Maybe I misunderstood what “Classic” was supposed to mean, but for me, “Classic” implies a strong thick grip from the tannin structure, accompanied by something green-vegetal or tobacco-ish or sous-bois-ish or earthy-dirty or similar.
Cathy Corison’s wines have almost no structure, and are exceptionally clean & smooth to the point of lacking any sort of distinguishing features whatsoever.
And I should add that Cathy Corison’s wines are just about TOO lush, to the point of being almost “cutesy-pie”.
For “Classic”, I want a backwards wine which has a solid 30 to 50 years ahead of it.
But, again, maybe I don’t understand what “Classic” is supposed to mean.
PS: I’m not trying to diss on Cathy Corison - her wines are very, very tasty - but I would classify them as highly MODERN, not “Classic”.
+1 on Smith-Madrone, White Rock and Corison in particular and plenty of other good ones mentioned.
To Nathan’s point above, I do think Corison fits the criteria in the OP. It mentions the below points without getting into flavor profile or tannic structure. Corison Cab definitely has the longevity mentioned:
“1) Fine quality.
2) Double-digit prices (OK to include brands that have more expensive bottles, as long as their entry-level is excellent and under $100).
3) 20+ year track record.
4) 20+ year longevity.”
Another winery that meets the criteria but Cab is not their signature variety (petite Sirah is) would be Vincent Arroyo. They make Cabernet and several other varieties in a more traditional style, been doing it for 35 years and their prices are WAY UNDER $100.
Bonus if you visit, a full blown tasting of their wines is free.
Why not buying classic Bordeaux? I guess it is cheaper compared to Napa? You are discussing classic entry level Napa wines for more or less 100 bucks while you can have Grand Puy Lacoste and many others for the same amount of money?
I don’t think O’Shaughnessy or Smith-Madrone really qualify. Perhaps not all the way to modern, the few times that I have had them, they were heavy on the palate, and the latter also somewhat rough, with coarse tannins. Stag’s Leap, in OP’s list. also would be no go; under new management and not at all the same. It’s much more spoofulated than when Warren owned it. Though no twenty-year track record, i would put DiCostanza in there–lovely, light-footed cab, beautifully made. Used to be $85, I hear the price for the most recent release is going up.
I have drunk older Montelena Estate Cabs for many, many years with great joy. Fabulous wines. But, I have only had their basic Cab young. How does it age?
Bordeaux and California Cabernet (even classic Cabernet) are a bit apples and oranges to me. They do not age the same way, although both clearly age. So, I do not believe that one is a perfect substitute for the other and it makes sense to have both in a cellar.
In my experience, O’Shaughnessy is about as modern styled as you get. They are all extracted, rich, chocolate laced, high abv, and heavily black fruited. Don’t get me wrong, they can be really damn good, but they are not “sane, old-school” wines.These are 15.2% bombers.
Good call. Pride is back to sanity after a roller coaster of stylistic shifts over the last fifteen years. They rose to fame with Robert Foley and massive, delicious “hedonistic” reserves, then bottomed out, reverted to a more restrained style, and are putting out sub 14.5 reserve cabs that can age (though it was still closer to 15 in 2013). Good stuff, beautiful winery.