I don’t have enough experience with '59 and '61 to have a view (I think I’ve had maybe 1 bottle from each!); but I much prefer Bordeaux from the 1980’s to those of the 1970’s, with a large sample size of both; I’ll allow that could be the vicissitudes of 1970’s Bordeaux, but I’m speaking even for producers who were well regarded in both decades (Lynch-Bages, Figeac, LLC, PLL).
That’s not an age issue, though, it’s a vintage quality issue. Not a whole lot of great Bordeaux made in the '70s. They can be pretty amazing when you do get one of the great ones. If there were another great vintage or two between '61 and '82 it might be easier for people to figure out what’s an optimum age for their palates, other things being equal.
FWIW been thru a six-pack of the 1991 Mayacamas the past 5 years and the wine is very good, and clearly parading its assets.
Fair enough; I concede that there’s really not enough data with Bordeaux to know if they keep going up after age 30 in the best vintages.
The oldest Mayacamas Cab I’ve tried was a 1996 from 375ml, and it seemed young still.
FWIW, Gilman posted recently that Mayacamas cabs from the 1970’s are still improving:
“In fact, there are several [1970’s Cali Cabs] that are not yet really ready- many of the top wines from the '75 vintage for instance- like Heitz Martha’s, Phelps. Mayacamas or Diamond Creek- are really still a tad too young for their primetime drinking and will continue to improve with further bottle age!.. Bob Travers always used to say that he loved the way that Chateau Latour aged so slowly, and consequently, he used this as his model for his cabernet at Mayacamas- because Latour was his favorite wine before he started making Mayacamas.”
The reason that Mayacamas and Heitz have such longevity (and are less pleasurable young) is that they are the among the few Napa cabs that do not undergo malolactic fermentation.