Ch Montelena

P

Peter Creasey

Peter Creasey
Chateau Montelena The Montelena Estate Cabernet Sauvignon 20th Anniversary 1992
Almost inky red.
Complex nose, pleasing aromas, spice, cherry, dark berries, black pepper.
Mouth filling, liquid velvet, wonderful concentration and depth, dense dark berries, balanced and structured, classic "old school" California Cab, integrated tannins, very true to the fruit, not at peak yet, keeps on keeping on.
Excellent length that stays full. [E - O]

Surprising (?) there is no alcohol level mentioned on the bottle...I would guess 13.5% max!?!

Served with Charwood Grilled Locally and Organically Grown Sirloin Steak, Kale, and Grilled Spring (Young) Onions...



P.S. The grilled hamburger patties were a bonus for the future!!

. . . . . Pete
 
originally posted by Bill Lundstrom: what kind of grill is that? big green egg?
Click to expand...

Bill, Yes...

jpcbge-1.jpg
I love the Big Green Egg and highly recommend it.

. . . . . Pete
 
I've tasted many older Montelena cabs and they usually fit your description. Too bad not many wineries make them that way anymore.
 
originally posted by Lou Kessler: We agreeI've tasted many older Montelena cabs and they usually fit your description. Too bad not many wineries make them that way anymore.
Click to expand...

Lou, Amen! Amen!

The Barretts at Montelena have always drawn distinctions between their "old-school" style and the current style embraced by many Cabernet producers. They still adhere to their traditional winegrowing practices. And thankfully so!

. . . . . Pete
 
Pete and Lou,
I also value the style of Montelena Cabs, but have a quibble: do they ever develop secondary, let alone tertiary, characteristics? Even the oldest bottles I've had (a '78 back in '99 or so) were solidly primary. This is not a slam on them by any stretch, but I do miss the more savory aspects of what Cabernet Sauvignon is capable of delivering.

Mark Lipton
 
originally posted by MLipton: Pete and Lou, I also value the style of Montelena Cabs, but have a quibble: do they ever develop secondary, let alone tertiary, characteristics?
Click to expand...

Mark, Interesting question!

I'm not sure that secondary and/or tertiary elements are quantifiable from person to person (different people have different notions); thus, I often don't give much thought to whether they are present or not in the wines being sampled.

My faint recollection is that the '87 may have had some semblance of these elements, and perhaps the '86 as well. Perhaps I'll remember to give this some thought when I next pull one of these older Montelenas.

As you suggest, though, these elements don't seem to be as prominent with Montelenas as they might be with certain other producers. I wonder why!?!

. . . . . Pete
 
originally posted by MLipton:
Pete and Lou,
I also value the style of Montelena Cabs, but have a quibble: do they ever develop secondary, let alone tertiary, characteristics? Even the oldest bottles I've had (a '78 back in '99 or so) were solidly primary. This is not a slam on them by any stretch, but I do miss the more savory aspects of what Cabernet Sauvignon is capable of delivering.

Mark Lipton
Click to expand...
Interesting observation. I have found the definition of what qualifies as secondary or tertiary varies with individuals. I guess my definition would be after some years the tannins have dropped and the wine "tastes better". The "flavors" are better not just the fact the rough edges are gone. Mark, it's my personal thing but it's like what is terroir? I'm still not satisfied with the definitions I've heard. A member of a prominen European wine family said to me a few years ago while visiting here that we couldn't possibly have wine possessing true terroir because our history in wine doesn't go far enough back in history. Even the family owning the winery is part of the terroir. Ever since then I never use the term having decided I would never get a definition that would suit me. Let other people argue.
 
Googling around, it would appear that there is a lot of agreement on the following definitions:

primary - flavors that come from the fruit
secondary - flavors that come from the vinification
tertiary - flavors that come from time in the bottle

So, all the cherry-berry words are primary, all the oaky-yeasty-buttery words are secondary, and all the mushroomy-leathery-tobaccoy words are tertiary.

It's not quite what I would say -- I think these words are connected to predominant flavors of the wine at different stages of decay -- but, at least, it's not a totally useless set of definitions.
 
originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
Googling around, it would appear that there is a lot of agreement on the following definitions:

primary - flavors that come from the fruit
secondary - flavors that come from the vinification
tertiary - flavors that come from time in the bottle

So, all the cherry-berry words are primary, all the oaky-yeasty-buttery words are secondary, and all the mushroomy-leathery-tobaccoy words are tertiary.

It's not quite what I would say -- I think these words are connected to predominant flavors of the wine at different stages of decay -- but, at least, it's not a totally useless set of definitions.
Click to expand...

The lab yeasts have made this trickier, with the "fruit" flavors they add. They probably have yeasts these days that provide "tertiary" flavors as well.
 
originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
Googling around, it would appear that there is a lot of agreement on the following definitions:

primary - flavors that come from the fruit
secondary - flavors that come from the vinification
tertiary - flavors that come from time in the bottle

So, all the cherry-berry words are primary, all the oaky-yeasty-buttery words are secondary, and all the mushroomy-leathery-tobaccoy words are tertiary.

It's not quite what I would say -- I think these words are connected to predominant flavors of the wine at different stages of decay -- but, at least, it's not a totally useless set of definitions.
Click to expand...

I have to admit that I hadn't ever defined those with strict specificity for myself. My working assumption was that primary was all the aromas of young wine. Then secondary was what could be called the first degree of evolution. Um, how to put that in words is a little tricky. I guess that would be the transitional phase of fruit and other aromas that aren't pure and fresh. Tertiary were all those aromas that did not exist when the wine was young.

Calling the vinification aromas secondary is reasonable but it isn't my natural inclination.
 
A more recent sampling with same general notes (without peeking) as 10 years ago.

Chateau Montelena Estate Cabernet Sauvignon '92 -- Damp cork split, lots of sediment, solid dark red, sweet scents, dark berries, super smooth with energy, soft flavors, well integrated, lasted well in glass, classic old-Cab excellence. Probably at or very near peak. [E]

Worked well with Angus beef patty on Caesar salad and sweet potato fries.

. . . . . Pete
 
Chateau Montelena Cabernet Sauvignon Estate '91 -- Color right on, abundant sediment, appealing aromas just as desired and expected, some weedy dill, a bit evolved but still eminently enjoyable, plenty of acid and fruits, still balanced, lots of Cabernet "personality", a bonafide cellar treasure. No hurry with good cellaring. [E+]

Nicely paired with grilled flank steak, potato puffs, and green peas... then pecan pie cookies.

montelena.jpg
. . . . . Pete
 
Pete, those Montelena Cabs came as close to immortal as any wine (save Dunn Howell Mtn) that I’ve ever had. An ‘85 that we drank ca 2008 was still in its infancy.

Mark Lipton
 
Totally agree, Mark. I used to buy every vintage and over the years (and now) have never been disappointed. The '87 is probably my favorite from that "era".

. . . . . . Pete
 
Chateau Montelena Estate Napa Valley Cabernet Sauvignon '93 Terrible crumbly cork, dark red, generous classic Cabernet aromas, excellent dark fruits, balanced, no edges, restrained tannins, impressive length, plenty of life left. [E]

Worked well with beef stew, field peas, and sweet potato fries.

Mont.jpg
. . . . . Pete
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top