Wanted to get the board’s collective thoughts on the following: if I wanted to try a vintage, or a couple of vintages, of Togni, Monte Bello and Chateau Montelena to get a feeling for whether or not I like their respective styles of California cabernet / blends, which two vintages would you all recommend as representative of each?
Assume the max $$ per bottle I’d want to spend is $200. I would be buying and drinking within the next 6 months (so vintages for each that are drinking well today). My goal at the end of this tasting “experiment” is to understand if my palate aligns with the style of each of these wines. For reference, I’ve never had a Togni or Monte Bello. I’ve had a 1987 Montelena Estate and really enjoyed it.
Based on previous topics and reading through tasting notes, it seems the 1991 Monte Bello and 1997 Togni would be great examples, but are either far above or right at the $200 price point I’m shooting for.
Fun experiment. I’ve had the 87 Montelena as well, and shortly after had an 87 Dunn (!). I would throw Dunn into the mix if you can find it in your price point. Aged Monte Bello is amazing just about every year, and I’ve only had young Togni so I can’t help much there.
I’d say '90-'96, '00 and '04. '01 is another fantastic one that’s well recognized and priced as such. '97 and '99 need time. '98 is sub-par. '02 is probably ready, more or less.
Well, the waterfront is covered . I would suggest simplifying it, and depending on what you can find at your price, make sure whatever you choose is at least 10years old, preferably 15. Off years at those houses are not too off, and still pretty true to the style.
Because 91, 94 and 96 are all considered such top notch vintages, they are priced accordingly.
Togni and Monte Bello take a long time to come around. Montelena too but my sample size is smaller. The American Oak in MB is always a dead giveaway and take decades to subsume, but it is part of the essential character of that wine.
I think the 95’s and 92’s are drinking really well right now. 93’s a getting slightly long in the tooth, 98 is a poor vintage (a rare thing in CA) but the MB is still a very nice wine, just leaned and more subtle than usual. 97 is a hot year that sticks out to me and 99 and younger are just not ready IMHO…
Erik, you might want to clarify the maturity level you prefer. I like well aged wine and I think I’d find some of the later 90’s vintage recommended a tad young. As has been stated by a few people, there is a school of thought you shouldn’t touch any of these till the 20 year mark, ideally far longer, and I fully subscribe to that. I had a 1984 Montelena Estate in 2013 and thought it was in a beautiful spot (29 years on). a 1976 Monte Bello in 2016 blew my mind (40 years). You get the idea.
You might like youthful fruit and higher levels of tannin, in which case by all means get something from the early 2000’s or late 1990’s. To my palate I don’t really subscribe to the concept of off-vintages in California. The climate is generally just so sunny and warm. I’ve had some '98’s I’ve loved (panned as an off vintage by many). I just don’t require gobs of fruit in my wine. If you’re more like me then I’d try to track down a good but not heralded year with strong CT reviews (1990, 1991, 1993, possibly 1992). I was able to get a couple 1992 Togni for ~$75USD. After reading a few reviews I’m going to let them rest a few more years before opening.
![[winner.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/07ec25c9fd71159fe15d7f1ba5fad64e91238d0e.gif "winner"){kind=small}
. I would suggest simplifying it, and depending on what you can find at your price, make sure whatever you choose is at least 10years old, preferably 15. Off years at those houses are not too off, and still pretty true to the style.