or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Manton

I would try one now, if you have a whole case. I doubt it's fully mature, but it should be well past its tannic-awkward stage.
Like this kind of crap never happens in SF ...
You mean the 97 SS vintage was priced at $75? My recollection may be off, but I recall from when I started buying wine in the early 1990s that Caymus SS was already over $50 and possibly even close to $75. I found the great 80s vintages too expensive for me at the time and either drank them on the generosity of others, or later bought back vintages when I was feeling more flush. The mid-80s vintages were spectacular. At any rate, it was expensive. The only wine...
BTW, hasn't Caymus been accused of doing the same thing, vastly increasing their output at the expense of quality? 80s Caymus was legendary but I've not had a vintage past 2000, and probably earlier.
And you people didn't believe me.
I will be back tomorrow. I assume NY still sucks?
So why can't they carry wine? That is, my local A&P has this crappy "cooking wine" which is low alc. but no regular wine at 12-13%.
Ah, I had (have) a lot from the 80s and 90s. I think the last vintage I bought was 95. I had a 92 the other night that was fine, but it was drunk in tandem with Clos Du Val, 93, which I thought was better.
Silver Oak is not my favorite but I've never disliked it.
Here are my "notes". I had the 1958 BV about 20 years ago and it remains the best California wine I've ever had (because I've not had the '51, nor the '41 Inglenook). It is fading, clearly--at least this bottle was--but it is still quite alive. Cork broke at the very bottom but was otherwise smooth and clean, no crumbling. Wine was cloudy and really never cleared up but there was hardly any sediment and no sediment tracks on the inside of the bottle at all. Hardly any...
New Posts  All Forums: