I almost never post TNs, but this was an odd one so wanted to see what other folks thought…
Granted, my palate is shifting decidedly towards old world, but found this bottle surprisingly lacking in tannin and acidity. I know Myriad is on the new age Napa side, but Mike’s wines are usually quite restrained, and this wine was oak/dark fruit with sweetness… no balance at all…
could it be just in a dumb phase? A poor bottle variation? or just the way it’s meant to be, and people like it this way (which is cool but good to know if it is)?
I had some Elysian but have not tried one. Is it very different or just more dense fruit?
2011 Myriad Cellars Cabernet Sauvignon Beckstoffer Dr. Crane Vineyard- USA, California, Napa Valley (12/2/2017)
Decant for 1 hour. Dark purple.
Blueberry/blackberry with some of the herbal/greeness, although not overly distracting.
Dense fruit intensity but really lacks acidity, and medium tannins… and the oak is too much. Obviously too young, but with the lack of structure i’m not sure if this ever ages all that well. I think it’s just a new age napa cab… it’s good, but i’m not a fan for the price.
These were on clearance for $70 at k&l last week. I believe this wine got an 84 from wine Spectator. Just a tough vintage for the riper style producers
I had a high scoring 2011 Cab a few weeks back at a dinner with a bunch of other wines and I was very underwhelmed - the oak overwhelmed the wine and there just wasn’t much structure there. This would have been fine for an ‘every day drinker’ but not at the +$300+ that this wine is going for these days.
So lack of structure is normal for 2011? I thought it was a cool year and the fruit was lacking. And most 2011s I’ve had showed a lot of green which this wine didn’t.
I figured if anything there should be an increase to acidity due to the coolness of the year. Clearly I’m wrong!
I guess I will try some 12/13s before passing judgement on this wine as a whole. Hard work but gotta do it
popped a 2011 Carter Three Kings a few weeks ago. It was surprisingly pedestrian and not in the same league as Carter wines of greater vintages. I think Beckstoffer fruit in 2011 was off kilter.
Like most things wine-related, it’s really challenging to make ‘sweeping statements’ about wines in any given year from any region.
2011 was a cool, frost year, with lots of rain in certain areas. Many areas did experience a massive heat wave in late August/early September that would have affected the fruit, especially where yields were low.
If a winemaker feels their wine is ‘too acidic’, they can either blend to reduce or chemically reduce acid levels. If a winemaker feels that grapes may lead to a wine that will show ‘too much green’, they can add tannins and/or handle the must in different ways during fermentation to hopefully minimize these characteristics.
As far as structure goes, winemakers can certainly try to ‘maximize’ this by blending, by using whole clusters, by using a bunch of new oak - some will be more effective than others given what they have to start with.
I’m sure you can find green, thin wines in 2011 - and I’m sure you can find beautifully balanced wines with structure as well. That’s what makes the ‘hunt’ rewarding, no?
the issue me and most people have with these wines is just the price. everyone knew the quality of the vintage was in the toilet (for the most part) but didn’t charge less. and im fine with charging more for better years.
which leads me to 2017 wines,lol.
I’m not sure that I agree with you Steve about the fact that everyone knew the quality was in the toilet. This is not the same situation with 2008 when there was smoke taint. The Vintage was simply more challenging and winemakers did the best that they could to make the best wine possible. Should they have lowered the prices because the wines we’re not as deep and structured as the previous vintages? That becomes a personal business decision, but as a business owner, you want your customers to support you you’re in and you’re out. Unfortunately, Mother Nature does not allow wineries to make hundred Point wines year in and year out, at least not for the most part without some intervention most likely. Just another way of looking at things.
Larry, i see Steve’s point… i see ‘support year in year out’ as the act of purchasing, not related to the pricing. Why would a substandard product the same price? ESPECIALLY if you had loyal buyers?
It’s a two way street… buyer should show loyalty by supporting year in and year out… the owner should also show loyalty to its customers… and understand if the year is poor, they may consider lowering prices… (and the loyal consumers would continue to purchase even if it’s a poor year).
As for 2011 - i’m no expert or in the industry but every 2011 napa i’ve had has been lower in standard vs other vintages… vast majority of them not worth the price. Are they completely undrinkable? no… but if you tell me i can buy 2012, 2013, 2014 etc for similar prices… why would i buy 2011? it’s CLEARLY lower in standard - at least for all of the bottles/wineries i’ve tasted.
