I suspect that what’s changed is the definition of “desirable flavor profile”. Frankly, I don’t think many Napa cabs today fit into what I consider the phrase to mean. YMMV. Oh, wait. Roy’s mileage - and that of many others - may vary.
FWIW, on those Napa Cabs from the 60s-80s, here’s a quote from Joe Heitz in 1976, "“You know, a grower would like to have all his grapes in the barn by Labor Day, and I think they should hang on the vines until Christmas, so we’re always squabbling. But this is normal, nothing wrong with that.”
While harvest brix were different there were also numerous other differences, including…No multiple passes thru the vineyard, all reds pressed (no free run juice), 100ppm sulfur at the crusher, always added yeast, frequent (Joe’s word) acid additions, fining on all the wines, and filtration on them as well, aging in American white oak uprights, and then Limousin barrels.
All courtesy of Robert Benxon’s fascinating book, “Great Winemakers of California.”
Adam Lee
Siduri Wines
I haven’t read the book, Adam, but it sounds like I should.
That doesn’t really answer the question about how such good wines could be produced at lower brix levels. And I’m sure the ultimate pick date was closer to Labor Day than Christmas!
And why would there have been more acid additions with lower brix?
John,
Yes, you should read the book…you can usually find it cheap on Amazon. Interestingly, there is no talk in the book about harvest brix…apparently it wasn’t much of an issue, or much discussed at the time…My only point was that there are numerous differences in winemaking between now and then and those should also be examined and included when comparing the wines.
FWIW, Bob Travers from Mayacamas describes his winemaking technique as, “Bladder press, 160 gallons per ton, 60-100ppm of sulfur in tank after pressing, concrete block fermenting tanks, always adding a cultured yeast (usually Montrachet), cool ferments (70 degrees for Cab), press at dryness or close to it, pumpovers primarily, often adjusts acid levels, rack out of fermenting tank, rack again a week later, rack again a month later, rack annually after that. Two years in large American oak tanks and then a year in small barrels (half Nevers, half Saone) filtering before bottling.”
Adam Lee
Siduri Wines
Adam,
I am not following this thread very well. What does that have to do with alcohol levels?
It doesn’t particularly (thread drift). It had more to do with John’s first question as to how to explain Napa cabs from the 60s to 80s. Looking at winemaking techniques is one way to do that, I would think.
Adam Lee
Siduri Wnes
Adam,
Got it. While I realize there might be many smaller differences, if someone wants to understand what primarily drives the difference in character of the wines, don’t you think the right answer is - The 60s-80s Cabs were often picked earlier and at lower brix?
I would think the 60-80s Cabenets were picked earlier and lower in brix and that is a huge factor. I think that rootstocks,such as AXR, let the vines carry more crop, thus slowing down the ripening dramatically. As we often see today, lower yields can easily lead to higher levels of sugar accumulation. So I am not sure that hang time was as different as we think, but brix were lower. I also think that the mention of acid additions is very telling…as even at lower brix acid was routinely added…making me think the wines were lower in pH and that would also change the flavor profile.
Finally, I think the vast majority of vines were planted on the valley floor at that time, while a higher percentage of them are now planted in the mountains, and that soil difference effects things dramatically.
Adam Lee
Siduri Wines
Oh…and I also think the wines were much more stable…due to the alcohol, phs and the ubiquitous filtering.
Adam – I take your point that brix at harvest isn’t the only thing that’s different, but it’s still hard to see how using large tanks for much of the aging and cultured yeasts, or lots of racking, could make up for fruit that, by today’s standards, was underripe. If those things did that, why wouldn’t people use those techniques now rather than watering back?
On acidification (acidulation?), I was under the impression that became more widespread in the 80s, but that is only a vague impression, based on tasting in the 80s and discussions then.
As for the location of the vineyards, the great BVs, Inglenooks, Mondavi, Phelps and Heitz were all from vineyards in the valley, I believe, or on the benchlands – not from up the hills.
What you say about the rootstock and yields is interesting. Thanks for the info.
