Al Brounstein Dies

[docsconz]

Al Brounstein died on June 25th at the age of 86. He established Diamond Creek Vineyards in Napa valley in 1968. His first vintage was 1972. His NYT obit.

Any reminescences on the man or thoughts on his wines and what they started?

[russ parsons]

al was a really good guy, based on my limited time with him, but by god those old diamond creek cabs were tough nuts.

[docsconz]

al was a really good guy, based on my limited time with him, but by god those old diamond creek cabs were tough nuts.

←

Russ, what do you mean by "tough nuts"? I never had the pleasure (I think) of having drank any of them. Do you think they were (relatively) worth what he was charging for them? How did they compare to other of the california Cult wines?

[SBonner]

I tried a few of these gems and they were my first experience with ultra premium California Cab's. Tasty but so expensive a few years back when the Cdn$ was worth alot less. Unfortunately I do not have any cellared so only fleeting memories of the wines.

Stephen Bonner

Vancouver

[russ parsons]

Russ, what do you mean by "tough nuts"? I never had the pleasure (I think) of having drank any of them. Do you think they were (relatively) worth what he was charging for them? How did they compare to other of the california Cult wines?

←

hiya doc, sorry i missed this. what i meant was the wines were tannic monsters, really dense. if i recall correctly (and i'm sure someone will speak up if i'm not), diamond creek was one of the first places to do single vineyard cabs from hillside vineyards. i think there was a pretty "steep" learning curve ... heh heh. i remember tasting through several of them 10 years after release and they were just beginning to open up. that's not to say that they might not eventually turn into wonderful wines ... i'm just not that patient.

[Robin Meredith]

I seem to recall a story/legend/myth circulating at one point that he had some sort of stipulation in his will that would prevent any of his heirs from ever planting Chardonnay on his property.

I've sampled occasional bottles from the 1983 through 1991 vintages and never come across a great one, but that story makes me like him regardless.

[JohnL]

Al Brounstein died on June 25th at the age of 86. He established Diamond Creek Vineyards in Napa valley in 1968. His first vintage was 1972. His NYT obit.

Any reminescences on the man or thoughts on his wines and what they started?

←

Brounstein was definitely a pioneer.

He was one of the first wine makers to exploit the concept of terroir via his bottlings

from distinct and separate vineyard locations.

I am glad you used the term "cult." There seem to be a number of folks who

believe that "cult" wine from California is a recent development.

Diamond creek wines were truly distinctive--tasted side by side they display differences in ripeness and flavors.

Also IMOP--the wines he made in the seventies are among the best ever from california.

Yes, as one poster notes--the wines were "tough nuts." Young they were pretty tannic but they had a richness and solid core of ripe fruit. They did age quite well--it took a few years for the tannins to integrate.

Recent efforts have not lived up to what Brounstein achieved in the seventies though.

The recent bottlings have not been very good. IMOP.

All in all--Brounstein deserves a lot of credit for what he accomplished. One could say he was a visionary. (ok I said it).

[MaxH]

... His first vintage was 1972. / Any reminescences on the man or thoughts on his wines and what they started?

Haven't read the NYT piece, but I did enjoy some of those wines (which, indeed, became rare and expensive although I don't know exactly when that occurred).

As to what these wines "started," Doc: again not knowing content of the NYT piece, 1968 or 1972 were more or less the middle of the evolution of the modern (that is, post-Prohibition) California wine industry. (Always remember, on an even longer view, that California had a substantial wine industry in the 1800s, whose peak of 800 wineries was surpassed in the post-Prohibition era only after 1990). But again just within the world of premium modern California wines, the boutique wineries that began in the 1940s, Martin Ray and the Pinot Noir experiments, the world-class California Cabernets of a sort of golden age in the 1950s and early 60s woke up many wine geeks in and out of California, accustomed to serious European wines, and these preceded Diamond Creek. (In 1981 I remember that the legendary 1955 Inglenook Cabernet -- Inglenook was a leading artisanal producer before being bought by a larger firm and becoming known instead for dating-bar Chablis, as one critic then put it -- this wine, drinking magnificently at age 26, sold at auction for the celebrated, unprecedented price of $12k/dozen or $1000 a bottle or some $2200 in 2006 dollars per CPI. A friend who had bought it in quantity in the 1950s, because it was good, could serve it even though few of us would have gone out and bought it at the current 1981 price.)

Diamond Creek may qualify in the generic sense of "cult" though then it's not a pioneer, having extremely high-profile antecedents like the '55 Inglenook. There's a second, recent (1990s) sense of "cult" that the wine industry uses and seems to understand pretty widely, as anyone can verify at will if they do their homework; the Diamond Creek would qualify if it fits the de-facto meaning of that sense of "cult," which Florida Jim spelled out not long ago. Many serious earlier California Cabernets that paved the way (again: Ridge, BV G. de L., Heitz Martha's, Stag's Leap, etc.; various Inglenooks of course) don't fit that newer sense of "cult" and weren't sought by the broker I mentioned here who called for "Cult California Cabernets" to meet particular recent demand.

[rich]

I still have one bottle of the 1978 Diamond Creek Volcanic Hill Cab. The last one I opened was 10 years ago and I thought it needed another 10-15 years, so this may be getting close. I paid $11.99 for it in 1981.

Thirty years is probably best for this wine, can't wait until 2008. I'll do a special dinner around it.

Edited July 10, 2006 by rich (log)

[JohnL]

... His first vintage was 1972. / Any reminescences on the man or thoughts on his wines and what they started?

Haven't read the NYT piece, but I did enjoy some of those wines (which, indeed, became rare and expensive although I don't know exactly when that occurred).

As to what these wines "started," Doc: again not knowing content of the NYT piece, 1968 or 1972 were more or less the middle of the evolution of the modern (that is, post-Prohibition) California wine industry. (Always remember, on an even longer view, that California had a substantial wine industry in the 1800s, whose peak of 800 wineries was surpassed in the post-Prohibition era only after 1990). But again just within the world of premium modern California wines, the boutique wineries that began in the 1940s, Martin Ray and the Pinot Noir experiments, the world-class California Cabernets of a sort of golden age in the 1950s and early 60s woke up many wine geeks in and out of California, accustomed to serious European wines, and these preceded Diamond Creek. (In 1981 I remember that the legendary 1955 Inglenook Cabernet -- Inglenook was a leading artisanal producer before being bought by a larger firm and becoming known instead for dating-bar Chablis, as one critic then put it -- this wine, drinking magnificently at age 26, sold at auction for the celebrated, unprecedented price of $12k/dozen or $1000 a bottle or some $2200 in 2006 dollars per CPI. A friend who had bought it in quantity in the 1950s, because it was good, could serve it even though few of us would have gone out and bought it at the current 1981 price.)

Diamond Creek may qualify in the generic sense of "cult" though then it's not a pioneer, having extremely high-profile antecedents like the '55 Inglenook. There's a second, recent (1990s) sense of "cult" that the wine industry uses and seems to understand pretty widely, as anyone can verify at will if they do their homework; the Diamond Creek would qualify if it fits the de-facto meaning of that sense of "cult," which Florida Jim spelled out not long ago. Many serious earlier California Cabernets that paved the way (again: Ridge, BV G. de L., Heitz Martha's, Stag's Leap, etc.; various Inglenooks of course) don't fit that newer sense of "cult" and weren't sought by the broker I mentioned here who called for "Cult California Cabernets" to meet particular recent demand.

←

"cult" means --"faddish devotion." according to Webster.

Using that definition there have always been "cult" wines. (you provide some good supporting evidence).

as a general rule--limited production and high demand leads to scarcity and high prices. That demand is the "cult" part.

I would say that the devotion to , say, Silver Oak (also Heitz Martha's) wherein large numbers of people would make "pilgrimages" to the wineries for a small allocation of the new releases establishes them squarely in the "cult" column.

Diamond creek wines were produced in relatively small quantities and there has been high demand for them. Are they cult wines? who knows and who cares?--they have been hard to find and sell for fairly high prices.

