This really let me down. Dominated by oak. Notes of toasty wood, mocha, dark cherry, and black plum. Low in acidity, and finishing with sturdy and ample tannin. No layers, not much complexity. The recent vintages of Caymus SS, just aren't like the old ones which made this wine famous. 90 pts.

Drab,

thanks for posting the note. I was looking for an opinion between the SS and the regular bottling.

In your opinion, is the 3X price tag for the SS really worth it?

Wow... so disappointing. I figured the SS would be everything I love about the regular Caymus but even better. Many board members have nothing but praise for the SS. I won't be opening mine for a long while.

Well...

I think Caymus, in particular, makes particularly easy, or newbie seductive wine. They are typically full bodied, toasty, mocha laden, straight forward CA Cabs.. They rely on their heavy toast oak to give the spicy, toasty, rich character that a lot of people enjoy. To me, this tell more about the oak than the wine. And, as such, I'm not all that impressed. Believe it or not, I've grown to feel this way about Shafer Hillside as well. 3 years in heavy toasty Taransaud, gives rich oak juice in weaker years like '00, '98, and '03. Granted, they put some great fruit in there too, but I'd love to see this wine with a tad more judicious use of oak.

I've never found the two to be similar in almost any respect. Caymus Special has, for me, consistently delivered a darker fruit profile, more glycerin / thicker mouthfeel, and less intrusive oak.

I'm a huge fan of both wines, but this note is making me reconsider my yearly purchase of a bottle of SS ...

We're tasting it a bit later this month ... I'll post back with thoughts!

dr.darkrichandbold,

Although I have yet to try the 2005, I am in complete agreement with you regarding recent vintages of the SS. The 2003 was weak, the 2002 was good but nothing special, and the 2001 was not memorable.

I also concur that Caymus produced superior wines in the 80's and 90's. The reason for the decline in quality is simple, production level! Up until 2000 Caymus produced about 1,000 cases of SS annualy. For the past few years it's been 10,000 cases.

It's just a high volume wine that routinely gets destroyed in our blind tastings.

Was this at a tasting or from a bottle you purchased?

quote:

Originally posted by cab chris:
The 2003 was weak, the 2002 was good but nothing special, and the 2001 was not memorable.

I don't know ... I loved the 2002! In my mind it was everything that made Caymus, Caymus. It had tremendous amounts of fruit, but very soft, sweet tannins and creamy, well-integrated oak. I'll admit, it definitely won't last as long as earlier vintages (we drank a '90 just a few months ago and it was superb) but it's good on its own merits.

I understand that this is not the way they used to make their wine, but at the same time, I thought the new definition-of-plush house style was a good move. I like the accessibility, and I like the forward nature.

"Drink 'em young" ...

quote:

I like the accessibility, and I like the forward nature.

This is how most people out there (who don't spend as much time devoted to wine as we do) want it to be. And, everybody wins. It's not a hard style to make. Hang the fruit as long as possible and age it well in heavy toast oak barrels. Ripe bulk wine, lots of oak = 10,000 cases of creamy, oaky, mocha/toffee, vanilla milkshakes that most people will love. It's easy, people love it, and the winery can make lots of it an rake in 10 times more profit.

Only thing is...for those who love great wine (and at $150 one has to ask the question), where's the complexity and ageability? If I'm going to spend this kind of money, as a wine afficionado, these characteristics better come with it. But, to each his/her own...

This is really an interesting phenomena to me. It's the first time we have consumers critiquing wine and awarding high points/rave reviews to simplistic, non-agable (or wine that is unlikely to get "better" with age), straightforward wine. Prior to this time, wine had to be complex, ageable, balanced (ie: not too much of any one thing....like OAK!), magical, and maybe have a bit of mystery/"wow" factor to garner high praise from the critics. The tables seem to have turned 180 degrees.

quote:

I also concur that Caymus produced superior wines in the 80's and 90's. The reason for the decline in quality is simple, production level! Up until 2000 Caymus produced about 1,000 cases of SS annualy. For the past few years it's been 10,000 cases.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Look for Duckhorn to be the latest one following in this suit. I always enjoyed their wines through the 90's and up until a year or two ago. Now they're planning to buy more fruit and bulk out thousands more cases of lesser quality wine. Money being the bottom line.

quote:

Was this at a tasting or from a bottle you purchased?

Tasting. And, to put it in perspective....the '05 Louis Martini Monte Rosso Gnarly Vine Zin. being poured at the same table (for $35) blew it away in both balance, aromatics, and complexity.

quote:

Originally posted by dr.darkrichandbold:
This is how most people out there (who don't spend as much time devoted to wine as we do) want it to be. And, everybody wins. It's not a hard style to make. Hang the fruit as long as possible and age it well in heavy toast oak barrels. Ripe bulk wine, lots of oak = 10,000 cases of creamy, oaky, mocha/toffee, vanilla milkshakes that most people will love. It's easy, people love it, and the winery can make lots of it an rake in 10 times more profit.

Alright, I'll give. Can't argue with that.

At the same time, though, I think we can't ignore that there is a market for those who are willing to pay double the price (say, of the regular bottling) for just that slight extra kick of intensity.

While this may sound like a ridiculous proposition, consider that there are lots of us who would pay twice as much for what others might see as only slightly more complex or ageable wines.

