![]() |
Good Cabs?
I am fairly new to cabs and Have tried a couple I liked and a couple I
didn't. The ones I liked where a Columbia Crest 2001 reserve and a Raymond 2001 reserve. Can't remember the names of the ones I didn't like. My question, is it just a coincidence that the 2 I liked where 2001 or is this a particularly good year for cabs? I was under the impression, maybe incorrectly so, that cabs where better with age. Is this not true? Any way, the 2 I listed where very good. Any recomendations on similar cabs? Thanks, Alan |
|
> wrote in message oups.com... >I am fairly new to cabs and Have tried a couple I liked and a couple I > didn't. The ones I liked where a Columbia Crest 2001 reserve and a > Raymond 2001 reserve. Can't remember the names of the ones I didn't > like. > > My question, is it just a coincidence that the 2 I liked where 2001 or > is this a particularly good year for cabs? I was under the impression, > maybe incorrectly so, that cabs where better with age. Is this not > true? Cabernets tend to benefit greatly from age, but some are very approachable in their youth as well. 2001 was a very good vintage for Napa Cabernet, but 2002 looks to be at least as good. Tom S |
2001 has been hailed as an excellent year for CA cabs. Raymond
reserve is a "one of many" production better grade cabs that probably is really helped by having a lot of good grapes around. The columbia crest is from WA. Although some years the quality of CA & WA coincide, frequently the quality does not. Sort of like Tuscany and Piedmont, or Bordeau and Burgundy and Alsace, or even Burgundy and piedmont. For example '99 is considered a bust in CA. WA had a good year. I have not seen a major taster's ratings of WA wines.. On 16 Aug 2005 07:30:56 -0700, wrote: >I am fairly new to cabs and Have tried a couple I liked and a couple I >didn't. The ones I liked where a Columbia Crest 2001 reserve and a >Raymond 2001 reserve. Can't remember the names of the ones I didn't >like. > >My question, is it just a coincidence that the 2 I liked where 2001 or >is this a particularly good year for cabs? I was under the impression, >maybe incorrectly so, that cabs where better with age. Is this not >true? > >Any way, the 2 I listed where very good. Any recomendations on similar >cabs? > > >Thanks, > >Alan |
gerald wrote:
> 2001 has been hailed as an excellent year for CA cabs. Raymond > reserve is a "one of many" production better grade cabs that probably > is really helped by having a lot of good grapes around. > > The columbia crest is from WA. Although some years the quality of CA > & WA coincide, frequently the quality does not. Sort of like Tuscany > and Piedmont, or Bordeau and Burgundy and Alsace, or even Burgundy and > piedmont. For example '99 is considered a bust in CA. WA had a good > year. '99 was *far* from a bust in CA, although your point is still a valid one. Mark Lipton |
"gerald" > wrote in message ... > 2001 has been hailed as an excellent year for CA cabs. Agreed. > For example '99 is considered a bust in CA. By whom? Certainly not I! Perhaps you're thinking of 1998 (Napa Cabs). FWIW, I've found 1999 Napa Cabernets to be better than their 2000 counterparts. Tom S |
Sorry my bad. Mean 2000. parker gives CA 78(worst since 1988((no
wonder why I have so many 88 cabs...)).....) and 2000 WA an 89 and 2000 CA rhone rangers a 92. On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 10:05:52 -0500, Mark Lipton > wrote: >gerald wrote: >> 2001 has been hailed as an excellent year for CA cabs. Raymond >> reserve is a "one of many" production better grade cabs that probably >> is really helped by having a lot of good grapes around. >> >> The columbia crest is from WA. Although some years the quality of CA >> & WA coincide, frequently the quality does not. Sort of like Tuscany >> and Piedmont, or Bordeau and Burgundy and Alsace, or even Burgundy and >> piedmont. For example '99 is considered a bust in CA. WA had a good >> year. > >'99 was *far* from a bust in CA, although your point is still a valid one. > >Mark Lipton |
Tom S wrote:
