Photograph by Kevin A. Roberts
By now, you might have read that the 2008 vintage of Napa cabernet sauvignon is a vintage to avoid. Critics who enjoy alcohol-laden, teeth-staining versions of cabernet might try to sway you from a vintage that they claim fell victim to early fall rains and suffers from lack of concentration and depth. They also might describe the vintage as “acidic” and “underripe,” or give the backhanded compliment that it’s “Bordelaise” in style—meaning “herby” and “lean,” like many Bordeaux in the early ’90s.
Yes, the 2008 vintage is following the super-ripe year of 2007, in which alcohol levels in the wine reached an all-time high, with several producers even having to add water or lie about the 15.5 percent on the label. In my opinion, Wine Spectator got it wrong when it gave the 2007 vintage 99 points, and I’m not the only person who thinks so.
In his article “Judging Napa Cabernet’s Class of 2007,” New York Times wine critic Eric Asimov pulls no punches, writing, “We were disappointed to find so many uniform, monochromatic wines with little finesse.” I couldn’t agree more. I’m not saying the 2007 vintage is awful; I’m just remembering Wine Spectator’s last great vintage assessment, the 1997 vintage, which scored 98 points. Most professionals will agree that those wines, almost universally, are rapidly losing fruit and structure. The moral of the story: If you’re still sitting on 1997-vintage cabernets, drink them; if you’re planning to cellar the ’07 vintage forever, don’t.
Winemaker Keith Emerson (of Vineyard 29, Emerson Brown, Knights Bridge, and Sonría Wines) describes the ’08 vintage as a “structure vintage,” meaning the wines tend to have higher acid, lower alcohol, and less-volatile acidity—all qualities that read “better with food.”
I’m here to announce that the wine lives up to that term. After three days with the Napa Valley Vintners Association, in which we blind-tasted 120 wines from both the 2007 and 2008 vintages, I came to the conclusion that the ’08 is not be missed. It’s more approachable, better with food, and the vintage to cellar for long-term enjoyment.
In other words, bigger doesn’t always mean better. Riper, more alcoholic wines can leave you with the same disappointment as a cork-tainted bottle of expensive wine—frustrated and broke.
