When one of the members of my monthly blind tasting lunch crew asked me if he
could bring all of the wine for one of the lunches, but declined to say what
they would be, I had faith that they would be interesting. I found out
yesterday just how interesting.

The Robert Mondavi Winery has always been interested in the technical aspects
of winemaking and in how to improve their techniques. As part of these efforts,
they would submit the same wine to various different treatments to see what
they liked the best, and in some cases would bottle some sample sets so that
the tasting of the experimental wines could be taken on the road. As far as I
know, they never sold any of these sets.

I was a fascinated attendee at such an event in Vancouver in 1983, at which
time I had been seriously interested in wine for perhaps 4 or 5 years, and was
in the early stages of assembling a cellar, attending all the tastings I could
find and taking detailed notes on what I was tasting.

The tasting in question was a series of 7 bottles of 1978 Mondavi Cabernet
Reserve, all with different oak treatment. The current sales manager, who
attended our lunch, advised that they continue to do this today, currently
using Chardonnay. He declined to answer my jibes about whether the unoaked or
lightly oaked Chard was better than the commercial product which often seems to
have been stirred with an oak plank.

It may surprise some people that the winery were that serious about
investigating oak, given their current use of it as an emblem for 'quality
wine' in their advertising campaigns, right down to touting "Woodbridge - it's
got oak!". I suspect that the only reason we don't see promotional T shirts
with "I've Got A Woodie" slogans is the continued august presence of Robert
Mondavi himself.

In any case, at the end of that historic tasting, the sales agent in BC, who
also attended our lunch, had an extra set of bottles left and gave them to the
member of my group, who put them away in his cellar, and brought them out 20
years later for a follow-up tasting. I wish that I could find my notes from so
long ago, but I'll have to rely on memory.

The wines we tasted are set out below. All were taken from the final blend that
vintage, which was 3% merlot, 5% cab franc and 92% cab sauvignon. The alcohol
was 13.5%

1. Old American oak from 1975
2. New American Oak from 1979
3. 1979 New Limousin Oak from Francois Freres, fire only, heavy toast.
4. 1979 New Troncais Oak from Francois Freres, fire only, heavy toast.
5. 1974 Old Nevers Oak, fire only, normal toast
6. 1979 New Nevers Oak (Demptos), fire only, light toast
7. The actual commercial Reserve release, which used 87% new Demptos medium
toast and 13% old Demptos medium toast.

The American oak was not fired or charred; the staves were just bent with
steam, which results in a rawer oak taste, while the French oak is
toasted/charred over a fire in the traditional manner, which imparts a more
complex result. It is difficult to say that one is absolutely better than the
other, for while there are many rather raw examples using American oak, and
even the Aussies are switching to French, some wineries, notably Beaulieu with
their Georges de Latour cab, produce excellent wines using American oak.

Results were as follows:

1. Very mellow nose (the opposite of my recollection of this as a young wine),
sweet in the mouth and still showing surprising tannins, though soft now.

2. More oak in the nose, and it seemed a bit sweeter in the mouth.

3. Perhaps my favourite of all of them - less vanilla, not as sweet, but more
complex and elegant - hard to believe they are the same wines!

4. More tannins (interesting, that), and the tannins are drier, and they
overpower the fruit in the wine.

5. Light, elegant wine, but without the complexity and flavour interest of
number 3. Second favourite for me.

6. Very good, toasty and smooth, but a tad aggressive, and not as harmonious
as 3 and 5.

7. This bottle was slightly corky and losing the fruit a bit, so we opened
another bottle, intended to go with another flight with the meal, to see if it
would show differently. Indeed it did, and showed markedly better fruit - a
much better wine over all.

We then cleansed our palates with a magnum of 1990 Pol Roger Brut, which by the
way is now showing much better and fresher in large format than in single
bottle size.

We finished up with a fascinating mini-tasting:

1974 Cabernet (regular bottling) - this was made by Zelma Long, before Tim
Mondavi took over responsibility for winemaking. It was also very slightly
corked, but not to the same degree as the 78 Reserve had been, and I don't
think it affected the other aspects of the wine. In fact this one was amazingly
alive, although fading a bit and now a tad acidic in the finish and definitely
losing fruit.

1974 Reserve - the wine of the day, as far as I am concerned! 13% merlot (the
highest to that date in any reserve), and the nose disclosed a typical anise
and mintiness that was lacking in any of the 78s. The wine exploded on the
palate with complex flavours and was soft and very long. Excellent!

1991 Reserve - added as contrast to the early wines - Tim believes this to be
the best they have made to date, which is saying a lot, as the 94 is pretty
impressive! Sweet dark fruit, great length, excellent structure, but in the end
I have to opt for the 74.

We discussed these two wines and the major difference in technique is that
while they used to harvest good ripe fruit in good vintages, their canopy
pruning technique was not such that the tannins would be quite as ripe - the
leaves were left on to a greater degree and even though the residual sugar and
extract levels could be equivalent, the tannins in the old wines would be
harder, greener and not as harmonious in the wine itself. It is Tim's theory
that the tannins are equivalent other than that aspect, and the new style
should age as well while showing better in youth. Personally, I doubt that the
91 will ever be as interesting as the 74, but I'm game to see in another 17
years........

