I’ve found the wines I like is a min 10 yrs. But obviously that is just me. I’m opening and enjoying many wines that a lot of ct users are saying are tired. To each their own.
I’m in the “depends on the vintage and wine” caregory. 2012 produced many early drinking wines that I have had great pleasure from. 2013 is a great example of where the same wine that I enjoyed early as a ‘12 would require a great deal more patience. I have a hard time with coming up with a rule of thumb. It’s one of the things that makes wine both interesting and challenging.
For me its 20+ years. Had several 70s through early 90s last weekend that were all fantastic. Plus a 1950 Charles Krug that was one of the best wines I have ever had. I should note I only like the classic products Diamond Creek, Dunn, Forman, Togni etc.
Evan - a couple of other things.
-
For most “ageable” wines, six years is not old. Maybe for an inexpensive rosé, but for a serious red, that’s nothing at all. Many people drink their wines at 20 and 30 years and older. Classic wines from Piedmont, Rioja, Bordeaux, Burgundy and a few other places really reward patient cellaring and six years from the vintage is not meaningful in those cases.
-
Wine making has changed over time, all over the world. Some of the wines that would be benchmarks for California Cabernet back in the 70s, 80s, and even 90s, are quite different today. A lot of vines were re-planted, ownership changed, and winemakers changed.
Just figured I’d add a few more complications to your life!
Interesting! I find my 2013’s more open then the 2012’s.
I have never had Dancing bear ranch so I could not comment on that wine.
But for me, wines like Ridge Monte Bello, Chateau Montelena, Dunn, Dominus, Togni and a few others start to really shine at about 20 years old or more.
I recently had a 1976 Burgess, a 1978 Stag’s Leap and a 1997 Togni that all were wonderful, but while a 1984 BV Private Reserve at the same tasting was still enjoyable, it was clearly on the downside. So, a lot really depends on the wine itself.
I am sorry that there is no one answer that fits all or even most situations. But, wine is supposed to be fun. Try different things and experiment a bit. At the end of the day, you really have to think about what YOU like in a wine and what wines you are drinking.
Another great review of the topic!
I line up with Howard.
Just opened a 2001 Paloma Cab that was excellent. Medium body, still significant fruit and a bit of age on the finish. Best one I’ve had in quite some time.
I have been drinking my 1994 California cabernet sauvignon and merlot since 1996.
They have been open for drinking from the very start, never through a closed phase, and continue to show young.
So, my answer is from 0 to at least 20 years.
Huh, I’m exactly the opposite across all varietals in CA. I’d be really curious to know which 12s you’ve found more ready to go compared to the same Wine in 13
My opinion is 0 -7 years, with 4 -5 years the sweet spot for CA. Now, I’ve had some wine older than 10 years that have been fantastic, but I seem to get more plum and raisin on the older wines. And I am not a fan of plum and raisin. Maybe those wines have slowly oxidized and are now flawed. So it’s been my opinion that the older the wine, the greater the risk for for that profile/flaw.
I don’t know if it’s possible to age Mike Smith wines. They seem to vanish at my home.
I’ve had way more bottles of Napa than anything else, of all different ages from 45 years plus to barrel. I’ve hosted tastings of wines across vintages and styles and have plowed through verticals of wines to see if I could pinpoint where my personal preference falls.
My sweet spot is somewhere between 8-15, but 10-25 is good if the bottles are well stored. I think the 2008-2010 are still drinking really young. 2002-2005 if stored appropriately are still young, but have softened and are absolutely murderous. 2001-1997 are holding on if good examples, good producers, and excellent storage. Earlier than that and I personally think the wines are beginning to lose some of what makes Napa cabs so great. If you find top producers and impeccable storage, many of those are still killing it. Earlier than 1994 and I think you should expect significant fading in 750 format. 1991 Dominus, 1991 Ridge, even those big dogs, are just not as impressive as they once were. 1996 is holding better than most 1997s by my experience.
I’d suggest finding the zone YOU like, though. Buy a few bottles of one producer you like from earlier vintages through JJ Buckley or K&L Wines or something. 2012 is not old at all. I’m still buying 2013s retail, and see 2012s and 2011s with regularity and wine shops around town. You can snag 10 year old and 20 year old cabs with no difficulty. And at reasonable prices. You can by 1996 Sterling SVR for like $60. If you want to go bigger, you can get 1996 Montelena Estate for like $125 and treat yourself to a very good bottle that will still be showing a classic Napa profile with stunning cherry notes. 2001 Lewis Cab for $65.