In this case, if it’s just a 2011 issue with the Myriad Dr C, so be it… i sold almost all of the 2011 Napa i owned (which was few to begin with)… kept these Myriads hoping it might be different, but i guess not…
I guess perhaps we can have a disagreement in terms of what is considered standard or not. As I said, some years may offer more acid, some years may offer more structure, and some years may offer higher toned aromatics.
I don’t believe that Mike would have put a wine that he considered substandard. Instead, he probably would have worked it out for someone else to release.
I am not a wine club member so I’m not privy to the tasting notes he provided before the release. Perhaps you might have given an idea of what to expect relative to other vintages? Just a thought.
So the wine is going to taste better if it costs less? As in the 2011? And why be covert about what you think about 2017? Say what you mean, Steven. (I know Steven personally from when he worked and lived in Napa Valley.)
To me, as a winemaker, I’ve done my job if each and every one of my wines is as transparent as possible as it pertains to variety or varieties, vintage (and its variations), vineyards, and where I am/was as a winemaker at that time.
I agree it’s hard to assess what’s ‘standard’, but isn’t 2011 a pretty clear/obvious step down in overall quality? or Larry are you saying people do not agree that it is?
I know CT scores can be all over the place… but it can be telling of a trend? Just speaking on the Myriad Dr Crane specifically it’s prennially 95ish+… and 2011 is 92… doesn’t that tell you it’s lower than an ‘average’ year?
I guess we can argue if 2011 was truly ‘bad’ or ‘below average’, but i’d be surprised to find many people saying 2011s were among the best 1-2 vintages in the last 10 years… while some would say it’s among the worst 1-2 vintages in the last 10… just saying it’s below average for that wine.
And to Merrill’s point - does it taste better if cheaper… no of course not… it tastes the same. But price isn’t an absolutely measurement point. Price for utility is what most people seek no? and if the vintage is poor, the utility is lower. therefore you’d expect the price to be as well in most cases. Of course an owner has a right to do whatever he/she wants, but I think Steve’s point is a fair one.
You’ve done YOUR job. absolutely…
but selling the wine is a different job… and selling it bring in other market forces… competitive environment… etc…
No one is saying if 2011 the growing condition was bad = Larry became a bad wine maker.
What Steve was saying i think (not to put words in his mouth)… is that if 2011 had a bad year in Napa… Larry can still be a great wine maker and made the wines to the best of your ability… BUT when in sales/marketing of the wine… the price should reflect the overall quality on an equal basis…
Similarly, if 20xx is a GREAT year, i think prices should be increased to reflect what the market will allow as well btw…
I would love for a statistician to chime in and say if a drop from 95 to 92, depending upon the sample size, is ‘statistically significant’ or not. I just don’t know.
As I said above, 2011 was a trying year for many regions and for specific varieties. I dig my 2011 rhone varieties, and it is the vintage I am currently pouring in my tasting room - and they are tasting wonderful with plenty of upside potential.
This again speaks to each individual winery - and to the ‘atmosphere of purchasing’ when you bought those wines. Ultimately, the ‘responsibility’ has to fall upon you as a purchaser somewhat, correct? If the winery says it did the best it could, but you had a ‘feeling’ or the winery indicated that it was a ‘challenging’ year and that these wines might be best consumed immediately instead of laying them down, then you as a purchaser can pass - and express the reason why to the winery. Nearly all wineries would understand why you were doing this - and those that don’t probably don’t need your business in the future.
I just don’t think it’s as black and white perhaps as some are making it out to be. And yep, I do hope things stay civil - I do dig these discussions . . .
I truly get the points being made by you and Steve - I truly do. And I can’t disagree wholeheartedly.
But I do believe this argument gets thrown out if indeed the winery feels it did a kick ass job and decided to raise prices by 30% - the crap this board would say about said winery would be scary . . .
I remember a number of years back when Alban decided to raise their prices by a good chunk on their Reva Syrah when it received some spectacular scores. Now the winery had still been pretty ‘reasonable’ compared to other high scoring wines at the time, and even when they raised their prices, they were still lower than the majority of other wines that had received 100 points. The justification was that these wines were regularly being sold for much more on the aftermarket, so why not make the prices more ‘satisfactory’ for the winery. Holy smokes did they take flak for that . . .