This was one of the most interesting and instructive tastings I've done this
year.

"Bill Spohn" > wrote in message
...
> The American oak was not fired or charred; the staves were just bent with
> steam, which results in a rawer oak taste, while the French oak is
> toasted/charred over a fire in the traditional manner, which imparts a
more
> complex result.

Not too many years after then the cooperages began producing American oak
barrels by the traditional French methods. I.e., air drying the wood for
several years vs kiln drying, and fire bending the staves vs steam bending.
I've experimented myself with this type of barrel, simultaneously aging
identical 1987 Cabernet in fire bent American and French barrels, and
bottling them separately. After ten years in the bottle, it became clear to
me that although I liked some aspects of the American oaked lot,
particularly the nose, the French aged lot was smoother, more complex and
the fruit and oak integrated better. Many California wineries use a
combination of both, which is what I would opt for now.

It is difficult to say that one is absolutely better than the
> other, for while there are many rather raw examples using American oak,
and
> even the Aussies are switching to French, some wineries, notably Beaulieu
with
> their Georges de Latour cab, produce excellent wines using American oak.

Although BV still uses a lot of American oak, they have been incorporating
more and more French oak in their Cabernets - particularly their high-end
wines such as the GdL, the Clone 4 and Clone 6.

> 3. Perhaps my favourite of all of them - less vanilla, not as sweet, but
more
> complex and elegant

François Freres Limousin has long been a favorite of mine for Chardonnay
production.

> 4. More tannins (interesting, that), and the tannins are drier, and they
> overpower the fruit in the wine.

I've been incorporating a portion of Tronçais barrels in my Chardonnay as
well. It's a little more expensive than barrels from other forests, but
delivers a lot of bang for the buck! It comes on so strong it's almost
overwhelming, but I like it in the mix.

> 6. Very good, toasty and smooth, but a tad aggressive, and not as
harmonious
> as 3 and 5.

Demptos makes a good barrel - especially for Cabernet. This barrel probably
was made from tight grain wood, which delivers more extract than loose
grained woods, e.g. Limousin. Also, a lighter toast will tend to have more
extractables because the toasting process tends to burn them up.

> This was one of the most interesting and instructive tastings I've done
this
> year.

Thanks for sharing that, Bill. Wish I'd been there!

Tom S

Tom - thanks for the comments on quercology - never say Nevers?

The old GdL wines from the same era (I think I still have one bottle of 1978 in
the cellar) never seemed to show the deleterious effects that you'd expect to
see from American oak use - damn fine juice. I have to wonder if BV did the
same sort of testing - the move to at least partially French oak that you
mention could be motivated by such investigations.

"Bill Spohn" > wrote in message
...
> Tom - thanks for the comments on quercology - never say Nevers?

Bill
What a fascinating analytical tasting. To have so much variation betweens
wines, the main variable being Quercus quercus,
John

--
John Taverner
Solihull UK
132m amsl
"et in arcadia ego?"

"Bill Spohn" > wrote in message
...
> Tom - thanks for the comments on quercology - never say Nevers?

Ouch! ;^D

Actually, I have a barrel or two of Chardonnay in Nevers, as well as some in
Allier and Vosges. The Nevers is the best of the three to my taste.

> The old GdL wines from the same era (I think I still have one bottle of
1978 in
> the cellar) never seemed to show the deleterious effects that you'd expect
to
> see from American oak use - damn fine juice. I have to wonder if BV did
the
> same sort of testing - the move to at least partially French oak that you
> mention could be motivated by such investigations.

Actually, Andre Tchelischef (sp?) preferred French oak over American, but
IIRC he was compelled to use American because of the unavailability of
French oak during the war. He made a lot of *great* wines even so, and
pretty firmly established the American oak style for Beaulieu Cabernets.

Tom S

I found your notes on the 74 and 78 commercial releases of the Mondavi
reserves interesting, since I still have a very few bottles of both of
these and the 75. My 74 reserve still is in top form and is one of the
better wines from this era. I place it a bit ahead of the 78. I have not
tasted the 75 in some time, but the last time I had it, I did not think
it was quite as good as the 74 and 78. Other Cabernets from this era
that I still find to be holding well include Clos Duval 74 and their 78
reserve, Ridge Monte Bello 74. Also Joseph Phelps Insignia 74 is holding
well. Any of these would be interesting placed in a blind tasting of
wines from the 70s.

My mailbox is always full to avoid spam. To contact me,
erase from my email address. Then add . I
do not check this box every day, so post if you need a quick response.

"Cwdjrx _" > wrote in message
...
> Other Cabernets from this era
> that I still find to be holding well include Clos Duval 74 and their 78
> reserve, Ridge Monte Bello 74. Also Joseph Phelps Insignia 74 is holding
> well.

On the topic of 1974 Cabernets that are still showing well, I'd include the
Mount Eden and the Villa Mt Eden "Reserve" in that lot, as well as the
Burgess Vintage Selection and Mayacamas. Probably the Heitz "Martha's
Vineyard", too. A few possibles would be the Conn Creek, Chateau Chevalier,
Monterey Peninsula and Mt. Veeder.

Tom S