Wine

Wine  

Posted on Wed, Mar. 05, 2008

tool name

close
tool goes here

The Grapevine: What a difference a year can make with Napa Valley cabernets

By Laurie Daniel

SIPSANDTIPS

A LITTLE BIT OF WINE-RELATED TRIVIA FOR YOUR NEXT COCKTAIL PARTY

Wine crush stumpers

The countinghouse has finished adding up California’s 2007 harvest. It was, as usual, pretty good: A little more than 2006, more premium wine grapes, too. But some figures surprise and remind us most wine here and abroad is sturdy daily fare.

What’s the next largest crop of white grapes after chardonnay?

Not sauvignon blanc; it was third. California’s second white grape is . . . French colombard: More than 300,000 tons, almost three times the amount of sauv blanc, have been the anonymous base of many everyday whites, but the grape is getting new respect in a few California vineyards and more in Texas and its old home in the south of France.

The top red grapes in order are cabernet sauvignon, zinfandel, merlot and ...?

Rubired, which grows heavily in the Central Valley and puts big red and dark color into many jug blends and fortified wines, is a hybrid invented in California from 50 years ago. Syrah is coming up fast on the outside and should be fourth soon.

— St. Petersburg Times

T heSanta Lucia Highlands appellation in Monterey County is best known for pinot noir and chardonnay, two cool-climate grapes. But the founding of the appellation actually was tied to heat-loving cabernet sauvignon.

Ask a wine lover what region in California produces the best cabernet sauvignon, and the likely answer will be “Napa Valley.” Napa has built its reputation as one of the world’s top wine regions largely on the quality of its cabernet. That image has allowed Napa’s vintners to charge top dollar, too: $100 cabs aren’t at all unusual, and one winery is now charging $750 a bottle for its hard-to- get wine.

I recently sampled roughly 130 Napa cabs and cabernet-based blends over two days during a big trade event in the valley. There were some excellent wines that showed why the area has gained its stellar reputation; I’ll get to those bright spots later on.

The Napa Valley mystique

But I was left wondering: Have many of the valley’s cab producers lost their way? Their wines have become so big, so exaggerated, so heavy that drinking them (I was spitting, by the way) would be almost a chore.

Part of the problem may have been vintages. Most of the wines were from 2004 and 2005; a few were from 2003. Some of the 2003s already tasted a little tired. The 2004 vintage was marked by a hot September, and some of the wines are so concentrated, ripe and tannic that they practically assault the palate. In general, the 2005 wines — from a growing season with more moderate conditions—showed more grace and elegance, although they were still young and, in some cases, showing a lot of oak.

But wines with real personality and distinction, from any vintage, were few and far between. It’s as if most of the wines were made according to a recipe.

Vintners tend to talk a lot about “terroir,” a French term that connotes the idea that wines are a reflection of the place where the grapes are grown. To that end, the Napa Valley has even been carved into 14 smaller appellations, with a couple more pending. In theory, you should be able to distinguish a Spring Mountain cabernet, for example, from a cabernet made from grapes grown in the Stags Leap district.

Little differences lost

I attended tastings staged by four of the smaller Napa appellations, and it was hard to find much difference from one to the next. Trouble is, extreme ripeness tends to wipe out any differences that might have existed. At some point, all super-ripe cabernet sauvignon (or any other grape variety) tastes pretty much the same. Slather on plenty of new oak, and you further obscure any distinctiveness that might have existed.

Generic wine that’s made to some sort of flavor profile might be acceptable when the wine costs $8 or $10 a bottle, but nearly all Napa cabernet costs considerably more.

Some cabernets to note

Lest you think that I’m condemning all Napa wines and wineries, let me add here that I did taste some cabernets with elegance, personality and distinctiveness. Some carried moderate prices; some were very expensive. Here were some of my favorites.

Some of the most well-balanced cabs I tasted were from the valley’s more venerable wineries. Consider Charles Krug Winery, owned by the Peter Mondavi family. The 2005 Charles Krug Yountville Cabernet Sauvignon ($27) is ripe but not overripe, with flavors of black cherry and mocha, supported by manageable tannins. By Napa standards, it’s also modestly priced. The more expensive 2004 Vintage Selection Cabernet Sauvignon ($69) is more concentrated but still very well balanced, with a long finish.

The 2004 Cosentino Winery “The Poet” Meritage ($65) is quite aromatic, with concentrated black cherry and spice and a long finish. Cosentino’s 2004 Cabernet Sauvignon ($45) is also very good. The 2004 Clos Du Val Stags Leap District Cabernet Sauvignon ($70) is big yet graceful, with black cherry fruit and fine, ripe tannins.

Cathy Corison makes some lovely cabernet. Her 2004 Corison Napa Valley Cabernet Sauvignon ($70) offers ripe black cherry flavors and some nice refinement, while her reserve bottling, the 2003 Corison Kronos Vineyard Cabernet Sauvignon ($98) is an elegant though concentrated wine accented by cedar and spice.

Other noteworthy cabs included the bright, lively 2005 Clark Claudon “3 Stones” Cabernet Sauvignon ($48); the juicy, refined 2005 Regusci Cabernet Sauvignon ($48); and the concentrated, structured 2005 Barnett Cabernet Sauvignon ($65).