Mayacamas?

Texas, I recently tried the 96 Cab, it was okay, nothing special and at $45 where I could pick it up not something I would buy again. The reason I bought is I had been able to taste a vertical of Mayacamus from 70 to 76 a year or so ago. The vertical showed some very nice long lived cabs with some very nice balance, with all but one (I think it was the '72) scoring 90 or more. I have seen comments elsewhere on the boards that they have lost there touch for inexplicable reasons over the past ten years, and the WS ratings seem to correspond to this assessment. Hope this helps.

In general Mayacamas in recent vintages is poo-pooed even by former Mayacamas lovers. Some of us have continue to buy small amounts of their wines for aging, just to see. I don't have experience with older Mayacamas vintages, but have certainly heard the raves. I sometimes wonder if the current indifference to Mayacamas isn't more due to the dramatic change in Napa wines over the last twenty years that Mayacamas hasn't quite followed. I hope GATC see's this as he will have a much more informed view.

Tex, I have had and still have a few bottles of some older Mayac that have drank lovely! The years are 78/79/82 and wow they are just right for mountain fruit cabs of nv, in my opinion.

The Mayacamas of late 60s and the 70s were some of the best examples of California cabernet that one could hope for. The chardonnays were also long-lived ( for California chardonnay ), in the flinty style then in vogue. Now, and I regret to say this, it appears as if time has left Bob Travers behind, because his style of wine-making is the antithesis of what is considered the forefront of California winemaking. This is sad, because Bob Travers is really a gentleman, not obsessed with becoming a media darling nor with becoming wealthy. His wines have great QPR, but they talk time. Go there, visit the winery, speak to the man, and sample the wines. His wines are what wines are supposed to be in the world of food.

london02,

What is your recollection of the '73? I've had one in my cellar for quite a few years and I'm curious as to what it will be like when I open it.

It has been a year so my recollection is very hazy, but I remember that the 70 and 74 stood above the others. They were all quite good, really surprising the level of fruit given the age. I do not have the background with old vintages that many on this board do, but a couple of people who tasted believed they could be held for another five years and still be lively. I would have said that they were all ready to drink and would not have thought to hold them for more than a year or two more.

tomh: If my memory is correct, the 73 was fading a bit four years ago.