Wine Review: Silver Oak Cab. Sauv. (2002)

[colgin]

In another thread I had mentioned that I had recently purchased a bottle of Silver Oak Cabernet Sauvignon, Alexander Valley (2002) and that I would post a brief review when I finally drank it. My wife and I finally had the bottle a couple of weeks ago with dinner.

Let me start out by saying that I used to be a big fan of Silver Oak in my nascent wine drinking days. The big, juicy, oaky California style of Cabernet that they make made for a pretty approachable style of wine for someone looking to progress from the very simple and cheap wines of their youth into something more enjoyable and sophisticated, yet not so demanding as to overwhelm a relatively unsophisticated palette. People now joke about the ABC school of wine snobbism (i.e, Anything But Cabernet and/or Anything But Chardonnay). But as a budding would-be wine connoisseur over a decade ago, I was a different ABC (All ‘Bout Cabernet and All ‘Bout Chardonnay). (Not quite true as I always loved French burgundy and certain Italian wines.) Still, that is not a bad place to start and then branch out from. Anyway, I always found that Silver Oak was a pretty reliable and consistent producer and that they exemplified pretty well the California style of Cabs. Not to say they were the best, but they were pretty good and, while not cheap, more affordable than certain bigger names. Plus, I always loved that silver label on the Alexander bottles. Personally, I always liked the Alexander better than the Napa. I think it is without question a better value at about half the price of the Napa in most years, and perhaps the value issue has clouded my judgment as to which is the better wine purely on a taste level. To me though, the Napa was always a bit too much compared to the Alexander, which for many people, due to the oakiness, is already a bit too much.

Over time I became less enamored of over-oaked wines. Silver Oak often uses 100% new oak, so their wines are always going to be oaky (name, duh) for better and for worse. So, I basically stopped drinking Silver Oak for a while after I finished my last case in 2002 or 2003, although I always had a soft spot for them in my hart.

I had read online that the 2002 Alexander was supposed to be one of their best in years. Since one of my local wine shops had it at discount I bought a bottle. The wine is basically what you would expect. 100% Cab and it displays the varietal characteristics you would expect – blackberry, currant, etc. – and has, as you would expect for a young Cab, a very nice ruby/purple color. According to the Silver Oak notes the wine was aged in 50% new oak barrels and 50% once-used oak barrels. The result, in my opinion, is a wine with the benefits of oak without the detriments of feeling like you are drinking wood chips. What stood out for me most was that this wine had terrific balance. Using less new oak undoubtedly played a part. I found a really nice forward fruit profile, well integrated with firm but not overpowering tannins. The wine did not take too long to open up (around 15 minutes to start showing its best) and was still developing nicely an hour later. Bear in mind that this is not an overwhelmingly complex wine. There are not layers and layers of flavors nor is the finish exceedingly long. But if you are looking for a good fruit driven but well balanced Cab to go with a meal for less than $75, then this does the trick really nicely. I suspect that this will age well for about 5 years, not necessarily developing more complexity but just retaining its fruit and balance. After that, as an Alexander Cab, I expect the fruit to start diminishing pretty quickly.

[Dominic]

colgin, I love a good Cab, but I have to say it doesn't seem like you're getting the best that a Cab has to offer if you're drinking one so young. This has always been a pet peeve of mine at normal restaurants - they rarely have any older Cabs on their menu, and the ones they do have are not really at their peak yet.

Am I wrong? Can you drink a 2002 Cab and get the best of it?

[MrMon]

I think Silver Oak is an exception. I was looking at their site recently and they make it a point to not release a wine until it is drinkable, i.e. you should be able to drink it from day one. Maybe not at it's peak, but its ready to go without further aging. At least that's their philosophy.

[Ray Zee]

colgin, i also agrree with you. i have had a few bottles of it recently and like it alot. it is very appealing to taste buds. right now i rate it over the joesph phelps cab that is the same price and about equal in the rank of top american wines.

[colgin]

[ QUOTE ]
colgin, I love a good Cab, but I have to say it doesn't seem like you're getting the best that a Cab has to offer if you're drinking one so young. This has always been a pet peeve of mine at normal restaurants - they rarely have any older Cabs on their menu, and the ones they do have are not really at their peak yet.

Am I wrong? Can you drink a 2002 Cab and get the best of it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Knowing when to drink a bottle is a tricky matter and involves a fair amount of judgment and a lot of luck in my opinion. Back in the day I used to rail against committing “infanticide” by drinking certain wines (e.g., Bordeaux, Burgundies and Barolos) too young. On balance though, I err in favor of drinking a wine too young rather than too late. First off, as you probably know, the overwhelming majority of wines (95+%) are best drunk within one to two years of release. Among those potentially age-worthy wines, the risk of drinking too early is not too great, while the risk of waiting too long can be disastrous. With a lot of wines, even if you open them up too early, you can somewhat compensate for this by decanting the bottle for a while. But once the fruit is gone there isn’t a damn thing you can do to bring it back.

Moreover, I just simply don’t worry about this problem with California Cabs since, IMO, they are not nearly as age-worthy as they are supposed to be. I definitely worry about Bordeaux, Rhones, Burgundies and such from great vintages that are known to be massive and tannic. But I think that California Cabs (i) generally taste good upon release and are rarely closed off, (ii) don’t develop that much in terms of secondary characteristics over the year in the way the say Bordeaux does (in California cabs I am primarily looking for great fruit and in Bordeaux I am looking for that but all sorts of other stuff as well and that other stuff often takes time), (iii) fade quickly in my opinion. With respect to the last point, take for example the outstanding 1997 vintage which started hitting stores in 1999. IMO, it has already seen its best days. I had a bottle of 1997 Altamura about a year ago that had been amazing upon release but was just so-so a year ago. Similarly I had bought a case of the 1995 vintage of that wine which was great for about 5-6 years and then absolutely fell off a cliff and died. Now I might feel differently about the real primo stuff like Cask 23 or ultra “cult cabs” like Bryant Family, Araujo and, of course, Colgin, but Silver Oak is a far cry from those wineries. And I am still not certain that those wines aren’t pretty much as good as they are ever going to get upon their release (which, again, is one of the raps that California wines take from French wine snobs).

IMO, the Silver Oak is good today. If it improves at all in the next five year it will be very little. The greater risk is that it declines. After five years drink at your own risk. I am going to try to get a case and start enjoying now.

[Analyst]

[ QUOTE ]
colgin, I love a good Cab, but I have to say it doesn't seem like you're getting the best that a Cab has to offer if you're drinking one so young. This has always been a pet peeve of mine at normal restaurants - they rarely have any older Cabs on their menu, and the ones they do have are not really at their peak yet.

Am I wrong? Can you drink a 2002 Cab and get the best of it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that many wines, especially the California cabs, don't require or benefit from the extended aging that conventional wisdom says. I bought a fair amount of wine, including all of the Silver Oaks, from the 1984-87 vintages, all highly regarded; the 1985 was supposed to be particularly long-lived. In the early 1990s, they were great (the 85s still improving) but by the end of the decade the 1984s and 1986s were clearly well on the decline and even the 1985s were starting to head downhill.

I think winemaking has changed, with more emphasis on making wines with near-term drinkability and less on wines that only your grandchild could enjoy. Four years may be a bit young for something like the Silver Oak but for the majority of wines it should be fine. IMO only the real monsters need or benefit from a decade+ of aging.