This all ties in really nicely with the discussion on how review systems need to be changed over in the Wine Conversations section ... we all have our own palates and our own sense of what comprises a "good" wine. My dad has told me for years that I will eventually hate the stuff I have in my cellar, and I'll go in the same direction that he has ... subtlety, charm, finesse, complexity ... but to be honest, right now, I like my Foley Clarets, my Caymus Specials, and my Clarendon Grenaches.

quote:

Originally posted by cab chris:
dr.darkrichandbold,

Although I have yet to try the 2005, I am in complete agreement with you regarding recent vintages of the SS. The 2003 was weak, the 2002 was good but nothing special, and the 2001 was not memorable.

I also concur that Caymus produced superior wines in the 80's and 90's. The reason for the decline in quality is simple, production level! Up until 2000 Caymus produced about 1,000 cases of SS annualy. For the past few years it's been 10,000 cases.

It's just a high volume wine that routinely gets destroyed in our blind tastings.

Are you sure the increased production level is not being used as an excuse to nitpick? I'll be honest, I haven't tried older Caymus SS. However, there are many wines out there with even greater production levels that are regarded as high quality. How many bottles do Bordeaux big boys produce? I don't think production numbers alone have the largest impact on quality.

It's difficult to tell too much with any certainty when you're drinking a closed wine.

quote:

Originally posted by dr.darkrichandbold:

Couldn't have said it better myself. Look for Duckhorn to be the latest one following in this suit. I always enjoyed their wines through the 90's and up until a year or two ago. Now they're planning to buy more fruit and bulk out thousands more cases of lesser quality wine. Money being the bottom line.

Not only the 90s .. the 80s for duckhorns are fantastic!

and DraB try the 04 duckhorn patzimaro (i feel like a pusher .. HA) and let me know what you think.

DRAB,(or anyone else) I was curious as to your thoughts on the 2004 Caymus SS, did you find it similarily simple?

92-94 points Parker: '"A barrel sample of the 2005 Cabernet Sauvignon Special Selection offers terrific fruit intensity and purity, a more laid-back style, a meaty, chewy texture, and impressive opulence as well as length. It should evolve for 10-15 years."

quote:

My dad has told me for years that I will eventually hate the stuff I have in my cellar, and I'll go in the same direction that he has ... subtlety, charm, finesse, complexity ... but to be honest, right now, I like my Foley Clarets, my Caymus Specials, and my Clarendon Grenaches

I was told the same thing and didn't believe it. Years later...It's true.

quote:

I was curious as to your thoughts on the 2004 Caymus SS, did you find it similarily simple?

I remember trying the '04 last year just after having the '04 regular cab. Which I think I posted a note on? I liked it better than the '05...better quality fruit to match the oak. I want to say 92/93 pts. or so? My problem is that Caymus makes cookie cutter CA Cab. Don't get me wrong...it's good wine, there just isn't much there to sink your teeth into and be wow'ed over. Same goes for the Insignia's of late. Large production. Not made the same as they used to be. Meant for immediate gratification/earlier consumption.

quote:

Originally posted by cab chris:
dr.darkrichandbold,

Although I have yet to try the 2005, I am in complete agreement with you regarding recent vintages of the SS. The 2003 was weak, the 2002 was good but nothing special, and the 2001 was not memorable.

I also concur that Caymus produced superior wines in the 80's and 90's. The reason for the decline in quality is simple, production level! Up until 2000 Caymus produced about 1,000 cases of SS annualy. For the past few years it's been 10,000 cases.

It's just a high volume wine that routinely gets destroyed in our blind tastings.

Château Mouton-Rothschild's output is in the neighborhood of 25,000 cases annually. Do you think it is impossible for an American Winery to have an output half that, and make a wine that equals Mouton? If so, why?

quote:

It's difficult to tell too much with any certainty when you're drinking a closed wine.

AGREED!

quote:

Château Mouton-Rothschild's output is in the neighborhood of 25,000 cases annually. Do you think it is impossible for an American Winery to have an output half that, and make a wine that equals Mouton? If so, why?

I think we're comparing apples and oranges. And, IMHO, Mouton is the weakest of the first growths. I wouldn't doubt it's 25,000 case production to be part of the problem. The other first growths are strickter with selection and don't pump out that many cases. Granted, they are still up in the 10-15,000 case range but, keep in mind that in a year like 2005 (where the crop was great!), even then, only 40-50% of the crop even made it into the final wine. The vineyard holdings at Latour are also bigger than at Caymus.

Other things to consider...Napa doesn't play by the same rules. They can Make Caymus S.S. or Insignia with whatever fruit they want, and with however much of it they want. And, it's typically coming from various sources/vineyards for many of these wineries. Which can also vary from year to year. Napa's also not picking at the same brix levels. Nor do the grapes grow in the same kind of climate. Nor do the vines necessarily have the same age. Nor are the French using the same irrigation practices. And, the 1st growths aren't allowed as much experimental freedom with the winemaking process (ie: dumping acid back into the final product) etc. What the winemakers are trying to achieve in both cases is also quite different (CA - ripe approachable, accessible wine and Bordeaux...agable, structured, nuanced wine) Napa and Bordeaux don't really have a lot in common. Hence...apples and oranges.

And, yes, it's quite possible to make great wine at a fairly high case production level. It just depends on what you want to define as "great" and "high".

quote:

It's difficult to tell too much with any certainty when you're drinking a closed wine.

It's a rare day here in CA when any of these 15% ripe opulent oak milkshakes could be considered "closed" or implicated to become better with age. Feel free to age them if you want to, but even all of the critics have recommended drinking wines like this young. The '05 Caymus S.S. isn't closed...it's just not that good.