I think you are missing the point of his original question. He was asking how you can account for wines in the 60s-80s being so damn good if they were so much lower alcohol, picked with low brix, and picked early (what you might consider not-quite-ripe). If the move now is towards full ripeness, and Napa winemakers are fighting for more more more, why did they jump the shark from their more restrained historical wines? Why is bigger determinative of success now? Why do winemakers feel that the only way to succeed is to let their berries hang for weeks and weeks longer? Why is huge fruit and extraction the only way to go when history suggests a admirable alternative at a lower brix and ripeness?
But this is a fallacy. MOST of the wines in the 60’s and 70’s were NOT so damn good. Just because we taste a select few wines that have managed to age well does not mean that they represent the majority wines from that era. Ask any professional critic what he thinks about the general quality of wines from the previous era compared with today…Current wines win hands down. Let’s not let our prefernces for lower alchohol wines and the lens of nostalgia, distort actual history.
I don’t think I am missing the point. My point is this – yes, people are picking at higher brix. All other factors being equal, the same level of flavor maturity would be achieved at lower brix if yields were 5 tons per acre rather than 3 tons per acre. At 3 tons per acre, you might have to wait longer, and get higher brix, to achieve that same level of flavor maturity. Vines planted on AXR gave you higher yields.
Adam Lee
Siduri Wines
I would disagree with this based on personal experience, the experience of others and the fact that by tasting a few wines from those times one was actually tasting a huge representative sample of what was available. Remember, when Robert Mondavi formed his new venture in 1966, it was the first major winery built in the valley since Prohibition and there were only about 25 wineries in all.
God, I agree with Wood… ![[wink.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/04707e6a7bbb03e0153e349d8a9270d30e1e9525.gif "wink"){kind=small}
TTT
Quick, send the paramedics to The Testy One’s house. He’s in cardiac arrest. ![[rofl.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/a/a7452fcd8e675af869f8da01174474a545b03944.gif "rofl"){kind=small}
Well, if you read his own book, one of the reasons he left Charles Krug to form his own winery was that he was convinced Napa could produce MUCH BETTER wines than were being produced at the time (even at Charles Krug with his brother). Look, the older I get, the more I enjoy lower octane wines. But I have read and listened to enough professional critics who tasted and rated these wines from the 60’s and 70’s. Certainly there were examples of fantastic wines…but the OVERALL quality of the majority of the wines from that era simply doesn’t measure up to today’s average Napa wines.
I would agree that perhaps different rootstock, different yeasts, climate change etc, may explain why Napa Cabs require a higher brix to get physiologically ripe compared to yesteryear.
I’m really not trying to be pesky, but can you further explain what to me appears to be a conundrum (in bold).
- lower brix
- Higher yield
- Higher yield takes longer to ripen
- Hang times similar
Okay, so if it takes longer to ripen high yields, and there were high yields in the 60s-80s, and hang times were similar, and brix was lower…How could you possibly get the same level of flavor maturity? You’re picking grapes that ripen slower at the same time as grapes that ripen quicker. What am I missing? I know brix doesn’t necessarily = ripe flavor profile, but how do you get there?
Maybe that’s his story, but the real reason he left Krug was that he was thrown out by his mother. That was, famously, after a long-running dispute with his brother over wine quality and the amount of money he was spending that led to a fist fight between the siblings.
Yes, he was convinced, and rightly so, that Napa (and Krug for that matter) could produce better wines. That said, to categorize the majority of wine coming out of the valley at that time and over the next 10+ years as substandard (a nice term for swill) is just wrong in my opinion. We disagree.
I didn’t have them when they were young, and think that 74 Mondavi Reserve is killer and can imagine how good it must have been, but I frankly don’t think that most of the wines from the 60s and 70s are any good now. That said, I don’t think most bordeaux from that time period are any good now. Since I didn’t have the wines within a couple decades of production, I will withhold my opinion on their quality. Tasted now, most seem acidic (often overly so) and a bit green. Maybe that’s simply fruit decay over 40-50 years, or maybe they always were. I love me some Napa Cab now, so maybe I’m a bad candidate to play devil’s advocate.
As for the dispute over why Mondavi left C. Krug, read the House Mondavi (which isn’t written by the biggest self promoter in the valley’s history). Robert got his ass thrown out after beating his brother’s ass (which had to do with disputes over expense accounts and management as much as wine).
I think I just said that.