Haven’t had it before. I drink pretty wide, but I use to love Napa cabs, though I am finding it much harder to land the ones I like these days. This one seemed like a good deal. The wine searcher price was $100 for the 2015 and I got 4 2016 at $65, so I figured why not try it. I don’t have any regrets. I plan not to open the other 3 until 2030 or later, hopefully the complexity grows and improves the wine.
I do also find it valuable to drink wines that are not to our preference even when you know they are not, but in this case I did not know that.
Those first 2 are things that I would say match what I felt for the Maze and what I tend to think of for failures in more expensive wines. Over-oaked is what was alluded to in the other thread as well. I actually don’t mind the raisins in Amarone or Port, but usually find it off putting elsewhere and even occasionally in Amarone. The link for the thread that contained the previous and brief discussion is below.
This is an interesting thread. Critic’s preferences versus your own; you don’t agree and begin to distrust your own palate.
Your palate is fine, don’t worry. But I do have a suggestion. Rather than a scattergun approach, narrow the tasting. Try six Bordeaux blends ranging from the austere to the most exuberant fruit bombs and see where your palate really lies. I am sure the people on these boards can help make a selection, and you will get closer to finding what you like
Well this was more about how at some higher price points, you become more likely to get a complete dud, than you are at lower price points. Perhaps I shouldn’t have mentioned the scores, but they seem related to me when I think of the history of Brunello and the region trying to emulate Bordeaux at some point and still today from some few producers, rather than let their wine be itself.
I like your idea on trying 6 Borbeaux blends though. Somify is a game where you try to identify the varietal and origin of the wine, with dice rolling and guidance from the game. Since neither my wife nor my cousins were really experienced with wine tasting I tried to keep it fairly simple with wines that were almost purely 100% a specific varietal and across 5 regions. It is an interesting game for people who are not big wine drinkers I think, but I would rather remove the game board and just taste 6 Bordeaux blind as you said and go over the differences before and after seeing what the wines are.
I agree w you on the raisins- I appreciate Amarone’s raisiny notes as well but primarily because that’s the way it’s supposed to taste based on the process.
Years ago a friend couldn’t stop raving about a Von Strasser Cab from the late 90’s. We had it together; he raved, I got raisins. I tried some Rombauer cabs from the same period and found them similarly raisiny. I passed them along to my Von Strasser friend & he loved them. Different strokes…. Just not what I love in a Cabernet wine.
For me, an expensive wine that fails generally is made in what for me is too modern a style. Too much fruit and alcohol, too much new oak, no elegance, no complexity. Can be wines from the new world like Cardinale, from Bordeaux like Troplong Mondot, from Spain (many Toros, for example) or from probably any other place in the world.
I do not agree that more expensive wines tend to perform worse than less expensive wines. You may be drinking the more expensive wines too young. Many more expensive wines need time to develop that nuance and complexity that I love in wine.
I agree as well on your notes to what makes them fail. I think of it as the lack of nuance, because certain things are thrown in your face so much that they divert attention away from many of the characteristics of the grapes.
With the more expensive wines, I don’t think the point is that they perform worse in general, but that the likelihood of finding an overoaked, wine of minimal complexity seems higher at $100 than say at $35. In the other thread I argued that this was also somewhat region dependent. For example, I don’t think you are increasing your chances in finding a massive flop as you go up in price in Brunello, but you do in Napa. IMO at least.
I don’t follow Brunello that much, but you certainly massively increase your odds of a massive flop if you get a Super Tuscan wine. Are there Super Tuscans that are not messes?
As with most things, its all in the eye of the beholder. I think there are plenty of Napa Cabernets and Super Tuscans that are balanced and very well made.
