Maybe I’ve just been on a bad run lately but too many of the wines I buy, which if they were in my cellar, would be drinking well now are not. The wines I’ve had recently are not over the hill but are muted, lack freshness, with some having the characteristics of not being kept at temperature.
I’ve been on a bad run lately:
2001 Mondavi Reserve
2001 David Arthur Elevation
2002 Lail Daniel
2007 Cardinale
2015 Immortal Estate
1997 Dalla Valle
All similar. Kinda dead. Some slightly madeirized.
Just about all of the lots I’ve gotten have had multiple bottles
There have been some good ones. I seem to do well with the numerous Pahlmeyer from mid 90s and older Forman. Also older Bordeaux have been good for the most part.
I just feel like I’m wasting a lot of money only to be frequently disappointed. I buy from mostly Acker and Zachys to take advantage of local pick up.I know auction is just a crapshoot but don’t people who have wines of this caliber store them well? I guess there’s no way to tell if the bottles look okay and have decent fill levels. I have too much wine anyway and just need to stop adding to it especially if I know there’s space being taken up by bottles I don’t look forward to opening. These will be summer pool party wines.
Maybe I will stick to Bordeaux and N Rhones or better yet don’t even log into the auction sites.
Anybody else experience a bad run like this?
I have bought some auction wines - I do tend to focus on wines that are not so old just because of Provenance concerns. The older the wine the more chance of an issue (all things equal). Right now, I am more focused on 2012 and younger for Cali and 2016 to 2020 for Bordeaux. I have not had any problems to date but honestly I have not bought that much wine on auction over the years.
Peter,
How much research do you do before buying?
There is a lot of information in the catalog, as well as some really incredible whole cellars with great provenance. I buy from auction but carefully, and try to avoid random lots, unless I talk to the auction house first.
Don’t forget Parker kinda pistol whipped Tim Mondavi over the '98s as too lean etc.
So, they brought on Michel Rolland and made a string of very rich wines. The '03 is really over the top.
The descriptor “maderized” implies heat damage so I assume that’s what you think has happened to some of these wines. Was there any other evidence of damage to those wines (leaks, streaks along the corks)?
David Arthur Elevation 1147 has not aged well even from excellent storage. The wines were too over the top/alcoholic to begin with, and they have become hot, stewed messes. There’s a whole lot of 2000-2010 David Arthur in my dad’s cellar, and oof.
98 was a pretty lean vintage in general - coming on the heels of a great run of vintages from 94 to 97. If you believe in Parker Points, wine advocate gives 98 as the worst vintage in the last 40 years aside from 2000 and 2011. Limited personal experience from drinking some of those wines is they were pretty mediocre compared to other vintages. Granted I am not a winemaker but I think it was pretty rainy and cool. Perhaps better than 2000 where it rained during harvest.
Points all well taken. 2001 Mondavis Reserves and DA Elevations I’ve had from my own cellar seemed much fresher but time has gone by since I had those so maybe at some point those wines from that era just lose it.
Mark I don’t do any further research with the house to ask about provenance. Most of the auctions are on-line and are weekly or monthly so essentially random. Sometimes they say they come from a single cellar.
The maderized descriptor doesn’t mean the wine is ruined but that it takes on some raisiny or candied characteristics.
The Immortal Estate Slope was last night and particularly disappointing as it is younger (2015) and should have been in decent shape. I don’t expect much from this wine except that it is a daily drinker, concentrated, fruit driven crowd pleaser wine at a half the usual price. But this bottle was nothing like past experiences and now I have 5 more bottles. Maybe others will be better but not optimistic. Also from same auction I got 3 bottles of 2016 Immortal Estate Impassable Ridge which was more expensive and now we’re talking real money.
Well we’re probably still in that era - If as a broad stroke the only age worthy wines made in Napa were pre 1990 I think there probably is some merit to that point of view - perhaps with some exceptions. Certainly, I drink my Napa bottlings that way - Modern California wines for my palate seem to do well at 5 to 10 years of bottle age. I have a whopping 6% of my California cellar from pre 2012. I don’t buy California wines with the idea that I am holding them for 20 to 40 years and never have.
1990 is a little harsh. I am working through some delicious 1991 - 1996 Northern California Cabernets from my dad’s cellar. Even the 1998-2000 wines are showing quite well now. 1997 has been spottier, and it goes to hell in a hand basket with 2001(though some 2002s have been good, such as Montelena, which never went full dark side).
Some very astute points made here and I will agree about pre 1998 or so Napa and Sonoma wines and their age ability in general due to both winemaking style and viticultural practices.
That said, the old adage that there are no great wines, just great bottles certainly applies here . . .
With very few exceptions, I don’t buy any California wines from 1994 on. Exceptions are Ridge and Togni. The problem is that I don’t have the same access I used to have, so I am sure I am missing out on some amazing wines.
That being said, I have tasted many lacking the necessary acidity and balance for the long term. I agree with William, it may be the era rather than the provenance.
To bolster the comments about the ‘era’, most of the labels in the top post I would not lay down for extended aging given my experience with them. Definitely more in the drink within ten years in style than the lay down for decades kind.