Heitz Cellars

We drank the '88, '95, and '97 Napa cabs side-by-side-by-side last night. About two weeks ago I had done the '95 and '97 together when we ate some pot roast. Last night the lamb was terrifically juicy and tasted just wonderful. I think it's probably worth buying a rotisserie even if you never cook anything besides lamb - well, and of course chicken - in it. Such an interesting flavor in such a nice cut of meat. Lamb is a great wine food with it's hint of gamey-ness. You could do an earthy Burgundy, just about anything with a backbone of Syrah, Chianti, Merlot, Cabernet, and on and on. It's a fun food to try and find your favorite pairing with.

The aged cabernets were great with the lamb, but they probably aren't my first choice with the dish. I would probably prefer some sort of Rhone wine, but I am still (for the most part) avoiding French wines.

The 1988 was loaded with ripe, red fruit flavors. From the first sip to the last, fruit was the predominant flavor. The bottle was opened for over three hours before we finally finished it off. This 16 year-old wine held up through it all. The wine lacked the structure and complexity of the '95, but it was certainly evident that even the plain-old Napa Valley Cabernet (as opposed to one of Heitz's other more well known single vineyard bottlings) was built to last. Drink your '88s soon. I don't think it is going to get any better and could start to fade off any time now. Great dark chocolate covered cherries flavor on the finish. On the Wine Spectator's scoring scale, I would probably give this wine an 89.

The 1995 was again my favorite. Perhaps this is not surprisingly given the greatness of the 1995 California vintage. This wine clearly had a lot more tannic structure than the others. More than the other wines, this one really evolved the longer it was in the glass. It starts out rather tightly wound without a lot of the flavors being immediately apparent. Inside of twenty minutes though the fruit, black leather, and earth begins to break through. This wine was the heaviest in the mouth of the three. I feel certain that this wine is probably still a good three years away from its peak. It will probably continue to age and pour well for at least another ten years. On the WS scale, I give this a 92.

The 1997 was the most average of the three. It may be that the wine is at somewhat of an awkward stage or that it has in fact already started its decline. It's not a bad wine by any means. Fresh from popping the cork, most drinkers initially preferred this wine. (And when we had it with the roast, some preferred it to the '95.) The wine is smooth with well integrated tannins making it eminently gulpable. However, it does not display the intensity of fruit (or other flavors) as the the '88, nor does it have the structure and depth of flavors of the '95. I still have a half dozen bottles or so of this vintage. I think that I will probably wait another six months before I give it a try again. I'll give this one an 84.

Jonathan 4/12/2004 04:04:00 PM