2018 Harlan Estate + 2017 Harlan Maiden

Ian_Dorin · September 23, 2020, 12:32pm

Since the 2010 vintage, I have noticed a considerable change for the better with Harlan. Yes, I would agree that the 2000s were wines that were big and extracted, but starting with 2010, the wine has tremendous focus, depth, balance and complexity. Two anecdotes for you.

2010 Harlan vs. 2000 Margaux served double blind to a large group of collectors. 2 bottles of each poured. NO ONE got it right. Everyone thought the Harlan was the Margaux, and the Margaux was the Harlan. No, someone didn’t make a mistake with the decanters. I had the 2010 Harlan a second time within a few weeks based on telling a friend about what the result was, so he opened one with me, and it was the same result. I have been saying for the last 5 years if you like Harlan, you need to own the 2010.
2012 Harlan vs. Mouton 99, Haut Brion 01, Cheval Blanc 2005 and Guigal La Mouline 2001. Harlan beat them all. The closest thing to a second place was the La Mouline since it was really open and complex, but it just couldn’t come close to the depth of the Harlan. The 2005 Cheval Blanc came across as hot and a bit cloying compared to the Harlan. The Mouton was a strong performer too, everyone agreed they would rather spend the top dollar on the Harlan over the Mouton. It’s been proposed to try the 2012 Harlan against the 2009 Mouton which we were supposed to do with this group over the summer…and yeah, COVID.

I’ve had other recent vintages of Harlan (13, 14 and 15), and loved them all too, but those were not tasted in a comparison like above.

Dennis_Borczon · September 23, 2020, 12:35pm

This sadly is now a wine that is mostly bought and consumed by Bay Area gazillionaires who view this as pocket change. They will sell, to someone. God bless the business model. Some people buy $1,000.00 pairs of sneakers. I would rather actually drink wine with no guilt.

Jim_Clary · September 23, 2020, 5:13pm

I’m not really asking if the price is worth it (I’m sure we can all agree that it isn’t) or what I should be purchasing instead (I just placed my order for Greer!). I just want to know if the style is drastically different from what it was around 13 years ago. There must have been a reason that the price skyrocketed, when no other Napa Cab (besides SE) has such a high price tag, and no other Napa Cab raised their prices so significantly (as far as I know).

In other words, why would I purchase this vintage, when I can get (IMO) better vintages from the mid-2000’s that are aged for half the cost?

Since the 2010 vintage, I have noticed a considerable change for the better with Harlan. Yes, I would agree that the 2000s were wines that were big and extracted, but starting with 2010, the wine has tremendous focus, depth, balance and complexity. Two anecdotes for you.

2010 Harlan vs. 2000 Margaux served double blind to a large group of collectors. 2 bottles of each poured. NO ONE got it right. Everyone thought the Harlan was the Margaux, and the Margaux was the Harlan. No, someone didn’t make a mistake with the decanters. I had the 2010 Harlan a second time within a few weeks based on telling a friend about what the result was, so he opened one with me, and it was the same result. I have been saying for the last 5 years if you like Harlan, you need to own the 2010.

2012 Harlan vs. Mouton 99, Haut Brion 01, Cheval Blanc 2005 and Guigal La Mouline 2001. Harlan beat them all. The closest thing to a second place was the La Mouline since it was really open and complex, but it just couldn’t come close to the depth of the Harlan. The 2005 Cheval Blanc came across as hot and a bit cloying compared to the Harlan. The Mouton was a strong performer too, everyone agreed they would rather spend the top dollar on the Harlan over the Mouton. It’s been proposed to try the 2012 Harlan against the 2009 Mouton which we were supposed to do with this group over the summer…and yeah, COVID.

I’ve had other recent vintages of Harlan (13, 14 and 15), and loved them all too, but those were not tasted in a comparison like above.

Ian - I too have noticed the change, and very much prefer the post-2009 winemaking style, although I do enjoy the older vintages. I recently had both the 1994 and 2001 that were each spectacular.

Frank_Z · September 23, 2020, 7:11pm

I’m not really asking if the price is worth it (I’m sure we can all agree that it isn’t) or what I should be purchasing instead (I just placed my order for Greer!). I just want to know if the style is drastically different from what it was around 13 years ago. There must have been a reason that the price skyrocketed, when no other Napa Cab (besides SE) has such a high price tag, and no other Napa Cab raised their prices so significantly (as far as I know).

In other words, why would I purchase this vintage, when I can get (IMO) better vintages from the mid-2000’s that are aged for half the cost?

Since the 2010 vintage, I have noticed a considerable change for the better with Harlan. Yes, I would agree that the 2000s were wines that were big and extracted, but starting with 2010, the wine has tremendous focus, depth, balance and complexity. Two anecdotes for you.

2010 Harlan vs. 2000 Margaux served double blind to a large group of collectors. 2 bottles of each poured. NO ONE got it right. Everyone thought the Harlan was the Margaux, and the Margaux was the Harlan. No, someone didn’t make a mistake with the decanters. I had the 2010 Harlan a second time within a few weeks based on telling a friend about what the result was, so he opened one with me, and it was the same result. I have been saying for the last 5 years if you like Harlan, you need to own the 2010.

2012 Harlan vs. Mouton 99, Haut Brion 01, Cheval Blanc 2005 and Guigal La Mouline 2001. Harlan beat them all. The closest thing to a second place was the La Mouline since it was really open and complex, but it just couldn’t come close to the depth of the Harlan. The 2005 Cheval Blanc came across as hot and a bit cloying compared to the Harlan. The Mouton was a strong performer too, everyone agreed they would rather spend the top dollar on the Harlan over the Mouton. It’s been proposed to try the 2012 Harlan against the 2009 Mouton which we were supposed to do with this group over the summer…and yeah, COVID.