John, that’s very helpful. A few months back I had a 2004 Heitz Trailside. It was pretty tame on the palate, lacking youthful fruit, but also lacking in development of savory flavors. Maybe I simply did not find the wine all that spectacular, but could it also be that the wine was “middle aged” and thus not showing a lot of character on either the youthful or old spectrum?
Could just be the wine. I had a 2002 Joseph Phelps Cab and a 2001 Keenan Cab last weekend at Easter. The Phelps was lovely, but the Keenan was killer. I had some 2003s a couple months ago, and month and a half back a good number of 2002-2007 Napas (2002 Keenan, 2003 Insignia, 2002 Insignia, 2005 Hundred Acre Kayli Morgan, 2003 Larkmead Solari Reserve, 2005 Larkmead Solari Reserve, 2005 Backus, 2007 Continuum). For the most part, they’re all on. I do think they just slide on a continuum of bright fruit dominating everything, to softening fruit and tannins integrating with the oak into a more seamless presentation, then sliding to a fruit profile that is not as fresh, but retains sweetness you don’t get in bordeaux, while integrating more of the oak into a pipe tobacco and spicy cigar box with some herbal notes that creep up in more traditional style wines like Corison or Mayacamas (I much prefer the former to the latter).
Finding your preferred spot on the sliding scale is fun and, to be honest, it is likely to change over time. I drank much early, then tried old, then tried mid-early, and am now pretty square on anything in that 8-15 range.
I also think it’s important to take into account that there has been a significant stylistic shift that kills the “one ring to rule them all” idea of when a wine is in a good spot. Even in 1996 you can find a bunch of top wines with sub 14% alcohol. In 2013 that was nearly impossible. The acid and alcohol level of the wines has changed significantly, and I’d wager the oak regimens probably have too. As a result, we’re not really talking apples to apples on capacity for aging even when comparing current releases to wines made in the past 20 vintages. As a result, we’re playing catch up on figuring out how these wines will really age. I do think there is a tremendous amount in common from, say, 2006/2007 through 2014, but I could be wrong there as I’ve stepped back from Napa a bit over the past couple of vintages.
IMHO, ripe wines from late pickers in ripe years don’t age particularly well and can get pruny notes, but they drink lushly and beautifully young.
Oaky big wines from good producers (and I would consider Cakebread here) probably taste great old or young but some of that oak will subsume in a few years. Wide, wide, wide sweet spot but it depends on your oak tolerance whether you go after these types of wine.
Older Cali cabs can age forever - recently had a pristine 1959 Charles Krug that was exceptional and complex, and have had several 1974-1978’s that were stupendous. Wines like Dunn HM, Corison, Monte Bello, Montellena, etc, all seem to hit their stride for me around 18-25y, and I don’t think they’re as approachable young, but that’s a select group. I’ve had a bunch of 1988-1994 random cabs from around Napa in the last year or two that have developed secondary and tertiary flavors with time, even if they don’t reach the heights of some Bordeaux.
I had ‘04 Heitz Trailside a few months ago too. Loved it. I guess I’d say it’s adolescent: it’s shed some of its youthful fruit but isn’t close to mature yet. Maybe you don’t like that stage, or maybe you just don’t like the wine, or maybe the bottle you had was very mildly corked. I’ll like it more in another 10 years, but I think it’s very nice now too.
Great point. Even wines from the likes of Dunn and Diamond Creek are very different from the Napa Cabs of the ‘70s-‘80s era.
Enjoying a 1998 BV GDL tonight that is just smooth in the glass and on the palate. Color is still a deep ruby. Have had this since release
So much information in this thread. Thanks everyone
As many have said, the most important thing is for you to know if you prefer lots of fruit in your cabs or if the tertiary bouquet and flavors only age can bring are more important. For example find a Diamond Creek older than 1990 and see what you think.
For me , I value aged cabs/blends so while I drink plenty of Napa cabs less than 12yrs old(but almost never less than 5) I consider that research. Cabs with Napa $$+ need to easily pass 20yrs to reach prime and $$$ should pass 30 for me to buy them. That takes a track record to know the wineries style, so by definition even most current cults and WB hot topic cabs are still in the “research” phase.