quality posts: 19
mother wrote:From the "Winery" tab:
So then this is not a library wine then.
The next sentence says 2005 and 2006 are sold out so it's not like this is their most recent vintage. Is there a precise meaning of "library" wine?
Following the eight word profile, political economy in eight words:
Ain't no free lunch - them what has gets.
quality posts: 74
I brought a bottle of this (older) Young Cabernet to a dinner party last night.
We poured this into a decanter, but started drinking immediately. There was very little to no sediment in the bottle.
It didn't seem to actually require decanting, since it was drinking well immediately. We compared this side by side with a different 2005 Napa Cab, and the 2005 was totally shutdown whereas this 2002 had a nice fruit profile right out of the bottle.
I think Chip's notes are right on. The only thing I'd add is that there was a bit of a raisin/prune-y quality to this, but it wasn't overwhelming.
"You need to invest in a corkscrew. Wine is for drinking." -- Peter Wellington
quality posts: 232
kkrathi wrote:What am I missing? I looked up all the 2002 napa cabs through wine-searcher.com and I couldn't find a decent wine under $75 a bottle (a very few times $50), not to mention outrageous shipping prices. So compared to all of that, if this wine is decent enough, this is actually a great deal. No?
Yes. That's what Cortot20 was saying above. This is a really nice deal considering age and what we discussed in yesterday's thread: provenance, which, IMO, becomes increasingly important the older the wine being considered is).
"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke
"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen