Napa Vintage Comparison

My wife and I started getting into wine about 5-6 years ago…Napa Cab specifically. 2012 and 2014 vintages are my favorites. 2013 are powerful but in many cases still need extra cellaring and/or decanting. In saying that, what Napa vintages circa 2005-2010 most closely resemble the 2012 and 2014 vintages. As a measuring stick, I typically allocate Mike Smith, TRB and Benoit Touquette wines. Thank you for your assistance

Agreed - 2013 is probably going to end up being better than '12 or '14, but those are earlier drinking for Napa Cab. A ton of structure in a great year like 2013.

I’ve found that 2011’s have been an amazing surprise, when you look for quality producers. Everyone was so afraid of 2011 in Napa but so many great wines.

Look for 05, 07, 09, and 10.

And I think all of them closer to 12 than 14 - in different ways - but variations exist across those vintages, of course.

Then there are producer and site differences. . .

And a lot of crappy 2011s too. Too many.

Generally speaking, I like my Napa cabs young (4 to 7 years) and I think the '13s and '16s are great years in my opinion and resemble '07s and '10s.

Bruce - which 2011’s have you had that were “crappy?”
I cherrypicked that vintage and only bought from a few producers. The ones I have opened have not been crappy at all. I’d agree that they aren’t as great as some other vintages, but I enjoyed the wines and would not use the word “crappy” to describe any of them (Myriad, Quivet, Rivers Marie, Switchback, Rudius).

Everyone keeps on saying 13 is great, when are these wines going to soften up ? i still think the fruit is going to disappear before the wines soften and we will end up with lifeless wines

I recently had an '11 Quivet Kenefick Cab which performed much better than its “bad vintage” reviews would have suggested.

So far the '16s Napa Cabs I’ve had have been great. Entry to mid level mostly, trying to hold off for a bit on the good stuff but it’s so tempting!

Berserker A: “Napa Cab was way better/more classically styled in the 70s and 80s when alcohol levels and ripeness were much lower.

Berserker B: “ 2013 in Napa produced dozens of 100pt Cabs.”

Berserker A: “Points mean nothing, over-ripe garbage wines”

Berserker B: “2011 in Napa was a lean year with lots of lean fruit and lower ripeness, bell pepper, lower alcohol.”

Berserker A: “Avoid 2011, it was a crappy vintage. Avoid 2017 as well due to smoke taint.”

Berserker B: “Mike Smith garnered 3 100pt Napa Cabs in 2017”

Berserker A: “Points don’t matter, Screagle declassified 2017”

Berserker B: “Had an awesome 2011 Napa Cab the other night.”

Berserker A: “2011 sucks”

Not a fan of the 2011 vintage and skipped most releases. Of the 2012-2014 vintages I’ve found the 2013 best for early drinking. 2014 need more time

Berserker C: “Neither of you know what you’re talking about.”

Berserker D: “So how many Napa wines have you had from 2011 to 2017?”

Berserker C: “Doesn’t matter. I’ve read the reviews and know the wines aren’t as good as they used to be.”

Berserker D: “I had a 2012 Cab last week and it was really good.”

Berserker C: “They’re over the top. Drink Burgundy. I read that’s what real wine lovers drink.”

Back to the OP’s question - 2005-2010 was a very good stretch of remarkably good vintages in Napa. I’ve had many Cabs from these years and have had almost no duds. I’m still buying from this period for current drinking.

• 2007 is probably the priciest because it was over-hyped at the time, and indeed I’ve found the wines to be very good. But the other vintages are probably more cost effective.
• 2005, 2009, 2010 are all very reliable. Some say the wines might not be ready at the ultra high end (Screaming Eagle, Harlan, Colgin, etc.) but I don’t really play there.
• 2006 and 2008 are the least well regarded. Every bottle I’ve had has been at least good, though I’ve had the least from 2006. 2008 was a smoke year, but this just means you have to be choosy (I use Cellar Tracker for research).

Of course there’s huge variation by producer and vineyard. If price is no object, then buy all the Colgin wines you can find! For TRB wines his own label (Rivers Marie) made great wines at more reasonable price in this period. Among his clients, Schrader can be amazing if you like the style, Outpost is cheaper and more restrained (though extremely good).

Go back a few more years and get 2002’s. Great vintage and best of 2000’s IMO. Before that hunt down the triumvirate of 94, 95, 96 to see what 2012 thru 2014 could be.

That’s crazy talk. Great wines don’t drink “great” when they are young, they need time. 13 was an outstanding vintage, precisely because it isn’t just lush and friendly right out of the gate. As Todd said, 11 is a sneaky great vintage (frankly my favorite), but that won’t really show for another 15-20 years IMO.

Well that sums it up for this thread, next!

If you want an idea of what 2013 will eventually be like, try 2001. Both were highly rated, very strong vintages that need(ed) time to soften.

From the span of 2005 - 2010, maybe 2009 is the best early drinking vintage. This will surely start the argument rolling: 2009 reminds me most of 2012 in that it’s easy drinking early, and 2010 reminds me most of 2014 as it’s a little more structured than 2012 / 2009. Since 2009 isn’t as sought after as some other vintages, it can be relatively cheap.

There were 3 crappy 2011 Napa Cabs that I had. Lewelling and 2 others ( I don’t recall what wineries but they were both valley floor wines). They were not high- end wines but they weren’t cheap either.

I didn’t go deep into 2011, but have had ~15 different Napa cabs – from a mix of valley floor and hillslide/mountain vineyards - from that vintage. With the exception of two bottles that were corked, all were at least good and some were significantly better. Nothing I would consider “crappy“. All of these were in the $50-$100 range.

Paul,

For me, 2005 reminds me of 2012 with initially opulent fruit and an fine approachability. Over the past 1-2 years however, I have found the 2005s to gain a bit more precision and becoming more elegant. Carter’s 2005 are a good example of this.

I’ve been picking up some older Napa Cabernet at auction recently – I’m trying to explore the genre more after spending most of last year exploring older Cali Pinot. Does anyone want to provide a summary of Napa vintages since 2000? I’ll give it a shot based on my very limited sample sizes.

2000: Weak.
2001:
2002:
2003:
2004: Classic and well-balanced, on the elegant side. Suits my palate and drinking very well right now.
2005: Ripe and bold, but not over the top.
2006: Lighter, but retain some classic character. Enjoyable for my palate, but won’t impress anyone.
2007:
2008: Similar to 2006, but a little more fruit.
2009: Middleweight, similar to 2004.
2010:
2011: Lighter than 2006 with some slightly green notes. Some pretty wines for my palate.
2012: Middle of the road weight with good depth and excellent balance. One of my favorite vintages. Drank well from release and still drinking well.
2013: Structured but starting to drink well now.
2014: Similar to 2013 but not ready yet.
2015: Too early and primary for my palate.
2016:
2017: