Impromptu Tasting/Critique
Towards the end of a rather busy day at the shop yesterday, one of my sales reps stopped in to catch up. As he was leaving, he asked what I had planned for the rest of the evening. He then invited me over to his house to drink a bt of the juice. A couple of other folks were coming over and he was curious as to how one of his wines was holding up. An hour later, we were pulling corks.
The host's bottle was a Ravenswood Zinfandel 'Cooke Vineyard' 1994. The other couple showed up with a ZD Pinot Noir 'Carneros' Reserve 2002. Admittedly, niether of these would have been my first choice, but what the hell? I spend most of time drinking the wines of France and and the rest of Europe, so why not check out what the folks in California are (or were) up to?
Upon initial inspection of the Ravenswood, the bottle appeared to be in 'perfect' condition. Ullage (the French term for the fill level in the bottle) looked to be right were it was upon release. Back then (and maybe still) Ravenswood used a shorter capsule, much like those found on wines from Ridge. I've never gotten the scoop as to why these shorter capsules are used but in any event, it allows one to see a fair bit of the cork, albeit the wine side it. As such, the cork looked to be doing its job rather well. No streaking up the sides, and it was saturated about as far as one would expect a wine of 11 years to be. Things are looking good.
As the host was decanting the wine, discussion headed towards the 1994 vintage and our recent experiences with wines from the year. I offered that my experiences have been nothing but bad ones. Multiple bottles from various producers including Ridge (Montebello), Rutz Cellars (two different single vinyards), and some stuff from Truchard. And may different grapes as well, Chardonnay, Cabernet Sauvignon, Pinot Noir and Zinfandel. Without exception, they have all shown one thing: 'These wines are for drinking...ageing, not so much.' Add to that list, the Ravenswood.
Going into the decanter, the wine yielded very little sediment. Somewhat surprising as I always thought Joel Peterson (former owner) afforded his single vineyard wines a little bit more room for expression. I suspect that the wine was relatively well fined and more than likely filtered before bottling. Inititially, the aromatics were extremely tight. This is to be expected as the wine had been locked up for 11 years. The most dominant aspect of the nose was the alcohol. The label indicated a paltry 14.3%. I would challenge most winemakers to make a Zinfandel with such low alcohol in today's environment. I suspect it would be rather difficult. The palate was very similar to the nose, wound up, almost no fruit to speak of. The color of the wine, while translucent, was somewhat rusty. There was a particluar 'cloudiness' to the wine. It didn't look as if the wine was breaking down, so to speak, but it had nowhere near the color and concentration that one would expect to find in even the most average Zinfandel.
The consensus was that the wine was gone or heading that way, so we decided to let it sit in the decanter for a bit and went on to the ZD Pinot Noir 'Carneros' Reserve 2002. I had the pleasure of having lunch with the owners of ZD a few years ago, and greatly appreciated their time and attention. For those of you who don't know, the 'ZD' is an abbreviation of the words 'Zero Defects' and that is supposedly what the mantra of the winery is. I should say that for the most part, their goal was achieved. However, I should qualify that. Here goes:
This wine is a prime example of everything that is wrong about California Pinot Noir.I'm sure that by simply reading those words, heads are exploding all over the world. I know, I know, the movie Sideways changed your whole reality and now you are totally obsessed with all things Pinot Noir. Here's a bit of advice: Get over it. If you want to learn about Pinot Noir, I can't think of a worse place to start than in California.
There was very little, short of the two words on the front label that was remotely similar to that which is Pinot Noir. The wine, both straight-away and after an hour in the decanter smelled and tasted like a syrah. So much so that were I to taste the wine blind, I might have thought it to be an entry-level Crozes-Hermitage. The aromatics gave off the tell-tale barnyard (read: cowshit) smell that, either by way of terroir or poor winemaking, I closely associate with the wine of the southern Rhône valley of France. The palate was almost the same with tannins that were so up front and in your face, they nearly eclipsed the 'fruit' in the wine. The entire bottle seemed to scream 'Look what the winemaker can do!' or 'Look at me! or quite simply, 'I have been affected'. Utterly devoid of any subtlety, this is a classic case of a wine that was made to show. The only problem is that it showed everything but a soul. And at the risk of getting all misty-eyed, it is soul that I look for in any wine, but most especially, Pinot Noir.
