RE: Bordeaux or California?

CellarTracker Main Site

RE: Bordeaux or California?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Cellar Talk] >> General Discussion >> RE: Bordeaux or California?

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Bordeaux or California? - 4/5/2011 1:19:15 PM

pjaines

Posts: 10664
Joined: 5/26/2008
From: London
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GalvezGuy

most of the world lacks the patience to let a well structured, austere wine come into balance (98 Monte Bello, anyone?).

Amazingly enough Khamen and myself raved about the 98 Monte bello at a recent tasting and I was shocked to see it got such a pasting on CT with genuinely low scores.

To be fair, of the older Cali wines I have had they were all generally excellent - Mondavi Cab Cab 83 was stunning, and the Monte bellos 95 thru 2000 were excellent - I just think they seem get drunk much younger than Bdx - you dont see many tasting notes for Cali wines

(in reply to GalvezGuy)

Post #: 31

RE: Bordeaux or California? - 4/5/2011 3:47:04 PM

Bryan Collins

Posts: 2355
Joined: 7/14/2006
From: Bedfordshire, UK
Status: offline

Monte Bello is, to my mind, nothing short of magnificent.

Paul Draper hosted a dinner in London back in November and I spent the evening chatting to him - what a genuinely humble and charming gentleman. There's some more info here if anyone's interested.

_____________________________

They're underneath the house, where I do quite a bit of stowin'...

(in reply to pjaines)

Post #: 32

RE: Bordeaux or California? - 4/5/2011 5:34:44 PM

Stirling

Posts: 2288
Joined: 1/12/2007
From: Vancouver, BC
Status: offline

If these recent ripe BDX vintages have been producing CA - like wines, CA has produced a number of wines that were very Bordeaux-like (elegant, complex, age-worthy). A few I have tasted over the years that could have passed for top classified growth Bordeaux: 94 Mondavi Res; 76 and 85 Heitz Martha's; '81 Johnson Turnbull; '78 Diamond Creek; '82 BV Georges de Latour; to name a few. I think after 10 or 15 years the wines tend more toward similarity. Cabernet lovers who seek the typically BDX style (meaning more elegant and complex) have a number of good producers to choose from who make elegant food freindly wines in a "Bordeaux style". Not that they will neccessarily fool you into thinking you are drinking something from the left bank, but they will probably impress you with their finesse and complexity.

On the other hand, I have never drank Bordeaux that I thought was Californian. Perhaps the 2003's fit that bill?

_____________________________

My blog: www.advinetures.ca

(in reply to Bryan Collins)

Post #: 33

RE: Bordeaux or California? - 4/5/2011 5:59:49 PM

Zweder

Posts: 181
Joined: 10/8/2007
Status: offline

Many wise words said already. And I will just add my 2 cents.

Two different regions two different wines. Maybe not the same as comparing beef with lobster, but certainly as comparing two different types of very good meat.

In both regions beautiful wines are produced.

In my case it depends on the food, the mood and the weather (the moment) what I prefer most. I can appreciate both type of wines, and both can be great.

In general, imho, the lower high end of Bdx is a little more interesting than the lower quality wines from CA. In Bordeaux terms 5th Growths (with a few exceptions like Lynch Bages and Pontet Canet), and wines like Chasse Spleen and Poujeaux, offer a more interesting drinking experience than the same price level Californian wines.

FWIW,
Cheers,
Zweder.

(in reply to Stirling)

Post #: 34

RE: Bordeaux or California? - 4/5/2011 8:57:06 PM

recotte

Posts: 6873
Joined: 1/19/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pjaines

Amazingly enough Khamen and myself raved about the 98 Monte bello at a recent tasting and I was shocked to see it got such a pasting on CT with genuinely low scores.

I think I've seen you comment on the '98 Monte Bello elsewhere, as well. In general, I think the '98 Cali vintage got undersold. It was bookended by '97, a great year, and '99, a really good year, and suffered in comparison. In '97 & '99, everyone had, minimally, a really good product. In '98, though, the great winemakers worked their magic and still produced a really good wine. Dominus, Monte Bello... it's hard to go wrong with these in any year. Beachrooster had a thread a month or so ago on the '98's.

_____________________________

The only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it. - Oscar Wilde

(in reply to pjaines)

Post #: 35

RE: Bordeaux or California? - 4/6/2011 12:27:38 PM

Khamen

Posts: 5543
Joined: 3/31/2009
From: near Stonehenge, UK
Status: offline

There is one other point worth making here tho imho...

The "best" wines of Bordeaux from a recent vintage may cost a lot of money - if you exclude Lafite's little world then a 1st is going to cost you $500 or so tax paid from a decent vintage.

In Europe the most prestigious Californian wines (again let's forget Screagle) are frequently priced 40-50% HIGHER than this.

