The following represents a broad portfolio of wines all tasted across one afternoon. The theme of the tasting was to ascertain as much as possible how much terroir matters. Said another way, the tasting aimed to test if the now en vogue “international style” was making wines, even great wines, more and more generic regardless of wine growing region. To the wines:
*****Kongsgaard, The Judge, Napa Valley, chardonnay, 2005: Once again, guilty as charged. My second favorite wine of the entire tasting…maybe even my first. Amazing intensity, complexity, concentration. Crème Brulee, anise, lemon custard, firm, long, mineral…I assumed this to be the Mersault Charmes simply because I guessed that wine would be superlative to the others in the flight. I buy this wine every vintage and am happy to pay whatever price is being asked. Simply Amazing. Wow.
***Domaine Vincent Dauvissat, La Forest, Premier Cru, Chablis, chardonnay, 2005: I thought this wine got lost a bit in the line up. Bright lemon, white flowers, wet hay, nicely malic, in the glass this developed a somewhat flamboyant sweetness which made me not think Chablis. Very nice.
***+Newton, Unfiltered, Napa Valley, chardonnay, 2003: This wine is delicious and typically flamboyant, though perhaps less so when tasted comparatively. Similar notes to the Chablis…bright lemon, minerals, papaya, quite firm and spicy on the palate. Lovely wine.
***++Domaines de Comte Lafon, Mersault Charmes, Premier Cru, chardonnay, 2002: Delicious, if a touch disappointing. I expected this wine to blow me away…it did not. Honestly, it was kind of a diminutive version of the Kongsgaard, all of those things just significantly less so with a concerning and vague thinness mid palate. Some detected a vegetal characteristic or maybe even bret – I did not. Interesting to note this given the focus on terroir. Again, I loved it and thought it a great wine, just nowhere near as great as wine number one.
****Rochioli Vineyards and Winery, West Block, Russian River Valley, pinot noir, 1999: Absolutely wonderful. Deep, complex, fruit driven style, dark, black cherry, green tea, eucalyptus, a touch of barnyard, creamy, velvety palate. Great integration and balance. The sophistication made me think French, the fruit driven style French wannabe. Certainly a lack of the typical “cherry cola” RRV signature made me think anything but Rochioli. I guessed Marcassin. Wrong. A dynamite wine and renewed respect for the Rochioli family.
**++Philipe Pacalet, Chambolle Musigny, pinot noir, 2004: A quirky wine. Initially driven by tell tale whole cluster fermentation nuances like clove, cinnamon and vivid bing cherry, the wine evolved ultimately to be a dead ringer for Campari! Intense, blood orange and dried orange peel notes. With candied ginger and provencal herbs. Many found this wine unappealing. I enjoyed it for its quirkiness and would happily drink more of it. I would not, however, consider it a “serious” wine. Pacelet makes a point of his “biodynamic” farming methods and uses many of the “international style” vinification techniques. Interesting if not compelling.
**+Marcassin, Marcassin vineyard, Sonoma Coast, pinot noir, 2003: Great label! This is my first Macassin pinot (thank you Barry) so I had no palate memory to go with. I assumed this would be a mind boggling wine experience, given the write ups from others. Instead I found the wine a bit thick and somewhat tired. Lovely notes of peppermint candy, sour cherry, black cherry liqueur and briar on the nose, the palate is creamy but a bit obvious, thick with alcohol and one dimensional. The style is lost on me.
****++Domaine Robert Arnoux, Echezeaux, Gran Cru, pinot noir, 2002: I thought this wine was just killer! Deep, complex, beautifully integrated, nuanced with touches of camphor and barnyard, young and beautiful (au pair-esque states J.C.!). Very firm, coating, minerals and white pepper on the mid palate with dark cherry fruit, tannins that still are beautifully integrated across the palate. Wonderful. I found this wine clearly from Burgundy…in all of the positive, great ways that makes Burgundy the cocaine of wines – expensive and worth it. This wine is around at $150…and compared to the Marcassin clearly a steal. My third favorite wine of the tasting.
