Les Carmes Haut Brion is a tiny jewel of a property, the only chateau within the city limits of Bordeaux, and just at the very border of Pessac Léognan. It’s essentially surrounded by suburban housing. It was split off from Haut Brion as a present to the Carmelite monks who owned it from 1584 until the French Revolution. Since then it stayed with one family until it was sold in 2010 to Patrick Pichet of the Pichet Real Estate Group. The vineyard is not classified, but clearly there are plans to revive it and push to a higher level.
Surrounded by a high wall, it’s a single plot of 10 ha, with 7 ha planted to vines. It’s divided into a 4 ha block planted with Cabernet Franc and Merlot, and a 3 ha block planted with Cabernet Sauvignon. The microclimate is 3-5°C warmer than the countryside.
The chateau itself was not built until 1850 and is just at the border of the property. The old cells are at another border. The most strikign feature of the property today is a new cellar, designed by Philippe Starck and architect Luc Arsène-Henry, and completed for the 2015 harvest. A small stream runs through the property, and was extended to surround the new cellar, which has the shape of an upside down ship.
The new winery at Les Carmes Haut Brion
Winemaking focuses on the objective of making a wine that is drinkable early. “You don’t have to wait ten years, it’s well balanced and ready after 6 years.” Vinification uses a lasagna with alternating layers of berries and whole bunches. Submerged cap is used to achieve infusion rather than extraction. The wine ages for almost two years in barriques with 80% new barriques, some 18 hl foudres, and amphora (there are also some stainless steel barrels).
The Cabernet Franc can give the wine a more aromatic impression than is usual in Graves. The 2023 is smooth and elegant but a touch angular, while 2022 is lighter but elegant. The 2021 shows elegant fruits. The 2019 shows its Cabernet Franc in a distinctly mineral expression, the 2017 is also dominated by Cabernet Franc, 2016 has classic cigar-box impressions, and 2015 is on the lighter side.
There is a another wine, C des Carmes Haut Brion, but it’s definiotely not a second wine in the traditional sense, as it comes from 40 ha purchased in Martillac. “We don’t like to talk about second wines, we talk about wines from different places.” This is a more classic blend with two thirds Cabernet Sauvignon to one third Merlot. The first vintages aged for one year in barriques with 50% new oak followed by one year in concrete. Now a third year of aging in foudres has been added. It’s intended to be easy drinking. Although vinification of the C cuvée is similar to that of Carmes Haut Brion, the style is completely different, much softer and more forward.
“First I cannot be, Second I disdain, I am Mouton,” was Baron Philippe de Rothschild’s motto as he campaigned for promotion to first growth from 1924 to 1974. Often one of the most powerful wines of Bordeaux, Mouton Rothschild can age for decades, becoming less opulent but without much loss of its remarkable density. The 1945 is generally recognized to be timeless, although perhaps now finally fading.Mouton is sui generis, but now at the center of a series of brands, with Châteaux Clerc Milon and d’Armailhac, close by in Pauillac, and the Mouton Cadet brand (which ha no connection with the chateaux other than ownership) made not very far away.
A recent visit to Mouton Rothschild showed that its facilities are eye-catching in a quite different way from the other great chateaux. Lafite has its circular barrel room, Latour has its tower (really a dovecot), Margaux has its tree-lined allée. Mouton does not have a grand chateau, just a relatively small one (wich members of the family still use) near the winery. The vinification facility was renovated from 2009 and appears relatively workmanlike from the outside, with huge wooden doors that open to allow the grapes to be brough in. But inside are a series of collapsible wooden walls that can be removed to open it all out into a huge area for handlign the grapes. Baron Philippe’s daughter, Baroness Philippine, a great figure in Bordeaux until she died in 2014, was formerly an actress in Paris, and brought in a stage designer to produce this trompe d’oeil. The facilitywas renovated with 44 wooden vats, allowing better plot by plot vinification, using an elevator system to avoid pumping. The first vintage made in the new facility was 2012.
The doors at Mouton’s new chai open out in parts, the walls inside can be removed, and it becoems a vast open space for handling the grapes
There’s an interesting connection between Mouton and the other chateaux in the group. At Mouton, 50% of the production gos into the grand vin, and 25% goes into the second wine, Petit Mouton. The Mouton Rothschild ages for 18 months in 100% new oak, and Petit Mouton ages in 50% new oak. There is also a white wine, Aile d’Argent, which comes from 11 dedicated ha in the vineyard. Vineyards are in a single block around the winery, and the division of lots for the red wine is based on selection immediately after the alcoholic and malolactic fermentations.
The old cellars at Mouton run for hundreds of meters underground
The last 25% is declassified to a third wine, a Pauillac that also contains lots declassified from Armailhac and Clerc Milon, which do not have any second wine. This is the Baron Nathaniel Pauil;lac, which is made at the Mouton Cadet plant. So Mouton’s third selection is more or less equivalent with Armailhac and Clerc Milon’s second selection. What about a pecking order foe the chateau? Petit Mouton usually shows better than Armailhac which shows better than Clerc Milon.