There are definitely such things as Super Tuscans that aren’t messes. In fact, a few Super Tuscans are among my favorite Tuscan wines, though many of them are 100% Sangiovese: Cepparello, Flaccianello, Montevertine’s “Montevertine” & “Le Pergole Torte”, and Castellare I Sodi di San Niccolo. However, there are also very elegant and delicious Super Tuscans made from international grape varieties: Tignanello, Solaia, Massetto, Sassicaia, and Caiarossa come to mind. There are many who simply don’t like the style of ANY of these wines (i.e. because they are not rooted in the tradition of Italian wine, because they tend to use more new oak (due to the varietals involved) and also to be richer, rounder, lower-acid wines as compared to the traditional Italian grapes).
However, the main problem is that for every Tignanello (which I’m using as the poster-child for an elegant wine based on Bordeaux varietals), there are twenty self-styled IGT wines from Tuscany, Bolgheri, and Maremma. that taste largely indistinguishable from a Napa Cab or Napa red blend…So anyone who is already of the opinion that Napa Cabs are “messes”, they will find the same of most of these wines.
I personally find plenty of Napa Cabs that aren’t necessarily “messes”, but that I simply don’t enjoy. For my preference, they focus far too much on “impact” (strength of fruit and overall intensity of flavor) and mouthfeel (creamy, luscious, slightly viscous) at the expense of nuance, charm, and drinkability (beyond that first glass). But as with the Super Tuscans, there are also many that ARE messes–hot finish, bitter/burnt flavors of excessively charred oak barrels, volatile acidity, etc.
I dont know if you’re necessarily more likely to get a dud at a higher price point, but I do think your expectations change when you cross X threshold for a wine (which varies drastically from person to person).
for me: if I find a $20 wine thats not terrible, I am really happy about that. I feel like it is doing great for a $20 wine, its only a dud if its completely undrinkable. now, if its $100 wine thats “not terrible” then we’re in a different ball game here. I’d call that wine a dud, even if blind and side by side I’d say theyre the same dud-vs-non-dud-level. when I pay for a $100 wine, it feels like a dud if its not significantly better than just drinkable.
Aiming for the “more of everything” style, but lacking the fruit and/or knowhow to pull it off. This usually results in hot, pruney, oaky, and/or over-extracted wines.
Tough vintage outside of “window” producer can succeed in. If a vintage is too cool and wet, or too hot and dry, even the best producers will have some struggle. Hopefully they will declassify their top cuvees into mid-tier wines, but even then they probably won’t achieve potential of stronger vintages.
I agree with this take. Just because you didn’t like it doesn’t mean it “failed”. It wasn’t flawed. It just wasn’t your style. It’s a little unfair of you to deem it a “failure”.
I partially agree with this, because as you say we all have preferences. There are times however when a producer simply has an off period and doesn’t live up to their reputation. Many Bordeaux chateaux and Burgundy domaines were not at their best in the 80s and 90s, and this led to some disappointments which at the time were expensive.
Sometimes, it’s a wine that’s obviously too ripe/oaky/hot/alcoholic. I’ve been let down in this way from certain Bordeaux, southern Rhone, Napa, Tuscany, and even some Savennieres.
Other times, it’s a wine that costs a fair bit of money but just seems average. I’ve run into this in Burgundy, and also occasionally in Bordeaux.
Still other times, it’s an older wine that should be good but unfortunately isn’t.
Actually I intentionally selected them because they were varietals from within the game Somify and they were all 100% or close to 100% a single but different varietal. I also intentionally varied the regions. The idea was to get the others to learn a bit about the differences of each varietal and region. Figured that would make the game more fun. The ones I had tried prior I felt were fairly good representations of the varietal and region for the price point. The 2 I hadn’t tried prior were the Penfolds and the Maze.
A lovely example of the uselessness of raw points. Whilst the WA made their position in the world by stridently telling people their points were all you needed to get great wine, a large number of people here have realised the folly of believing such hype.
Sounds like your palate preferences don’t align well to theirs, making their points scores worse than useless.
For me, it is often the pricey, important wines that fall way short of expectations usually that some friend brings out to much fanfare only to have it be absolutely ordinary or even bad.