Brounstein is a pioneer--in 1968 he took a 79 acre piece of land and while clearing the property for vine planting, he noted that there were three distinct sections each with its own elevation and soil composition so he bottled three cabernets. Diamond Creek was the FIRST cabernet only estate (according to Laube). He is not the only wine maker to recognize this but he certainly was one of the strongest early proponents of bottling vineyard designated cabernets.

[MaxH]

"cult" means --"faddish devotion." according to Webster.  / Using that definition there have always been "cult" wines.

Yes, thanks JohnL: as I wrote, that's the generic sense of "cult."

Discernible from the separate, current industry sense of "cult" also cited. (Observable by anyone who wants to; quotations below.)

Phrases used by fans of "cult" California Cabernets (I just did a tiny search) include "giant fruit," "blockbusters," and "next big thing." Other features separating these wines from the tradition of premier California Cabernets, compared at similar stages in the wineries' histories, are disproportionate prices (multiple $100s currently), also high prices and scarcity even when the wineries are young and the wines lack aging track records. (In contrast, when Diamond Creek was fairly young, "rich" here paid $12 for a Cabernet in 1981, equivalent to $27 now). Also, we can't overlook another historical peculiarity of recent "cult" wines: extreme praise (numerical "points") from one critic (RMP) who was not a factor before the 1980s and was widely known to the public from about the 1990s.

People should follow his own written advice, develop their palates, and buy what's good, unless they are seeking "the next big thing" for its own sake. That's my take on it.

-- Max

--

Cal Cult wines ... Like Harlan, Screaming Eagle, et al. (Mark Squires)

Napa Valley cult winemakers Araujo Estate Wines and Harlan Estate (Jancis Robinson, in praise)

Edited July 11, 2006 by MaxH (log)

[docsconz]

The Times obit is now on "select" basis, which means that one must now pay for it. In any case, from that article,

Al Brounstein, a Napa Valley vintner who was an early proponent of both making wines from a single vineyard and charging sky-high prices for them, died on Monday at his home in Calistoga, Calif. He was 86.

I hope this helps illustrate better what the NYT felt his role was. I don't know anyone who was as feverish for these wines as some other Cal cabs like Silver Oak, Harlan, etc., so I don't believe they had the same "cult" status. I do believe that they were amongst the first if not the first to have single vineyard designations on their labels, at least in the US.

[rich]

I used to record wine purchases in a book years ago (don't anymore) and I checked some prices based on this thread. Twelve dollars was one of the more expensive California Cabs in those days. Also in 1981, I bought a Petrus for $40, a Mouton, Laffitte and Cheval Blanc for $35 and a Palmer for $25 - all 1978 vintages.

Of the Californians, the Freemark Abbey Bosche was $13, the Ridge Monte Bello was $12, Heitz Martha's Vineyard was $18 and a Joseph Swan Zinfandel was $16 - again all 78's, except the Swan was a 74. I bought a 1974 Martha's Vineyard that same year for $30 and a 1975 Petrus for $80. Interestingly, I still have at least one bottle of each.

The oldest bottle I have (not vintage year, but from when I purchased it) is a 1976 Jordan Cabernet. I bought in in May of 1980 for $12.

[JohnL]

The Times obit is now on "select" basis, which means that one must now pay for it. In any case, from that article,

Al Brounstein, a Napa Valley vintner who was an early proponent of both making wines from a single vineyard and charging sky-high prices for them, died on Monday at his home in Calistoga, Calif. He was 86.

I hope this helps illustrate better what the NYT felt his role was. I don't know anyone who was as feverish for these wines as some other Cal cabs like Silver Oak, Harlan, etc., so I don't believe they had the same "cult" status. I do believe that they were amongst the first if not the first to have single vineyard designations on their labels, at least in the US.

←

One would have to have at least a low grade "fever" to pay higher than average prices.

Also--at one point Diamond Creek had no track record (for aging or anything).

It is apparent that the term "cult" in reference to wine has been appropriated by a group of people who are primarily intent on denigrating some wines made in California after 1990.

The term is basically derogatory implying that the "fans" are willing to pay more than a wine's real worth (as if that can be determined objectively) because they are "brainwashed" or foolish (or both). a lot of this is pure wine snobbery.

As for Diamond Creek, I would say that the wine early on (before it had the required "track record") was in demand and sold for more than the average price of a new california cabernet.

It did have a lot of devoted fans (it still does).

Same can be said for Heitz Martha's Vineyard, Dunn Howell Mountains and Ridge offerings.

Ay one point Opus One was a "cult" wine --it established a record for a new wine selling at the Napa Valley auction for the then unheard of price of $2000 a bottle!

You note Silver Oak. This may be one wine wherein there is a true "cult" surrounding it. Though I refuse to use cult here to impugn the members--they are people who are having fun!

One could argue that Petrus is a cult wine--same for Romanee Conti given many people are willing to pay astronomical sums for these wines without ever having tasted them.

Super Tuscans as well.

In fact many wines have a mythological aspect--wine has long been much about the sizzle.

In today's world of instant communication things are easily overheated and exaggerated--no doubt wines like Diamond Creek would become instant "cult' wines within a few vintages of release.

To be clear faddish devotion is a good thing if the end result is people who enjoy life and life's pleasures. There is no other reason to explain why people buy tickets to see losing athletic teams, why folks lust after Jaguars even with the electrical problems.....

So Diamond Creek was a special endeavor. Al Brounstein was a passionate man with a vision and many were willing to believe in the results of that vision and to pay more for it.

He was one of the great pioneers of California wine.

[MaxH]

First, Doc, thanks for the helpful synopsis on Brounstein's contributions.

Twelve dollars was one of the more expensive California Cabs in those days. ...  Freemark Abbey Bosche was $13, the Ridge Monte Bello was $12, Heitz Martha's Vineyard was $18 and a Joseph Swan Zinfandel was $16 - again all 78's, except the Swan was a 74.

I agree completely, rich (I posted other price examples recently here). More data points in this correspondence arising from last month's "Old School Napa" thread:

25 or more years ago, US wine writers grumbled about a trend to double-digit California Cabernet prices. Another digit has crept in since then.

About 25 years ago (I just checked) I paid $8 for current-release Stag's Leap Wine Cellars S.L.V., $9 for Raymond, $12 for Clos du Val, and $19 for BV "Georges de Latour Private Reserve," 1976 (which by the way, drank excellently a year ago). $15 for Ridge Monte Bello (1980, ordered pre-release in '81 at the winery, then as now).

With a nominal inflation factor (CPI) of 2.23 since 1981, equivalent 2006-dollar prices are $18, $20, $27, $42, and $33. Obviously some old-school Cabernets have risen more, but not always by much. (The BV and Ridge for example sold lately for twice the 1981 price, inflation-adjusted.)

The oldest bottle I have (not vintage year, but from when I purchased it) is a 1976 Jordan Cabernet. I bought in in May of 1980 for $12.

Wasn't that Jordan's first? (I was a latecomer, I started only with their 77.)

[rich]

The oldest bottle I have (not vintage year, but from when I purchased it) is a 1976 Jordan Cabernet. I bought in in May of 1980 for $12.

Wasn't that Jordan's first? (I was a latecomer, I started only with their 77.)

←

Yes it was. I have at least one bottle from everyone of their vintages.

[JohnL]

I used to record wine purchases in a book years ago (don't anymore) and I checked some prices based on this thread. Twelve dollars was one of the more expensive California Cabs in those days. Also in 1981, I bought a Petrus for $40, a Mouton, Laffitte and Cheval Blanc for $35 and a Palmer for $25 - all 1978 vintages.

Of the Californians, the Freemark Abbey Bosche was $13, the Ridge Monte Bello was $12, Heitz Martha's Vineyard was $18 and a Joseph Swan Zinfandel was $16 - again all 78's, except the Swan was a 74. I bought a 1974 Martha's Vineyard that same year for $30 and a 1975 Petrus for $80. Interestingly, I still have at least one bottle of each.

The oldest bottle I have (not vintage year, but from when I purchased it) is a 1976 Jordan Cabernet. I bought in in May of 1980 for $12.

←

All this price information is interesting but I am trying to figure out what the point is.

Are we a bit off topic?

Suffice to say that Diamond Creek cabernets sold for considerably more than the average or median price of premium California cabernets, from their initial release and through subsequent decades.