Mouton is also an interesting tourist experience because, in adfition to the wine, there is also an art museum with Baroness Philippine’s collection of objects and art connected with wine, and a museum with the original artwork for all the labels.
With Lafite Rothschild closed for an extensive renovation until 2028, the way to get a taste of the Rothschild wines on the left bank is to visit Duhart Milon, now open after a refurbishment. Located close to the waterfront in the village of Pauillac, Duhart Milon is one of only two châteaux remaining in the village of Pauillac. The group of buildings is surprisingly extensive within the village, eve including a large garden, but the vineyards are outside at the northern border of Pauillac.
The first information about wine production at Duhart Milon dates from the eighteenth century, and it was well known by the nineteenth century. The château was created when privateer Jean Milon married Suzanne Castéja. After Jean Milon died, Suzanne left the property to her nephew Pierre Castéja, who was the proprietor at the time of the 1855 classification, when it became a fourth growth. After Castéja’s death, the estate was run for the family by André Delon, at the time also the manager of Léoville Lascases. Financial difficulties caused the usual depredations, and some of the vineyards were sold off, including 15 ha that went to Château Batailley.
Duhart stood in splendid isolation near the waterfront in 1898. Today it is immersed in the town, although the winery buildings are surrounded by extensive gardens
Things got steadily worse as the property kept changing hands, until it was bought in 1962 by the Rothschilds of Château Lafite. The estate then consisted of only 17 ha, but the existing vineyards were replanted, and there was a great expansion as new vineyards were purchased. There are now 62 ha in a single block, separated by the hamlet of Milon from the vineyards of Château Lafite Rothschild immediately to the east. The château was known for a while as Duhart Milon Rothschild, but now has reverted simply to Duhart Milon. Although the vineyards are close to Lafite, elevation is lower, and exposure is more northern. Duhart Milon usually harvests 7-10 days after Lafite.
The grand vin is usually 70% Cabernet Sauvignon and 30% Merlot, aged 50% in new oak and 50% in 1-year oak. The second wine, Moulin du Duhart, is usually a more or less equal blend, with 20% new oak and 80% 2-year oak. Production is typically three quarters grand vin. In spite of proximity and similarities in winemaking, the wine does not at all resemble Lafite: it is solid where Lafite can be ethereal, and robust rather than powerful. Benefiting from the halo cast by its famous neighbor, Duhart Milon prices above its classification. A white wine was introduced in 2020, but is only a small production. It has a majority of Sémillon, aged in barriques for 8 months.
Tasting recent vintages at the château this week shows the extent of the change in Bordeaux. The grand vin from 2019 is very much the new Bordeaux: all but ready only half a decade after the vintage. It makes quite a classic impression, moving in a savory direction, with tannins not at all obtrusive but giving support. In fact, it should last another 20 years, becoming more savory and smoother with age. It’s a modern take on the old style of Bordeaux.
Moulin du Duhart is a complete contrast. The 2022 vintages shows a really fruity nose, not quite exotic, but tending to red fruits, say raspberries, rather than the traditional black fruits of Pauillac. That impression of aromatics beyond Bordeaux is enhanced by using 5% of American oak during aging, bringing coconut and vanillin. The quasi-exotic character comes out more on the palate, making this seem not merely approachable but even a touch aggressive: a quite different impression from the reserve of Pauillac. This is a wine intended to appeal to people who may not know, in fact may even have been put off, by Bordeaux. It’s an attempt to reinvent Bordeaux to appeal to a new class of consumers.
This is what Bordeaux has always done: stay classic but renew itself.
I have always been doubtful about what difference the material of the fermentation container makes to vinification. Aficionados of wood vats say that they give a better rounded wine. Believers in stainless steel argue for increased purity and freshness. Concrete has gone in and out of style, and its present resurgence is based on the argument that it’s as neutral as stainless steel, but allows micro oxygenation like oak. It is clear, of course, that nothing gets through stainless steel, but I do wonder if there is any actual experimental support for the idea that breathing of concrete is a significant factor in fermentation.
Given the turbulence of fermentation, I am inclined think that other factors, such as temperature within the vat, may be more important than the contact surface at the exterior. Of course, maceration to keep the cap in contact with the juice, whether by pump over or punch down, is a major factor in determining the level of extraction. I am suspicious whether the exterior surface has much role here, and more interested in the question of whether the shape has any effect. The latest buzz in shapes was the introduction of tronconique or tulip-shaped vats, where the diameter narrows from bottom to top. The argument is that offers better maceration because the cap has a smaller diameter than the bulk of the liquid. This is plausible, but I am puzzled how it relates to the latest vats, which are suspended in reverse tronconique shape.
