I spend a bit of time perusing the other boards behind the scene and have come to the decision that if I were a noobie looking for recommendation’s on $40 Napa Cabernet range and given the names most throw into the ring, I would probably not drink Napa Cabernet for lack of any sort of character. Is Grgich, Mondavi and Stag’s leap still some of the only viable options most people can come up with? Talk about boring.
When I take the time to ponder typiciy I guess I am curious why it still is prevalent and still pushed about freely. Can’t be exposure, not these days.
I guess the little corner of the world we seem to inhabit makes more sense when our exposure to guys like Mike Smith, Jamie Kutch and Todd Hamina adds so much more dimension and interest to what we enjoy. I know I am more the better for it. Are you?
What is your definition of Napa typicity?
Hi Mike. To facilitate the discussion how would you define typicity in this context? As I understand the term Im not sure Id be in 100% agreement that the producers you mention do not reflect typicity with the varietals they work with. I think they are at the top of their respective categories but I would say I generally find the wines they make representative of one would expect as normal flavor profiles within their categories or sub categories.
Typicity means that something corresponds to your preconception. I don’t think it means much more than that, whether you’re talking about grapes or a region, and I don’t look for it or really want it.
Last weekend I served people a few examples of Chardonnay to illustrate exactly that point. To set the parameters I poured a Fevre Chablis and Mer Soleil, which I find pretty much undrinkable but some people loved, and then something blind to figure out whether it was “French” or CA.
It was Wind Gap. So what is the “typical” expression of Chardonnay? I think the typical expression is whatever it is wherever it is grown. Years ago I introduced Pam Starr and Bernard Baudry - both make great Cab Franc. Neither could ever make what the other does as one is Napa and one is Chinon. But both appreciated what the other was doing.
The idea that they were making wine in the Loire before Napa so that’s the correct expression is simply foolish. Why would that matter, other than because it gives us a preconception. Moreover, what they were making there is nothing like what they are making today.
It also strikes me that if you shoot for some preconceived notion, you end up masking your terroir as well. If they planted Zinfandel in Burgundy, it would never ripen like it does in Dry Creek, so they’d be stuck letting it reflect the terroir of the region. Domaine Bongran ran into that trouble in Macon. “Gee, you’re not supposed to make your Chardonnay with botrytis,” they said, “it’s not typical.”
People seek Napa cabs??
Exactly. I will ruminate and respond.
It could be telling for me too.
That makes sense. maybe it’s more about where I gravitate than who I think to be typical. I have always led an A-typical life…
I will somewhat disagree with what Greg said. I don’t believe that ‘typicity’ should be left up to 'one’s preconception '. By defining it as such, there really is only 'personal typicity '.
If I am in a group of ‘knowledgable wine folks’ and we smell and taste a grenache and it does not ‘resemble’ a grenache whatsoever, it very well might be a well made wine, but it does not fit what one might consider 'typical ’ of the variety. It is not a reflection of like /dislike or good/bad at all.
Cheers.
Especially when it comes to cab’s I think more of the newer wineries cabs taste more homogeneous in their flavor profile than the established traditional wineries of Napa. So, I see it a bit differently.
Hi Larry. Good point. I think there is two types of typicity we can discuss: one being of the varietal type a one being of the ‘boring’ type. I see the importance of the former. Once in that realm one might begin to find the latter.
Homogenous. Great word!
Jancis Robinson hit on this very problem when she was challenged with describing the typicity of Merlot (without comparing it to Cab Sauv).
Some varieties exhibit certain traits or flavor indicators that are very specific; others, not so much. This is, in my opinion, where the subjective intrudes on the grounds of wine.
“…the extraordinary ripeness profile of Cabernet in Napa is an intrinsic part of its grandeur, as well as one of the most accessible and easily likable of the world’s fine wines.” Andrew Jefford - WFW Q3-2015.
Jefford describes affection for their: “allusions to resin forests, their sumptuous fruits, their multilayered grandeur, their un-self-conscious girth.”
RT
I think ‘multilayered grandeur’ means ‘over-ripe.’
As to ‘resin forests,’ who knows. Pretty fruity wine writing.
It seems like too many people in this conversation jump immediately to the style trumps typicity argument. I have always thought of typicity to be analogous to terroir; tied to the grape instead of the land. So the character that is present in any Cabernet, regardless of style, could be described as ‘typical’ of that variety. With that definition, we still have room to see that the style of the wine can mask or unveil the typical grape characteristics, without jumping into the quagmire of “typicity is a lie” business.
I do believe there are characteristics of some grapes that show up regardless of the winemakers influence. To many, much of the typicity in Cabernet Sauv., as an example, just gets intensified or backed-off of along with the winemaker’s decisions.
Why are those options boring??? They are great wines and yet every year they are different. You then sprinkle in at least 30-50 other great vineyards and I’m happy for life. That’s like saying that the only options are the 1855 classification Bordeauxs… so I’m bored.
Fyi- it’s likely that I have no idea what your question really is. Especially since I am new and tasting my way through the wine world. I find the diversity, yet familiarity, in flavors even within the same regions most interesting.
Tipicity of Napa Cabs. Big bold fruit bombs. Fun wines you can drink today. They come in all flavors and intensity. While many are restrained and try for an older would style type of wine, the thing I appreciate the most is that the fruit almost always comes through and shines. With California its also very interesting to see how each vineyard incorporates (or not) different types of oak and the impact of has on the wine.
Best of luck finding what you are looking for and let us know the answer as I am eager to learn what you find.
I am not a fan of the word typicity, as I feel it is something I do not seek. IMHO, typicity reflects the norm for a region. For any given region, the norm would include the highest volume of a wine style sold measured either in number of bottles or in number of producers. For Italy, Sangiovese would be represented by DOC Chianti. For Napa, this would be $10-15 Cabernet. For Burgundy, village wines, etc.
These are the typical wines of the regions and, while I have one of these once in a while, I prefer non-typical wines from these regions. We sometimes forget, but we are not typical wine drinkers.
The question is complicated in Napa by the fact that there was a clear style in the '60s and 70s, when Napa made its bones, but that has largely been replaced by frootiness and oak. Except for some stalwarts like Corison, I think Monthelena. Maybe the pendulum will swing back again, they usually do.
It seems like the ripeness, frootiness and oak represent the new “typicity”, with corresponding prices that Mr. Jefford (and yes his prose/notes are fruity!) describes as “dauntingly expensive”.
I’ve heard about others bucking the trend but it’s the combo of cost and style that keep me on the sideline. I still periodically (and nostalgically) pop a tasty Cab from the cellar…mid/late 80s and early 90s, < 14% abv, and price tags of $10 - $25, still on the bottles.
RT
A few years ago “typicity” was a compliment and “a-typical” a criticism.
The wines of the Loire and Beaujolais (other than Duboeuf) were mostly typical and that was considered great.
More modern Barolo winemakers were committing the sin of making atypical wines while their more traditional
brethren stuck to the old-time religion making typical wines.
Now the term is being co-opted as a criticism; if a group of wine from a region all show typicity then they don’t have individuality … bah ! no good. Very creative language evolution.