> By whom? Certainly not I! > Perhaps you're thinking of 1998 (Napa Cabs). Tom, when I was visiting Ch. Montelena in Jan., I got to taste the '98, '99 and '00 Estate Cabs. Much to my surprise, I found that the '98 was deeper and more complex than the '99 (and the '00). So much for vintage generalizations... Mark Lipton |
|
Rule of thumb: don't take advice from someone who calls you a moron
because of what you like. I don't know Raymond. Columbia Crest is amazingly good for the the price IMO. Most of their wines are meant to be drunk young so there is no advantage in holding them. Their 2001 Two Vines Syrah got good reviews. It is simple, fruity, oaky, and pleasent. If you like it (I do) enjoy it. Andy |
[posted and mailed]
On 27 Aug 2005, you wrote in alt.food.wine: > Rule of thumb: don't take advice from someone who calls you a moron > because of what you like. > > I don't know Raymond. Columbia Crest is amazingly good for the the > price IMO. Most of their wines are meant to be drunk young so there is > no advantage in holding them. Their 2001 Two Vines Syrah got good > reviews. It is simple, fruity, oaky, and pleasent. If you like it (I > do) enjoy it. > > Andy > Rule one is really don't respond to uraniumcommittee (he has a couple of other names but the trademark is the insistence that one should only drink Italian wines within minutes of openingthe bottle as breathing "destroys the wine.") He is relentless and won't let go and is in the kill file of just about all of us. -- Joseph Coulter Cruises and Vacations http://www.josephcoulter.com/ |
On 26-Aug-2005, "AyTee" > wrote: > Rule of thumb: don't take advice from someone who calls you a moron > because of what you like. Amen!!! > > I don't know Raymond. Columbia Crest is amazingly good for the the > price IMO. Most of their wines are meant to be drunk young so there is > no advantage in holding them. Their 2001 Two Vines Syrah got good > reviews. It is simple, fruity, oaky, and pleasent. If you like it (I > do) enjoy it. Raymond is a very good, consistent producer with a range of everyday wines to the reserves (which are much better for the slight increase in price, in my opinion) to the sometimes hard to find, "Generations" which is their ultra-premium cabernet. Fortunately, it's not priced like an ultra-premium. The last time I bought any it was about $65/btl. I would probably stay with the 2001 and 2002 vintages for the regular and reserve bottlings. Gary |
|
jcoulter wrote: > [posted and mailed] > > On 27 Aug 2005, you wrote in alt.food.wine: > > > Rule of thumb: don't take advice from someone who calls you a moron > > because of what you like. > > > > I don't know Raymond. Columbia Crest is amazingly good for the the > > price IMO. Most of their wines are meant to be drunk young so there is > > no advantage in holding them. Their 2001 Two Vines Syrah got good > > reviews. It is simple, fruity, oaky, and pleasent. If you like it (I > > do) enjoy it. > > > > Andy > > > > Rule one is really don't respond to uraniumcommittee (he has a couple of > other names but the trademark is the insistence that one should only drink > Italian wines within minutes of openingthe bottle as breathing "destroys > the wine.") > > He is relentless and won't let go and is in the kill file of just about all > of us. ....and he doesn't care what you think or drink. He drinks better wine than you do anyway...because he doesn't drink California Crap... > > -- > Joseph Coulter > Cruises and Vacations > http://www.josephcoulter.com/ |
> wrote in message ps.com... > ...and he doesn't care what you think or drink. He drinks better wine > than you do anyway...because he doesn't drink California Crap... Pheeyew! Who farted? Oh. It was Michael. |
Tom S wrote: > > wrote in message > ps.com... > > ...and he doesn't care what you think or drink. He drinks better wine > > than you do anyway...because he doesn't drink California Crap... > > Pheeyew! Who farted? The wind blows to the east from Califartia... |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:24 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter