TN '96 Chateau St. Jean Cinq Cepages

[Really Nice!]

I opened up a bottle of 1996 Chateau St. Jean Cinq Cepages last weekend. This wine was number 1 on the Wine Spectator's list for 1999.

This was the third '96 bottle that I've opened since 2002. Each one has had similar results. They all are a bit hot in the back of the tongue (alcohol). Each one is becoming hotter than the one before. This last one was almost undrinkable. It was so out of balance with the acidy and fruit, and the tannins were only supporting the imbalance with the alchohol.

Has anyone else noticed this? The wines are being stored in a cellar (55F 70%H). The first two times I drank them using Riedel Sommelier Bordeaux glassware. This last time was with Spiegelau Vino Grande Bordeaux glassware.

Thanks!

[Brad Ballinger]

Shortly after that issue of Wine Speculator came out crowning the 96 Cinq Cepages as WOTY, I attended a retailer's pre-sale tasting. In usual fashion, there were about 50 wines to taste, but one table featured a blind tasting of the 95 CC, the 96 CC, and the 97 Sebastiani Sonoma County Cabernet Sauvignon (about $13 at the time). People were asked to rank the three wines.

The overwhelming "winner" in the blind tasting was the 96 Cinq Cepages. I greatly preferred the 95. Always have every time I've tasted either wine beofre or since. But what do I know?

BTW, the last time I had the 95, it, too, showed out of balance on the alcoholic side. This was remedied with a bit of aeration.

[JohnL]

Both these wines were very nice on release.

I wonder if a lot of people put these in their cellars expecting them to improve even further.

The Spectator noted that the 96 would be best between 2000 and 2008 that is a window of eight years.

(I wonder how they arrived at this "guess".)Regardless it is clear they are recommending this wine be consumed on the "young" side. (four to twelve years old).

Anyway--for a wine that many tasters agreed was "quite nice" on release I wonder why anyone expected it to "improve" with much cellaring--where was it going to go?

It clearly had little track record for ageing at the time.

[Really Nice!]

I for one was hoping that with age, it would maintain a similar form of balance.

I'm not a WS or Parker kind of guy, but shouldn't that be expected for a wine rated number 1 in the world by an industry standard magazine who says it should be drunk between 2000 and 2008? (And 2005 is well within that time frame.)

FWIW, Parker said in 2002 that the '96 could be drunk through 2018.

Brad, I'll try your aeration method with the next bottle.

[JohnL]

My experience has been:

1--predicting a wine's ageing curve is very difficult

it is even more so when dealing with a lot of new world wines.

(compared to bordeaux and Burgundy, Rhone, Barolo etc there just isn't a track record of how these wines do--even compared to say the "old guarde" Cal wines:Mondavi PR, Diamond Mt, Ridge MB etc.

2--a lot of these wines are made with lots of lush fruit, relatively low acidity, and softer tannins.

3--IMOP--the vast majority of Cal Cabs (and blends) are best at five to ten years at most. I believe they are made to be good on release or shortly thereafter.

I have been to a number of ten year tastings--that is -major cabs tasted at ten years of age and have been somewhat disappointed--most seem to have been better at a younger age.

This is not to say there are a number of Cabs that do get better with age.

Or that many do not have a long plateau of maturity.

Even Parker (most critics as well) has stated that if a wine tastes good --drink it! Waiting for some "magic" to happen will result in a lot of disappointment.

If I have one major quibble with many critics is how they can assess the ageing curve that many of these wines will go through.--I can't tell you how many times I have been "burned" by these predictions.

Anyway--this is fodder for a thread of its own!

(I am rushing out to meet my wife and friends at a favorite -inexpensive Italian restaurant here in Manhattan so maybe tomorrow-I will start one!)