So we took the 05 Araujo to dinner tonight, and I’m starting to sense a trend. I got into wine in the mid 90’s so my experience is limited and still leans toward big domestic wines. Anyway, perhaps it’s just me, but I’m noticing that the big Napa cabs I bought in the early to mid 2000’s have become somewhat fungible at 10. Great, but hard to differentiate. Is it just the wines I choose to drink, or is this a product of ‘modern’ styling? Is 10 years ~ the peak for Napa cab? Oz Clarke states that 10 years was about average in his ‘grapes’ book published 10 years ago. If he concluded that in his book published a decade ago, you could further infer that the shelf life of Napa Cab has been ~10 yrs for the last 20 years. Speaking in broad generalities, does that sound about right? To me, I find distinction between Napa cabs at 5-8, then, it’s blurred lines…
Curious what old-timers think WRT this generations aging curve of Napa Cabs.
*edit: Monte Bello isn’t Napa, but seems to have an atypical aging curve for California. So does Dominus. Kapcsandy and Blankiet may prove to be exceptions, as are new properties from Pritchard Hill.
I would withhold judgment on the aging curve of “new properties from Pritchard Hill” until they are no longer so new. But I agree that modern styled Napa Cabernets are (regardless of what the producers claim) designed to show their best when young. Too many people assume that an expensive wine must be age-worthy - Condrieu and (in my opinion) most Rhone reds and most Zinfandels also taste best at a young age.
In fact, I would argue with your suggestion that 10 years is the peak for Napa Cab. Wouldn’t the “peak” occur at age 5-8 for you, before the “blurred lines” set in?
Daniel,
You are correct, 5-8 from vintage seems to be my sweet spot for Napa Cab. With limited cellar space, that works out well for me. I’m never sitting on thousands of bottles at one time so durability isn’t important to me.
As recently as 6-7 years ago, I was still as you suggest, buying these wines expecting them to be better than their value counterparts at a decade, and held on to them accordingly. Obviously I was wrong.
With regard to Pritchard Hill, I was thinking specifically of Ovid. A bottle 7 years from vintage was just starting to open up.
I’m speaking in gross generalities, much of this is producer/site specific, but I was a bit shocked by how much the Araujo has evolved in just the last 5 years.
It seems like every critic is doing a 10 year retrospective and I’m trying to discern wether their opinions have any value to me as I look to source older cabs. So far, I’m not finding much alignment.
Just curious what others are finding with these wines.
Interesting email I just got from a NJ retailer. The wording ‘mature’ is what is most interesting. Eight years…BOOOOOM!
Can’t wait to try a mature Napa Cab!!
Did you ever wonder what a mature Napa Cab tastes like?
Now is your chance to find out! Come to the store on
Saturday between 12-6pm to try a 2006 Napa Cabernet!
We’ve tried it and thought it was great!
A recent 06 Schrader was in the perfect spot for me, so 8 is right on for me - at least for that producer, in that vintage. By fungible, I meant this particular bottle of 05 Araujo could’ve been any good cab from anywhere. Well made, but you could’ve substituted any fruit forward, round, oaked cab and not known the difference. There was no Eisle magic, no sense of place, whereas 5 years ago, the same wine was tight and alluding to something special.
I think your NJ retailer’s use of mature at 8 is perfect.
Steve, were these 80’s and 90’s wines that are still drinking great accessible at a young age? I know the Dunns and Togni’s of the world will age forever, but even some of these types have surprised me. Several recent 04 Seaveys have been surprisingly far along relative to how they were drinking just a few years ago.
I know some of the older reliables remained in their certain style and others moved with the shift. Forman in 2006 comes to mind. We did an older Forman dinner last year that was interesting, if not really in my wheelhouse any longer. Wines showed well for what they were.
Jody, when we speak ‘high end’, is it safe to say north of $50 when released?
That’s what I thought. Exchangeable or replaceable but then I found this:
( often plural ) moveable perishable goods of a sort that may be estimated by number or weight, such as grain, wine, etc
Interesting to see it used with higher end cult wine especially like Araujo.
To take it further, I have always believed that as most wines get distanced from their vintage they will always lose any sort of distinctiveness they had when youthful. I say most as wines like Marthas always keep a sense of it. Old wine is certainly an acquired taste and if I am asked what is the most exciting thing about wines I like today, it is for that very reason, the ability to actually enjoy them in their youth, when they are distinctive.
Never really thought about it in these terms. They certainally have a different flavor profile as they get older. I do prefer younger wines but overstocked when I was younger and my consumption never kept up. I will say my local tasting group recently drank a bunch of older Dunns and they were remarkably consistent
In my opinion, there is a fine line between young and mature wine. I am moving back in the direction of youth because I have found it more enjoyable for my palate; however, I certainly prefer the experience to be a PNP with fully integrated components as opposed to a lengthy decant and waiting for the wine to open up - I don’t want to miss what the wine has to offer.
Interesting discussion, to be sure. I tend to drink my CA cabs in the 7-12 year range, for the most part. I find them plenty distinctive at that point, with the notable exception of a group of $50-70 2007 cabs I opened for a tasting last fall. They were definitely more similar than distinctive, which my wife and guests all noted, as well.
However, having also had 8 different 1994 CA cabs in the last month, I can honestly say that not one of them would be confused with any other in the group. Each one was unique, which was part of the pleasure in drinking them.
I have no idea what the '04s will taste like in another 10 years. Maybe they’ll be less distinctive than the '94s seem to be at age 20. Maybe not. I probably won’t have any '04s left to find out, as I love where they’re at right now and am happily drinking down my supply.
Great insight Mike - thanks. My experience is not that long in wine years, so this is great information. This helps inform my decision about what to do with emerging, great vineyards with no history (think Paneck).
For purpose of discussion, I used the term ‘high-end’ to imply wines north of 100 or 200. The price point only relevant to the conversation with respect to my expectations of how these wines should hold up. These are premium prices in my world.
What I’m learning today is that 1) price is no indicator of durability, 2) durability isn’t important to me anyway, 3) there seems to be a general consensus that modern Napa Cab hits maturity between 7-10 years.
Hi Steve, I am most certainly thinking post 2004 wines and to be more precise, post 2007. I see 2007 as the dividing line.
I don’t doubt the greatness of those Dunns anymore than I would doubt the greatness of the 1994 & 1997 Philip Togni Cabernet Sauvignons Antonio Galloni shared with the CLONYC group early in 2013.
Jody - I think modern cabs are in their sweet spot in the 5-8 year range , where as wines made before the “mid-90s shift” tended to reward additional patience. Yes, I realize this is a rather general statement.
I also happen to agree with Pobega here - what a great point. This also got me thinking - if a wine is considered “elegant” in it’s youth, does it ever lose that tag? Does it, or can it, grow out of elegence? Or does it still provide that pleasure at 5, 10, 20 years - as the fruit and tannins and acid all do their aging thing?