This is an indication that consumers responded positively.

This puts Brounstein's efforts in the peer group with other cabernets that consumers and critics deemed distinctive and worthy of attention.

Quite an accomplishment.

In 2003 the release prices for the three original vineyard wines was $175/bottle

the even rarer Lake Vineyard wine was $350.

they have always been in demand--personally, I have enjoyed most of the bottlings I have tasted--they are distinctive well made wines with great fruit and structure.

ps

someone mentioned the 76 BV GDL as still drinking nicely--I owned quite a bit of that wine--sadly all gone--my experience was that this wine suffered a lot of bottle variation--they were all good but some bottles really stood out. wonder if anyone had the same experience.

[MichaelB]

Somehow I missed the initial mention of Al Brounstein's death. Hearing about it makes me very sad.

My wife and I had the opportunity to meet him and spend nearly a half day with him in the late 1980's -- 1988 perhaps. I wanted to visit some of the smallish producers on a trip to Napa Valley that year. So, I picked several and wrote letters including with each letter a letter of introduction from the retailer I was using at the time. In each, I suggested an apppointment date and time and told the winemaker that I would call two days before to see if my suggestion was acceptable. Al Brounstein got one of those letters.

On the second day preceding, I called to confirm my visit to Diamond Creek. Al introduced himself and told me in no uncertain terms that visitors were welcome only on the two picnic weekends he held each year. He would take my name and address and invite me to the picnic. When I told him that I couldn't travel all the way from Cincinnati just for the picnic, he told me how odd that was because someone from Cincinnati was visiting him "the day after tomorrow." It took us a while to figure out that I was that person. His reaction? -- "then what are you doing calling today when I am expecting you then?" He told me where to be at 10:00 on the appointed day.

Turns out that it was his home. We spent an hour or two in his living room talking about the wine, the vineyards and his career. One of his cats spent the entire visit on my wife's lap. Al had recently been diagnosed with Parkinson's and was receiving treatment in Sweden (I believe) because the drugs were not yet FDA approved. We spent a while discussing the state of the FDA (his earlier career had been in the pharmaceutical business) and the effectiveness of the drug therapy he was undergoing.

He then took us up to vineyardswhere we spent a good long while at the top of the hill overlooking Volcanic Hill and Red Rock Terrace talking more about the wines, the vines, and the terroir. He left us to walk down to the lake to feed the ducks and to look in on Gravelly Meadow. He told us we could spend as much time with him as we wanted to but he didn't recommend walking to the lake in our "city" shoes (it was just the start of the rainy season and had rained 4 days straight). I really wanted to either ruin the shoes or go barefoot in the mud and cold.

I never gain had the chance to spend time with Al. My wife and I talk often about that day fondly. I have at least 8 bottles remaining from each of the three vineyards from each of the 84, 85, 86 and 87 vintages. I think some Diamond Creek will be on the menu this weekend.

Godspeed Al.

Edited July 20, 2006 by MichaelB (log)

[MaxH]

Thanks for posting that recollection, MichaelB. A striking vignette of an independent winemaker.

Probably many people know the following, but I thought to comment that the class of policy MichaelB encountered about winery visitors --

Al ... told me in no uncertain terms that visitors were welcome only on the two picnic weekends he held each year.

-- isn't unusual for small wineries, if my experiences in the US and other countries indicate. It was the rule even in the Napa Valley a few decades ago. Not always exactly as MichaelB encountered, but generally no assumption that it was proper for customers to drop in and take up employees' time without some arranging. Despite this, serious visionary winemakers are famous for resonating with more-than-casual fans, as MichaelB found out.

Many artisanal wineries are small family businesses and traditionally didn't expect to do retail sales, offer non-trade tastings, etc., much as they'd like to.* In some places where several wineries are co-located nearby, I've long seen them share resources for those purposes. When they're further apart, as with the 60 or so Santa Cruz Mountains wineries and their sometimes bizarre up-and-down Doctor-Seuss geography, the trend in California the last 10 or 15 years is to organize public "passport" days where they all open up, which gives visitors access to many wineries on one trip.

*(Even true of renowned but still small firms, in Burgundy for instance.)