Interesting point, Sanjay. I suspect it’s a combination of nostalgia, sample bias/palate preference of the posters in this thread, and the time needed to achieve peak.
Personally, I love some of the 70s cabs (74 Mondavi reserve, 70 Mayacamas, etc.) mentioned upthread, but I only drank them in the past 10-15 years and therefore missed their peak window by 10+ years. As such, none of those 70s wines are in contention for ‘greatest American wine made, that I drank at peak and have credible knowledge to nominate’. Those nominations would go to: 91 Dominus, 94 Phelps Insignia, 96 Shafer HSS SunSpot, 96 Ridge MB, 01 Shafer HSS, 01 Pride Reserve Cab, 03 SQN Papa Syrah and 05 SQN Atlantis Grenache.
New isn’t always better, although one might think it would be given advances in knowledge and technology. However… more new oak and riper fruit aren’t always better. Riper fruit without balancing tannins and acidity are loved by some, a question mark to some, and viewed skeptically by others (me, included).
In my early days, it was the 1974 Sterling Reserve and some 74 Diamond Creeks (I think, or maybe 75). Mid career, clearly 1991 Monte Bello and 74 Heitz Martha’s, but the latter was a bit “over the top”. Now I like the 95 Pahlmeyer. Complex stunner.
I’ve been fortunate through friends to drink (i.e. more than taste) several of the wines mentioned here, and while delicious, never had that “aha” factor for me as what I would tell another person was the “best of the best”. Lately I’ve been floored by old pinot noir from El Molino and School House. Each one so distinctive. Maybe a pinot will get up there one day, or a Petite Syrah.
As to modern styles, I think there are many wineries that are aging well…I had a really good 05 Bond Eden and 01 Hundred Acre that may age with grace. I’ll conclude with the observation that with all these old wines, age-ability was a crap shoot…many aged into obscurity while some became the legends…and I think it is the same with today’s bigger wines. But they are approaching balance and complexity from the completely opposite end of the ripeness and alcohol spectrum.
There’s a name from the past. I loved El Molino’s Pinot Noir, but rarely consumed them past their 3rd-4th birthday. I always wondered how they would age. The Chardonnay as well -
What about the whites? I’ve only rated three wines 100pts…and the 1999 Marcassin Marcassin Chardonnay is one of them. Contender for the Greatest in my book!
But that 1968 Heitz Pinot Chardonnay was VERY close to going three digits!
When I was a Freshman at tOSU, I had two dorm roommates. One had a lot of money. The other roommte and I didn’t have gyro money. Whenever a discussion of things came up, usually bicycles or stereos, said Ritchie Rich would ask, “what is the best?” Then he would go after buying it. After a while it became comical. We would intentionally answer his “what is the best” question with a fake answer.
A friend took a business his father started and apprenticed him into “to the next level”, so he bought a really nice McMansion in a pricey neighborhood. A few years later, a brand new neighbor couple suddenly had a whole bunch of the same exact things he did. Including a pickup truck, which they never drove, and an espresso maker, though they don’t drink coffee.
It’s more funny because he’s super-pragmatic. He waited years to buy a house, picking up something that was near impossible to sell in a down market. (An essentially identical neighboring property sold for double 2 years later.) All those items he had were “best” in the sense of high quality, high utility, and low depreciation, not necessarily prestige.
Interesting. I disagree with every single response. Parker’s first 100 point CA red was Groth Estates 1985 Reserve. It was impossible to find, severely allocated and only offered to the asolute best customers of most shops or any dealer who might have been fortunate to have it. Many were traded. I found one bottle at State Line Wine in Elkton, MD and held it for ten or more years before finally opening it with friends.
I believe it was the best CA red I have ever had. This includes the '85 Heitz Martha’s (Opened same night) and '84 Silver Oak Bonny’s (also opened the same night). I’ve also had '74 Martha’s, too. I might also note Charles Smith’s '10 Royal City and the '10 Reynvaan Stonessence which, while entirely different and similarly young, has a great deal of potential. Another great syrah is Sanguis '09 Six White Horses.
It’s good, and holding in there quite well, which says something. No idea how good it was at its peak, but some of the other wines listed are currently showing better.
Being an East Coaster, I have very little on-the-ground [or in-the-ground] expertise to offer, but my gut feeling has always been that something is badly wrong with the soil in California - somehow the soil gets “exhausted” very quickly [somewhere between the 10-year to 20-year mark], and no one has been able to figure out how to re-invigorate the soil.
Or maybe something about the soil & the climate exhausts the vines - but, even there, re-planting the vineyards ought to ameliorate the problem, yet there’s no evidence that replanting does any good.
On the other hand, it could be a purely human thing - maybe California sociological/anthropological [as opposed to viti-] culture is incapable of supporting any sense of loyalty & tradition & reverence regarding the various vineyards. But a truly great vineyard ought to be able to overcome most changes in management and eventually re-assert its dominance, yet, again, we never see that happen.
Anyway, without a doubt there is just about zero evidence of anyone being able to maintain a persistent vineyard-specific tradition of excellence in California the way they can in France & Germany & Italy [and to a lesser extent in Austria & Spain].
Or maybe “exhaust” is the wrong word - maybe the soil & the climate in California are so excellent that the vines are somehow over-invigorated, and maybe over-invigoration is very, very bad for the long-term prognosis of a vineyard?
Perhaps in France & Germany & Italy, there’s some environmental factor [or factors] which help to keep a vineyard under-invigorated, and that under-invigoration is key to the long-term prospects of the vineyard?
I dunno.
Although my recollection of California soil is a weird mixture of volcanic ash & sand & ancient seashells, which never felt like it had much organic “oomph” to it, and without the organic component, soil exhaustion always felt like a very real possibility.
And then there’s the un-naturality of the water itself - modern California is an irrigated desert [classical California having been simply a desert], and we have only about a century’s worth of experience with desert irrigation.
I wonder how many vineyards in California could survive [and produce crops] with zero artificial irrigation?
Artificial irrigation is banned in almost all of Europe, so the great vineyards there must be able to thrive [decade in, decade out] without the use of artificial irrigation.
Or maybe wine making styles have changed to please the public and therefore make more $$$$. (see: Caymus) Patience is a virtue? Pfffft, no way José! Instant gratification rules in America.
![[shrug.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/4/48636ebda2a440a43ad8d24c83be20ac20c53420.gif "shrug"){kind=small}
I’ve only rated three wines 100pts…and the 1999 Marcassin Marcassin Chardonnay is one of them. Contender for the Greatest in my book!