For me it’s high alcohol, extracted wines with immediate appeal that may not hold up as well with long-term cellaring. Often so rich that I don’t feel like drinking more than a glass.
What do you want? There are old school producers who haven’t changed much over the decades (some examples have been posted), there are new producers re-examining the best practices of the past (which Paul Draper makes a non-specific reference to, if you watched my vid-link), and there are established wineries doing the same. I gave an example. So? You’re accusing me of both being vague and shilling for that? Seems contradictory. The point is they’re far from the only ones. Wouldn’t elaborating more on one example seem even more like BS marketing?
This is more of a question than anything, but someone mentioned the replanting with different clones.
Does anyone know how diverse clones were back in the 1970s and 1980s? Rootstock and scion? Seems like that is an era that has ended where today we’re more interested in monovarietal, monoclonal vineyards, and as much as anything else, that’s had to have an effect on what shows up in the market.
Not broadly, but a sort of second wave (first big one was the 1880s wine boom where a lot of Cab was planted in the Saratoga and Cupertino hills) here came from Emmet Rixford’s La Quest Vineyard, which was planted with cuttings from Chateau Margaux (in the same varietal proportion). Martin Ray got his cuttings from there for his Mount Eden Vineyard, as have others, and others got cuttings from Martin Ray/Mount Eden (incl. Kathryn Kennedy and Cooper Garrod). Current Mount Eden and Ridge have quite a selection of clones.
I think broadly - what I hear from more progressive growers, at least - is the monoclonal thing was a mindset of the past, and is fading away when vineyards are replanted.