When they were renovating the cellars at Chateau Grand Puy Ducasse, there was a problem with space. The chateau is right on the waterfront in Pauillac (one of only two chateaux left in the town; the other is Duhart Milon, a couple of hundred yards inland). So the high water table makes it impossible to dig down deeper, and the waterfront makes it impossible to expand horizontally. Now owned by the bank Crédite Argricole, who wanted to improve quality by introducing plot by plot vinification, the issue was how to get more tanks into the same space. The answer was to invert the tronconique shape and suspend the tanks from the ceiling. Grapes go in at the top level, but after that vinification can be controlled from below walking around the tanks, which are all in stainless steel. It’s quite an engineering feat to sus[ecd tanks that will be full of wine. In fact, the insurance company insisted on double checking all the calculations. (Even though the tanks were empty, I did not have the nerve to walk directly underneath them.)
The suspended vats at Grand Puy Ducasse
A similar lack of space to expand led Chateau Branaire Ducru into the same calculation that they could fit in more tanks by suspension. The cellar (actually a building at ground level) was entirely renovated . “From the original building we have only the walls and roof. We didn’t want to take out any vineyards, there was nowhere to expand, so the way tanks were got into limited space was to suspend reverse trannconique tanks,” explains cellarmaster Jean-Dominique Videau. Stainless steel tanks are almost touching at the top, but there is space to walk around and work on them underneath—the bottoms just over a meter above the ground. Jean-Dominique says the shape works well because they use only pump over, not punch down.
The renovated fermentation hall at Branaire Ducru
“Not much has changed since 2018 except the new winery,” I was told when I visited Angélus. The barrel cellars were renovated in 2012 when the chateau took its present striking form, but the vat room remained. It’s just completed a massive renovation, which will come into use for the 2026 vintage (running two years late). But the vats are not buried underground; they are suspended with the tops at ground level, so grapes can be put in directly by gravity feed. An even more unusual feature is that while most of the vats are stainless steel, there are also 6 concrete vats and 4 oak vats. This required some innovations in manufacture.
The new fermentation hall at Angelus is being prepared for the 2026 vintage
While admiring the sheer chutzpah in suspending the tanks, the question that remains unanswered is what effect the inverted shape has on vinification. After all tronconique and inverted tronconique can’t both be best for vinification. So does the shape actually make any difference. Or is it just bubble, bubble, toil and trouble?
Bordeaux was in terrible shape at the end of the Second World War. It had been occupied by the Germans, and cellars were destroyed or looted. Vineyards were in poor condition: the women had done their best to maintain them and harvest grapes during the war. But the summer of 1945 was glorious and harvest occurred in close to perfect conditions. A frost early in May had reduced yields and increased concentration. The wines proved to be the best vintage of the twentieth century. Its only rival might be 1961. It’s generally agreed that the Médoc was the star of both vintages. The rivals for the best wine of the century divide between Mouton Rothschild 1945 and Latour 1961.
Before the tasting
At a retrospective in New York to celebrate the 80th anniversary, the vibrancy of the wines was still evident. Opening with Trotanoy, the wine still seemed fresh with lively fruits, well rounded, and just a touch of the tertiary character of old Merlot. It did not fade at all in the glass, even over an hour. Its elegance might be viewed as a contrast with the sheer power of today’s Pomerols.
The Berry Bros bottling of Cheval Blanc followed. It’s well known that Cheval had problems with over-heating in the vats in 1945, with ice thrown in to cool some, and volatile acidity sometimes developing. There was no trace of either problem with this bottle. Indeed, this is one of the rare instances in which I have usually found the Berry Bros bottling to be superior to the chateau bottling. The flavor spectrum of Cabernet Franc was marked, with that dry sense of tobacco dominating the finish. The wine held up well immediately after opening, but faded a bit after half an hour as the dryness of the finish took over.
The Berry Bros bottling of Cheval Blanc 1945
The next two flights were comparisons. Lafite Rothschild has been ethereal, with fragrant fruits floating in the atmosphere, but has begun to fade in the past couple of years. Although usually sturdier in most vintages, its neighbor Cos d’Estournel has sometimes shown something of the same fragrant elegance. On this occasion, the Cos started out if anything more fragrant and elegant than the Lafite, but first growth character showed as the wines developed in the glass and Cos developed an edge while Lafite floated along.
A similar development ensued with a comparison of Palmer and Chateau Margaux. Chateau Palmer started out with a touch more generosity, with rounder fruits, while Margaux seemed a little tight. Then as Palmer lost its sense of forward fruits, the structure of the Margaux loosened up and it become more elegant than the Palmer. The difference was a brilliant demonstration of the characters of their blends, heavily Cabernet Sauvignon for Margaux, more Merlot in Palmer.
Even after eighty years, Chateau Latour showed the power of Pauillac. Fruits are still relatively dense. Black fruit character and the pulling power of Cabernet Sauvignon remain evident. Some people preferred the Latour to the Mouton Rothschild, but I thought the Mouton pulled ahead for slightly livelier fruits, greater aromatics, and sense of freshness. It really is a timeless wine, or at least as timeless as wine can get.
The famous V for victory label of Mouton and a rather tattered label for Latour
We finished with Chateau d’Yquem, so dark it seemed almost black. All Sauternes become darker with age, of course, but they say at Yquem that the 1945 is one of the darkest of the vintages of the century, having taken leaps into greater darkness every decade. It was even more intense than I remember it from my previous tasting, twenty years ago. The balance of sweetness to acidity is fantastic, with a palate that’s mature but not old, and a huge range of flavors.
Chateau d’Yquem 1945 in all its glory
I suppose it’s undeniable that these wines are no longer at their peak, which in most cases may have been several decades ago, but they are a living demonstration of the greatness of old Bordeaux.
Detailed Tasting Notes
Trotanoy
Pungent notes of old Merlot show through sweet ripe fruits, still in balance with acidity. Not at all tired although tannins are resolved. Keeps going in the glass and does not tire at all.
Cheval Blanc
Strongly dominated by mature Cabernet Franc with notes of tobacco and tea on the finish. Quite dry at the end. Feels more like the seventies than the forties in terms of age. Fading a little in the glass as fruits begin to dry out. A faint touch of tannin at the end becomes bitter as the fruits fade.
Cos d’Estournel
Just a little less weighty than the Lafite, but a very similar impression of elegance. Sweetens in the glass after opening, and then becomes a little bitter as it develops, losing elegance compared to the Lafite.
Lafite Rothschild
Not as fragrant or aromatically uplifted as previous bottles. A little sturdier than Cos when it opened, with a touch of bitterness at the end. But lightens up in the glass, developing that infinitely fragrant elegance.
Margaux
Very refined, greater sense of precision in its black fruits than Palmer, very much Cabernet Sauvignon in fine structure and texture. Great finesse Fruits begin to dry out very slowly in the glass.
Palmer
At first the Merlot carries this forward with a sense of generosity. A little fleshier than Chateau Margaux to begin with, but becomes a touch bitter as fruits fade in the glass.
Latour
Ripe and generous and quite nutty on the finish. A touch of bitterness as wine develops in glass. Certainly full bodied, you can definitely see the power of Pauillac and Latour, but it’s lost the sheer gloss, the plushness, that it showed when younger.
Mouton Rothschild
A little nutty, a little more elegant than Latour. Something of the same sense of those fragrant layers of flavor, that ethereal character, of the Lafite, but weightier. There is now a little bitterness on the finish.
Chateau d’Yquem
Rich, unctuous, figgy, very intense, very viscous. Notes of caramel. Sweet but not overwhelming. Very much its own wine, its own style. Vastly more complex than a modern Sauternes.
Not a drop left after the tasting. All the wines were in excellent condition, with levels varying from well into neck to very top shoulder. All the corks were original, except for Yquem, which was recorked recently. The wines were mostly sourced from old English country house cellars.
Discretion starts right at the front door. The property is identified only by a street number, and a small notice saying, ‘this is not Goosecrest cellars.’ Under the name of State Lane Vineyard, it was originally a family farm providing wine to Beringer for the Private Reserve from 1975 to 1991. The vineyard became infected with phylloxera, and the owners decided to sell; Lou Kapcsándy, a passionate collector of Bordeaux, purchased the estate in 2000. The property is a single block of 20 acres, with the Yountville Cross Road and Napa River as borders. The 15 acres planted with vines are divided into 15 blocks with different soil types. The first wine was made in 2003 and the first commercial release was 2005.
The winery is surrounded by vineyards between Yountville Cross Road and the Napa River.
The wines are all based on Bordeaux varieties, except for the one white, a Furmint based on vines that came from Tokaj, a hommage to Lou’s origins (he left Hungary in 1956). Each of the four reds has a core block as its main source, and other sources vary with the year. The Estate Cuvée has been a blend since 2005 (two vintages were 100% Cabernet Sauvignon). “This is the representation of the estate.” The first vintage of Rhapszodia was 2010. It started as a 50:50 blend of Merlot and Cabernet Franc, and then the Merlot was steadily reduced until it effectively became a Cabernet Franc varietal in 2015. Roberta’s Reserve is usually a blend, but has sometimes been 100% Merlot, coming from blocks along the river where there is more clay. The Grand Vin is the top Cabernet Sauvignon.
The house style is quite reserved. Each of the cuvées shows the characteristic flavor spectrum of its principal (or sole) varietal with its supporting structure almost imperceptibly integrated. Cabernet Franc shows purity, Merlot shows more roundness, Cabernet Sauvignon is structured. Each is a textbook for its type, within the context of the power of Napa. All could be drunk not too long after release, but will benefit from some time to develop.
Tasting Notes
2017 Estate Cuvee Cabernet Sauvignon (Cabernet Sauvignon 89%, Merlot 8%, Petit Verdot 3%) Quite reserved aromatics on the black fruit nose, quite a stern impression on the palate, with a slightly crisp edge and a touch of asperity, not quite bitterness, on the finish. Blackberry fruits dominate the palate with a touch of asperity, and you see the freshness, even a touch of salinity. All this gives the impression of a broader-based blend than it really is. 14.2% 90 Drink 2022-2034 2015 Rhapszodia Cabernet Franc Reserved nose is still rather dumb. Nice purity of fruits, makes an unusually elegant impression for Napa Valley, with well-delineated black fruits of ripe Cabernet Franc. Silky tannins are barely evident on finish, perhaps there is a very faint hint of tobacco, before the tannins kick in to show some bitter chocolate and dryness at the end. The palate is moving towards minerality with some cooler-climate impressions. You could drink this now but personally I would wait a year or two. 14.4% 2 Drink -2033 2014 Roberta’s Reserve Merlot (Merlot 97%, Cabernet Franc 3%) Greater roundness to the nose than in the Cabernet Sauvignon or Cabernet Franc cuvees, slowly releasing black fruit aromatics. Smooth palate shows some flavor variety in what is certainly a reserved style for Merlot; in fact, you might say the house reserve is coming through. Nice sense of delineation to the fruits, although the palate is broader than the Cabernet Franc of Rhapszodia. Tannins are supple on the finish, and you can see the structural support, although there’s no overt bitterness. This is an unusually pure impression of Merlot. 14.4% 92 Drink -2034
2014Grand Vin Cabernet Sauvignon (Cabernet Sauvignon 95%, Merlot 5%) Quite reserved nose shows hints of blackberries. Sweeter and riper impressions than the Merlot or Cabernet Franc varietals, overall more forthcoming. Black fruits are cut by almost crisp acidity. The structure is well integrated, tannins are firm but not obvious, with just a faint touch of bitter chocolate on the finish. This needs time, not so much for tannins to resolve but to let flavor variety develop. 13.9% 94 Drink -2040
The first time I visited Dominus, I was warned that rattlesnakes lived in the outer walls, and I’ve approached it cautiously ever since. One of the most striking wineries in the valley, Dominus was constructed under the principle that it should blend invisibly into the landscape. It has an unusual double skin, with an outer construction of stones packed into netting hiding the construction inside—in the valley, it’s sometimes called the stealth winery. It was founded in the historic Napanook vineyard in 1983 by Christian Moueix of Petrus, originally as a partnership, and in 1995 he became the sole owner. Looking through an arch in the center of the building as you approach, it seems to be floating in front of the Mayacamas Mountains.
The arch in the center of the building gives a view into the vineyard.
Christian Moueix has strong views on irrigation, and Dominus is dry farmed. “We’ve never had as much water stress as this year,” manager Tod Mostero says, and the vines are smaller than usual due to the extended drought. “Actually they do better than irrigated vines, because dry farming forces them to make deeper roots with smaller vessels for taking up water,” Tod explains. The vineyard is on an alluvial fan, with its apex opposite the winery at the base of the Mayacamas Mountains. Below the fan is a hard pan of clay, and water flows from the mountains on top of it from April until September. “We’ve even built drains to allow it to go into the creek at the end of the vineyard,” Tod says.
“Our style is more reserved, less obvious, we’re not looking for a fruit bomb,” Tod says. Indeed, Dominus is one of the reserved Cabernet Sauvignon blends from Napa Valley, typically with 80-90% Cabernet Sauvignon and the rest split between Cabernet Franc and Petit Verdot. Merlot was included until 2002, but was abandoned because its profile did not really complement the blend. “Now it’s too dry and hot for Merlot.” A second wine, Napanook, was introduced in 1996, with a very similar varietal composition.
“It’s not our concept to make a second wine from left-over lots,” Tod says. There are no designated plots for either cuvée, although wine from the blocks closer to the Mayacamas usually go into Dominus. “Napanook should easier to drink sooner, the wine is a little more friendly and fruit forward. Dominus is more austere and meant to be aged. It takes five years for Napanook to be ready and ten years for Dominus for the fruit to really appear.” Emphasizing the value of aging, there’s an annual release of a library box of Dominus containing 2 bottles from each of 3 vintages: the latest release had 2001, 2008, and 2012.
The difference between Dominus and Napanook when they are young is partly a matter of readiness, but you certainly sense greater complexity in Dominus and more potential for flavor variety as it develops. Personally I would not describe Napanook as ‘approachable’ on release: the structure of the Cabernet Sauvignon flattens the fruits and requires patience. Dominus is yet more reserved, but its extra depth is already evident. These are far from typical wines for Napa Valley, built for potential rather than immediate gratification.
Tasting Notes on the 2018 Vintage
Napanook Deep color with some purple. Fruity black nose with just a touch of lifted blackcurrant aromatics. Pretty reserved on palate, blackberry fruits showing as a little brambly and then some impressions of bitter chocolate on the finish. Even though this is the second wine, it is rather well structured, certainly showing its dominant Cabernet Sauvignon, and still needs time 90 Drink 2023-2035
Dominus
Nose is more reserved than Napanook with black fruits pushed more into background. Palate certainly shows a resemblance to Napanook, but fruits are less obvious, very black, with blackberries and blackcurrants in the background. Tannins are firm but not aggressive and there’s a touch of tobacco on the long finish, which gives a sense of the complexity to come. This is something a coiled spring waiting to unwind, but it has the structure and the fruits for longevity. It does soften and develop just a little in the glass, emphasizing its greater complexity compared to Napanook. 94 Drink 2025-2040
Cain is located well up Spring Mountain, to the west of St. Helena, with vineyards ranging from 1,400 to 2,100 ft on sedimentary soils. The Cains bought a 550 acre estate on the mountain in 1980, which had mostly been used as sheep pastures. They planted vineyards and constructed a winery. The Cains were joined by Jim and Nancy Meadlock, who took over when the Cains retired in 1991. (Wines can’t be tasted at the winery but can be tasted in St. Helena.)
Cain’s vineyards are on steep slopes.
Cain was originally planted largely on AxR1 in large blocks for each variety, mostly using individual clones. After Chris Howell arrived as winemaker in 1990 (having previously worked in the Médoc) the vineyards had to be replanted because of problems with phylloxera. “I mixed it up a lot so weren’t susceptible to problems affecting particular varieties or clones,” Chris says. “We want diversity not a single clone. The idea of the clone was that everything would mature together. But it leaves wines that are simple.”
Cain Five is not simple. The first vintage for the flagship wine (named because it includes the five Bordeaux varieties, Cabernets Sauvignon and Franc, Merlot, Petit Verdot, and Malbec), was 1985. Cabernet Sauvignon is more than half, but the wine gives a strongly structured impression that might lead you to think there is more. The structure dominates the wine when it’s young, to an extent varying with the vintage. Today the 2008 is coming around, the 2012 is more backward, the 2016 is almost ready, and the 2017 is a lighter style because the lots that were picked last were not included because of the fires.
The estate has made two other cuvées. Cain Concept was made from purchased fruit, and states Benchland on the label to indicate that it comes from the valley rather than the mountain. With more lifted aromatics, round black fruits, and chocolaty finish, it’s much more immediately approachable. The difference in style is due solely to sources, as criteria for harvest , and the aging regime, were the same as Cain Five. “We stopped making Concept in 2015,” Chris says. “It might be your favorite wine but it doesn’t reflect our vineyard. There’s no need for us to add to the list of Napa wines.”
The second wine is now based on a different concept. The NV series does not have a vintage label. Each successive release carries an increasing lot number, and is a blend of two successive vintages. It’s lighter than Cain Five on nose and palate, with good freshness, and immediately flavorful fruits tending as much to the red as to the black spectrum. “It’s a definite outlier in the world of Napa,” Chris says. It is 60% Merlot with the rest divided between Cabernets Sauvignon and Franc. It includes purchased fruit, and is picked for purpose, starting earlier than Cain Five, and is given less sustained maceration.
Cain leaves no doubt about its origins: the wines are clearly mountain cuvées, with that characteristic sense of tension and reserve. “We picking about three weeks before people who are looking for 100 points (and I still get 14% alcohol),” Chris says. They are very much their own style, and not at all like the caricature of big powerful fruit-bombs from Napa.
An updated profile will be included in the 2022 edition of the Guide to Napa.
Tasting Notes
Cain Five 2017
This vintage offers a lighter impression than usual, perhaps because the lots picked after the fires (which as the last to pick are the most powerful) were not included. Shows a smoother and fresher style than 2016, with a light impression of still quite tight black fruits on the palate, and a faint tannic bitterness on the finish. It lacks the superficial richness that you can see through the structure of other vintages. In some ways, the trend towards fresh fruits is more Bordeaux-like than other vintages; this feels more like a cool-climate wine, although that’s not a reflection of vintage conditions, but rather of the fact that it contains only the lots to be picked first. “It has the high notes, but lacks the base,” says Christopher Howell. 91 Drink 2026-2038
Cain Five 2016 Black fruit nose with some herbal overtones and faint perfume. This vintage offers a more immediate sense of finding its balance straight away than 2008 or 2012. The mountain reserve is there alright, but the fruits are beginning to come through. The reserve here is due to youth. This is a coiled spring waiting to open. 93 Drink 2025-2037
Cain Five 2012 Cabernet Sauvignon 50%, %, Merlot 20%, Petit Verdot 8%Cabernet Franc 8%, Malbec 5%) Stern nose with reserved black fruits. Very backward, more backward than 2008, with tannins flattening the fruit profile. This is the old style of needing a long time to come around. The structure is not aggressive but it is certainly dominant, and is reinforced by the acidity. This is a really brooding wine. 14.4% 90 Drink 2027-2039 Cain Five 2008 (Cabernet Sauvignon 61%, Merlot 15%, Cabernet Franc 13%, Malbec 6%, Petit Verdot 5%) Expressive black fruit nose with lifted aromatics shows in front, with blackberries and blueberries, and then some more restrained impressions following on the palate. Firm tannins have a touch of bitter chocolate on the finish with a sense of powerful mountain structure. The structure is still (just) dominating the fruits. 92 Drink 2023-2037 Cain Concept 2012 This comes from purchased fruit, mostly in Rutherford, including some Cabernet from the George III vineyard, and Merlot and Cabernet Franc from Carneros. Nose shows some faintly developed aromatics with hints of minerality. Round black fruits on the palate follow to a chocolaty texture on the finish. Lifted aromatics soften the impression of structure; tannins are relatively supple. This if benchland (as marked on the label) as opposed to mountain. 90 Drink -2031
NV16
This is a blend of 2015 and 2016. Lighter than Cain Five on nose and palate, nice freshness, immediately flavorful fruits tending as much to the red as to the black spectrum. “It’s a definite outlier in the world of Napa,” Christopher Howell says. It’s more inclined to freshness than power, and like a Bordeaux second wine, is more approachable and does not need so long to age. Not a lot of stuffing, but very pleasant. It is 60% Merlot with the rest divided between Cabernets Sauvignon and Franc. 88 Drink -2025
By far California’s most famous (and expensive) cult wine, Screaming Eagle has a very discrete entrance off Silverado Trail with only the number to indicate the address. There is nothing remarkable to see across the slightly sloping vineyard, and winery buildings are workmanlike wooden structures without any of the flamboyance of the price of the wine.
