Advertisement

Time to Re-Try Favorite Vintages, for a Sip in Time Can Be Misleading

Share
Times Wine Writer

Assessing the quality of a vintage of wine is a bit like buying a new electric blanket.

The first night, you try the setting at 5. Sometime later, you’re toes are still cold, so you turn it to 8, and when you begin to sweat, down it goes to 6, and only later do you discover that somewhere between 7 and 8 is about right.

Wine lovers always try to evaluate a vintage as soon as the wines are released. This is tricky business at best, since time is needed to permit us to see the wine develop in the bottle, to give us a clue as to how the wine is developing. Early aromas and tastes are only a vague clue.

(In fact, some wine writers and merchants relish the thought of declaring their view on the quality of a vintage after trying the wines while they are still in the barrel, when the wines are just six to nine months off the vine. This can be hazardous. Even the best wine makers have been fooled by wines they feel are great, only later to discover that the early assessment may have been inaccurate. And wine makers make their estimates based on long-term exposure to vineyards they know intimately.)

Advertisement

I have been fooled more than once. The 1974 Cabernet Sauvignons were a grand case in point. Initially we all thought they were wonderful wines, and by 1978, when the wines were four years old, most of us were gurgling about them. By then, too, we were pooh-poohing the rather thin and slightly too herbal (for our tastes) 1975 Cabernets that had then come to market. Not ripe enough, we said.

Re-Trying the Classics

By 1982, however, I was convinced: 1974 may have started out with great potential, but the wines, by and large, haven’t held up. The flavors that were so appealing when youthful have now faded in many of the 1974s, and what we now see are wines that are slightly washed out, not in any way classic.

But the downgraded 1975s? I recently tried a few and found all to be magnificent examples of wine making. I have recently re-evaluated the 1974s and 1975s as vintages, rating the ‘74s a 7 on a scale of 1 to 10 and the 1975s as an 8.

How can experts and wine makers all be so myopic? Simple. They don’t re-evaluate vintages often enough. They don’t go back and re-try some of the classic wines a few years later to determine if our initial judgments had been right.

As examples, let’s look at a few of the “great” vintages for California Cabernets of the recent past. The 1978s, 1980s and 1982s all were highly regarded when released, and I thought the ‘78s in particular were going to be grand wines. Alas, all three vintages have recently shown themselves to be rather oafish--big, fat, overripe, somewhat clumsy wines with huge fruit, but also some late-harvest characteristics that I would hardly call classic.

Are they bad wines? No. Most are quite drinkable, but I’m not aging them any further. With a few exceptions, I have pulled the 1978s to the front of my cellar and I’m beginning to drink them. Ahead of the initially downgraded 1977s, I might add, which appear to be aging better.

Advertisement

Many of the ‘78s are particularly enjoyable with hearty cheeses after a lighter meal, almost like serving them as a substitute for port.

As for the downgraded 1979s and 1981s, they appear to be doing far better than the experts said they would do.

As I thought about writing this article, I realized that my opinions about the vintages of the past would be incomplete without reference to one still somewhat available on store shelves and especially on restaurant wine lists, the 1983s. But I also realized that the last time I had tasted a wide range of 1983 Cabernets was a year ago, when I judged more than 200 of them at the San Francisco Fair and Exposition. At that time, I was disappointed with most of the wines.

Helped by Taste Panel

Dipping into my cellar for the few 1983s I had bought, I began re-evaluating these wines now that they were 4 1/2 years old. The experience was enlightening and disappointing. Included on a tasting panel of these wines were a number of respected wine makers, who offered their opinions, too.

Dennis Hill of De Lormier, who then was at Alexander Valley Vineyards, recalled the harvest of 1983: “We got rain early, and the reds were not the best.”

Max Gasiewicz of Fisher Vineyards said, “It was my least favorite of the last five vintages. We got rains and more rains, and the wines turned out OK, but I still didn’t think much of it, overall.”

Advertisement

Charlie Tolbert of Haywood said the wines had an unbalanced, slightly overripe tone. Kerry Damskey of Gauer Estate said, “A lot of the wines I tried just didn’t have any finesse.”

“I had a real hard time finding any wine that would be worth a medal,” said Rod Berglund of Joseph Swan. “So many of the wines were simple and very hard.”

Not all wineries experienced problems with the vintage, of course. Mike Lee, wine maker for Kenwood Vineyards, said the grapes came in “well above average in quality, and we still talk highly on our wines.”

The tasting was not done blind, because I wanted all tasters to expect a house style and be able to discuss it in relation to past vintages from that property.

The best wine on the table, by acclamation, was the 1983 Kenwood Jack London Ranch, which is still available in some stores at $14. The wine’s fairly dense fruit with a hint of dill and very ripe flavors are accented by French oak and an anise aftertaste. A nice effort, and one of Lee’s favorites.

Also showing extremely well were the 1983 Raymond ($12) and 1983 Mondavi ($12), though both were lighter and leaner than many of the other wines on the table. The Raymond had ample fruit and a lovely fruity aftertaste. The Mondavi was fragrant and tasted velvety despite a slightly hard finish.

Advertisement

All Fairly Enjoyable

But hardness marked many of the other eight wines evaluated. None of the wines judged would be rated as poor; all were fairly enjoyable, but some sample comments that all agreed on:

--Clos du Val: Lovely effort with earthy, spicy, sweet, rich flavors, but still hard.

--Rutherford Hill: Fairly ripe and fruity, but with a hard edge.

--Belvedere, York Creek: Rich flavors of anise, pepper and spice, but very hard and astringent.

--Burgess: Rich and spicy aroma, but with a hint of raisins, and fairly astringent. “Not enough fruit to support the tannins,” said one taster.

--Clos du Bois Briarcrest: Red currents and citrus, a lighter wine that some felt tasted more like Pinot Noir, lacking in acidity to age it much longer.

--Grgich: Very concentrated cherry-like fruit, but overripe and rock hard.

--Gundlach-Bundschu Batto Ranch: Spice, mint and relatively elegant fruit flavors, but hard, tannic finish.

--Sturmer: Dill and mint, with a slight cucumber hint, and a load of tannin.

Later, I evaluated six more 1983 Cabernets and found all to be somewhat disappointing in terms of suppleness. All our tasters agreed that the wines may not age particularly gracefully, though they would hold onto the Kenwood, Clos du Val, Rutherford Hill, and Gundlach-Bundschu to see if further development will soften them.

Advertisement

On a scale of 1 to 10, however, we all agreed that, at this stage, the 1983 vintage of Cabernets rates no better than a 6, and about equal in overall quality to 1980 and 1982. Tasters agreed, too, that 1981 was widely overlooked as a fine vintage (rating probably an 8 or 9), and that 1984 may prove to be a great vintage, as high as 10, with great hopes pinned on both 1985 and 1986, though all agreed it’s still too early to make a statement about the latter two vintages.

Wine of the Week: 1984 Pio Cesare Barbera d’Alba ($9)--Italian wine lovers know of Pio Cesare’s great reputation for Barolo, which sells readily. Cesare’s Barbera will be overlooked by many because Barbera has no neon lights around it. It’s supposed to be the workhorse red that goes with stew, period. This wine challenges the notion that Barbera can’t be elegant. Its cherry perfume is accented by the typical tar and violets, and its relatively delicate construction makes it perfect for today’s lighter pasta dishes. And since it is Barbera and not Barolo, expect to see it discounted.

Advertisement