As a general rule, it’s my sense that well-made 2005 Cabernet Sauvignon-based wines can be expected to be getting ready for, or already in bed for their ‘sleeping’ phase – that relatively mute period of 5 or more years that traditionally begins 4-6 years after the vintage date, when the fresh fruitiness of youth fades and the rich combination of fruit and bottle bouquet emerges.
It is, of course, this ‘dumb’ period (combined with mediocre or bad winemaking) which has given rise over the years to the notion that California reds do not age well. The lack of patience on the part of both vintners (who should really hold their best wines until they’re 10 or so) and on the part of wine drinkers has done more harm to the serous reputation of California wines than the oceans of plonk which no one took seriously to begin with.
As Tourists know (and I’m sure you recall) this was well known over 100 years ago, when the California Wine Association’s premier Cabernet (a blended wine, not single vineyard or producer, but an award winning wine nonetheless) was held for ten years before sale. The advertising emphasized the wine was fully mature - you could go to your wine shop and buy the kind of wine that previously was available only to those who cellared wines themselves. (Recall, too, this was before estate bottling anywhere - most wines were shipped in bulk and bottled near the point of sale, here and in Europe).
Smaller wineries, too, often held wines until well-aged, often in large oak casks.
Agreed. opened a bottle of it on tour and it was all tannins. Green bitter ones. Yuck! Bet it’s great it ten years though. hoping it’ll be a bit like the Turley Rattlsnake Acres vineyard 99 I had recently… in 2020
It’s not woot-appointed. It’s me-appointed. You can change your avatar if you click on it, and you have the option to use your Facebook profile image. So I made that picture my Facebook profile picture for the few seconds it took to tie it in here, then flipped it back :happy:
The Racchus is the return of Ty’s lowest level wine but if you compare the makeup to the last Field Blend that was offered on Woot it’s hard to say they’re the same wine.
Racchus was
36% Petite Sirah, 23% Syrah, 16% Merlot, 9% Petite Verdot, 9% Cabernet Sauvignon, 4% Cabernet Franc, 3% Malbec
2005 Field Blend was
44% Cabernet Sauvignon, 32% Syrah, 15% Petite Sirah, 8% Merlot, 1% Malbec
They’re just two completely different wines from the same maker. I’ve had both and the field blend was far better IMO, most likely because of all that Ty Caton Cab that was in there.
Not the Tytanium, but how can you resist anything Ty, I think I just put him on my pass list, LOL! Looking forward to a Ty wine tasting have a bottle of Tytanium, Racchus and now Ty’s Red!
Ok, I’ll admit I’m truly a wine tasting amateur. So I ask the experts out there about this: I read an article about how difficult the 2008 harvest was due to the prevalent California fires that summer and all the lengths the winemakers went to to remove the smoke taste. This has made me avoid the 2008 year. Am I wrong to do so?
If you read up on it in detail, you’ll see that the smoke affected some areas but not others, so it’s really a geography-specific determination. There’s been some very interesting and edifying discussion of this issue in the months gone by, if I have a chance I’ll try to dig up a link for you.
Have a few bottles of this left from the annual 50% off sale. My impression is that this just needs time. At LEAST another year. I thought it was pretty big and brawny and, to be honest, slightly disjointed. With time I hope the components will knit together and form a more seamless wine. The stuff is all there: dense fruit, chocolately mid-palate, medium-plus finish, they just need to learn to play nice with each other.
low production numbers (less than 600 cases) for a value wine!
in for max… looking for/loading up for everyday wine or cellar keepers… passing on interesting and adventurous stuff for now…