The other night, we drank one of the older bottles in my cellar. It was a magnum of Mayacamas 1972 cabernet sauvignon. If you consult your vintage charts, you will see that 1972 is an off vintage for California cabs. It will be listed as too old to drink as well. That's the problem of vintage charts and of wine writters in general. They take a snapshot of a vintage and rush to proclaim it to all. Hence all the talk about the 2003 vintage.
But based on the vintage charts, I should not have had that bottle in my cellar. But I had tasted the wine when you and knew it to be typical of Mayacamas. The wine was big and rich, yet also tannic and built to last. So into the cellar it went. The result is that I got to taste a wine that was fairly mature. I cannot honestly say that I have ever tasted any other vintage of Mayacamas that was so mature and I have tasted every vintage they made since 1966 thru today with maybe 5 exceptions. It is not the best Mayacamas ever. I still prefer drinking the 1975 more because it is so intense and the 74 for its power, but both of these wines are still too young to really be drinking. I wish I had a bottle or two more of the 1972 to tide me over till I ahve another vintage of Mayacamas ready to drink (I must admit the magnum of 1969 is tempthing... another vintage put down by the press)
This is why I find "wine tasting" so intimidating. It's the jargon. I'm just beginning to identify scents and tastes (though I use my own termonology for example - smells like Vivianos on the Hill, or dried porcinis, and one was so bad, it smelled like Chris's gym socks after he's worked out - yuck).
But someday Dean I want to sit down with you and taste wines. Then you can explain what big and rich means w/ tannic and built to last. And I can taste at the same time and go - ah!
Then you can say, "Taste this; it's intense." And then I'll understand what intense means.
That's what I need now - you can't get that experience from reading or even tasting on your own. Well...you can get it from tasting on your own, but like my scents, it's all my own point of reference.
quote:Originally posted by Kim: This is why I find "wine tasting" so intimidating. It's the jargon. I'm just beginning to identify scents and tastes (though I use my own termonology for example - smells like Vivianos on the Hill, or dried porcinis, and one was so bad, it smelled like Chris's gym socks after he's worked out - yuck)
Ahh in Burgundy they pay heavily to have wines smell like dirty gym socks....
Yes it is a lot of jargon. That's how parker and his ilk make their millions. The point of wine tasting is not to capture the jargon but to find out what you love. The problem is that todays wine professionals seem incapable of having their own opinion and just spout Parker scores or Wine Spectator scores.
My opinions are no more valid (or less) than Parker. Where I differ is that I do not believe in an absolute style or score for a wine. In enjoy discovering the wide range of styles out there.
I feel I realize the limitations of the science of taste in a way that the wine writters have to ignore (because it actually invalidates their methods).
Lets hit a good wine bar on September 20, maybe 'ino in the Village and knock back a few glasses!
Dean - wine bar definitely sounds like a plan! See I know what I like and that's what I drink. I guess the problem arises if I want to tell someone else why I like it or why they might like it...I don't speak their language...okay while everyone knows what dirty gym socks smell like not everyone knows what Vivianos smells like (well, except maybe Livinwell)
In a former life, I worked at Robert Mondavi Winery. The enologists would fume about having to "combat vintage chart mentality", but would still have to produce something to sate the PR folks.
Posts: 794 | Location: Birch Bay, WA | Registered: 02 December 2002
Topic Closed
