Standing up for cabernet sauvignon
Much of what people object to is a particular style that represents just one variety of the wine
Add BT as a preferred source
IN MY wine-drinking circles, it’s become all too common to hear people say: “I almost never drink cabernet sauvignon”, or “I’m not much of a Bordeaux drinker”.
As somebody who got into wine in the 1980s – as cabernet and Bordeaux, its ancestral home, were ascending to the heights of their modern popularity – this seems bizarre. Yet, it’s also understandable.
The world in which cabernet achieved its commanding presence has changed. People’s tastes and perceptions have evolved. The centralised power of the wine publications that adored cabernet and dominated criticism has been diffused.
As with music and fashion, styles come and go, even those that may seem indomitable.
But cabernet and Bordeaux are simply too good to ignore. To dismiss them is a mistake. Much of what people today object to in these wines is a particular style – heavy, oaky, alcoholic and extravagantly fruity. I object to those sorts of wines, too, and always have.
But that represents just one style of cabernet. The grape is capable of so much more than that. It makes sense to diminish the emphasis that was once placed on these wines, as we now have so many more options than we did 30 years ago.
Yet, they still have an important place because they are capable of such beauty. So today, I want to stand up for cabernet sauvignon.
You might reasonably ask, despite all I’ve said, why does cabernet need a champion? It’s by far the most widely planted red wine grape in the world and dwarfs the competition in California.
It’s the best-selling red varietal wine in the United States, according to SipSource, which analyses beverage trends. What’s the problem?
SEE ALSO
The problem is that as popular as cabernet may seem to be, much of that popularity resides with an older demographic. Cabernets do great in steakhouses and with longtime wine collectors weaned on the notion that cabernet sauvignon was the king of red grapes.
Hardcore cabernet drinkers are like the network TV viewers of wine – still a big number, but in decline.
Cabernet also does well among bottles under US$10, the sort of wines you find in supermarkets and beverage chains. This is most likely attributable to familiarity and brand loyalty rather than a particular affection for the grape.
It’s also the category of wine that has seen the steepest drop in sales in recent years as people consume fewer alcoholic beverages.
Cabernet sauvignon is barely seen at the sorts of restaurants and wine bars frequented by younger people, consumers who did not grow into wine by reading legacy wine publications such as Wine Spectator and The Wine Advocate, the loudest champions of cabernet wines at the height of the grape’s popularity.
People are far more likely to be exploring natural wines and other genres that 30 years ago would either have been considered esoteric or inconceivable.
Outside the steakhouse realm, wine lists in popular restaurants are far less likely to offer long selections of cabernet sauvignon or Bordeaux, as was once common. Instead, Burgundy is now the centrepiece of many admired lists.
People are also drinking more white wine, which over the last few years has overtaken red in popularity.
As people’s tastes have gravitated towards white wines, they have also adopted red wines that behave like whites; witness the rising “chillable red” category.
The reds that are chillable are less tannic and lighter in body, while cabernet sauvignon is perceived to be heavy and tannic.
Perhaps most alarming is a pervasive attitude among many sommeliers and other influential wine personalities that cabernet sauvignon is inherently boring.
I understand this dismissive stance. A lot of bad, unbalanced, over-the-top cabernet wines have shaped these attitudes.
In the heyday of American cabernet sauvignon and Bordeaux – say, from 1985 to 2010, which coincides with the most influential period of those wine publications – the prevailing style of Napa cabernet increasingly became the high-alcohol, sweetly fruity oak bomb.
Many Bordeaux were so highly polished that any distinguishing features had been eliminated.
These wines have rightly receded in popularity, though they still have their fans. Yet, I fear their legacy has been to turn people off from the grape rather than the style. This is a shame, but it is not unusual.
Many people believe they abhor California chardonnay because they associate it entirely with the oaky, buttered popcorn style that was once so popular.
But those that have consigned the genre to the scrap heap miss out on gorgeous wines that in no way resemble that extravagant style.
Similarly, as grower Champagnes rose in popularity over the last 25 years, many fine wine lists eliminated the big house Champagnes.
Sommeliers were contemptuous of them. Many of the big houses were guilty, and still are, of bad farming and emphasising quantity over quality. But not all.
To dismiss the entire genre is to miss out on wonderful Champagnes from producers such as Louis Roederer, Charles Heidsieck and others.
Cabernet sauvignon has other problems, like shifting dining habits. The grape is popularly associated with thick slabs of beef and rich, fatty lamb chops. It’s not surprising that it remains the primary red wine of the American steakhouse.
But in the type of restaurants of the moment that don’t specialise in steaks but still traffic in steak frites and US$150 cotes de boeuf, people are far more likely to be drinking high-end Burgundy or other red options than Napa cabernet and Bordeaux.
Good cabernet is far more versatile, with food and with time, than the perceptions would have it. It’s true that high-end Bordeaux and many Napa cabs are tannic when young and require ageing 10 years or more. But many mid-range wines can be consumed far younger.
I love a medium-bodied cabernet wine or Bordeaux with a roast chicken. For me, the best cabernets are savoury rather than sweet-fruited, often with floral aromas. They are not fruit bombs but “great drinks”, as Hugh Johnson once said, describing the appeal of Bordeaux to me.
I haven’t addressed a huge issue yet: prices. No getting around it: Many good cabernets and Bordeaux are expensive.
Three of my favourite mid-range Napa cabs, those from Matthiasson, Smith-Madrone and Frog’s Leap, retail for around US$75 a bottle, a splurge for many people.
Other favourites such as Ink Grade, Corison and Pilcrow, as well as those from beyond Napa like Ridge Monte Bello and Mount Eden, sell for a lot more.
Still, good moderately priced cabernets are out there, like those from Camp, Broadside and Broc Cellars.
Bordeaux, too, has good moderately priced options, though many of my favourites on the lower end are made with more merlot than cabernet. Among the classified growths, Chateau Cantemerle is an excellent choice and runs around US$45.
I’m not saying that people ought to spend uncomfortable amounts of money to drink these wines. Burgundy and Barolo generally cost a lot, too. High prices do not diminish reputations.
I would like people who dismiss cabernet sauvignon and Bordeaux to reconsider their opinions. These wines will never hold the pre-eminent place in the wine world that they once did.
That’s only right. We have too many other great wines today for one variety to dominate.
But those who have rejected cabernet ought to re-evaluate their rationale. As much as I love to explore grapes and styles that are new to me, the classics are important.
Sweeping dismissals of them may be built on a shred of truth, but the whole picture is far more interesting and beautiful. NYTIMES
Decoding Asia newsletter: your guide to navigating Asia in a new global order. Sign up here to get Decoding Asia newsletter. Delivered to your inbox. Free.
Share with us your feedback on BT's products and services