Back to the Ravenswood. After an hour and a half, the wine began to 'open up'. Of course, this is a relative term because the atrophy that had already set in was winning the battle. A slight core of cherry fruit in the mid palate was almost immediately wiped away by the harsh tannins that seemed to be the only thing keeping the wine together. The acidity and alcohol were still quite high, remeniscent of something far more Italian than anything else. In fact, the cheese that was being served seemed to be the only thing around that could top the wine. When taken together, the bite of the white cheddar actually made the Zin taste 'somewhat' fruity.
I'm sure it sounds like I had a miserable time, but in fact it was quite intersting. As I said before, it has been some time since I've had the opportunity to drink wines like this, so it's good to do some research.
Lesson of the day: Drink your .94's and California Pinot still sucks.
The host's bottle was a Ravenswood Zinfandel 'Cooke Vineyard' 1994. The other couple showed up with a ZD Pinot Noir 'Carneros' Reserve 2002. Admittedly, niether of these would have been my first choice, but what the hell? I spend most of time drinking the wines of France and and the rest of Europe, so why not check out what the folks in California are (or were) up to?
Upon initial inspection of the Ravenswood, the bottle appeared to be in 'perfect' condition. Ullage (the French term for the fill level in the bottle) looked to be right were it was upon release. Back then (and maybe still) Ravenswood used a shorter capsule, much like those found on wines from Ridge. I've never gotten the scoop as to why these shorter capsules are used but in any event, it allows one to see a fair bit of the cork, albeit the wine side it. As such, the cork looked to be doing its job rather well. No streaking up the sides, and it was saturated about as far as one would expect a wine of 11 years to be. Things are looking good.
As the host was decanting the wine, discussion headed towards the 1994 vintage and our recent experiences with wines from the year. I offered that my experiences have been nothing but bad ones. Multiple bottles from various producers including Ridge (Montebello), Rutz Cellars (two different single vinyards), and some stuff from Truchard. And may different grapes as well, Chardonnay, Cabernet Sauvignon, Pinot Noir and Zinfandel. Without exception, they have all shown one thing: 'These wines are for drinking...ageing, not so much.' Add to that list, the Ravenswood.
Going into the decanter, the wine yielded very little sediment. Somewhat surprising as I always thought Joel Peterson (former owner) afforded his single vineyard wines a little bit more room for expression. I suspect that the wine was relatively well fined and more than likely filtered before bottling. Inititially, the aromatics were extremely tight. This is to be expected as the wine had been locked up for 11 years. The most dominant aspect of the nose was the alcohol. The label indicated a paltry 14.3%. I would challenge most winemakers to make a Zinfandel with such low alcohol in today's environment. I suspect it would be rather difficult. The palate was very similar to the nose, wound up, almost no fruit to speak of. The color of the wine, while translucent, was somewhat rusty. There was a particluar 'cloudiness' to the wine. It didn't look as if the wine was breaking down, so to speak, but it had nowhere near the color and concentration that one would expect to find in even the most average Zinfandel.
The consensus was that the wine was gone or heading that way, so we decided to let it sit in the decanter for a bit and went on to the ZD Pinot Noir 'Carneros' Reserve 2002. I had the pleasure of having lunch with the owners of ZD a few years ago, and greatly appreciated their time and attention. For those of you who don't know, the 'ZD' is an abbreviation of the words 'Zero Defects' and that is supposedly what the mantra of the winery is. I should say that for the most part, their goal was achieved. However, I should qualify that. Here goes:
This wine is a prime example of everything that is wrong about California Pinot Noir.I'm sure that by simply reading those words, heads are exploding all over the world. I know, I know, the movie Sideways changed your whole reality and now you are totally obsessed with all things Pinot Noir. Here's a bit of advice: Get over it. If you want to learn about Pinot Noir, I can't think of a worse place to start than in California.