Nick Gislason came as winemaker in 2010 and takes a pragmatic view to viticulture and winemaking. “We are a low-tech operation,” he says. Harvest is determined by tasting, not by technical details, although sugar levels and acidity are measured to have a record. The vineyard is divided into roughly 1 acre lots for picking, so there are about 50 different fermentations. This is an early ripening site, but even so, they are early pickers here, usually a week to ten days ahead of everyone else.
About half the vineyard was replanted in 2006, with the row orientation changed slightly, and spacing increased from 550-600 vines/acre to 2,300 vines/acre. Another 4 acres were replanted in 2014, and 2 acres in 2021, with wider spacing. It all depends what suits the spot. The proportions of the three black varieties in the vineyard, Cabernet Sauvignon, Cabernet Franc, and Merlot, have stayed the same.
Viticulture has moved to a no-till system. “If you mow or till, what do the insects have to eat except the vines,” Nick says, as we walk the vineyard, pointing to cover crops that harbor a variety of predators that prey on insects that might attack the grapes. There hasn’t been a tractor anywhere in the vineyard since October 2020.
Trials to eliminate spraying for mildew started with 2 acres in 2014 and have now extended to the whole vineyard. The vineyard has been fitted with a clever system for spore trapping for mildew. (It’s about the only example of anything remotely hi-tech in the place.) It consists of a spinning rotor that is coated with grease, which picks up spores. The rotor is sent off every week for DNA analysis, and spraying is done only if a density of spores is detected. There are 4 in the vineyard, placed at points where mildew pressure has been experienced previously, but Nick thinks that one would probably be enough. There has not been any need to spray this season.
Powered by a solar panel, the spinning rotor is coated with grease and catches mildew spores.
The winery (completed in 2010) is quite compact, with a fermentation hall and barrel room. There’s a mixture of wood and concrete fermenters, all in a conical shape, but Nick doesn’t attach much importance to the type of vessel. Almost everything is destemmed. There’ve been some trials with whole clusters, so there may be a tank with 10-15%, but this amounts to only a small proportion of the total blend. After cold soak for a week, fermentation now takes place with native yeasts. The blend is made after 15 months. Depending on the year, one or two barrels of press wine might be added to the blend.
There are two red cuvées. Screaming Eagle is usually 75-85% Cabernet Sauvignon, 3-4% Cabernet Franc, and the rest is Merlot. Originally this was the only wine. But this comes from only part of the crop. Before Stanley Kroenke bought the estate in 2006, a large part of the crop, including most of the Merlot, was sold off, because the original winery had limited capacity. After the sale in 2006, they began to use all the crop. “We had the choice of changing the blend of Screaming Eagle, or making another wine with the Merlot,” Nick explains.
“We made a wine based on the Merlot from 2006 to 2011 and then decided in 2011 to release the wine.” The first release was a pack of two bottles each from 2006-2009, and it was called Second Flight. “But the name didn’t feel right since we were putting the same effort into the Merlot-based wine as we put into the Cabernet Sauvignon-based wine, so we changed it to Flight (in 2015). It’s an expression of a different variety.” Flight is usually 60-70% Merlot, 5% Cabernet Franc, and the rest is Cabernet Sauvignon. Production of Screaming Eagle and Flight is roughly equal.
The surprise when you taste Screaming Eagle, if you are not familiar with the wine, is that it does not at all fit the image of the typical Napa cult wine: big, bold, and powerful. Instead, what comes across most of all is the sheen of refinement. Supple tannins make it approachable even in the first few years, although its black fruit palate is quite reserved. Flight is more open, showing more perfumed, lifted aromatics, but shows the same house style of smoothness melding into elegance.
An updated profile will be included in the 2022 edition of the Guide to Napa.
