Can you type “Vanilla”!!?? Wow, did someone just pour the vanilla extract into the vats? This stuff is just candy nasty sweet from a wino perspective. I’ll admit there is some small semblance of guilty pleasure with the wine (kind of like eating a Twinkie or something), but critically, this is just a bad wine IMO. I guess I can kind of see the appeal to someone that doesn’t really like or appreciate wine, but I would be embarrassed to serve this to anyone on this board.
Seriously, what do they do to make it like this? This is where Cali cab gets a bad rap. Please tell me they made wine differently in the past. I’ve never tasted any of their older wine.
I do have some of the SS in my cellar. If it is like this, only more, I’ll be selling it off or putting it as morbidly humorous ringers in blind tastings.
Edit additional thoughts: I consider myself someone who appreciates and enjoys many different styles of wine including modern Cali cabs (and other wines) and have defended them as being what they are and should be appreciated as such. I can’t do that with this wine. Maybe I’ve just been drinking too many Italian and BDX wines lately. I don’t think I could really score it, but perhaps in the 70-75 range critically and maybe a little higher (in the 80’s?) from a pure guilty pleasure standpoint?
I had an 88 last night and I promise that it was definitely made in a different style when compared to the wines of today. Still drinking well for a less than stellar vintage. I feel that the regular bottling has gone through a big style shift in the past decade trending more towards the wine you describe.
I had the 2007 regular cab bottling also a month or so ago and here was my note
2007 Caymus Cabernet Sauvignon- USA, California, Napa Valley (5/19/2011)
Was opened 8 hours before serving, double decanted and just breathed in bottle.
Painfully young and over the top right now. Has way too much baby fat. I had people taste this blind and 6 out of 8 called “aussie shiraz”. Nose of cassis liqueur, coffee and moka. On the palate this is rich, sweet and sexy but lacks the complexity a wine of this caliber should have. Again, way too young. (90 pts.)
Curious that you scored it 90. I recognize you emphasized the age being responsible for your impression, but how many 90 point wines start out like this?
Otto, trust me, that couldn’t be farther from the truth. I drink with mostly non-winos and one of my pet peeves is winos with a condescending attitude. I try to never come across as any type of palate expert. I serve wine and ask them to tell me what they like, because that is the most important thing. My point here is that this wine may have that glossy appeal to some and especially those that don’t drink much wine or even care about wine. But, for those that have engrossed themselves in wine drinking and appreciation, I don’t think they would like this wine at all. No criticism to those that disagree.
I’m quite amused by Caymus. I watched it for a long time and tasted a few in the late 80s and early 90s. Finally put it on my “buy” list just as the 94s were selling out. Then they doubled the price for the 95. Never bought a bottle. No pain, no pain.
For my personal scoring, 90 points is a well made wine. That being said, I did not hate the juice that was in my glass. I guess I did a lot of projecting into what I believe the wine will be from having tasted earlier vintages this year ('95, '00). It wasn’t a bad wine, it was just full of makeup at this point and time.
I had that Caymus at a big Napa / Sonoma 2007-2008 Cab tasting at the Park Cities Club in Dallas. Probably 40 wines in all from a range of producers like Lewis, Lail, Dominus, Nickel & Nickel, Katheryn Hall, Darioush, etc. Mostly it was names you would immediately recognize (it was hosted by a liquor store chain). The Caymus was at a table with Silver Oak, Darioush, Dominus, Groth, and Nickel & Nickel. Needless to say, it stood out.
It was like a port reduction sauce and would have paired nicely as an acoutremant to a seared duck breast. Massive, sappy cassis extract, with vanillin oak. Beyond juicy. Such fruit concentration it seemed like there may have been some residual sugar. I am fairly certain I could have spread it on toast. It is a wine meant to be drunk immediately, which I think is what Caymus has become. It predominately sells at steak houses and is consistently drunk very young. I think, as a result, that the structure of the wine has been minimized and the fruit drawn to the forefront, given that it is the drink of business dinners (which often include non-winos).
