14th Annual Varietal Seminar,
“All Hail the King - Cabernet Sauvignon”

[Page 1 of 4]

Silverado Country Club, Napa, Saturday, August 7, 2004

Sixty association members and members of the press spent a full day at Silverado Country Club hailing Cabernet on the first Saturday of August. John Skupny again served as moderator for the seminar, during which numerous aspects of the varietal under scrutiny were revealed, questioned and discussed by various panelists. A show of hands among participants as to the wines preferred added a further dimension to the proceedings.

The first panel, “Mastering the Myths”, consisted of the Masters of Wine Peter Marks of Copia, Joel Butler of Beaulieu Vineyard and Mark deVere of Robert Mondavi Winery. Peter Marks was glad to lead off because, he said, ‘one’s palate is believed to be freshest in the morning’. The myth Peter sought to master was Hillside vs. Valley, that hillside locus is always superior to Valley floor. Hillside, according to the myth, has better drainage and demands more struggle of its vines which creates more stress for vines as they grow, a surefire promoter of richer, deeper flavors. Hillside vineyards do, in truth, have cooler temperatures typically and less sunlight, free movement of air, and tend to produce berries with thinner skins than on the Valley floor.

To test the myth Peter had us taste Cabernet Sauvignon wines all from the same producer. He paired flat with hill and new with old and asked us to determine which were which. More participants preferred the wines made from fruit from the flat rather than hillside vineyard, and most preferred younger to older Cabernet. The wines Peter poured were all f rom Beaulieu Vi n e ya rd: 1990 Home Vi n e ya rd , 1990 Bancroft, 2000 Home Vi n e ya rd and 2000 Bancro f t . BV Home Vineyard is on the Valley floor in Rutherford and Bancroft high on Howell Mountain in Angwin.

Where did the Hillside myth come from? From wine critics? Peter has observed that such preferences narrow with age. Initially, Bancroft with its particular slope and elevation, produces wines of a darker color, a deeper hue, and more intense flavor.

Joel Butler compared sites in Tuscany and Coonawarra to the Napa Valley. He noted our bench lands are on alluvial fans, so that BV’s Home Vineyard does, in fact, have hillside elements. In the 1960’s (and after Prohibition) hillsides were planted with the notion that aging equaled taming, that rough terrain meant naturally rich wines because more stress made more tannins that you then dealt with in aging.

Mark de deVere underscored preferences. Dispelling myths is OK, but keep in mind one third of the room at the seminar liked hillside wines. Some people have less or more tolerance for tannin, for bitterness and flavor structure. It’s a question of style. Flatter vineyards give wines which are velvety, supple. Mark declared the origin of the hillside myth to be Europe, where great sites are in the hills. Europe as a whole is cooler, with summer rains, good drainage. New Zealand has no summer rain. Burgundy gets half its rain in the summer. In Alsace, exposure is better in the hills which face south--nearly opposite the Napa Valley: a question of solar interception. Mark thought it wasn’t really a question so much of transposing the paradigm, but rather what makes great wine.

Peter was asked to define tannin, which he said gives a drying sensation in the mouth--a green banana, over-brewed tea taste sensed in the back of the mouth (acid causes salivation). As to preferences, since we can discern differences Hillside isn’t a myth, it is a reality. Mark agreed there were differences but not that Hillside was better, as the wine arena would have us believe.

In the second session, Joel Butler tackled the Filtration Myth, that unfiltered wines are more desirable. Double fining and double filtration have been standard procedure at wineries, including BV. Now a lot more have eschewed that idea. There are much more gentle filters than those in use prior to 1980 and in Bordeaux today. Greater stability in wines has come through removal of particulates-sugars, yeasts. Cabernet is stable (has a longer shelf-life) when it is fermented in wood, with malolactic, to all dry. So Cab in particular probably doesn’t need filtration, especially ones with higher alcohol levels. Then, there are issues of clarity. If you filter carelessly you can remove flavor and aroma both now and down the line. Joel poured two Robert Mondavi Winery Cabernets, 2001 Napa Valley and 2002 Napa Valley. The 2001 was unfiltered, 2002 filtered. Basically participants were evenly divided as to preference. The wines were definitely a pair, the 2001 smoother, the 2002 rougher, clearer. Since filtration is now so much gentler it can be used to preserve quality. Joel poured a third Robert Mondavi Winery Cabernet. Most thought it filtered and guessed it to be an older wine--’88, ‘90, ’44? It was the 1976, filtered. Filtration can be mandatory with a certain scale of production.

Joel was asked to define filtering and fining. He called them two different methods to process wines. In filtration wine is pushed through a filter, as in making coffee. This removes cloudiness. Fining adds an aid which soaks and sinks through, taking out the undesirable bits you cannot filter, e.g. egg white for Cabs, which takes out excess tannins.

Mark deVere applied himself to the Vintage Myth, that older is better. Mark feels strongly it is inappropriate to take a European paradigm and impose it on California growing conditions. Europe has much more variable seasons. Burgundy has four vintages every decade which are beautiful, four which are made with great difficulty and a couple in between. California has a longer growing season with more stable weather. The general quality of California is more consistently high. Are its vintages all the same? No. There is consistency in quality, but growing conditions differ, with different patterns of weather imparting the flavor. It’s a matter of tannins, color.

Every vintage is different. The 1997 had rich ripe fruit, strong tannins. The 1998 and others were more elegant. In a recent vertical tasting of 90’s wines the 1998 stood out with a silky, long finish (not its magazine rating at the time, however). Mark poured three wines from different vintages from the same winery, with the same winemaker, saying the wines had different personalities, and to pay attention to rich fresh black fruit, finesse, and flow through the mouth. He poured Beaulieu Vineyards Cabernet Sauvignon 1993, 1997 and 1998 Reserve Georges de laTour. Most preferred the 1997. The 1993 had maturity, integration, balance, the 1997 depth of fruit, taste and nose. 1998 was smooth, soft, easy to drink. Mark declared vintage quality to be one of personal preference. 1997 was a warm, early harvest (maybe like that of 2004?) which produced a generous type wine. Critics were harsh about the 1993 and 1998 then, yet 1993 is now harmonious, delicious. Peter counseled, ‘Don’t be afraid to question authority, the wine writers. Trust your own palate!’