The wines are Saintsbury Reserve Carneros Chardonnay 1990 & Burgess
Napa Cabernet Sauvignon 1978. Both were bought soon after release, had
a sound cork, a fill still in the neck, and were stored properly.

This was the last bottle of the Burgess CS, and I have had it before.
It has always been decent, but not quite at the top. It is still
holding well, but perhaps is beginning to lose a bit of fruit. It is
not in the class of the Ridge MB 1990 I reported recently, but few
other California CSs are. It is a bit simple compared with the best
examples.

I had several bottles of the regular Saintsbury 1990 Chardonnay at one
time, but they were all consumed many years ago. I only had one bottle
of the mentioned Reserve that I somehow neglected to open for many
years. I even had a backup bottle of another wine waiting. A
California Chardonnay that is still on top form at nearly 18 years is
very much the exception rather than the rule. This Chardonnay turned
out to be in top form, and it was one of the most individual
Chardonnays I have ever tasted. It was well balanced and now smoothed.
There was no hint of excessive oxidation or other fault. Many very old
California Chardonnays, if they have not oxidized, have lost most
fruit and some are more like oak tea than wine. This wine had very
intense fruit with mixed citrus and light stone fruit. It had one of
the most intense bouquets I have ever smelled in a Chardonnay. It is
nearly as if one had extracted some of the floral components from
Viognier and Riesling and added these to the usual Chardonnay bouquet.
The floral character, although very intense, was very pure and light.
Honeysuckle and jasmine come to mind, but neither is exactly right. I
refer to the bouquet of the blooming flowers, not perfumes made from
them that often have musk, civet, or ambergris added to give the
perfume some animal as well as floral notes.

DaleW wrote:
> On May 6, 12:15�am, cwdjrxyz > wrote:
>> The wines are Saintsbury Reserve Carneros Chardonnay 1990 & Burgess
>> Napa Cabernet Sauvignon 1978. Both were bought soon after release, had
>> a sound cork, a fill still in the neck, and were stored properly.
>>
>> This was the last bottle of the Burgess CS, and I have had it before.
>> It has always been decent, but not quite at the top. It is still
>> holding well, but perhaps is beginning to lose a bit of fruit. It is
>> not in the class of the Ridge MB 1990 I reported recently, but few
>> other California CSs are. It is a bit simple compared with the best
>> examples.
>>
[]
> thanks for notes. Only Burgess Cabs I've tried were the '76 & '84, but
> enjoyed both. Seem to offer good value.
>
> Fascinating note on the Saintsbury, thanks.

Indeed. I meant to respond to this earlier. I'm pleased to hear the
Burgess
is still holding up -- we have a bottle (I think only 1) of the 84 left.
It was
hale when last tried, but that was years ago now.

I have 6 or so bottles of Mayacamas Chardonnay '92. Like your Saintsbury
it was doing remarkably well. I shall have to try a bottle soon.

Thanks for the great notes.

-E

On May 6, 12:15�am, cwdjrxyz > wrote:
> The wines are Saintsbury Reserve Carneros Chardonnay 1990 & Burgess
> Napa Cabernet Sauvignon 1978. Both were bought soon after release, had
> a sound cork, a fill still in the neck, and were stored properly.
>
> This was the last bottle of the Burgess CS, and I have had it before.
> It has always been decent, but not quite at the top. It is still
> holding well, but perhaps is beginning to lose a bit of fruit. It is
> not in the class of the Ridge MB 1990 I reported recently, but few
> other California CSs are. It is a bit simple compared with the best
> examples.
>
> I had several bottles of the regular Saintsbury 1990 Chardonnay at one
> time, but they were all consumed many years ago. I only had one bottle
> of the mentioned Reserve that I somehow neglected to open for many
> years. I even had a backup bottle of another wine waiting. A
> California Chardonnay that is still on top form at nearly 18 years is
> very much the exception rather than the rule. This Chardonnay turned
> out to be in top form, and it was one of the most individual
> Chardonnays I have ever tasted. It was well balanced and now smoothed.
> There was no hint of excessive oxidation or other fault. Many very old
> California Chardonnays, if they have not oxidized, have lost most
> fruit and some are more like oak tea than wine. This wine had very
> intense fruit with mixed citrus and light stone fruit. It had one of
> the most intense bouquets I have ever smelled in a Chardonnay. It is
> nearly as if one had extracted some of the floral components from
> Viognier and Riesling and added these to the usual Chardonnay bouquet.
> The floral character, although very intense, was very pure and light.
> Honeysuckle and jasmine come to mind, but neither is exactly right. I
> refer to the bouquet of the blooming flowers, not perfumes made from
> them that often have �musk, civet, or ambergris added to give the
> perfume some animal as well as floral notes.

thanks for notes. Only Burgess Cabs I've tried were the '76 & '84, but
enjoyed both. Seem to offer good value.

