2013 Chappellet Cabernet Sauvignon

Cabernet Sauvignon

  • USA
  • California
  • Napa Valley

Back to wine details

Community Tasting Note

  • Slaz wrote: 91 points

    September 23, 2016 - Underwhelming, especially for the price, most likely because too young. I've had prior vintages and was expecting something good from the 2013 of this wine. After an hour of decanting, tannins were still too intrusive with pronounced bitterness. Acidity is too low, to my taste, almost nonexistent. Mid-palate is yet too weak but could put more flesh with age. Overall, unbalanced and disappointing even if an easy drinker. Rating 91 for potential, more like NR right now.

    2 people found this helpful 4,717 views


  • Yondan commented:

    9/24/16, 10:19 PM - It doesn't seem appropriate to rate a wine 91 points after stating so many undesirable characteristics. After commentary descriptors like " underwhelming, tannins too obtrusive, pronounced bitterness, acidity too low almost non existent, overall unbalanced and disappointing" it would seem that a rating between 65 and 75 would be more appropriate. If we start rating wines for potential then the rating is meaningless for the wine at the actual tasting.

  • Slaz commented:

    9/25/16, 7:25 PM - @Yondan: Thanks for your comment. Many very good wines (e.g., Barolos, Brunellos, Bordeauxs) taste unimpressive in their youth. That's no basis for rating the wine poorly, however. I can see how this particular wine can come together with age, hence, the note and the details.

  • Yondan commented:

    9/26/16, 8:25 AM - No disrespect intended, but wine should be rated and reviewed at the time of tasting and the score should not be based on an assumption of improvement with age. . In my opinion you should have rated this wine between 70 and 80 and stipulate that you believe it can reach 91 with a few more years in the bottle.
    Many of us use this program to help guide us in decisions about when to open a bottle and what to purchase. Negative tasting notes with a high rating is a contradiction. I hope you understand. Thank you.

  • Slaz commented:

    9/26/16, 9:50 AM - @Yondan: We seem to fundamentally differ in our opinions on how the wine should be rated. If I were to apply your logic to barrel samples of good wines built for long-term cellaring, then nearly none would score 90+. Similarly, when you see reviews from professional reviewers (I am not one of them by any stretch, to be clear) with a drinking window of 2020+, do you really think the 90+ score reflects the wine at the time of tasting? Of course, not. As for scores, in general, they tend to be very noisy, in my experience, reflecting an individual's preference, breadth of tasting experience, etc.; individual tasting notes are much more informative, in my opinion. This is not to suggest how you, or anyone else, should consume CT information, just to provide more context for my rating.

  • thetong commented:

    11/20/16, 2:09 PM - I'm onboard with Slaz here. Calling this wine a 65 or 70 frankly shows you don't fundamentally understand the scoring on this site (or the purpose of wine scoring in general). A 65 is an undrinkable mess. Think of wine scoring really between 75-100, with a 75 being bad jug wine and a 100 being basically the apex of wine making. Scoring this wine a 91 is appropriate. It's well-structured and us good varietal character and length. Tannin structure is very pronounced today and it probably should get 2-4 years in bottle (or a very long decant) but that doesn't mean it's not drinkable today. All wine is scored for its potential, as wine comes out annually and is purchased upon release, not 5 years down the line. No offense (well maybe some offense intended based on your tone), but you probably shouldn't be buying $50 wines if you are relying on all scores to reflect a pop and pour scenario.

Add a Comment

© 2003-19 CellarTracker! LLC.

Report a Problem