Book Review: California Wine (James Laube, 2nd edition, 1999)

Book Review:
California Wine: A Comprehensive Guide to Wineries, Wines, Vintages and Vineyards
Written by James Laube
1999 publication, 2nd Edition, 645 pgs

James Laube was a long time wine reviewer for the Wine Spectator, living in Napa and covering the states wines. This older book is his overview of the region, and despite the years, for enthusiasts of a certain age, it will still feel fresh. I realize Laube is a taster whose palate might not align with every WB as his reputation is that he generally preferred very young, brash fruity wines, perhaps tolerating more residual sugar than some might. His threshold for TCA detection was reportedly very low, which is a curse if anything. I don’t have any views on his palate as I didn’t read his notes contemporaneously when he was in his prime opining, but the book does include 5000 tasting notes for oenophiles to calibrate, if they either knew the wines, or still have them in their cellar. For my purposes, I get the most value out of authors that can usefully generalize - whether about estates, AVAs, varietals - so after spending many hours on reading their thoughts I am left with some insights.

The first section(s) are fairly conventional covering the history of the state’s wineries and the effect Prohibition had, as well as varietals and AVA’s. There is a fine section of color plates (16 pages) which shows the major sub regions and where major properties plus headliner vineyards are located. Then there are some chapters covering how wine is made, vintages summaries from 1933 to 1998, suggestions on how to lay down a cellar, and so on. These appetizer sections take up the first 80 or so pages, and may not be of interest to knowledgeable readers.

The next 500+ pages are where the meat of the book is: overviews of a massive number of important and interesting estates, along with plenty of tasting notes. For some classics (BV’s Georges de Latour, Inglenook Cask Cabernet, and so on) there are deep vertical notes going back 50 vintages. As Napa local, he notes that some of these were from the estate, and may never have moved. For collectors with curiosity about those, and perhaps the patience plus lifespan, those might give some pointers for long distance cellar runners, if they believed the vineyards/vinification were similar.

Laube covers a lot of estates, obviously many defunct or merged away a quarter century since this was written, with crisp summaries. For my tastes, the writing is sensible and easy to grasp. A typical blurb for a less important (two star **) winery might look like “a family run winery producing a sturdy minty ____ in the _____ AVA. 1994 and 1996 are good vintages if short of exciting” There will be data like case production, prices, acreage owned and from grapes bought in and so on. In a modern google world that may not be so valuable anymore, but it still seems to me that case production is unreasonably opaque for consumers. So it’s interesting data as it might help cross check other reports (I remember comparing various Rhone books from different dates to see how one vineyard seems to be putting out more and more)

This book was written before the massive points inflation that afflicted the reviewing industry, so there are plenty of refreshingly low scores, that still mean the wines are drinkable/consumable. It could also be that these low scores could be included in a book, but in a more space limited periodical like the Spectator, all those 82 pointers had to be edited out. Additionally, there are no advertisements, so there are many polite yet clear non endorsements of producers pumping out uninteresting wine. Compared to the cheer-leading, advertorial, lifestyle magazine the Wine Spectator has morphed into over the decades, the book has a different feel in its judgments than the magazine did.

Many estates have in depth histories in their discussions, which helps explain some unusual situations one sees in region e.g. why did Heitz bottle up Martha’s for so long as a monopole, while in a comparable situation Phelps’ ended up losing Eisele, and it turned into Araujo. For estates with messy family histories, or corporate machinations this is a great primer on how the human element ended up affecting the wines. I think Laube’s in depth knowledge here by virtue of living, breathing (and drinking) the wines for so long makes this book a little better than Stephen Brook’s overview of California in this history dimension. In addition to tracking the name changes and so on, prominent personnel moves like winemaker turnover or the loss of key grape inputs are often included. Of course, all this must be tempered by accepting that much of this is less germane in 2022. For older collectors, reading some of the winery entries is bittersweet as some have inexplicably closed or shut down, turned sadly commercial, or ascended so much in market recognition than they can no longer be laid down.

There is a section on major named vineyards which provides ratings, acreage, AVA location, varietals and which wineries are getting the grapes, if not a monopole. Although California is not Burgundy, I found that very helpful. I was surprised how much I enjoyed reading the book, and how much I learned, despite the age. I am not into the new wave of California producers, generally sticking to the classic houses, so maybe it was easier for me to find value here. This is a good book to have as a reference, worth a bookshelf spot, and I recommend it, assigning it an A- on my scorecard.

Amazon.com that is NOT an affiliate link. New copies are on Amazon for $29, secondhand copies change hands for $7 although I found mine in a used bookstore for $3 a while ago.

Thanks for this review. I think Laube had a really pretty solid palate, but do think like many others he fell to the bigger is better movement. In part, I think it’s just because it was new and different and the richness of fruit being delivered in young wines had to be a beautiful change of pace for any critic tasting these wines so young. It’s played similarly in bordeaux and elsewhere among most critics. Also, critics get old and often it seems as folks age they sometimes want more robust flavors. Certainly not the case for many folks here, but then again, different time in wine and I wonder if some folks just got caught up in the movement. In any event, Laube was a stud for a long time, and I think his call on the disastrous 2003 vintage in Napa is the winner. He panned so many wines as overdone, too hot, and overripe to the point of figgy at a time when Parker was singing their praises. It was controversial at the time, and I feel that when that dispute was taking place, Parker was made to look like the winner because no one wants to have bought crappy wine, and no one wants to have made crappy wine. Having had now a good few dozen different 2003 napa cabs at this point, I think Laube nailed it, and few retain much freshness.

His sensitivity to TCA is legendary, and he’s won many disputes by simply sending samples to the lab when wineries dispute broad TCA contamination. He smashed Pillar Rock for widespread TCA contamination and was right: WS Pillar Rock - Laube Editorial.

He also nailed Chateau Montelena, who spent big money on a total winery cleaning and renovation.