The place for all things wine, focused on serious wine discussions.

2004 Napa Cabernet

Moderators: Jenise, Robin Garr, David M. Bueker

no avatar
User

Mike B

Rank

Just got here

Posts

2

Joined

Tue Dec 22, 2009 11:26 pm

2004 Napa Cabernet

by Mike B » Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:02 am

I made the mistake of collecting a number of 2004 Napa Valley Cabernet Sauvignon and I must say I'm almost universally disappointed in them. I consider it to be mostly money in the toilet. Among the worst were the Rudd cabs followed by Dyer Vineyard. Some are sort of drinkable, but for the most part they have shown themselves to be heavy, graceless and lacking any subtlety at all. The only saving grace has been the Martin Estate Reserve.

I find the Napa cabernets to be generally heavy anyway, but the 2004s are still often raw ans unpleasant. I don't anticipate good results in the years to come. Has anyone else found this to be the case?

As an aside, am I the only one who thinks Napa Valley reds tend to be heavy as though everyone is trying to make St. Estephe wines? It's gotten so be that I don't even buy Napa reds anymore. I'm going back to France! (Except for Martin Estate)
no avatar
User

JC (NC)

Rank

Lifelong Learner

Posts

6679

Joined

Mon Mar 27, 2006 12:23 pm

Location

Fayetteville, NC

Re: 2004 Napa Cabernet

by JC (NC) » Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:14 am

I understand 2004 was rated as a better than average vintage. I don't drink many Cabernets so can't comment from personal experience, but I do feel many Napa Cabs don't show to advantage until at least ten years after harvest. Whether those 2004's will be better in four years I don't know but I would set some aside to see. The tannins seem to soften about the ten-year mark for most producers (not necessarily Dunn's Howell Mountain Cabs.)
no avatar
User

Brian K Miller

Rank

Passionate Arboisphile

Posts

9340

Joined

Fri Aug 25, 2006 1:05 am

Location

Northern California

Re: 2004 Napa Cabernet

by Brian K Miller » Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:58 am

The 2004 wines do tend to be richer and heavier and more alcoholic due to the hot year (hence the higher "ratings"). However, there are 2004 wines that do show some balance, with good acid and even elegance. Try Clos Du Val or Freemark Abbey.

I've only tried a Rudd wine once (a 2003) and it did not thrill me (especially for the price) so this may be the fault of the winemaker, not the vintage or "Napa" per se. :?
...(Humans) are unique in our capacity to construct realities at utter odds with reality. Dogs dream and dolphins imagine, but only humans are deluded. –Jacob Bacharach
no avatar
User

Michael K

Rank

Wine guru

Posts

570

Joined

Fri Dec 15, 2006 7:13 pm

Location

Wellesley, MA, USA

Re: 2004 Napa Cabernet

by Michael K » Mon Aug 16, 2010 1:11 pm

[quote="Brian K Miller"]The 2004 wines do tend to be richer and heavier and more alcoholic due to the hot year (hence the higher "ratings"). However, there are 2004 wines that do show some balance, with good acid and even elegance. Try Clos Du Val or Freemark Abbey.
quote]

I agree with Brian on the CdV and Freemark Abbey. I would also suggest Heitz (Martha's Vineyard) as one that might suit you. Overture (the winery only second wine of Opus one) from the 04 vintage (supposedly), was also very very good.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AhrefsBot, ByteSpider, ClaudeBot, DotBot, FB-extagent, PetalBot and 0 guests

Powered by phpBB ® | phpBB3 Style by KomiDesign