*****Clarendon Hills, Hickenbotham vineyard, McLaren Vale, cabernet sauvignon, 2002: Amazing in every way. Mind blowing intensity. Powerful and yet nuanced and complex. I immediately thought Montrose…and then, with the deep, velvety palate Redigaffi. Blackberry jam, lavender, black olive tapenade, sauvage, tar. Wow. Palate coating, maybe staining but furry tannins and never out of whack. A wine worth searching for and coveting. Surprising in a very good way. Gary saw through to the provenance of this wine stating that it hinted of “new world vulgarity”. I don’t know what that means but I love it! My favorite wine of the tasting – and again available at a VERY reasonable $62 a pop if you look for it. I love these treasure hunts!
****Tua Rita, Redigaffi, IGT, Toscana, merlot, 2002: Another lovely, very special wine. Even though this wine is 100% merlot, it was not an obvious stand out amongst these wines. In fact, its signature was very cabernet like: cedar, licorice, mint, some chocolate and lavender. With time, the wine did show its telltale Vienna roasted espresso and lovely, floral red fruit and mineral notes but not right away (and these wines were decanted 3 hours in advance). The palate shows young, vibrant staining intensity. I loved this wine but would never have guessed Italian Merlot. Delicious.
****++Chateau Montrose, Estate vineyard, St. Estephe, Bordeaux, 2003: A much heralded wine. After the Clarendon Hills, my second favorite wine of the flight. It is a beast. “Ti-Tanic” exclaims R.F! Intense, brooding, mocha, black olive, grilled meats, oily and coating palate, loooong and intense on the finish. The only reason this was not my absolute fave was because I somehow think of Montrose as even more savage, more raw than this wine presents itself as being. I love Montrose and cellar it in pretty much every vintage and this one is among the best…but I would not put it in the same company as the 1990, another parker 100 point wine. Still…Wow.
****Pahlmeyer Winery, Proprietary Red, California, 2002: 75% cabernet, 22% merlot, made from a whole cornucopia of the best vineyards across Napa and Sonoma. Wonderful. “Purple-icious” (F.C.). Heady, fresh, juicy, fruit driven. Blueberry, baking spices, chocolate, cassis. Vibrant and still very primal. The immensity of the fruit made me think Aussie. Perhaps this wine is the one that most typifies what I think of as the divergence of new world vs. old world styles. Yummy without pretension.
****Eric Texier, Vielle Vigne, Cote Rotie, syrah, 2001: I have posted on this several times and thus will not go into too much detail. This wine sings. It is elegant but not fragile, sophisticated, nuanced…burgundian without losing any of its varietal nature. Balanced, complex, really second only to the Guigal La las in my opinion…fabulous.
**+Molly Dooker, Carnival of Love, McLaren Vale, syrah, 2005: Almost unfair to put this in the same flight as the Texier as the later magnifies every flaw in this wine. Lavishly oaked (I sense American oak), milky, fat, gigantic berry fruit, this wine is a cartoon. And while I am a huge fan of cartoons like Family Guy and Samurai Jack, this has none of those cartoons’ wit or whimsy. Still, I suppose fun to drink. Best thing about this wine is the label. I consider this proof positive of a serious flaw in Robert Parker’s ability to score wines correctly.
**++Cayuse, Cailloux vineyard, Walla Walla, syrah, 2005: Having read a great deal about Washington syrah being the next Cote Rotie, I expected much from this wine. While not bad, it really reflected just another new world syrah. Here again, whole cluster fermentation drives a clove, cinnamon, black berry signature, with vanilla and spice from the oak and a thick, pronounced palate feel from high extraction and alcohol. Very nice to drink, palate coating…but no one will mistake this for La Chapelle.
***Pax, Cuvee Christine, Russian River Valley, syrah, 2004: I expected the Cayuse signature from the Pax, but this is showing better than in the past. Still palate staining and over the top, it shows better integration even if hung on a massive frame. Not bad all in all. It is a wine I cellared out of curiosity and while it is worthy of appreciation it will not be replaced in kind.
****+Weinlaubenhof Alois Kracher, Trokenbeerenausele, Noble Wine No.12, Burgenland, Austria, 1995: Wow! This is a gorgeous wine. Not made in every vintage, this number 12, with its 200+ g/l of residual sugar and its 12 percent alcohol is much more Hungarian Tokai than it is French sauternes. Made from 4 or 5 varietals that I can’t even pronounce, let alone spell. Elegant, perfumed, laden with white and yellow fruits, amazingly concentrated yet vibrant…this really is gorgeous. Honestly, I dabbed a few drops behind each ear and put on my best come hither look for Amy…it didn’t work but it wasn’t the wine’s fault either. Very special. A fitting testament to a very special winemaker nee alchemist that we will all miss.
**+Chateau Climens, Estate, Premier Cru, Sauternes-Barsac, 1988: Sauternes is funny. The truly great ones transcend almost anything else you can drink. The rest leave you flat and unimpressed. This wine is nice but more the later than the former. Reticent nose of clover honey, full, velvety mouthfeel, perhaps a nuance of lavender, coating…Very nice but not special.
***Sine Qua Non, Mr. K The Noble Man, chardonnay, 2001: This wine is made in celebration of the aforementioned Alois Kracher, playing off of the Noble Wine name of the number12. What a great wine to include in this flight. Honestly, I expected the world given its price and my love for all things SQN. As such it disappointed a touch. Very nice, even delicious, it was no Kracher TBA. A touch flat, also honeyed, minerals and white flowers, an unfortunate slight bitter edge to the finish…I would gladly have more but will not be in search of it at the hefty prices that it conjures up. Another question mark in RP’s critical abilities…
***++Francois Pinon, “La Goutte D’Or”, Vouvray, chenin blanc, 1990: Lovely, white fruit driven and refreshing. Plenty of RS, this wine is still very much youthful and vibrant with great acids. Peachy, great minerals, long coating finish. I am constantly amazed at these Loire sweet whites. Their longevity, their quality, the freshness…why these wines are not as sought after as the average, flabby sauternes is beyond me. Delish!
All in all a great tasting. I loved the Kongsgaard, Arnoux, Rochioli, Clarendon Hills, Montrose, Redigaffi, Texier and the Kracher wines. They were all special in their own ways. In considering this elite subset, many were really not so much endemic of their regions as they were just amazingly well crafted, balanced, integrated wines. So, is terroir important? Given this group, I would say that sense of place clearly can be a very important variable within any wine’s formula for success (especially great wine), though it is hardly a barrier to greatness. And given that I did not hit the 50% mark on guessing the correct wine even in a single blind format – I usually do much better…honest! - perhaps there is some convergence in wine making world-wide that is putting pressure on that variable's importance.
*****Kongsgaard, The Judge, Napa Valley, chardonnay, 2005: Once again, guilty as charged. My second favorite wine of the entire tasting…maybe even my first. Amazing intensity, complexity, concentration. Crème Brulee, anise, lemon custard, firm, long, mineral…I assumed this to be the Mersault Charmes simply because I guessed that wine would be superlative to the others in the flight. I buy this wine every vintage and am happy to pay whatever price is being asked. Simply Amazing. Wow.
***Domaine Vincent Dauvissat, La Forest, Premier Cru, Chablis, chardonnay, 2005: I thought this wine got lost a bit in the line up. Bright lemon, white flowers, wet hay, nicely malic, in the glass this developed a somewhat flamboyant sweetness which made me not think Chablis. Very nice.
***+Newton, Unfiltered, Napa Valley, chardonnay, 2003: This wine is delicious and typically flamboyant, though perhaps less so when tasted comparatively. Similar notes to the Chablis…bright lemon, minerals, papaya, quite firm and spicy on the palate. Lovely wine.
***++Domaines de Comte Lafon, Mersault Charmes, Premier Cru, chardonnay, 2002: Delicious, if a touch disappointing. I expected this wine to blow me away…it did not. Honestly, it was kind of a diminutive version of the Kongsgaard, all of those things just significantly less so with a concerning and vague thinness mid palate. Some detected a vegetal characteristic or maybe even bret – I did not. Interesting to note this given the focus on terroir. Again, I loved it and thought it a great wine, just nowhere near as great as wine number one.
****Rochioli Vineyards and Winery, West Block, Russian River Valley, pinot noir, 1999: Absolutely wonderful. Deep, complex, fruit driven style, dark, black cherry, green tea, eucalyptus, a touch of barnyard, creamy, velvety palate. Great integration and balance. The sophistication made me think French, the fruit driven style French wannabe. Certainly a lack of the typical “cherry cola” RRV signature made me think anything but Rochioli. I guessed Marcassin. Wrong. A dynamite wine and renewed respect for the Rochioli family.
