It’s easy to make a splash in the wine biz in California if you have a few hundred million in spare change to invest in a fabulous winery designed by a famous architect, then hire a famous consulting winemaker, put out a $150 Cabernet that goes on to be the top lot at the Napa Valley Auction or Premier Napa Valley, and then hire a top of the line P.R. firm to spread the word about your fabulosity.

It’s hard to make a splash when your “winery” is a dumpy little wooden barn on “the wrong side of the hill”, you have no budget for P.R. or much of anything else, and you don’t even make Cabernet. But it can be done, and for proof you need look no further than Joseph Swan Vineyards.

I’ve been a Swan fan forever. I began tasting their wines (not for review, for sheer enjoyment) in the 1980s. I still remember a dinner at Chez Panisse at which Swan’s winemaker (and Joe Swan’s son-in-law), Rod Berglund, brought down a bunch of old wines for a tasting, for which Alice Waters prepared a magnificent meal (lamb, if I recall correctly). Those wines had aged perfectly even though some of them were 20 years old. (I covered the winery extensively in my first book, A Wine Journey along the Russian River.)

I reviewed a bunch of their latest releases yesterday and was again reminded just how good and authentic Swan wines are. Few wineries in California have such a good track record across so many varieties. I’ve given consistent high scores to Swan Pinot Noir, Zinfandel, Syrah, Viognier, Chardonnay and even to a Tannat I loved last year. Can you name another winery that performs so well in so many kinds of wine? Off the top of my head, I can’t. The reason, I think, is because Swan is very careful to source their grapes only from the coolest parts of the Russian River Valley, and the best vineyards. It’s also because Rod is a hell of a winemaker. His Pinot Noirs are probably his best wines; I gave his the 2007 Trenton Estate 97 points, and at $52 it’s less than a lot of Pinots that aren’t even as good. You could call it Burgundian because it has such great acidity and a mushroomy thing going on that’s obviously pure terroir, but I think I’m going to stop referencing wines as “Burgundian” because, after all, the correct word to use is “Russian River Valley-an” or “Trentonian” or some other word that’s about our terroir, not theirs.

So kudos to Joseph Swan Vineyards and Rod Berglund. They’re still going strong after all these years.

* * *

I’m headed up to Napa later this morning to hang with Jayson Woodbridge, the owner/winemaker at Hundred Acre, Layer Cake and Cherry Pie. I want to see how his vintage is coming along (and to see him, too. Fascinating guy). We chatted briefly on the phone the other day and he was excited. Now, vintners are always “excited” about the latest vintage, or so they claim when talking with ink-stained wretches like me. I think they’d find something positive to say if an asteroid hit Napa Valley right in the middle of harvest. “The Asteroid Vintage of the Century!” But I agree with Jayson’s take. The rainfall of the first and second weeks of October was a drag and everybody was scared witless by as much as 4 inches that drenched Sonoma and Napa. But they’re dancing in the cellars over the weather that followed: two weeks of absolutely gorgeous, drop dead beautiful weather, dry, sunny and warm. No big heat at all, just mild, breezy conditions that will dry out the ground and the leaves and grapes still on the vine. I think this could be a tough vintage for the coolest coastal locations (Sonoma Coast Chardonnay, for example), where growers could experience mold and unripeness, in addition to severely short crops. But the star of the vintage might just well be Napa Valley Cabernet Sauvignon and Meritages, although the best will be produced in miniscule quantities because of this low-yielding year.

I’ve reviewed more $100 and up Cabs and Bordeaux blends in the last several months than ever, by far. One might have thought that the quantity of expensive California wines would be going down because of the recession, which as we all know has forced Americans to seek out more affordable wines. That’s the conventional wisdom, so I’m not really sure how to account for this plethora of pricy bottles, except that, maybe, the proprietors know something I don’t.

Some of these wines are familiar; they’ve been expensive forever and will remain so. Others that made this list are new to me, either as brands, or this is the first time I’ve seen them break the $100 barrier. By the way, I’m sure there are far more $100-plus Cabs I reviewed this year than just the ones on this list. I got tired searching through the database after I reached the Ridge. And remember, this is just $100 and over. There are dozens more that are $60, $75 and $90, which is still pretty expensive in my book.

I’m not saying these aren’t good wines, or that they’re not worth the price. I’m simply impressed by how many California (and mainly Napa Valley) wineries are pricing so high these days. It used to be a sound principle of marketing, back in the good old pre-recession days, that if you priced your Cab too low, people would think it wasn’t very good. You’d be surprised how many Cabs out there increased their prices for this simple reason, and then saw their sales increase, because a lot of newly rich people thought expensive=good, and so more expensive=better. Is that why so many of these wines are $100 and up? Or is it because the proprietors, many of whom are in greater touch with Wall Street than I am, sense that change is coming–that people are loosening up the purse strings and willing to spend more, if only for an occasional special wine?

I don’t know, but here’s the list. It’s almost like a Bordeaux classified growth menu. I also have no idea if people actually are buying these wines, or if the owners are simply hoping they will. It’s just fascinating to me to see this insight into the owner mentality these days.

Venge 2008 Family Reserve Cab $125
Araujo 2007 Eisele $275
Stonestreet 2007 Christopher’s $100
Vineyard 7&8 2008 Estate Cabernet, $125
Hall 2007 Exzellenz $165
Hall 2008 Exzellenz $165
Hall 2007 Segassia Vineyard Cab $145
Hall 2008 Segassia Vineyard Cab $150
Moone-Tsai 2008 Cor Leonis $175
Flora Springs 2008 Hillside Reserve Cab $100
Salvestrin 2007 3D Cab, $125
Hestan 2007 Cab $100
D.R. Stephens 2008 Moose Valley Vineyard Cab $125 and 2008 Walther River Block Cab $105
Far Niente 2008 Cab $120
Maybach 2008 Weitz Vineyard “Materium” Cab $125
ZD 2008 Reserve Cab $125
B Cellars 2008 Beckstoffer To Kalon Cab $125
Staglin 2008 Cab $185 and 2007 INEO $250
Jarvis 2005 Reserve Cab $195
Jarvis 2007 Lake William Cab $115
Tom Eddy 2004 Dr. Crane Cab $115
Bennett Lane 2008 Lynch Family Vineyard Cab $125
Von Strasser 2008 Reserve $125
Verite 2006 La Joie $300 and Le Desir $300 and La Muse $260
Merryvale 2008 Profile $165
Parallel 2008 Estate Cab $125
Charles Krug 2008 “Celebrating 150 Years” Cab $150 and X Clones Cab $100
Rubicon 2008 $175
Knights Bridge 2008 Beckstoffer Dr. Crane Cab $135 and 2008 Beckstoffer To Kalon Vineyard Cab $135
David Arthur 2008 Elevation 1147 Cab $150
Promise 2006 Cab $225
Carter 2008 Beckstoffer To Kalon $125
Janzen 2008 Missouri Hopper Vineyard Cab $100 and 2008 Cloudy’s Vineyard Cab $100
Tuck Beckstoffer 2007 Mockingbird Green Label Cab $170
Joseph Phelps 2008 Backus Vineyard Cab $250 and 2008 Insignia $200
Pride Mountain 2007 Reserve Cab $125 and 2008 Vintner Select Cab $130
Louis M. Martini 2008 Lot 1 Cab $120
Meander 2008 Morisoli Vineyard Cab $120
Luna 2006 North Fork Cab $110
Diamond Creek 2008 Gravelly Meadow, Volcanic Hill and Red Rock Terrace, all $175
Baldacci 2007 Brenda’s Vineyard Cab $105
Veedercrest 2006 Cab $125
Veedercrest 2007 Cab $200
Arrowood 2007 Reserve Speciale Cab $110
Kapcsandy 2008 Grand Vin Cab $325 and 2008 State Lane Vineyard $165
Nickel & Nickel 2008 Martin Stelling Vineyard Cab $140
M by Michael Mondavi 2007 Cab $200
Bialla 2009 Vita Cab $125
Robert Mondavi 2008 Reserve Cab $135
Carter 2008 Coliseum Block Cab $125
Beringer 2008 Private Reserve Cab $115
Duckhorn 2007 The Discussion $115
Cardinale 2007 $300
Dominus 2008 $149
White Cottage 2008 Celestia Estate $125
Continuum 2008 $150
Viader 2008 $100
Alpha Omega 2008 Era $195
Ridge 2008 Monte Bello $145

I started my tasting diary on Feb. 16, 1983. I’d been seriously getting into wine the previous four years, and, infatuated with Michael Broadbent’s Great Vintage Wine Book, decided that, like him, I’d keep track of every wine I had. I even removed the labels and pasted them in the diary.

The first wine in Book One of my diary was a 1981 Morgon Beaujolais from Georges Duboeuf. It cost $6. I called it “delightful.” The second wine was from the following night. It was a Macon-Villages, also 1981, and it set me back all of $4. It was all right; I said it was a “good Chinese food wine.” The third wine was Kenwood’s 1980 Vintage Red Cabernet Sauvignon ($3.50). Kenwood’s basic Red and White wines were staples of the Heimoff household for a good part of the 1980s.

The fourth wine brings us to Germany: an off-dry 1980 Bernkastler Badstube, from the Mosel-Saar-Ruwer ($3.99). I drank it with a cheese omelot. The fifth wine (and the fifth in as many days–I was basically a bottle-a-day man back then) also was German: 1981 Erben Kabinett, from the fine producer, Langguth, in the Rheinhessen. It cost $4. Number six brought me back to France, a 1979 Domaine d’Ormesson. For $3, it was another house favorite of mine. Here are numbers 7 through 10:

1979 Kirchheimer Romerstrasse Riesling Kabinett, trocken (price not recorded)

1979 Chateau Montelena Chardonnay ($12, pricy)

1976 Chateau Beauregard, Saint-Julien ($5)

1976 Wine and the People Zinfandel, Sonoma ($10)

I engage in this stroll down memory lane because I find it remarkable how catholic (with a small “c”) my drinking was back then. You will find in that tasting diary wines from all over the world, in every price bracket: Yquem and Leoville-Las-Cases at the higher end, cheap little regional wines at the low.

I tasted even more broadly throughout the later 1980s and into the early 1990s, after I began writing about wine and getting invited to events at which the great wines of the world were opened for me, including First Growth Bordeaux and Grand Cru Burgundy. But when Wine Enthusiast asked me to be their California reviewer, I found that I no longer had the time to indulge in worldwide tasting, swamped as I was with Cali wines. That remains the situation today. I try to get out to international tastings, and occasionally I’ll pull an older bottle of something Italian or French from my [small] wine cellar. But I’ll be the first to admit that my tasting is 98% California these days.

We all taste with the palate we have, which is not necessarily the palate we might want (to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld from a different context), so I suppose it’s no use lamenting that I might have developed a California palate over the years. If I have, so be it. Such a palate might be described as favoring full-bodied, higher-alcohol wines with overtly sweet, ripe fruit and, often, a generous cloak of new oak. One can say such wines trade finesse for power, elegance for audacity, subtlety for sheer razzle dazzle. Still, within this context one still can find enough distinctions of finesse, elegance and subtlety to make comparative judgments. Let us consider two Cabernet Sauvignons: Araujo 2007 Eisele Vineyard and Mockingbird 2007 Red Label. Both are expensive; both are from Napa Valley. Both have vast concentrations of sweet black fruits, but the former has impeccable structure and dryness, while the latter lacks it. I could see a Bordeauxphile trying both wines and objecting that both are candied and unbalanced. However, I am not a Bordeauxphile, and to my palate there is a big difference between these two wines, similar as they are to each other.

Does my California palate mean I can’t appreciate a good, dry Bordeaux? I don’t think so. But I will admit that when I taste Bordeaux (for example, at the annual Union des Grands Crus event in San Francisco), I often find it too austere and earthy for me; and when a Bordeaux does appeal to me, it’s because it’s Californian in style. This isn’t to say I think that California Cabernet Sauvignon is objectively better than Bordeaux. It’s just my taste. But it puzzles and annoys me when somebody says Bordeaux is objectively better than California Cabernet Sauvignon. Why do they have to make it a contest? Two different wines, two different kinds of people. Something for everyone.

When all’s said and done, I do worry that I’ve developed a California palate, but like I said earlier, there’s nothing to be done about it. Besides, it would be bizarre indeed if I–a California wine critic–didn’t care for California wine. I like it a lot, but, as a final note, I will concede (sadly) that too much California wine, red and white, is too sweet. I like sweet fruit, but I loathe a table wine that should finish dry but doesn’t. (I loathe an unripe wine, too.) That’s the risk of making wine in sunny California. The brix gets carried away. Too many winemakers either allow it to happen and don’t know or care, or else they think they’re catering to a consumer who likes soda-poppy wines. I don’t.

With so many important Cabernet Sauvignons and Bordeaux blends yet to be released from the 2009 vintage, it may be premature to make pronouncements about it. Still, I’m beginning to have my doubts.

As early as December 1, 2009, I wrote (in my vintage assessment for Wine Enthusiast), “The fuller-bodied reds from the North Coast, especially Cabernet Sauvignon, could be problematic.” The main problem was a major rainstorm on Oct. 12-13 that soaked Napa. That led to the classic question, “Did you pick before or after the rains?” As one Diamond Mountain winemaker put it, in an official press release, “The rain will define the harvest depending on which side of it you were on.” She warned that fruit picked after the rain would have “slightly lower sugars,” but don’t be misled by that word “slightly.” We’re talking about the difference between perfectly ripened grapes and less [or more] than perfectly ripened grapes, which really is the key for Napa Valley Cabernet Sauvignon.

My hunch, given how cool 2009 was–and it was a very cool season, the start of our notorious trio of “little ice age” vintages of 2009, 2010 and 2011–is that most Cabernet was not picked before the rains came, because it wasn’t ripe.

It is true that the rain was followed by a period of warm, sunny weather, the kind that, in theory, can dry out the vines and canopies and restore the grapes to health. But having rain followed by sun at that precarious time of the harvest is never as good as having no rain at all, which is why I used the word “problematic.” The problems include having grapes swollen with water, which would reduce their power and make them thin. This problem would be compounded by the size of the 2009 harvest, which was a large one, the biggest since 2005, and the second biggest of the decade.

And mold is also a very serious threat, especially for wineries that lack the professional staff to hand-sort out bad berries before they reach the fermentation tanks. Almost all wineries go through the motions of sorting, but few are wealthy enough to have the deep bench necessary to deal with a vintage like 2009. This is another reason why the top houses (which is to say, the most expensive wines) will have a leg up in 2009.

Still, as one North Coast vintner told me, “Big harvest + rain soaked quality isn’t a good combination.” Another winemaker, whom I respect a great deal, told me, “I just think 2009 was too cool over all. When you look at the great vintages in CA they tend to be the warmer ones.” This vintner allowed as to how 2009 might be good for coastal Pinot Noir (although he noted, and so did I, the early hype that accompanied it). But we’re not talking about Pinot Noir here.

I have now reviewed about 125 2009 Cabernet Sauvignons and, sad to say, my scores have not been impressive. Only a handful of 90-plusses. Thankfully, most of these wines aren’t terribly expensive, ranging from $18-$30. A typical one, which I won’t identify because my review has not yet been published, read: “A little sharp and aggressive in texture, giving it a rustic feel, but pretty rich in blackberries, currants and cedar, making it an easy Cab to drink now.” It is that aggressiveness that worries me. You want a nice Cabernet to feel smooth in the mouth, with gentle, warming tannins that glide like velvet across the palate. The slightest hint of coarseness can be jarring. Given how strong Cabernet’s tannins are, if the fruit doesn’t match it, the wines will taste and feel astringent. That’s my fear for 2009.

I was thinking why I haven’t given as many high scores to Pinot Noir as to Cabernet Sauvignon, when I realized there’s a perfectly good reason. Can you guess why?

It’s not because I don’t believe California Pinot Noir isn’t as great as Cabernet. It is, although Cabernet’s been great for a much longer time than Pinot. And I don’t think it’s because I have some preconceived notion that Pinot Noir can’t score as highly as Cabernet, although I admit that, if I did have such a notion, I might not be consciously aware of it. People have asked me why Sauvignon Blanc (for example) never scores as highly as Chardonnay. Is it due to something inherent in Sauvignon Blanc, or something in me?

Well, Sauvignon Blanc is a topic for future reflection. Right now, the answer to the question why I don’t score Pinot as highly as Cabernet is because Pinot Noir goes wrong much more often than Cabernet. And I do mean at the highest levels.

A grape chemist can explain to you why Pinot is a more transparent wine than Cabernet. There are some critics out there who like to throw around technical terms, like anthocyanins, without a proper understanding of what they are or do. I’m not one of them. I’ll let the enologists deal with that, if they agree to stay away from reviewing wines.

But Pinot is more transparent than Cabernet. Cabernet is a heavy wine. It’s tannic and full-bodied, and often very oaky, and sometimes, when I’m tasting a Cabernet, I imagine a large, furry animal in my mouth. With such a wine, flaws can be hidden, to a reasonable degree. A little too much or too little acidity? There’s room in Cabernet for a margin of error either way. Tough tannins? Cabernet is forgiving. To some extent, you want tough tannins in a proper Cabernet, which is what makes it ageable. Some herbaceousness indicating less than properly ripened fruit? Not a problem. There’s generally so much fruit in a California Cabernet that a touch of green olives and herbs is welcome. What I’m looking for in Cabernet is richness, and I find it more often than not in Napa Valley Cabernet Sauvignon, which is why I’ve given so many (Vine Cliff, Araujo, Alpha Omega, Venge, Krutz, Au Sommet, Paul Hobbs, Vineyard 7&8, Macauley, Long Meadow Ranch, Moone-Tsai, Staglin) such high scores this year alone.

But the margin of error for Pinot Noir is considerably narrower. Or maybe a better way of saying it is that Pinot Noir is so transparent that, ultimately, it’s the most unforgiving variety. There was a book a while back, The Heartbreak Grape, about Josh Jensen, at Calera, and “a heartbreaker” is exactly what Pinot Noir is. Pinot either is perfect, or it isn’t. And the sad truth is that 99.99999% of Pinot Noir is never perfect, meaning that there is an almost existential certainty that when you taste one, no matter how great it is, you’re going to mourn the fact that something, somewhere, is wrong.

It could be anything. For me, when acidity is off in Pinot Noir, it’s jarring. Too much, and the wine has a mean, nasty streak, like a yappy little dog that nips at your ankles. I hate that, and will take 5 or 6 points off a Pinot for that reason alone. And don’t tell me that high acidity will help a California Pinot age. It won’t–especially when the winemaker added it after the fact.

A little sweetness in Cabernet isn’t a flaw and, as a matter of fact, can be a virtue, if you have a California palate, as I do. Almost all the wines I listed above taste sweet. Cabernet wants that lush, chocolatey richness; it tolerates it well, the way a big-boned person can look good while packing away a few extra pounds. But sweetness in Pinot Noir sticks out like a sore thumb. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve lowered a score because the wine turned sugary at the last moment.

The herbaceousness I mentioned that can be good in Cabernet is a severe minus in Pinot Noir. Just a trace of green, from unripe seeds or stems or whatever, can overwhelm an otherwise nice Pinot, making it sharp and minty. Not good. On the other hand, too much caramelized oak on Pinot is the worst thing in the world. I think you could probably give a good Napa Cabernet the exact same new oak treatment as a Pinot, only in Cabernet’s case it would be fine, whereas the Pinot would be a disaster.

