I had only been in the Napa Valley for a few days when I detected a low level of anger bubbling barely beneath the surface. Seems there's been a knock on the 2003 vintage. I had my first inkling of this a few weeks ago when Tom Shelton of Joseph Phelps shot me a quick note about my comments on the 2003 Insignia. He opined somewhat cryptically that he was happy to see at least someone was supporting the '03 vintage.

I hadn't really thought about it. Nor do I believe I've tasted enough wines, particularly reds and even more specifically Cabernet Sauvignons and Cabernet-based blends, to make a call on the vintage as a whole.

What I do know is this: In general I've been impressed with the vintage, particularly the big reds from the Napa Valley. I'll even take it one step further and speculate that what I've liked is perhaps the same thing some other wine journalists haven't. I actually prefer the 2003 Insignia over the 2002 because it is firmer and much tighter than the '02 at a similar stage. And I raved about the '02.

Of course the anger is directed at the power of the press to put the kibosh on a vintage. It happened in 1998 and again in 2000. Only a few publications really have the power to do that, and we all know which ones. The vintners might be seething but they are loathe to name names. It's sort of the elephant in the room.

'I've had sommeliers all over the country tell me they simply can't sell the '98 or 2000 vintages to their clientele who would ordinarily order those kinds of high-end Napa wines,' one industry insider confided this week. 'It's because somebody heard or read something negative, and they know there's a rap out there even though these are perfectly fine wines.'

I would agree. I also would say that the hype over the 1997 vintage, and indeed the heavy crop yields that accompanied that outstanding vintage, probably diminished interest in 1998 and 2000. Those were not 'bad' vintages in the classic sense, though the wines of the North Coast were generally soft and plump, easy to drink in those years, but not as 'impressive' as the '97s. But a disaster, no.

What a great thing for consumers and restaurateurs, who typically open big reds well before they are ready to drink. So in those two maligned vintages there were many reds that were perfect for early consumption. At the same time, there were scads of outstanding reds from top producers that are only now finding their stride.

It's a shame no one wants them. There's a certain irony at work here, for the acclaimed 2002 vintage was plump and attractive when young and similar in some ways to the maligned 1998 and 2000 vintages.

So it begs the question, what is a great vintage? What is a bad vintage? If it's not a great vintage, is it therefore a 'bad' or an 'off' vintage? I asked Philippe Melka -- a noted Napa Valley winemaker best known for making the cult Cabernet from Bryant Family -- about the 2003 vintage.

'There is nothing wrong with 2003,' he proclaimed. 'It is a very good vintage. But it is not as easy to like at this stage as the '02 because it tends to have higher acidity and more obvious tannins. But my opinion is that it will age better and live longer than '02.'

I suppose it comes down to your definition of a 'great' vintage. The only vintage I tend to rate, as those things go, is the Bordeaux vintage. I do so because it's useful to the consumer who might want to purchase Bordeaux on 'futures.' That simply means you put up your money for the wine a few months after harvest but don't take delivery until a couple of years or more down the road.

But the vignerons of Bordeaux make it easy, conducting a week-long en primeur tasting each spring that allows the press and trade to analyze the quality of the previous harvest vintage in organized side-by-side tastings, where over the course of a week and hundreds of wines anybody with a decent palate can get a bead on the vintage.

I have a practical method for determining a great vintage in Bordeaux. I make my way to the huge Cru Bourgeois tasting. There are literally hundreds of producers in one large room pouring their wines for the trade. Most are small producers, or farmers who make their wines in a rustic fashion, with little or none of the technical expertise that can be found at the grand Chateau of the classified growths.

There are a handful of cru bourgeois producers who are every bit as professional as the grand chateau, but they are few and far between. The vast majority do not have the skills to overcome the challenges of farming vineyards and making wines in less than perfect vintages.

When the amateurs of Bordeaux make outstanding wines, you know it was a great vintage. But if the wines of the cru bourgeois are nasty and difficult to swallow, it doesn't necessarily mean the vintage is a lost cause, especially among the classified growths.

The vintages of 2000 and 2001 are a perfect example. Nearly everyone made succulent wines in 2000. The cru bourgeois tasting was a joy to attend. Not so in 2001. The fact that the cru bourgeois struggled, however, did not spell doom for the grand chateau. Among the classified growths, many were as good as or better than 2000, and certainly more 'classic' in structure, firm and tight -  therefore not as yummy straight from the barrel. But if you pass on the 2001 Bordeaux from good Chateaux you're either a fool or reading the wrong publications. It was a very good vintage, and in some cases great.

So it is with the 2003 Cabernets from Napa. The top estates of the Napa Valley are roughly the equivalent of the classified growths of Bordeaux. They simply don't make bad Cabernet Sauvignon. You can dump three consecutive weeks of torrential rains on these guys at harvest, as was the case in 1989, and most of them will figure out a way to salvage a wine we'd all love to drink.

The Chardonnay and Pinot Noir might rot under some conditions, but Cabernet can take a beating. And through careful selection and state-of-the-art winemaking techniques, an unmitigated failure is seldom in the cards.

Some years the Cabs might be voluptuous and lush, some years they might be tight and closed, but you can bet they'll always be good. Vintage variations rarely spell doom for a top Cabernet producer in the Napa Valley. You can take that to the bank.

Contact Robert at rwhitley@winereviewonline.com.