1953 Martin Ray Cabernet Sauvignon Santa Cruz Mountains - USA, California, Santa Cruz Mountains (5/1/2006)
The bottle (see picture) looked absolutely pristine. Given Martin Ray's reputation for bottling from the barrel and refusing to use SO2, there was some doubt as to whether this would be drinkable. Visiting collector Francois Audouze took charge of removing the cork and found it welded in place, which probably accounted for the high fill level. Some expert work with an Ah-So cork puller finally extracted the cork, which was plainly original, stained with Cabernet only in the lower quarter-inch. And, it smelled like wine! There was a muddiness to the nose, but there was real fruit in there, not vinegar or some maderized ghost. The wine was left uncorked for about three hours to "Audouze" it, or allow slow oxidation. Poured into the glass, the color was a brick red, with only minor lightening at the edge. The muddiness had subsided some, and with time in the glass eventually blew off completely leaving a nose of long ago ripe fruit and touch of tart acidity. The palate showed a medium body with the acid starting to overtake the sweet fruit. Tannins had softened leaving a smooth texture and layers of flavors built up over the years. It was a wine of elegance and wisdom; it wasn't Gerald Depardieu, it was Maurice Chevalier. Like many of the wines opened during this event, it seemed somehow incorrect to pass it around giving out 25ml tastes. It would have been preferable to savor it over time to see what it would reveal with various courses of food. How to rate such a wine? Normal considerations of fruit and glycerin and finish seem out of place, perhaps even rude. Do we expect our grandfathers to run in marathons? No, we listen to them and cherish the stories they tell us. (89 pts.)

Someone on another BBS posted the following old tasting note on this wine:

Quote:

---

from "The Fine Wines of California" Hannum and Blumberg copyright 1971, tasting note in 1969:

"According to Martin Ray Himself, this is the finest wine he has ever produced. The color is medium dark, and the aroma is very complex, with both burned and alcoholic overtones. Were it a young wine, the moderate body and acid and relatively high tannin might indicate very good aging potential, but as a sixteen-year-old wine it is something of an enigma. The distinctive earthy-raisiny taste is also complex with good fruit, but many may find it unpleasant. It is hard to believe that this wine is already well over a decade old; perhaps in another sixteen years its strangeness will develop in a more pleasant direction but for now its $15 price tag seems very undeserved."

---

Martin Ray was known for being curt with critics and I've been told that this book (I've got a copy on order) displays an undertone of personal dislike for Ray in its commentary.

None the less, it sounds like it was a monster wine in its youth. You've got to like it when they complain about a sixteen year old wine having too much tannin, acid, and texture. My bottle when opened was thirty-seven years older than the wine that was tasted in 1969, but the same components were still there.

Thanks for the notes, Paul. Very interesting--I'll bet it was fun to drink.