDonald for the incredible terroir, and I am following Harbison with great interest.
To me, it certainly is important along with a couple of other things.
When most of these Vineyards were replanted, my guess is that they changed spacing to allow more Vines per acre than before. In addition, my guess is that many of them went to Vertical shoot positioning, which certainly can lead to more easily ripening grapes. As importantly or even more so, it also leads to less green qualities in your grapes since you have less beef coverage than the old California sprawl trellising.
Just a few other data points, my friend. Cheers!
1987
In California, it’s used to reduce alcohol while in Bordeaux it’s used to remove water and concentrate the wines. And, yes, LLC was one of the early adopters.
What makes you believe it’s not used in California for the same reasons it’s used in France? I know it’s not discussed much, but I know that it is used for this purpose as well over here.
Having had a good number of Phelps’s wines from the mid-late 70s through 80s, and most every Insignia from 1992 forward, I can’t help but think that was a poor decision.
I didn’t know that. Is it used for both purposes in the same wine, then – to concentrate and to reduce alcohol?
So I’ve been working on all of this for a new project I will be announcing some time next year (if anyone is interested PM me). In addition to going back and plotting grape sugars (not just Napa Cab, but Pinot Noir from all over the place, plus other grapes in other areas), I have also taken the tonnage figures from the Grape Crush Report and the planted acreage figures from the Grape Acreage report and done some math. What does this tell us about Napa Cabernet Sauvignon.
From 1984-2000 Napa Cabernet Sauvignon averaged 3.621634718 tons per acre.
From 2001-2015 Napa Cabernet Sauvignon averaged 3.194818882 tons per acre. This doesn’t even take into account what I believe would be tighter vine spacing. This is almost a 12% decrease in yields.
During this same period the average brix at harvest for Napa Cabernet has increased 8.59%.
I believe these figures may well be related and the loss of AxR (which was a very prolific rootstock) led to a decrease in yields. As winemakers know, lower yields generally led to faster sugar accumulation.
So that’s my $.02 worth.
I am not discounting other factors entirely by any means…but think there is something here.
Adam Lee
While Cali cabs seem to have evolved over the years, for me, the most noticeable changes where post 97. Yet 97 itself is an odd vintage. I bought several bottles of Dominus, MonteBello, Montelena and Insignia. The weirdest and most disappointing has been the Insignia. It showed really well in its early days but the last few bottles have been disappointing - perhaps shut down?
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.
Ridge’s alcohol content has been all over the place, both for their Cabernet and their Zinfandel. Even in the 60’s and 70’s they ranged from 12 to 16 %.
Not in the slightest for me
To answer the second part of the question, the Smith brothers at Smith Madrine and Fred Scherrer of Sherrer Vineyards are still making old school style California Cabernet, at least to my taste. They both age beautifully.
I don’t know about vegetal character, but for the first 20 or so years (depending on vintage) their cabernets are tighter than a {insert your possibly politically incorrect analogy here}. Think old style first growth Bordeaux. Their chardonnays are spectacularly old school as well. You can drink them with pleasure earlier, but if you wait 10+ years your patience will be rewarded.
Just out of curiosity, what 60’s Pinot Noir do you like?