History.

One word: History.  Groth Vineyards & Winery made Napa Valley history when their 1985 Reserve Cabernet Sauvignon received the first 100 point score (for a domestic wine) from wine critic Robert Parker Jr.  There is only ever one first time for anything, just one.  The first perfect score is a great history to have and Groth owns it.  In reading histories of the Napa Valley, it bothers me when I read articles about some or other bog-standard Napa Valley winery and the way in which said winery has helped shape the valley that both locals and visitors see today.  Groth is never mentioned.  (In the same way it irks me when a German, Charles Krug, is credited with producing the first commercial wine in Napa, when historical documents quite clearly show it was an Englishman, John Patchett.)  I always believe credit should be given where it is due.
Groth also have a history of making varietal wines that taste like what the label purports to be in the bottle: 38 years of that particular accomplishment to be exact.  (One would think that was a simple ask, but not every Napa Valley winery can claim that feat.)  Personally, my favourite Groth wine will always be any vintage of their Oakville Estate Cabernet Sauvignon  The Oakville is my go-to cab when I want to drink something that truly tastes like a cab.
Groth most recently proved that they are not the new-kids-on-the-winemaking-block when it comes to producing wonderful Cabernet sauvignon.  Groth's 2016 Reserve Cabernet Sauvignon was named no. 4 in Wine Spectator's top 100 wines of 2019 (an international list).
So what's the wine like?  Gorgeous.  The nose, redolent with blackcurrant, black cherry, lavender and mint is everything one would want in an Oakville AVA Cabernet sauvignon.  The mouth has more black fruit, red current, raspberry, elegant tannin structure and perfect acid (that is on point, like the acid in cranberries).  Those peeps at Groth know a thing or two about making a winning red wine...again, and again, and again.
Groth is history.

When words are scarce...

I came across something interesting this morning whilst reading a few of my favourite blogs over breakfast. As you may have ascertained from some of my past posts on Vinsanity, I am not a fan of wine reviews in general and I personally think the 100 point wine rating scale is a load of phooey!
A certain Dan Sogg, who used to work for The Wine Spectator, has a new blog: thesoggblog. However, it was not one of Mr. Sogg's posts that caught my attention but rather a comment on his post from a gentleman called Tom Ferrell. I have no idea who Tom is (so I can't give him proper credit) but his comment went something like this;

"...an interesting exercise is to go to the Wine Spectator web site and search, sort, show, copy and paste wine descriptions into a document, then after you have accumulated a bunch, cut and paste all that verbiage into a word counting tool, (like www.writewords.org.uk).  The tool will list all the words and show the number of times each is used.  If, for example, you do this for the 303 Cabs that scored 95-100 at W.S. you will see that, after sorting out non-descriptive words (the, and, J.L., Napa, etc), the three most widely used descriptive words are “black”, “rich”, and “ripe”.  Do the same for the first 303 Cabs they list that scored 84 and the most often used words are “cherry”, “currant”, and “plum.”  For the high scoring Cabs the word “concentrated” is toward the top at number six, whereas for Cabs scoring 84 “concentrated” is in 39th position.  Whether you do this for Pinot, Zin, Chardonnay, or any varietal it is easy to see that for the critic who judges wine, dozens of them at a time, size definitely matters."

I don't have time to perform such nonsense as cutting and pasting wine reviews and the suchlike, so I am simply going to take Tom at his word. Besides, I already knew that "black, rich, and ripe" were synonyms for cult, overpriced, and unobtainable.
Wine reviews...gotta love 'em!

I hate Wine Spectator.

Hate is a bit of a strong word, I admit, when used to describe how I feel about a magazine, especially one so evidently esteemed as Wine Spectator. Let's just say instead, that I am extremely disdainful of the aforementioned publication, so much so that Vinoland's subscription was cancelled more than a year ago.
I have never seen particular merit in their 100 point wine rating scale. I have no interest in their reviewers' palates (I have my own). The entire magazine's pages, front to back, are filled with wines that are either unobtainable and/or unaffordable. The wineries with the smallest case productions get the highest scores: can we say cult? James Laube is a pompous ass! Shall I go on? No, I'll spare you any further ranting on this subject.
Apparently my employer feels the same way. In a fit of pre-spring cleaning, she clearly found it necessary to dispose of not one, but two Wine Spectator accolades awarded to the winery. It is interesting to see how the over-inflated subscription price charged to WS disciples is put to good use in producing tastful wood and brass pieces of rubbish...I mean plaques!
Note: The name of the winery has been obscured to protect the guilty.