**++Philipe Pacalet, Chambolle Musigny, pinot noir, 2004: A quirky wine. Initially driven by tell tale whole cluster fermentation nuances like clove, cinnamon and vivid bing cherry, the wine evolved ultimately to be a dead ringer for Campari! Intense, blood orange and dried orange peel notes. With candied ginger and provencal herbs. Many found this wine unappealing. I enjoyed it for its quirkiness and would happily drink more of it. I would not, however, consider it a “serious” wine. Pacelet makes a point of his “biodynamic” farming methods and uses many of the “international style” vinification techniques. Interesting if not compelling.
**+Marcassin, Marcassin vineyard, Sonoma Coast, pinot noir, 2003: Great label! This is my first Macassin pinot (thank you Barry) so I had no palate memory to go with. I assumed this would be a mind boggling wine experience, given the write ups from others. Instead I found the wine a bit thick and somewhat tired. Lovely notes of peppermint candy, sour cherry, black cherry liqueur and briar on the nose, the palate is creamy but a bit obvious, thick with alcohol and one dimensional. The style is lost on me.
****++Domaine Robert Arnoux, Echezeaux, Gran Cru, pinot noir, 2002: I thought this wine was just killer! Deep, complex, beautifully integrated, nuanced with touches of camphor and barnyard, young and beautiful (au pair-esque states J.C.!). Very firm, coating, minerals and white pepper on the mid palate with dark cherry fruit, tannins that still are beautifully integrated across the palate. Wonderful. I found this wine clearly from Burgundy…in all of the positive, great ways that makes Burgundy the cocaine of wines – expensive and worth it. This wine is around at $150…and compared to the Marcassin clearly a steal. My third favorite wine of the tasting.
*****Clarendon Hills, Hickenbotham vineyard, McLaren Vale, cabernet sauvignon, 2002: Amazing in every way. Mind blowing intensity. Powerful and yet nuanced and complex. I immediately thought Montrose…and then, with the deep, velvety palate Redigaffi. Blackberry jam, lavender, black olive tapenade, sauvage, tar. Wow. Palate coating, maybe staining but furry tannins and never out of whack. A wine worth searching for and coveting. Surprising in a very good way. Gary saw through to the provenance of this wine stating that it hinted of “new world vulgarity”. I don’t know what that means but I love it! My favorite wine of the tasting – and again available at a VERY reasonable $62 a pop if you look for it. I love these treasure hunts!
****Tua Rita, Redigaffi, IGT, Toscana, merlot, 2002: Another lovely, very special wine. Even though this wine is 100% merlot, it was not an obvious stand out amongst these wines. In fact, its signature was very cabernet like: cedar, licorice, mint, some chocolate and lavender. With time, the wine did show its telltale Vienna roasted espresso and lovely, floral red fruit and mineral notes but not right away (and these wines were decanted 3 hours in advance). The palate shows young, vibrant staining intensity. I loved this wine but would never have guessed Italian Merlot. Delicious.
****++Chateau Montrose, Estate vineyard, St. Estephe, Bordeaux, 2003: A much heralded wine. After the Clarendon Hills, my second favorite wine of the flight. It is a beast. “Ti-Tanic” exclaims R.F! Intense, brooding, mocha, black olive, grilled meats, oily and coating palate, loooong and intense on the finish. The only reason this was not my absolute fave was because I somehow think of Montrose as even more savage, more raw than this wine presents itself as being. I love Montrose and cellar it in pretty much every vintage and this one is among the best…but I would not put it in the same company as the 1990, another parker 100 point wine. Still…Wow.
****Pahlmeyer Winery, Proprietary Red, California, 2002: 75% cabernet, 22% merlot, made from a whole cornucopia of the best vineyards across Napa and Sonoma. Wonderful. “Purple-icious” (F.C.). Heady, fresh, juicy, fruit driven. Blueberry, baking spices, chocolate, cassis. Vibrant and still very primal. The immensity of the fruit made me think Aussie. Perhaps this wine is the one that most typifies what I think of as the divergence of new world vs. old world styles. Yummy without pretension.
