Skip to main content

Four of us had a small wine tasting this past Thursday evening, and all wines were tasted blind. The generous person who brought this 1994 Bryant Cali cult wine drove about 100 miles to attend our tasting.

The wine was poured into the glass and appeared to be an older wine. The taste was dark cherry and blueberries, with smoke, spices, mint/cedar, and chocolate, but it didn't possess the concentration, structure, or depth that I would expect from a 1994 Cali Cult, and I think this bottle was prematurely ageing!

He said he bought the bottle about 5 years ago, so provenance is in question. However, if you have more than one bottle of the 1994 Bryant in your cellar, I think you should try one immediately. However, if you only have one bottle, you should check other reviews, as perhaps this bottle was ageing prematurely.

As for a score, perhaps a 91/93, but I would've preferred to taste this before it started to slide.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

latour67,

Please clarify. You state that the wine "didn't possess the concentration, structure, or depth that I would expect from a 1994 Cali Cult, and I think this bottle was prematurely aging!" Yet you scored it 91/93.

That's a solid score in my book. Very solid if you factor in the age of the wine.

We had the 1995 and 1996 Bryant's a decade ago and while they provided substantial enjoyment at age 4 and 5, I am not so certain they would maintain their depth and vivacity much past 10 to 12 years. Helen made the Bryant with enormous concentration but lower acid. They certainly were show stoppers.

How did the other wines fare?
quote:
Originally posted by cab chris:
latour67,

Please clarify. You state that the wine "didn't possess the concentration, structure, or depth that I would expect from a 1994 Cali Cult, and I think this bottle was prematurely aging!" Yet you scored it 91/93.

That's a solid score in my book. Very solid if you factor in the age of the wine.

We had the 1995 and 1996 Bryant's a decade ago and while they provided substantial enjoyment at age 4 and 5, I am not so certain they would maintain their depth and vivacity much past 10 to 12 years. Helen made the Bryant with enormous concentration but lower acid. They certainly were show stoppers.

How did the other wines fare?



cab chris

Yes, I know, and agree that 91/93 is a solid score. I guess you could say that it tasted like it was a quality wine, and perhaps just not typical, as it appeared younger than the taste, which was more aged. I still think it was a compromised bottle, and either had too much heat on one time, or perhaps it wasn't stored in a temperature controlled cellar. (guess)

Your experience with the 1995 & 96 at age 4 is excellent, but I can't see the value in buying a Cali Cult wine for immediate pleasure and one that won't last more than 10 or 12 years, especially at those prices. I think most of those Cali Cults would be good for at least 20 years. Confused
quote:
Originally posted by Board-O:
Anybody have the 1993 lately? I have a couple and don't have any recent information on how they're showing.


I had a conversation with a guy a couple months ago at a wine dinner who had recently done a vertical tasting of his 92-97 Bryant's. From what I remember about his experience with the 93, was that it was drinking well, but showed little sign of much future improvement.
quote:
Originally posted by Board-O:
Anybody have the 1993 lately? I have a couple and don't have any recent information on how they're showing.


Although I haven't tasted a 1993 vintage from Bryant, I would suggest that you try one of yours sometimes during this coming holiday season. The WA shows it as mature with a window thru 2020, while WS mentions a polished finish and almost Burgundian in texture & drink thru 2006. Confused
Latour67, we did try a 1993 Bryant about a year ago that Shaferguy91 brought to one of our small offlines. It garnered wotn by most attending. If I recall correctly, you and I both thought it still needed time. The 1993 was a far better bottle than the 1994 we tried Thursday. I do agree with you, the 1994 was a compromised bottle.
quote:
Originally posted by Shaferguy91:
Sorry I missed last week. Sounds like a good time.
FYI-Only 1993 that I own is a 1993 Château Grand-Puy-Lacoste that was a gift from a friend and the Bryant I brought was a 1992.


Shaferguy91

I tried a 1993 Grand-Puy-Lacoste within the last two weeks, and it was tannic, and totally without fruit, and fairly mature! I didn't post TN's, but I still have a case in the cellar! 84/85 points Eek I hope I didn't give you that bottle!

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×