Tasting the 2016 Vintage
Screaming Eagle Sterner nose than Flight, with black fruit aromatics not so lifted and more in background. Smooth and elegant on palate, touch of tobacco on gravelly finish with hints of chocolate coating. Very supple tannins make it possible to drink already, but I would wait at least a couple of years. Tannins are very fine indeed and evidenced directly only by some residual dryness on finish. A fresh, restrained style, starting off relatively tight, but promising elegance and even delicacy as it develops. 95 Drink 2023-2040
Flight Opens with slightly lifted blueberry and blackberry aromatics giving a smooth impression. Palate offers faint sense of tannic bitterness and some hints of tobacco at end. Nick Gislason describes fruits as floral; they are supported by good freshness. Already quite flavorful on palate. Overall quite a delicate impression for Merlot. 93 Drink -2031
One of the more striking wineries in Napa when you get close to the circular entrance, Opus One was created as a joint venture between Robert Mondavi and Baron Philippe de Rothschild in 1979. After Constellation took over Mondavi in 2004, it functioned more independently of the individual owners.
When the winery was built, the attitude towards consumers followed Bordeaux rather than Mondavi, and they did not intend to open to the public. That has changed dramatically with a new focus on oenotourism. The winery has just completed a five year reconstruction program. The working winery has been extended at the back, and a luxurious hospitality center has been created at the front, with lounges and verandas where hosted tastings can be held. There will be a culinary program as well, “but everything stays focused on the wine.”
Opus One nestles into the ground
As one of the first collaborations between Bordeaux and Napa winemakers, it was assumed from the start that the wine would be a Bordeaux blend. The wine is labeled as a proprietary red, but usually has more than 80% Cabernet Sauvignon (enough to carry a varietal label). The lowest Cabernet Sauvignon was 71% in the cool, wet year of 2011; the highest was 97% in 1989.
There are 70 acres of vineyard around the winery and another 100 acres split between To Kalon north and south. Plots are replanted after 25-30 years. Initially the blend started with Cabernet Franc and Merlot; Malbec was added in 1994 and Petit Verdot was added in 1997.
Opus One is easy to under-rate in its early years, when it tends to be somewhat dumb, with a touch of austerity, but it comes out, decade by decade, so my tasting at the winery of wines from three decades was the perfect way to assess it. Taking the European aesthetic farther, the wines are extremely expressive of vintage.
The current release, the 2017, isn’t releasing a lot of fruit or aromatics yet; coiled up tight, it is waiting to unwind. The 2010 is more developed than the 2006; in fact, in a blind tasting I would probably have reversed the vintages of this pair. The 2010 reflects a (relatively) cooler growing season until there were heat spikes at the end of August and in September. The wine impresses as ripe, but reflecting cool-climate conditions. Showing some tertiary notes, it’s perfect now. The 2006 growing season was also relatively cool, but had a heat wave earlier in the season, in July. The wine feels 4-5 years less developed rather than more developed by comparison with the 2010: it is just at the point of making the transition from fruity to savory. All the wines show a restrained style in which flavor development steadily accentuates with age.
The oldest vintage I have had was the inaugural 1979 (made from grapes from Mondavi’s To Kalon vineyard) which at 30 years of age was still vibrant. Other vintages have been excellent after 20 years, so I anticipate a very long life for current vintages.
An updated profile will be included in the 2022 edition of the Guide to Napa.
Tasting Three Decades of Opus One
2017 (Cabernet Sauvignon 80%, Cabernet Franc 1%, Malbec 1%, Merlot 5%, Petit Verdot 9%) Fairly tight as it opens but promises elegance as it matures. Tannins are tight but not overbearing. Aromatic black fruits come out slowly in the glass. Not ready yet, not because of tannins, but needs time to develop flavor variety. Overall a relatively restrained European style. 92 Drink 2024-2039
2010 (Cabernet Sauvignon 84%, Cabernet Franc 5%, Malbec 1%, Merlot 5%, Petit Verdot 4%)
Some signs of development with tertiary notes that are typical of cool climate extending to faint vegetal notes as counterpoise to the fruits. Mature black fruits have touch of sous bois in background and very faint touch of herbaceousness. Complex flavors on palate give Bordeaux-like cool climate impressions, then the black fruit aromatics take over from the herbaceous overtones in the glass. This is perfect for drinking now. 92 Drink -2026
2006 (Cabernet Sauvignon 77%, Merlot 12%, Cabernet Franc 5%, Petit Verdot 3%, Malbec 3%) On release the wine was closed and austere and hard to read. Now it has really come out. It’s developing slowly as the aromatics are fresher than 2010 and show only a faint touch of development. It seems in fact to be a few years behind 2010 in development. Mature black fruits are right at the tipping point from fruity to savory. The style plays to elegance rather than power. 14.4% 93 Drink -2030
For comparison, this is my tasting note for the 2006 soon after its release:
Deep purple with black hues. Deep black fruit nose, some nutty aromas coming to the fore in the glass. Although the Cabernet Sauvignon percent is low this year, the wine shows greater austerity than usual. Falls just a bit short in flavor interest, and is a bit briary and closed at the moment.
Lewin on Wine 