I’ve gone through only a couple differences between Pinot and Cabernet, but the bottom line is that Pinot is so fickle and finicky that it screams out every possible little thing that’s wrong with it. Cabernet seduces and charms. It’s easy to fall in love with Cabernet and have a great time with it, never noticing little flaws because it’s so entrancing. And that’s why I give more high scores, and higher scores, to Cabernet Sauvignon than to Pinot Noir.

People are always asking me, “What’s your favorite wine?”, to which I invariably reply, “The one I’m drinking now.” If they press me, I’ll say Champagne (or sparkling wine). If they really want to get down with me, I’ll tell them Pinot Noir.

I decided some years ago I liked California Pinot Noir even more than Cabernet Sauvignon, but I was never entirely sure about it. Whenever I tasted a great Pinot Noir, I’d be thrilled not only with the wine itself, but with an appreciation of how far, how fast this variety has come in California. It would have been inconceivable in the 1990s for me to have preferred Pinot over Cabernet, and I think the same could be said for most of the working critics of that time. However by the late 1990s, certainly by the early 2000s, if someone knowledgeable had said they thought Pinot had overtaken Cabernet, at least nobody would have suggested a forced trip to the psycho ward.

As much as I’ve liked Pinot, the reason I wasn’t quite sure it was my favorite was because every time I did a great Cabernet flight, it would blow my mind and remind me once again that Cabernet had been my first love and, while I might have flirted a bit with this racy young upstart, Pinot Noir, I was destined always to return to Cabernet. Dance with the one that brought ya, the old saying goes, and it was Cabernet Sauvignon that had brought me to the ball.

So I went into the database today so see what my top wines have been so far this year, and, not surprisingly, Cabernet Sauvignon dominates the list. The top 5 are all Cabernet or Bordeaux blends. What is surprising, though, is that two of them are not from Napa Valley! Those would be Stonestreet’s 2007 Rockfall and Verité’s 2006 La Joie, both astounding wines. Of course, one could argue that both of them are from the west-facing slopes of the Mayacamas Mountains, separated only by an accident of geography from being in Napa County, instead of Sonoma County.

My #6 wine was Williams Selyem’s 2008 Litton Estate Pinot Noir, a wine I’ve loved ever since I first tasted it. (The name henceforth will be Estate, not Litton.) It’s a big Pinot Noir, not for the faint-hearted, and I guess you could criticize it for not being “Burgundian” enough, but that’s not a criticism I share. My #7 wine was a sweetie, Dolce 2006, and it should never be surprising to see Dolce appear on anyone’s top list. It’s consistently one of California’s great dessert wines. What perhaps is a little surprising is that my #8 wine is a sparkler: Schramsberg’s 2004 J. Schram Rosé, possibly the greatest California sparkling wine I’ve ever had the pleasure to review. After that, we revert back to Pinot Noir for the #9 wine, Joseph Swan’s 2007 Trenton Estate, which with its acids and tannins reflects its southern Russian River Valley roots. In tenth place, last but not least, is Qupe’s 2006 X Block “The Good Nacido” Syrah.

This list makes me happy and proud. It certainly wasn’t premeditated for me to have Cabernets, Pinots, a sweet wine, a sparkling wine and a Syrah in my Best of 2011 (so far) list. But there you are. What it tells me is how well California is doing in many different varieties, at least at the upper tier.

After that Qupe Syrah, #11 is another Syrah, Donelan’s 2008 Richards Vineyard, from Sonoma Valley. But get ready for this: #s 12-22 are all Cabernet Sauvignon or Bordeaux blends. I don’t see another Pinot Noir until #27, the Babcock 2009 Microcosm. So I guess I’d have to say, if you make me put my hand on a Bible in a court of law and swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth concerning my favorite wine, I’d say, “Based on the evidence, it would be Cabernet Sauvignon.” But in my heart of hearts, I wouldn’t really believe it.