There was very little, short of the two words on the front label that was remotely similar to that which is Pinot Noir. The wine, both straight-away and after an hour in the decanter smelled and tasted like a syrah. So much so that were I to taste the wine blind, I might have thought it to be an entry-level Crozes-Hermitage. The aromatics gave off the tell-tale barnyard (read: cowshit) smell that, either by way of terroir or poor winemaking, I closely associate with the wine of the southern Rhône valley of France. The palate was almost the same with tannins that were so up front and in your face, they nearly eclipsed the 'fruit' in the wine. The entire bottle seemed to scream 'Look what the winemaker can do!' or 'Look at me! or quite simply, 'I have been affected'. Utterly devoid of any subtlety, this is a classic case of a wine that was made to show. The only problem is that it showed everything but a soul. And at the risk of getting all misty-eyed, it is soul that I look for in any wine, but most especially, Pinot Noir.
Back to the Ravenswood. After an hour and a half, the wine began to 'open up'. Of course, this is a relative term because the atrophy that had already set in was winning the battle. A slight core of cherry fruit in the mid palate was almost immediately wiped away by the harsh tannins that seemed to be the only thing keeping the wine together. The acidity and alcohol were still quite high, remeniscent of something far more Italian than anything else. In fact, the cheese that was being served seemed to be the only thing around that could top the wine. When taken together, the bite of the white cheddar actually made the Zin taste 'somewhat' fruity.
I'm sure it sounds like I had a miserable time, but in fact it was quite intersting. As I said before, it has been some time since I've had the opportunity to drink wines like this, so it's good to do some research.
Lesson of the day: Drink your .94's and California Pinot still sucks.
4 Comments:
Now now, Christian. "Suck"?
I happen to like my Pinots with lots of finesse, medium bodied, aromatic and crisp. So I have to look around to find that in California...but it is out there.
Now, there are lots of Syrah/Pinots out there. LOTS of them. I've struggled with how to appreciate these wines. In many cases I like the wines alot, but not as Pinots. Rather, I like them for what they are. I've had to come to the conclusion that Burgundy can't be the arbitor of what Pinot Noir is, but rather the Arbitor of what Burgundy is. That's how I enjoy some of the big Pinots.
That said...look to Anderson Valley, Green Valley, specific producers in Carneros.
Cheers,
Tom...
Tom,
I freely admit that I was making a 'blanket' statement there at the end, but it was not without reason. My biggest problem with many of the New World wines is that they seem to be indicative of little more than chemistry and focus groups.
Your point about the 'Arbitor' is well taken. However, there should be some standard as it pertains to various grapes. If for no other reason than for the consumer. While it has been some time since I purchased a CA. Pinot, I might as well throw a dart at the wall and hope for the best. The concept of typicity is one of the pillars of the French A.O.C system. But, of course that is not without fault. Case in point: Vouvray. They can (and do) run the gamut from bone dry to sickly sweet. And there is no indication via the label as to the style of each wine.
I can appreciate the fact that California has its own 'thing' going on when it comes to wine, but the ZD wasn't even close to anything Pinot, much less Burgundian.
To draw a somewhat obtuse analogy, when someone talks about the color white, most people, either by way of sense memory or visualization have an impression of what 'white' is. Certainly there are variations on this theme, bright white, off white, alabaster, etc... but they're all in the same ballpark, more or less. The ZD ( and it is most definitely not alone) was like talking white and painting maroon.
And further more, just a cursory scan of web puts the going rate for this particular bottle of ZD at around $60. Suffice it to say, had I spent that kind of money, I would have been pissed.
Thanks,
Christian
Gentlemen,
Allow me to add my two little pennies. I see both of your points. Many of the Cali Pinots I've sampled have zero Pinot typicity (other than being labeled as PN). On the other hand, I try to live by the rule, "If you like it, then who cares what anyone thinks."
Of course, people should drink what they like,and if they happen to like a gigantic wine that coincidentally is labeled as Pinot, then so be it. However, Chritian's point is well taken. Shouldn't there be a defining set of typical Pinot characteristics? For example, I've recently been delving into New Zealand Pinots. Many of these wines show typical Pinot traits. They don't taste like Burgundy per se, but they certainly trigger something in my brain that says, "aahhh, Pinot."
Cheers to the lively discussion & opinions,
Beau
(basicjuice.blogs.com)
Au Bon Climat does an interesting Pinot Noir-Mondeuse, a cali take on a classic Savoie asemblage. It rocks though I must admit that most Pinot outside of Burgundy does in fact 'suck.'
Caveman
Post a Comment
<< Home