I had one bottle each remaining of Hardy's Coonawarra Cabernet
Sauvignon 1991 and Ravenswood Sonoma County Zinfandel 1991. These both
are rather basic wines from the mentioned companies. However both have
aged very well and remain in good condition. Both wines were properly
stored since release.

The Hardy's CS is still rather deep in color with only little evidence
of age. It has plenty of acid and has now smoothed. There is strong
cassis with much spice character - nearly as if it contained some
Shiraz. Although not a gold medal wine, it was much better than
expected for a basic wine and well suited for less formal drinking.

The Ravenswood Zinfandel was still quite dark with not much age
showing. It had thrown some crust that stuck to the side of the bottle
that had been down on storage, and the crust was nearly black. The
alcohol content was listed as about 14.3%. Although not a late harvest
style, it was a quite full food style of wine. There was ample
acidity, and the wine had smoothed well. The typical Zinfandel dark
fruit character remained along with considerable spice. This is not as
complex as some of Ravenswood's top level wines, but it is very good
indeed and is holding well at an age at which many other Zinfandels
hav lost most of their fruit.

Both wines cost under $US 10 on release. Of course the price today
would be considerably higher. Although the higher level wines from
these companies are more likely to age better and longer, even the
basic level wines can keep fairly well in certain years.

Thanks for notes. Do you often try aging bottles at that level? I
occasionally find an inexpensive bottling that I think will age, only
time will of course tell if I screwed up.


On Jan 28, 8:45?pm, "cwdjrxyz" > wrote:
> I had one bottle each remaining of Hardy's Coonawarra Cabernet
> Sauvignon 1991 and Ravenswood Sonoma County Zinfandel 1991. These both
> are rather basic wines from the mentioned companies. However both have
> aged very well and remain in good condition. Both wines were properly
> stored since release.
>
> The Hardy's CS is still rather deep in color with only little evidence
> of age. It has plenty of acid and has now smoothed. There is strong
> cassis with much spice character - nearly as if it contained some
> Shiraz. Although not a gold medal wine, it was much better than
> expected for a basic wine and well suited for less formal drinking.
>
> The Ravenswood Zinfandel was still quite dark with not much age
> showing. It had thrown some crust that stuck to the side of the bottle
> that had been down on storage, and the crust was nearly black. The
> alcohol content was listed as about 14.3%. Although not a late harvest
> style, it was a quite full food style of wine. There was ample
> acidity, and the wine had smoothed well. The typical Zinfandel dark
> fruit character remained along with considerable spice. This is not as
> complex as some of Ravenswood's top level wines, but it is very good
> indeed and is holding well at an age at which many other Zinfandels
> hav lost most of their fruit.
>
> Both wines cost under $US 10 on release. Of course the price today
> would be considerably higher. Although the higher level wines from
> these companies are more likely to age better and longer, even the
> basic level wines can keep fairly well in certain years.

On Jan 29, 1:17 pm, "DaleW" > wrote:
> Thanks for notes. Do you often try aging bottles at that level? I
> occasionally find an inexpensive bottling that I think will age, only
> time will of course tell if I screwed up.

Not often. Sometimes a bottle just gets misplaced and turns up when I
organize again. However the Ravenswood was intentional. I had about a
case of it at one time. It improved considerably over a few years and
seemed to be able to last and perhaps improve. In this case it did. On
the other hand I have had fancy grades such as the BV 1974 Private
Reserve CS that did not age well at all, despite early promise. For
some reason this wine was quite variable. I have read some reports
that it aged moderately well, while several others have had an
experience much like mine. Even some of the most experienced critics
miss and have to change their early evaluation after several years.
Some wines are safer gambles than others. Ch. Latour perhaps is one of
the safest. It may not always become as good as you might expect or
like, but it usually improves at least fairly well for many years if
it comes from even a fairly decent vintage.

Is the Private Reserve a different wine from the George de la Tour?
Every once in a while I find a sub-$10 wine (most commonly Cotes du
Rhone) I think can stand a few years in cellar, but seldom quite this
long.
Very interesting notes, as always.


On Jan 29, 4:09?pm, "cwdjrxyz" > wrote:
> On Jan 29, 1:17 pm, "DaleW" > wrote:
>
> > Thanks for notes. Do you often try aging bottles at that level? I
> > occasionally find an inexpensive bottling that I think will age, only
> > time will of course tell if I screwed up. Not often. Sometimes a bottle just gets misplaced and turns up when I
> organize again. However the Ravenswood was intentional. I had about a
> case of it at one time. It improved considerably over a few years and
> seemed to be able to last and perhaps improve. In this case it did. On
> the other hand I have had fancy grades such as the BV 1974 Private
> Reserve CS that did not age well at all, despite early promise. For
> some reason this wine was quite variable. I have read some reports
> that it aged moderately well, while several others have had an
> experience much like mine. Even some of the most experienced critics
> miss and have to change their early evaluation after several years.
> Some wines are safer gambles than others. Ch. Latour perhaps is one of
> the safest. It may not always become as good as you might expect or
> like, but it usually improves at least fairly well for many years if
> it comes from even a fairly decent vintage.

On Jan 30, 12:12 pm, "DaleW" > wrote:
> Is the Private Reserve a different wine from the George de la Tour?

No. It was the George de la Tour Private Reserve. I have not seen
Private Reserve used on other BV CS, but then I have not been buying
any recently. I and several others are in the habit (perhaps bad) of
just saying BV Private Reserve or even BV PR.

> Every once in a while I find a sub-$10 wine (most commonly Cotes du
> Rhone) I think can stand a few years in cellar, but seldom quite this
> long.
> Very interesting notes, as always.

On Jan 28, 7:45 pm, "cwdjrxyz" > wrote:
> I had one bottle each remaining of Hardy's Coonawarra Cabernet
> Sauvignon 1991 and Ravenswood Sonoma County Zinfandel 1991. These both
> are rather basic wines from the mentioned companies. However both have
> aged very well and remain in good condition. Both wines were properly
> stored since release.
>
> The Hardy's CS is still rather deep in color with only little evidence
> of age. It has plenty of acid and has now smoothed. There is strong
> cassis with much spice character - nearly as if it contained some
> Shiraz. Although not a gold medal wine, it was much better than
> expected for a basic wine and well suited for less formal drinking.
>
> The Ravenswood Zinfandel was still quite dark with not much age
> showing. It had thrown some crust that stuck to the side of the bottle
> that had been down on storage, and the crust was nearly black. The
> alcohol content was listed as about 14.3%. Although not a late harvest
> style, it was a quite full food style of wine. There was ample
> acidity, and the wine had smoothed well. The typical Zinfandel dark
> fruit character remained along with considerable spice. This is not as
> complex as some of Ravenswood's top level wines, but it is very good
> indeed and is holding well at an age at which many other Zinfandels
> hav lost most of their fruit.
>
> Both wines cost under $US 10 on release. Of course the price today
> would be considerably higher. Although the higher level wines from
> these companies are more likely to age better and longer, even the
> basic level wines can keep fairly well in certain years.

Very nice review. Looking through my label book I see that I enjoyed
the 1998 Ravenswood Lodi Zinfandel during winter, 2000. Nicely
balanced, good fruit - not, as you point out, a complex wine but very
enjoyable. Sorry now I didn't put some back!

"DaleW" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Is the Private Reserve a different wine from the George de la Tour?
> Every once in a while I find a sub-$10 wine (most commonly Cotes du
> Rhone) I think can stand a few years in cellar, but seldom quite this
> long.
> Very interesting notes, as always.
>
At the turn of the century I opened a 1974 Wynn's Coonawarra CS. I thought
that a 26 yr old wine that cost me ~Can$4.50 would be pourable, but down the
sink! It was superb, good fruit, little acid and none of the strong oak one
often gets from an Aussie wine. As a result, I've put away some more just
to see how it developes, but not for 26 years this time - my kids would only
benefit from that probably:-)
Graham

Long long ago under the realm of Andre T. BV has a Reserve of Special
bottling of PN. Andre thought it was the best wine he made grapes were from
Carneros--later they made a Special Burgundy which was very good but tanked
after Andre left & Hublein "repositioned" the line.
"cwdjrxyz" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
> On Jan 30, 12:12 pm, "DaleW" > wrote:
> > Is the Private Reserve a different wine from the George de la Tour?
>
> No. It was the George de la Tour Private Reserve. I have not seen
> Private Reserve used on other BV CS, but then I have not been buying
> any recently. I and several others are in the habit (perhaps bad) of
> just saying BV Private Reserve or even BV PR.
>
> > Every once in a while I find a sub-$10 wine (most commonly Cotes du
> > Rhone) I think can stand a few years in cellar, but seldom quite this
> > long.
> > Very interesting notes, as always.
>