I'm pretty sure it was Ravenswood Shiraz. As far as its aging potential,
it was already too soft and monodimensional for my taste now so I can
assume that it is not going to get any better. I could be wrong...

Speaking of old Carneros Pinot Noirs, I bought two bottles of 1976 BV
Pinot Noir (The first year that they labelled them as Pinots and not as
a "Burgundy") from the of their legendary wine maker. I bought them
mostly out of curiousity for $40.00/bottle from KL Wines. I immediately
worried that the wine would be undrinkable so I opened one and was more
than pleasantly suprised. Very nice fruit, acceptable acidity, soft and
appealing tannins. The wine seemed to have lost any hint of hard edges,
but had a vibrancy to it. A wonderful wine -- I only hope the remaining
bottle is that good. Talk about a crap shoot...

Jonathan

Hunt wrote:
> In article >, says...
>
>>Hunt wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I'll bet you mean Rosemont Shiraz. Ravenswood is a Sonoma (though they do
>
> have
>
>>>property, and sources, that lie beyond Sonoma) Zin producer.
>>
>>Nope, I bet he meant Ravenswood, Hunt. They now market a SW Aussie
>>Shiraz, which I've seen placed next to [other] Aussie Shirazes in the
>>supermarket in Indiana. Keep in mind that they're now owned by BRL
>>Hardy, so maybe it's not so surprising.
>>
>>
>>>I had the pleasure (?) of tasting the first R Mondavi Pinot Noir. It was,
>>>IIRC, 1978 (?), and was made by the recipe from UC Davis' thoughts on PN in
>>>those days. When tasted in 2000, this wine ripped the enamel from my teeth
>
> -
>
>>>still! To get concentration, back in those days, the skins were left in
>>>contact with the must for a week, with heavy agitation. Maybe someday, in
>
> the
>
>>>next century, this wine will be drinkable. As a result of this failed
>>>experiment, RM quit doing PNs for many years, and the winemaker became a
>>>marketing director.
>>
>>LOL!! I do believe that I tasted that wine at release also, leading me
>>to the generalization that "Mondavi doesn't do Pinot Noir (well)."
>>Can't say that I was motivated to buy any, though. Still, compared to
>>the Pinots of Santa Cruz Mountain Vineyards in that era, Mondavi's was a
>>light, ready-to-drink wine ;-)
>>
>>Mark Lipton
>
>
> As I recall, Mondavi pulled the plug on PNs after three vintages (if one could
> call them that), however, he/they came back to the grape in the late 90's and
> did some respectable ones from both Napa and Carneros (yes, I know that
> Carneros overlaps both Napa & Sonoma, but they had those two different
> appellations on the bottlings, but I do not know the exact properties). These
> were not great PNs, and pale in comparison to some other efforts, especially
> from areas between Santa Barbara and Monterey, plus a ton from WA/OR. But, if
> you were to compare them to the Mondavi early efforts, or to much of the other
> PN production from big houses in CA from that era, they were not bad. I
> recently did in the last of the RM Carneros PN, and it had done OK in the
> aging department - not great, but OK with about 9 years on it. Glad I had not
> bought TWO cases, but one went down well. I do not think I would feel quite so
> fortunate with the competition from today's CA PNs, as the bar has certainly
> been raised.
>
> Hunt
>
> PS liked your TNs on Williams-Selyem. I've always liked their various PNs,
> though have not followed them too closely in the last three, or so, years. I
> received some individual producer wines from two of their common properties,
> but have not tasted them yet. More, when I do.
>