You can generally pick up a whole case of some 2nd and 3rd growths for the price of 1 or 2 bottles of a premium offering from California.

K

_____________________________

We want the finest wines available to humanity, we want them here and we want them now!

Withnail

(in reply to recotte)

Post #: 36

RE: Bordeaux or California? - 4/6/2011 3:11:23 PM

Stirling

Posts: 2288
Joined: 1/12/2007
From: Vancouver, BC
Status: offline

What a difference being over the pond makes! In Canada, a first growth will set you back over $1,000. Harlan goes for $800 (if you can find it), Phelps Insignia for $265, Quilceda for $175. In the US both Harlan and Insignia are about $100 cheaper and Quilceda about $50 cheaper. I did not know we getting so badly screwed on BDX pricing here.

_____________________________

My blog: www.advinetures.ca

(in reply to Khamen)

Post #: 37

RE: Bordeaux or California? - 6/18/2016 8:37:06 AM

racerchris

Posts: 1622
Joined: 6/22/2015
From: Bolton, CT
Status: offline

I'm bringing this topic out of hibernation to add a data point wrt Cru Bourgeois level wines.

Last night I did a side-by-side comparison of 2010 Chateau Senejac and 2010 Merryvale Cabernet Napa Valley.
The two were very similar in primary fruit (Merryvale being a little more forward), acidity and length of finish.
Both carried very noticeable cedar and spice secondary flavors with little to no green or bitter herbal notes.
The Merryvale had a more prominent fruity nose, with a hint of eucalyptus.
The Senejac had a reserved nose, a dustier mouthfeel, and more noticeable tannins on the finish.

A half a bottle each was shared over dinner with my father.
Both wines were a very satisfying accompaniment to NY strip, grilled vegetables, Pesto Penne pasta and green salad.
We gave a slight edge to the Merryvale (93), but at more than twice the price.
However Chateau Senejac (92+) is the clear QPR winner between these two.

_____________________________

Chris Foley
Searching for very good to excellent, cheap Bordeaux
stainlesswineracks.com

(in reply to Stirling)

Post #: 38

RE: Bordeaux or California? - 6/18/2016 8:53:29 AM

Eddie

Posts: 6242
Joined: 12/17/2012
From: central Kentucky
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pjaines

quote:

ORIGINAL: GalvezGuy

most of the world lacks the patience to let a well structured, austere wine come into balance (98 Monte Bello, anyone?).

Amazingly enough Khamen and myself raved about the 98 Monte bello at a recent tasting and I was shocked to see it got such a pasting on CT with genuinely low scores.

To be fair, of the older Cali wines I have had they were all generally excellent - Mondavi Cab Cab 83 was stunning, and the Monte bellos 95 thru 2000 were excellent - I just think they seem get drunk much younger than Bdx - you dont see many tasting notes for Cali wines

I agree completely. Let those Napa cabs age (and Ridge too!). One of the regrets of my life was that I didn't become interested in wine early enough to load up on '95 Monte Bello and '95 Napa (not to mention '89 Bordeaux......

)

(in reply to pjaines)

Post #: 39

RE: Bordeaux or California? - 6/18/2016 9:39:05 AM

Posts: 14826
Joined: 11/12/2011
From: Wandering between Coastal SC and South FL
Status: offline

If it is a contest, California for me and my palate.

And as for the OP, have prices "sustained" since 2011?

_____________________________

Tous les chemins mènent à la Bourgogne!
"One not only drinks wine, one smells it, observes it, tastes it, sips it and -- one talks about it!" (in memory of drycab)

(in reply to Stirling)

Post #: 40

RE: Bordeaux or California? - 6/18/2016 9:44:44 AM

Sourdough

Posts: 1883
Joined: 12/23/2013
From: Austin, Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: racerchris

I'm bringing this topic out of hibernation to add a data point wrt Cru Bourgeois level wines.

Last night I did a side-by-side comparison of 2010 Chateau Senejac and 2010 Merryvale Cabernet Napa Valley.
The two were very similar in primary fruit (Merryvale being a little more forward), acidity and length of finish.
Both carried very noticeable cedar and spice secondary flavors with little to no green or bitter herbal notes.
The Merryvale had a more prominent fruity nose, with a hint of eucalyptus.
The Senejac had a reserved nose, a dustier mouthfeel, and more noticeable tannins on the finish.

A half a bottle each was shared over dinner with my father.
Both wines were a very satisfying accompaniment to NY strip, grilled vegetables, Pesto Penne pasta and green salad.
We gave a slight edge to the Merryvale (93), but at more than twice the price.
However Chateau Senejac (92+) is the clear QPR winner between these two.

Hi Racerchris!

I agree. While, in general Cali wines are a different style there are some that are close in profile. And by developing a familiarity with a few lower end chateaux I feel I can reliably beat all but the best on QPR by choosing BDX. There are a bunch of really good BDX in the $17 to 25 range (like Senejac) that are outstanding for the price.

(in reply to racerchris)

Post #: 41

RE: Bordeaux or California? - 6/18/2016 11:33:02 AM

jmcmchi

Posts: 3217
Joined: 8/6/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stirling

What a difference being over the pond makes! In Canada, a first growth will set you back over $1,000. Harlan goes for $800 (if you can find it), Phelps Insignia for $265, Quilceda for $175. In the US both Harlan and Insignia are about $100 cheaper and Quilceda about $50 cheaper. I did not know we getting so badly screwed on BDX pricing here.

Personal comparison data; 2005 Pontet Canet was $270ish on release in BC - $75ish on futures in the US.
But Pedestal (Longshadows merlot from WA) is currently priced similarly in both countries. And anything that was imported over two years ago is likely cheaper in Canada because of FX movements

Generally neither is well priced in Canada

(in reply to Stirling)

Post #: 42

RE: Bordeaux or California? - 6/18/2016 11:35:47 AM

PinotPhile

Posts: 3728
Joined: 3/16/2014
From: Southern CA
Status: offline

No experience with Bordeaux here. Napa Valley purchases are rare as the QPR criterion for me is not typically met. Tend to gravitate to other areas that can deliver value, such as Sierra Foothills, Paso, even some areas in Santa Barbara.

Looking up Ch. Senejac on winesearcher, I noted that WinEx has futures of the 14 and 15 vintages.

My only experience w/futures was not good. So, 2 questions for the more experienced:

Is <$15/bottle a good price for Senejac futures?
Is WinEx reliable in terms of delivering within the futures program?

Any input appreciated.

Cheers!

(in reply to Sourdough)

Post #: 43

RE: Bordeaux or California? - 6/18/2016 11:37:47 AM

jmcmchi

Posts: 3217
Joined: 8/6/2013
Status: offline

I agree. While, in general Cali wines are a different style there are some that are close in profile. And by developing a familiarity with a few lower end chateaux I feel I can reliably beat all but the best on QPR by choosing BDX. There are a bunch of really good BDX in the $17 to 25 range (like Senejac) that are outstanding for the price.
[/quote]

Violent agreement....just caveat that vintage is important for these - there is a lot of variation in the relative value to me

(in reply to Sourdough)

Post #: 44

RE: Bordeaux or California? - 6/18/2016 12:21:33 PM

midpalate

Posts: 606
Status: offline

I think that, in good vintages, there's lots of really nice BDX in the 20-30 USD range.

I'd put those bottles up against bottlings of the same varietals from basically anywhere at the same price point and expect the BDX to be really competitive.

So, if I have $20 to spend and I want a bottle of cab or merlot (or a blend of these)? I'm gonna pull out a '09 Lillian Ladouys and feel great about it.

[EDIT: I just read some of the other replies... and it seems like lots of us have figured out this same thing :-) ]

< Message edited by midpalate -- 6/18/2016 12:22:11 PM >

(in reply to pjaines)

Post #: 45

RE: Bordeaux or California? - 6/19/2016 8:05:33 AM

dbg

Posts: 569
Joined: 10/25/2008
From: Maryland
Status: offline

Winex is reliable.

Why tie up your money in futures when it is likely the wine will be readily available at similar pricing on release? I used to buy futures but the Bordeaux system has eliminated the financial incentive to do so. Now the only reason to buy futures is to lock up a rarity (Senejac is not one) or to order sizes other than 750s.

_____________________________

David G

(in reply to PinotPhile)

Post #: 46

RE: Bordeaux or California? - 6/19/2016 11:36:15 AM

PinotPhile

Posts: 3728
Joined: 3/16/2014
From: Southern CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dbg

Winex is reliable.

Why tie up your money in futures when it is likely the wine will be readily available at similar pricing on release? I used to buy futures but the Bordeaux system has eliminated the financial incentive to do so. Now the only reason to buy futures is to lock up a rarity (Senejac is not one) or to order sizes other than 750s.

Just did a quick check on Wine Searcher. It appears that pricing in CA for Ch. Lanessan, also mentioned elsewhere on this forum, is similar for both available and futures. Pricing for Ch. Senejac futures is clearly lower than currently-available wine. Interesting.

I am not enamored of futures, but had only one experience. That was negative. Ownership change resulted in my never receiving a wine for which I had paid.

That was not WinEx, though. Good to know that they are reliable, just in case.

Thanks for your insight. I have followed Bordeaux pricing issues a bit. They have their problems, so maybe more value options for us frugal ones will materialize.

Cheers!

(in reply to dbg)

Post #: 47