Thomas Cottrell is Bellevue Club’s contributing wine columnist and the owner of La Cantina Wine Merchants.
I like California Cabernet Sauvignon, quite a bit in fact. I have a number of them in my personal collection, some of them going back 40 years. I recommend them in my wine shop and in my writings. Folks tell me they like the wines, too, when they taste them. So why was I so disappointed with the Cabernet tasting I attended recently? Well, disappointed is not quite the right word. I actually liked most of the wines. It was a trade tasting, and the wines were tasted blind. Several
respected and reliable wineries were represented, including Conn Creek (which turned out to be the group favorite), Hess, Beaulieu Vineyards, Franciscan and Sterling. Also present were a group of less well-known and completely new brands: Rutherford Ranch, Terra Valentine, Napa Cellars, Tangley Oaks, and Green Lion (yes, Green Lion—and you should see the label!). 13 tasters—each an experienced member of the wine trade—assessed the 10 wines. We didn’t much discuss the merits of the wines once the scoring was done. Instead, we commented on how much alike they were, how little they differed one from the other. In effect, we were a bit bored by the wines’ sameness. The scores confirmed our impression. The format of the tasting is to score the wines from zero to four points. Three is a very good score indeed; a group score of 3.5 is unheard of (we’re a tough bunch).
The score of the least-favored wine was 2.43; the highest-rated wine scored 2.64. Ten wines separated by 0.19 points. I’ve tasted with this group for nearly 10 years, and none of us had ever seen a flight of wines scored so closely. So what’s going on here? How can 10 different Napa Cabs appear to be so alike one another? One of our members offered an explanation that made a great deal of sense. He’s studying to take the Master of Wine examination and has spent years living in Napa Valley. He currently visits there regularly as he prepares for the exam.
He says that the last decade or two have seen a great homogenization of the wines in California, especially in Napa Valley. The same clones of Cabernet have been planted, pruned in the same ways, harvested at the same Brix. The fermentations are controlled to the same temperature, the wines aged in the same mix of French oak barrels for the same length of time. No wonder the wines are all alike, especially in the same price range (our tasting wines ranged from $20 to $29). Why the lack of variety, why the sameness of approach and results? Are Napa producers that devoid of ideas? No, they’re just all owned by very large corporations. They may have begun as small, family-owned wineries, but consolidation has made them mere cogs in multi-national aggregations of wineries scattered around the world.
And large corporations only understand one thing: sales and more sales. These days sales are driven by scores, with The Wine Advocate and The Wine Spectator being the most influential. High scores tend to be given to a consistent style: intense, richly fruited wines with plenty of sweet oak and high alcohol levels. It’s increasingly easy for winemakers to emulate the vineyard and cellar techniques that produce such wines. There’s even a consulting company in California that will, for several thousand dollars, guarantee a winery a 90 point score—if you follow their directions. It apparently works. So of course wines are becoming more like one another, especially within a region such as Napa Valley. There is no longer a recognizable Martini or Charles Krug or Beaulieu taste—just a consistent international style developed to maximize points. Incidentally, my favorite wine at the tasting was that Green Lion 2005 ($20). It showed rich, ripe fruit, sweet, sexy oak, and a long, smooth finish. Surprise. But the label was
really, really different.