I’ve had other recent vintages of Harlan (13, 14 and 15), and loved them all too, but those were not tasted in a comparison like above.

Got it. Thanks for the insight Ian.

Matt_A · September 23, 2020, 8:19pm

Harlan Maiden. I’ve been buying for 3 years.
Love that stuff. I will admit for a “second” wine it is a hard pill to swallow. I will be skipping it this year most likely. I would rather have a 6 pack of 2018 Scarecrow M Etain as opposed to a 3 pack of 2017 Maiden.

Harlan Estate. Never had it. I’m sure I would like it. Too expensive. I can usually find them at auctions from $650-$750 if I really wanted to try it.

markjchambers · September 23, 2020, 10:15pm

The 2004 Harlan was a revelation for me. I had it at the California Wine experience in 2006. My friend and I thought it was clearly the best of the cult cabs on display (including Screagle and Colgin). The release price for the 04 was $375 and the after market was $750. At that time you could get Lewis for $75 and that’s what I bought.

Ian_Dorin · September 24, 2020, 2:29pm

I’m not really asking if the price is worth it (I’m sure we can all agree that it isn’t) or what I should be purchasing instead (I just placed my order for Greer!). I just want to know if the style is drastically different from what it was around 13 years ago. There must have been a reason that the price skyrocketed, when no other Napa Cab (besides SE) has such a high price tag, and no other Napa Cab raised their prices so significantly (as far as I know).

In other words, why would I purchase this vintage, when I can get (IMO) better vintages from the mid-2000’s that are aged for half the cost?

Since the 2010 vintage, I have noticed a considerable change for the better with Harlan. Yes, I would agree that the 2000s were wines that were big and extracted, but starting with 2010, the wine has tremendous focus, depth, balance and complexity. Two anecdotes for you.

2010 Harlan vs. 2000 Margaux served double blind to a large group of collectors. 2 bottles of each poured. NO ONE got it right. Everyone thought the Harlan was the Margaux, and the Margaux was the Harlan. No, someone didn’t make a mistake with the decanters. I had the 2010 Harlan a second time within a few weeks based on telling a friend about what the result was, so he opened one with me, and it was the same result. I have been saying for the last 5 years if you like Harlan, you need to own the 2010.

2012 Harlan vs. Mouton 99, Haut Brion 01, Cheval Blanc 2005 and Guigal La Mouline 2001. Harlan beat them all. The closest thing to a second place was the La Mouline since it was really open and complex, but it just couldn’t come close to the depth of the Harlan. The 2005 Cheval Blanc came across as hot and a bit cloying compared to the Harlan. The Mouton was a strong performer too, everyone agreed they would rather spend the top dollar on the Harlan over the Mouton. It’s been proposed to try the 2012 Harlan against the 2009 Mouton which we were supposed to do with this group over the summer…and yeah, COVID.

I’ve had other recent vintages of Harlan (13, 14 and 15), and loved them all too, but those were not tasted in a comparison like above.

Ian - I too have noticed the change, and very much prefer the post-2009 winemaking style, although I do enjoy the older vintages. I recently had both the 1994 and 2001 that were each spectacular.

Those are spectacular wines. I’ve found between 2003 and 2007 the wines are way too big for my taste, and just don’t exhibit the balance I’m seeing on either side. I didn’t include the 2002, since I can’t say I’ve ever had it.

Jim_Clary · September 24, 2020, 3:19pm

Since the 2010 vintage, I have noticed a considerable change for the better with Harlan. Yes, I would agree that the 2000s were wines that were big and extracted, but starting with 2010, the wine has tremendous focus, depth, balance and complexity. Two anecdotes for you.

2010 Harlan vs. 2000 Margaux served double blind to a large group of collectors. 2 bottles of each poured. NO ONE got it right. Everyone thought the Harlan was the Margaux, and the Margaux was the Harlan. No, someone didn’t make a mistake with the decanters. I had the 2010 Harlan a second time within a few weeks based on telling a friend about what the result was, so he opened one with me, and it was the same result. I have been saying for the last 5 years if you like Harlan, you need to own the 2010.

2012 Harlan vs. Mouton 99, Haut Brion 01, Cheval Blanc 2005 and Guigal La Mouline 2001. Harlan beat them all. The closest thing to a second place was the La Mouline since it was really open and complex, but it just couldn’t come close to the depth of the Harlan. The 2005 Cheval Blanc came across as hot and a bit cloying compared to the Harlan. The Mouton was a strong performer too, everyone agreed they would rather spend the top dollar on the Harlan over the Mouton. It’s been proposed to try the 2012 Harlan against the 2009 Mouton which we were supposed to do with this group over the summer…and yeah, COVID.

I’ve had other recent vintages of Harlan (13, 14 and 15), and loved them all too, but those were not tasted in a comparison like above.

Ian - I too have noticed the change, and very much prefer the post-2009 winemaking style, although I do enjoy the older vintages. I recently had both the 1994 and 2001 that were each spectacular.

Those are spectacular wines. I’ve found between 2003 and 2007 the wines are way too big for my taste, and just don’t exhibit the balance I’m seeing on either side. I didn’t include the 2002, since I can’t say I’ve ever had it.

Agree. While I still enjoyed the wines, they did border on being too big as you suggest. Cory Empting has done an amazing job. I did drink all of my 2002’s too early, and really enjoyed them. I think the combination of the vintage plus the style made them irresistible.