1994 Mayacamas Vineyards Cabernet Sauvignon- USA, California, Napa Valley, Mt. Veeder (5/21/2014)
Very good, but at the same time disappointing. This was clearly the better wine on the table compared to a slightly underwhelming 81 Heitz Martha’s, and it was the best Mayacamas I’ve had in years. I think we caught this one at peak, though its in no danger of fading - the plummy fruit and bright, juicy acid are in balance, and the rough edges of the tannin have faded away so that it has a rich, but not sandy, texture.
My quibble is that even though this is mature and integrated, and even though very good, it’s not EXCELLENT. There’s very little going on with tertiary stuff - in some ways, its like it’s frozen in time - and the acid is high enough that while I think aging will be slow, at some point the fruit will fade and the wine will fall out of balance as the acid pokes through. It’s as good as a simple cabernet can be, but it’s simple. It reminds me of a really good chinon with the high acid and juicy character, but there’s so much more going on with the Chinons that this isn’t in the same league - and the other Mayacamas’s I’ve had from the 90s have all been a step below this one. If this is the upside, I don’t think the average is quite what it should be.
1981 Heitz Cellar Cabernet Sauvignon Martha’s Vineyard- USA, California, Napa Valley, Oakville (5/21/2014)
Perhaps not the soundest of bottles; a little bit citusy and volatile. This bottle, at least, was probably past its peak. Sort of halfway between Mouton and an old Mildara Cab - all chocolate and mint with with a little more structure than something from Oz. Got better with air - filled out with some cassis - and was recognizably Martha’s, but I think I’ve had a better bottle of this in the past and I’ve certainly have better Martha’s from other vintages and 81s from other top Napa producers.
So, I disagree with you. I don’t think the Mayacamas was at peak at all. At the start of a drinking window, maybe. But the fruit is still quite primary and concentrated and there’s plenty of structure still. My guess is that it will continue to improve and develop complexity for several years and then plateau for several more years after that. Mayacamas certainly is unique, it consistently across vintages has that high, juicy acidity that is almost Chinon-esque but it’s far less rustic than most Chinon.
I agree with you more about the Martha’s. It was still a good wine but definitely past peak and not up to the level of either other vintages of Martha’s I’ve had or other top 81s I’ve had with you (like Monte Bello and Mayacamas). The bottle was in very good condition but the cork come out very soft with not much of a “pop” and I have a hunch other bottles might show better.
I don’t agree re: aging potential - the wine is dangerously close to unbalanced as is. And I think it’s improbable that a wine that has failed to develop complexity at age 20 will suddenly find it at age 25 - if they wine is still simple at age 20 after the tannin has started to relax, it’s probably never going to be a great bottle of wine, just a very good one.
It’s been several years, but I was pretty disappointed with a 1997 Mayacamas cab that I had. Thin, tart, not really complex. It might just need another decade or two, but it didn’t really seem like it had greatness ahead of it.
Like everyone here, I hope the new owners don’t turn Mayacamas into the next 15.5% oak bomb Napa cab, but if they are careful and respectful, I do think there is room to improve, particularly on the cabernets.
The chardonnay, on the other hand, I hope never changes. And frankly, the merlot in recent years has been great drinking, really more enjoyable than the cab and at much lower price.
Thanks for the comments on 90’s Mayacamas cabs. I have some ‘98s in my cellar for my son’s birthyear - any experience with that year (although it sounds like it might be a bit young still…)?
Come on, Jay. The list of wines that are “just entering prime drinking” at age 30 is extremely short. You’re implying that Mayacamas is one of the most age-worthy wines in the world, more so than first growths and most (though perhaps not all) fine Nebbiolo. I guess that’s not impossible, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Monte Bello and Heitz Martha’s, among other CA cabs, often take 25-30 years to get to peak in good vintages and then last for decades longer. I don’t see why suggesting the same for Mayacamas is so extraordinary.
I don’t think that’s true. Plenty of bottles of 1991 Monte Bello are past their apex (though many are still at peak). I think you’re confusing how long a bottle will last - i.e., when its drinking plateau ENDS - with how long it takes to reach the BEGINNING of the drinking window. Very, very few wines are not in their drinking window by age 20, particularly CA cabs - speaking from personal experience, I think 1992 Monte Bello, which is about as lithe and high acid as it gets, is firmly within the drinking window, and 1993 Monte Bello (from a weak vintage) is already on the way down.
I’m not talking about either how long it will last or when its drinking window starts, I’m talking about how long it takes a wine to get to peak, i.e. when it stops improving with further age. A wine can be un-shutdown and drink well without being fully mature and with years of improvement still ahead of it. I’ve had the 85 Monte Bello and the 85 Dunn HM (which Jay smartly mentions) and the 86 and 91 Heitz Martha’s within the last couple of years and while they were all good to great and can be drunk now with pleasure none of them were what I would call mature or at peak yet. Obviously storage and bottle variation is a caveat, since all of these are secondary market purchases, but that should go without saying. I have not yet had the 1991 Monte Bello (although I have a bottle I want to open soon) but based on my other MB experiences I can’t imagine that good bottles are past peak. But if we need to get together and do an MB vertical to test this empirically, so be it.
My notes on the '94 Mayacamas are actually very similar. Maybe just an underwhelming vintage for them. Other years such as '92 and '93 may be better candidates to show what Mayacamas is about and why they really are long-distance runners.
Proposition - 95% of Classified Bordeaux and equivalent Napa Cab from good vintages have reached peak by age 30, and furthermore, any improvement past age 25 for all cabs is generally small (but real). Related proposition: if a cab isn’t showing as a great wine by age 20 (or a wine that will obviously be a great wine in the future), it’s not going to show as a great wine at age 30 (or 40, etc…). Put differently, if you have to ask at age 20, then the answer is no.
I’ll concede that Dunn is an clear exception to the above.
How so? I thought that was the typical aging curve of these things - (1) tannin softens and the wine appears more fruity - wine is on plateau of maturity; then (2) fruit fades, acid becomes obtrusive, wine is past peak. I think think this is on the plateau of maturity, but isn;t that far from falling off the acid edge as the fruit fades because it’s such a live-wire wine, with the very high acid.
Tampa is sui generis, which is why we all fly down there. (Though, FWIW, I found the 1920 and 1923 examples in Tampa to be well-preserved, but not enhanced by their extreme age.) Sure, if you age the things in a fridge, then the general rule I’m describing above doesn’t apply; I’m assuming a “normal” cellar.
It’s not a fridge, just a very good cellar, probably the same temperature as yours and mine. And since the wines there can’t have been acquired before the '60s, the older stuff spent decades in another cellar anyway. But if their wines are too well-preserved for you, forget that place and just focus on your own favored source for old wine. If you’d rather drink '80s Bordeaux than a '61 or '59, you have a very different palate from mine.
IIRC, their cellar is kept at approx. 47-50 degrees, which is significantly cooler than most cellars, no? Most professional storage is in the 55-57 range.
![[wink.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/04707e6a7bbb03e0153e349d8a9270d30e1e9525.gif "wink"){kind=small}