WTN: Wines from the road

2006 Ravelli, Soave Colli Scaligeri:
Fresh, bright, almost salty minerality and enough body to stand with a pasta dish that included olives. Very clean and of its place. 12.5% alcohol, under screw cap, imported by Opici Wine Co. and about $12; I’d buy it again.

2005 Paul Pernot, Bourgogne:
Lightweight, crisp, but well flavored Burgundy that goes well with both seafood and smoked duck – and that’s pretty good range, IMO. 12.5% alcohol, imported by Louis/Dressner; I’d buy it again.

2004 A. & M. Tissot, Arbois (Poulsard) sans soufre:
More herbaceous than the last bottle but so lively and fresh; ripe red fruit and a really nice wine with some goat cheese and crackers.

I tasted some older CA cabernets with friends this week. Each showed substantial bottle bouquet, secondary development of flavors and pretty fair balance. But none showed any real complexity or depth and were, ultimately, boring.

1985 Dominus:
The worst of the three, this may have been a compromised bottle; tinny, rustic tannins and a bit thin.

1983 Diamond Creek, Volcanic Hill:
Sound wine but relatively simple and still not fully resolved. Better with food but forgettable.

1985 Dunn, Napa Valley:
The best of the three with more sweetness and a round feeling in the mouth. Pretty much resolved and texturally pleasant.

None of these was really interesting and we may have gotten to them too early as I have had some ‘70’s CA cabs. in the past year that have made these seem closed and too firm.

Best, Jim

[David M. Bueker]

Due to the kindness of those who came to the hobby before I did, I have had the opportunity to taste countless '70s and '80s Cal Cabs & inevitably prefer the wines of the '70s.

I tasted some older CA cabernets with friends this week. Each showed substantial bottle bouquet, secondary development of flavors and pretty fair balance. But none showed any real complexity or depth and were, ultimately, boring.

Jim, could you expand a bit on this last statement? What exactly are you looking for in this stylistic category (CalCab, which I presume may also encompass that winemaking region along the Gironde whose name I can't recall) that would have given these wines complexity? Depth I feel that I understand, though I am a bit surprised that the Dunn didn't strike you as having depth (I had it back in its [and my] infancy and it showed great promise). Wines of this sort that show bottle bouquet, secondary development and balance sound pretty complex to me, but given your later comments did you find that the tannins weren't resolved enough for the wines to be charming? '85 as a year was hailed at the time as yielding wines in a "European" model because of the relatively high acidity and leanness of the wines. Most observers agree, however, that the wines weren't terribly ageworthy and most of them started falling apart more than a few years ago. '83 was a fairly weak year, though the better wineries made decent wine that year.

Thanks for the interesting notes,
Mark Lipton

Thanks for the (as always) excellent notes.

I liked the Pernot, actually more than you did. Great for $14 Cote de Beaune. Until I see evidence the premature oxidation issues are truly solved, I'm not planning on buying much white Burg to age. But I can happily drink this (as a substitute for Puligny), the Matrot Bourgogne (as a Meursault sub), the Clair St Aubin Murgers-Dent-Chiens (instead of Chassagne), and assorted Chablis AC & 1er without feeling worried re committing infanticide, or of spending too much money.

What exactly are you looking for in this stylistic category (CalCab, which I presume may also encompass that winemaking region along the Gironde whose name I can't recall) that would have given these wines complexity?

Complexity equals layers equals nuance, etc.; thus when a wine, even with secondary flavor elements, presents a simple, one-dimensional flavor profile, I feel it lacks complexity. These wines were just that; simple and uninteresting because of it. No fruit, no earth, nothing but "age."

Depth I feel that I understand, though I am a bit surprised that the Dunn didn't strike you as having depth (I had it back in its [and my] infancy and it showed great promise).

That was then, . . .

Wines of this sort that show bottle bouquet, secondary development and balance sound pretty complex to me, but given your later comments did you find that the tannins weren't resolved enough for the wines to be charming?

Its not just a matter of tannin resolution but rather . . . well, let's try this:
If you smell and taste a wine that seems balanced and it shows bottle bouquet (borne of secondary development) and NOTHING else, would you still think it complex? No fruit, no earth tones, no wood influence, no other aromas or flavors at all - that's the impression these wines left. Like someone had aged the wine and then subtracted all those elements so you were left with the aged smell and flavor and nothing else. (Maybe not the best description and also, maybe a little exaggerated, but only to make the point.)

'85 as a year was hailed at the time as yielding wines in a "European" model because of the relatively high acidity and leanness of the wines. Most observers agree, however, that the wines weren't terribly ageworthy and most of them started falling apart more than a few years ago. '83 was a fairly weak year, though the better wineries made decent wine that year.

I think I agree with those who did not hail.

As I say, we may have gotten to these too early. Perhaps, this odd showing was the result of closed wines or insufficient secondary development. Maybe they're just not very good wines. I really don't know the reason for the poor showing but my notes reflect the impression they left on me. And as we both know, mileage varies.
Best, Jim

Complexity equals layers equals nuance, etc.; thus when a wine, even with secondary flavor elements, presents a simple, one-dimensional flavor profile, I feel it lacks complexity. These wines were just that; simple and uninteresting because of it. No fruit, no earth, nothing but "age."
[...]
If you smell and taste a wine that seems balanced and it shows bottle bouquet (borne of secondary development) and NOTHING else, would you still think it complex? No fruit, no earth tones, no wood influence, no other aromas or flavors at all - that's the impression these wines left. Like someone had aged the wine and then subtracted all those elements so you were left with the aged smell and flavor and nothing else. (Maybe not the best description and also, maybe a little exaggerated, but only to make the point.)

Thanks very much for expanding on your previous comments. I do get it now. I was asking, not out of any disagreement with your impression, but rather out of confusion. I can intellectually grasp the scenario you posit, but I don't think that I've ever encountered such a situation myself. A lack of fruit I could ascribe to either the wine being OTH or subtle heat damage, but the lack of other elements is a bit harder to grok. I do recall opening a '79 Caymus Estate Cab in '90 and finding that it just tasted old, but that wine had hardly been treated well: it had travelled from CA -> NYC and back again, all in trucks or trailers being hauled across a sunbaked landscape.

My most recent reference was a '90 Dunn Napa opened last year for a French winegeek friend who felt that it tasted like a good St. Julien. It was still fairly primary when opened but by the last glass had definitely taken on far more complexity. I'll have to investigate more now, Jim.

Mark Lipton

I can intellectually grasp the scenario you posit, but I don't think that I've ever encountered such a situation myself. A lack of fruit I could ascribe to either the wine being OTH or subtle heat damage, but the lack of other elements is a bit harder to grok.

Of course, I am talking about the impression the wine left with me so, while entirely reasonable, figuring out why it left that impression wasn't on my mind when I wrote the note. But your trying to makes me think these may have been mistreated at some point along the line - I have no way of knowing.
Still, they weren't much fun - and there you have it.
Best, Jim