It really reminded me of 2008 Orin Swift Prisoner. That is not a compliment. The purity and saturation of the fruit is severe to the point of being a little impressive, but not necessarily pleasurable for serious drinking. I am interested to see where this wine goes in 10-15 years. I don’t recall much structure, just nearly overbearing fruit. I think this is a style that sings to people first getting into the wine game. That sounds condescending, but shouldn’t. It tastes good, but maybe not like a $70 cab should in my book.
I am speculating the vanilla is from heavy oak treatment. I don’t buy Caymus typically - have not cellared any since the 97 vintage and bought a 04 SS as a gift as the last purchase. This is not a cerebral wine. It is what it is. I find them fairly tasty - but I like oaky fruit forward California wines. Probably 95% of people who drink red wine are going to like it . It is kind of like kids drinking Kool-Aid - does anyone under the age of 12 really hate the taste of Kool-Aid. Tastes good if a bit monolithic. I think you can do better at a lower price point - lots of 30 to 50 dollar wines that taste the same.
Chris this is funny because I had always envisioned the Wagners pouring Chocolate sauce in the barrels to achieve the “signature” Caymus sweet fruit or sweet RS. profile.
Because I’m too techno-impaired to figure out how to embed a link to it, I’ve cut and pasted the text of my post (loving entitled “2008 Caymus-WTF?”) from 10/1/10. Different vintage, but very similar experience. Seriously, I retch a little every time I think back on this.
"Friday night dinner at a nice steakhouse. Special promotion on 2008 Caymus. $80 with the warning that it’s really young and really big. Cool, I tend to drink things on the younger side and don’t mind a wrestling match with some aggressive tannins that haven’t mellowed yet. So the idea of a young big unrestrained California cab isn’t outside my range of experience and comfort.
Cork is popped and a small taste poured. Smells very true to form. Palate is a lot of black fruit and tight tannins. I have high hopes as we let it breath in its decanter for about 45 minutes while we enjoy a different bottle we brought with us.
The time comes and it goes into glasses. Nose is still great, black fruit, some robust floral notes, maybe a little coffee. Palate is…indescribably bad. Maple syrup and vanilla. Tannins and any other fruit are in hiding. Completely out of balance and quite honestly undrinkable. Four of us at the table, none of us new to wine, all agree and have the same impressions. Of course we were getting elements of oak aging which hadn’t smoothed out yet due to the young age of the wine. But none of us had ever experienced it to that degree or sickeningly sweet level. Apparently the table next to us had a bottle and loved it. Our waiter, who we know from frequently visiting the restaurant and who knows wine, says it must just be “too big” for us. I have not met such a wine to-date and don’t describe this sweet mess as “too big”. I asked him to taste it and tell us if this is consistent with other bottles; but apparently the rejected decanter has been wisked away to who-knows-where before I think to do this.
So, has anyone had this? Am I nuts? Did we have a flawed bottle (though I can’t think which of the textbook flaws I’d write this off to)? I can’t believe in my wine drinking career that I just now for the first time hit a perfectly fine specimen that I’ve never experienced before and that my palate couldn’t explain or acclimate to. Nor that 4 of us could all agree and the table next door could be happily sipping away on their bottle."
Before 2000 Caymus produced three separate Cabernet based wines. The 30,000+ case “Napa Valley Cuvee”, the 10,000 case “Estate” and their Special Selection which maxed out at 1,000 cases annually. Then in 2000 there was a production shift with the elimination of the $15 “Cuvee”. But where did these grapes end up ? You got it! directly into the $40 Estate wine, which I think is now closer to $70.
And lets not forget about the Special Selection. Production immediately increased 10 fold. Why produce just 1,000 cases of your flagship wine when you can run with 10,000 cases? All that’s needed are big scores to back it up, but thanks to James Laube and Robert Parker, that hasn’t been a problem.
I guess the Joseph Phelps model is good for the bottom line, but it takes a marketing machine and loose critics to pull it off.
The only thing I question is what the heck do they do to the wine to get it taste like sweet, globular syrup? That’s not usually the description used for 2nd wines or wines using “down market” grapes. I would associate more things like thin, or green in a wine like that. I suspect they put the spinning cones into overdrive to concentrate whatever juice they get from the grapes and then throw it into small barrels of new American oak for a long time. I highly suspect this wine is very manipulated by whatever definition you wish to use. That is all based on tasting it. I have no specific knowledge.
![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}