****Eric Texier, Vielle Vigne, Cote Rotie, syrah, 2001: I have posted on this several times and thus will not go into too much detail. This wine sings. It is elegant but not fragile, sophisticated, nuanced…burgundian without losing any of its varietal nature. Balanced, complex, really second only to the Guigal La las in my opinion…fabulous.
**+Molly Dooker, Carnival of Love, McLaren Vale, syrah, 2005: Almost unfair to put this in the same flight as the Texier as the later magnifies every flaw in this wine. Lavishly oaked (I sense American oak), milky, fat, gigantic berry fruit, this wine is a cartoon. And while I am a huge fan of cartoons like Family Guy and Samurai Jack, this has none of those cartoons’ wit or whimsy. Still, I suppose fun to drink. Best thing about this wine is the label. I consider this proof positive of a serious flaw in Robert Parker’s ability to score wines correctly.
**++Cayuse, Cailloux vineyard, Walla Walla, syrah, 2005: Having read a great deal about Washington syrah being the next Cote Rotie, I expected much from this wine. While not bad, it really reflected just another new world syrah. Here again, whole cluster fermentation drives a clove, cinnamon, black berry signature, with vanilla and spice from the oak and a thick, pronounced palate feel from high extraction and alcohol. Very nice to drink, palate coating…but no one will mistake this for La Chapelle.
***Pax, Cuvee Christine, Russian River Valley, syrah, 2004: I expected the Cayuse signature from the Pax, but this is showing better than in the past. Still palate staining and over the top, it shows better integration even if hung on a massive frame. Not bad all in all. It is a wine I cellared out of curiosity and while it is worthy of appreciation it will not be replaced in kind.
****+Weinlaubenhof Alois Kracher, Trokenbeerenausele, Noble Wine No.12, Burgenland, Austria, 1995: Wow! This is a gorgeous wine. Not made in every vintage, this number 12, with its 200+ g/l of residual sugar and its 12 percent alcohol is much more Hungarian Tokai than it is French sauternes. Made from 4 or 5 varietals that I can’t even pronounce, let alone spell. Elegant, perfumed, laden with white and yellow fruits, amazingly concentrated yet vibrant…this really is gorgeous. Honestly, I dabbed a few drops behind each ear and put on my best come hither look for Amy…it didn’t work but it wasn’t the wine’s fault either. Very special. A fitting testament to a very special winemaker nee alchemist that we will all miss.
**+Chateau Climens, Estate, Premier Cru, Sauternes-Barsac, 1988: Sauternes is funny. The truly great ones transcend almost anything else you can drink. The rest leave you flat and unimpressed. This wine is nice but more the later than the former. Reticent nose of clover honey, full, velvety mouthfeel, perhaps a nuance of lavender, coating…Very nice but not special.
***Sine Qua Non, Mr. K The Noble Man, chardonnay, 2001: This wine is made in celebration of the aforementioned Alois Kracher, playing off of the Noble Wine name of the number12. What a great wine to include in this flight. Honestly, I expected the world given its price and my love for all things SQN. As such it disappointed a touch. Very nice, even delicious, it was no Kracher TBA. A touch flat, also honeyed, minerals and white flowers, an unfortunate slight bitter edge to the finish…I would gladly have more but will not be in search of it at the hefty prices that it conjures up. Another question mark in RP’s critical abilities…
***++Francois Pinon, “La Goutte D’Or”, Vouvray, chenin blanc, 1990: Lovely, white fruit driven and refreshing. Plenty of RS, this wine is still very much youthful and vibrant with great acids. Peachy, great minerals, long coating finish. I am constantly amazed at these Loire sweet whites. Their longevity, their quality, the freshness…why these wines are not as sought after as the average, flabby sauternes is beyond me. Delish!
All in all a great tasting. I loved the Kongsgaard, Arnoux, Rochioli, Clarendon Hills, Montrose, Redigaffi, Texier and the Kracher wines. They were all special in their own ways. In considering this elite subset, many were really not so much endemic of their regions as they were just amazingly well crafted, balanced, integrated wines. So, is terroir important? Given this group, I would say that sense of place clearly can be a very important variable within any wine’s formula for success (especially great wine), though it is hardly a barrier to greatness. And given that I did not hit the 50% mark on guessing the correct wine even in a single blind format – I usually do much better…honest! - perhaps there is some convergence in wine making world-wide that is putting pressure on that variable's importance.
