Bill says,

>
>Raymond California Chardonnay in the late 70s and early 80s was very
>popular. It was a California blend and they must have gotten it right,
>sorta like Kendall Jackson did a few years later. I see no reason in
>the world why it would age well since it was never meant to be much
>right from the start.
>


Your experience with Raymond is obviously somewhat more focused than mine, but
I have a few doubts about your recollections of early Raymond chardonnays.

In fairness, I think we need to ask, of which period are we speaking?

I live in a little neighborhood on the north side of Zinfandel Lane, (Raymond
Winery being on the south side of the road), and my wife and I often take our
summer evening walks by their vineyards.

I knew Walt Raymond many years ago, (though he probably wouldn't remember me
now), and over the years I have known some of their winemakers.

The Raymond brothers are honest guys, straight-shooters. True farmers can be
somewhat confused by success, and when success came for these brothers, they
chose to expand, beyond the natural limitations of super-premium quality
winemaking.

Raymond was a phenomenon in the early 1980s with their chardonnays. They were
honest wines, not the residual-sugar monsters coming at the time from
Kendall-Jackson.

The early Raymond wines should be very age-worthy.

Raymond chardonnay circa 1981 or so was well-structured and competent, with no
pretensions, much like the honest, early cabernet vintages of their neighbor,
Charley Wagner, of Caymus.

Then success entered onto the scene. In the early 1980s, Raymond acquired a
Japanese corporate partner with cash.

They bought vineyards in Lake County, which has no similarities whatsoever with
Napa terroir and climate, especially for chardonnay; and they pumped up the
volume.

All the time, however, I think they made an honest wine--a wine which could be
appreciated in "serious" circles.

It wasn't like Jess Jackson, or the Benziger brothers, who pumped out millions
of cases of Kendall-Jackson "Private Reserve", or Glen Ellen "Private Reserve",
2-fer-$5 dollars (with the folksy, Bartles & James homespun labels).

Anyway, I think that often the most ageworthy chardonnays are those which have
NOT been manipulated with all of that "sur-lie", new oak barrel stuff.

Riesling is the most ageworthy "dry" white there is. Chardonnay can be the
same, if it's not mucked up with complicated cellar regimens.

I think that early Raymond chardonnays, while simple by comparison with, say,
Kistler (a totally "Burgundian", processed wine), can be a delight.

Which is also why I admire Stony Hill, Grgich, Sonoma-Cutrer and Chateau
Montelena. And many Oregon and East Coast chardonnays.

Raymond USED to be in that category. Frankly, I don't know anymore. When
their fruit sourcing enlarged geographically and changed, they got carried away
with success.

So, to return to your argument: YES, some of the early (I mean, early) Raymond
wines are FAR better in old age than what you're likely to find in later years,
or today.

But who the hell cares about age? My palate over the past ten years has
approached the point where I only like young wines---white AND red.

[to say nothing of Britney Spears; AHEM]

Some of the best reds I've ever tasted are barrel samples.

If I keep going on like this, I might develop a prediliction only for wines
from the press pan!

Here, I've spent half a lifetime in this business, and I don't even have a
desire to drink any wines from my cellar---they lack freshness and fruit !

My only appreciation for old wines now is old rieslings and sauternes (and
port, of course). Other table wines should be delivered to me fresh off the
bottliing line!

---Bob