Fascinating note on the Saintsbury, thanks.

In article >,
Emery Davis > wrote:

> DaleW wrote:
> > On May 6, 12:15�am, cwdjrxyz > wrote:
> >> The wines are Saintsbury Reserve Carneros Chardonnay 1990 & Burgess
> >> Napa Cabernet Sauvignon 1978. Both were bought soon after release, had
> >> a sound cork, a fill still in the neck, and were stored properly.
> >>
> >> This was the last bottle of the Burgess CS, and I have had it before.
> >> It has always been decent, but not quite at the top. It is still
> >> holding well, but perhaps is beginning to lose a bit of fruit. It is
> >> not in the class of the Ridge MB 1990 I reported recently, but few
> >> other California CSs are. It is a bit simple compared with the best
> >> examples.
> >>
> []
> > thanks for notes. Only Burgess Cabs I've tried were the '76 & '84, but
> > enjoyed both. Seem to offer good value.
> >
> > Fascinating note on the Saintsbury, thanks.
>
> Indeed. I meant to respond to this earlier. I'm pleased to hear the
> Burgess
> is still holding up -- we have a bottle (I think only 1) of the 84 left.
> It was
> hale when last tried, but that was years ago now.
>
> I have 6 or so bottles of Mayacamas Chardonnay '92. Like your Saintsbury
> it was doing remarkably well. I shall have to try a bottle soon.
>
> Thanks for the great notes.
>
> -E

Has anyone tasted any recent Burgess Cabs? The last I had was 1988.

On May 7, 9:09 am, Lawrence Leichtman > wrote:
> In article >,
> Emery Davis > wrote:
>
>
>
> > DaleW wrote:
> > > On May 6, 12:15�am, cwdjrxyz > wrote:
> > >> The wines are Saintsbury Reserve Carneros Chardonnay 1990 & Burgess
> > >> Napa Cabernet Sauvignon 1978. Both were bought soon after release, had
> > >> a sound cork, a fill still in the neck, and were stored properly.
>
> > >> This was the last bottle of the Burgess CS, and I have had it before.
> > >> It has always been decent, but not quite at the top. It is still
> > >> holding well, but perhaps is beginning to lose a bit of fruit. It is
> > >> not in the class of the Ridge MB 1990 I reported recently, but few
> > >> other California CSs are. It is a bit simple compared with the best
> > >> examples.
>
> > []
> > > thanks for notes. Only Burgess Cabs I've tried were the '76 & '84, but
> > > enjoyed both. Seem to offer good value.
>
> > > Fascinating note on the Saintsbury, thanks.
>
> > Indeed. I meant to respond to this earlier. I'm pleased to hear the
> > Burgess
> > is still holding up -- we have a bottle (I think only 1) of the 84 left.
> > It was
> > hale when last tried, but that was years ago now.
>
> > I have 6 or so bottles of Mayacamas Chardonnay '92. Like your Saintsbury
> > it was doing remarkably well. I shall have to try a bottle soon.
>
> > Thanks for the great notes.
>
> > -E
>
> Has anyone tasted any recent Burgess Cabs? The last I had was 1988.

I have not had recent Burgess CS, but they they are still listed in
Hugh Johnson's 2008 pocket wine book. The 1995, 97, and 99 are listed
in bold type meaning they are ready for drinking. Vintages from the
2000s are not listed yet. I don't know if they just have not been
tasted or if something has happened to change for the worse at
Burgess. There is mention that Burgess CSs are dark and weighty and
come from from hillside vineyards on Howell mountain. They also have
made some fairly powerful Zinfandel. If Burgess continues in their old
style, I would guess that any frome the 2000s in better vintages may
benefit from at least a few more years of age. Howell mountain has
produced several well known, powerful CSs.