Check back through these pages in the coming weeks, where you will see reports from my visits to some of the top producers of riesling, spatburgunder (pinot noir), weissburgunder (pinot blanc) and more from some of the top winegrowing regions in Germany, including the Rheingau, the Nahe river valley and the Mosel river valley. As true riesling lovers, my wife and I are getting excited to visit the mecca of riesling, including stops to see some of our favorite producers, including Donnhoff, Emrich Schonleber, Von Schubert, Karthauserhof, Markus Molitor and more. Stay tuned for tasting reports, recommended travel experiences and lots of photos and video from our travels through some of the most hallowed hillsides of world-class winemaking.
It recently occurred to me that I hardly ever drink mourvèdre. Or more accurately, I probably do without knowing it, as it’s often used as a blending grape that comprises a tiny percentage in a lot of wines, mixed in with other Rhone varieties like grenache, syrah and cinsault. I realized that, after all my years of tasting and learning about wines, that I couldn’t tell you what mourvèdre on its own tastes like.
Another factor complicating matters is that mourvèdre is like a secret agent among wine grapes – not just often appearing undercover, but also under many names. In parts of Spain like Jumilla, mourvèdre is known as monastrell. Some producers in Australia call it mataro. So, when it came time to choose a theme for the next tasting for one of my wine groups, naturally I chose mourvèdre.
I’ve had some good luck with monastrell from the Jumilla region of Spain in the past. In my early years of wine drinking, the Altos de Luzon bottling from Bodegas Luzon has ranged from good to fantastic depending on the vintage – though that wine is only 50% monastrell, blended with tempranillo and cab.
Last night, I got a look at the 2011 Tarantas Monastrell, also from Jumilla. A wine of deep and rich reddish-purple color, the Tarantas gives forth aromas of dusty plums. On the palate, the fruit tastes more like slightly medicinal red and dark cherries, with plummy acidity and a slightly herby brambly edge on the finish to lend some interest. At $12 retail, this is a nice bargain-priced wine from 100% organically grown monastrell grapes and a good first glimpse into the character of this variety.
Next up, we had a French entrant, a 2010 Bandol called Le Galantin. 95% mourvèdre with a splash of grenache thrown in, this wine tastes true to its place of origin, with lavender and other Provençal herbs adding a floral edge to this rustic country wine.
Two New World takes on the variety took us to a slightly higher price range, with the 2007 D’Arenberg The Twentyeight Road mourvèdre at $31 and the 2010 Carlisle Two Acres, a California blend of mostly mourvèdre with small amounts of petite syrah, syrah, peloursin, alicante bouschet and carignane. The D’Arenberg immediately justifies its higher price tag, with a perfumey nose that’s instantly appealing. To be fair, this is a bit older than the other wines, and has had time to become wine, as opposed to tasting like very primary grape joice. Ripe fruit and judicious oak have played their roles perfectly here, resulting in a slightly redder-fruited wine than the others, and it’s delicious.
The Carlisle shows a slightly meaty edge that the other wines didn’t. If we had had this double blind, I might have guessed from the nose that this was from the Rhone Valley, but the palate is classic Carlisle – dark, brooding but recognizably New World with its powerful, fruity style. The D’Arenberg wins wine of the night honors for me, but perhaps with the same amount of age on it, this Carlisle might be equally deserving.
So, after tasting these wines, what is mourvèdre like? My take is that the grape produces richly colored wines, and has a wild, brambly edge that feels part bushy, part peppery. There’s a thread of racy acidity that seems to come naturally to each of the wines tasted tonight, producing starkly flavorful and aromatic wines without forbidding tannins, even in youth. Fans of syrah, petite sirah and zinfandel/ primitivo might do well to check out mourvèdre/monastrell/mataro, in all of its guises. -Alan
The Tarantas Monastrell was tasted from a review sample bottle received free of charge from its distributor.
As promised, here’s the follow-up to my first set of 2010 Bordeaux tasting notes from bottle: this time I’m covering the value-priced appellations of Moulis, Medoc and Haut Medoc, and the Left Bank communes of Margaux, St. Julien, Pauillac and St. Estephe. These notes are from the UGC Bordeaux tasting in January and the BurdiGala Grand Tasting last week here in New York. My faves/ recommended bottles for purchase are starred*. If you are going to make any purchases now, you may want to make them before Robert Parker’s scores get released on the 28th, which may cause prices on high-scorers to rise. You got the inside scoop first, right here!
Chasse-Spleen – showing leafy green tobacco herbal notes and licorice on the nose. Brooding, with anise flavors on the palate. 89-92
Poujeaux – slightly higher toned nose than the Chasse-Spleen; fresher but a slight picklish(?) quality. Licorice on the palate like the Chasse-Spleen, but the added freshness here gives this the edge this year in Moulis.
Cantemerle* – has a very pretty nose; sweetish fruits, and certainly some oak here, but nicely done. A perfumed quality to the fruits on the nose makes this promising. Palate is quite tannic, boding well for ageability, but
already delicious due to sweet fruits on the palate – with a freshness that makes this better than many of the higher classified growths today. A touch of red-fruitedness and delineation here. One of the top outperformers of the day, for sure. A bit more giving on the palate than the more structured La Lagune tasted right after. 92-94
La Lagune – an herbal tobacco leaf quality on the nose, and sweet fruits and some oak to make it work as well. Structured and fresh on the palate. 91-93
Tour de By – On the structured, graphite, stony side. Very good. 90-92
Belgrave – green pepper and dark fruits on the nose. Lead pencil palate, earthy. 90-91+
Beaumont – A lot of dirt on the nose with a bit of stinky mineral funk. Dark-fruited, with licorice and green pepper notes. A bit bitter on the palate. Not my favorite. 87-89.
Margaux - as a group, the 2010 wines from the commune of Margaux showed quite differently than any of the last 5 vintages or so; quite dense on the nose and tannic on the palate.
Rauzan Segla – a bit of floral perfume on the nose. Somewhat silky onthe palate. Good acidity, I think this will stay nice and fresh through its development. Not overpowering, has an easy charm, and I think the Margaux character will come out more over time. Really like the freshness. 92-95.
Prieure Lichine – A touch of coffee on the nose. Much more dense, powerful and tannic than any vintage of Prieure Lichine I have tasted, even compared to the 2009, which was charming. Not sure how this will develop compared to other vintages; first taste a bit confounding. Second taste: much better, showing much more open; nice and pretty. 91-94
Malescot St. Exupery -Definitely showing some oak and modern style, with some perfume on the nose. Palate is way tannic but less brooding than a lot of the wines today. True to reputation, this feels kind of modern; open, but not overextracted, and not as inscrutable as the Prieure Lichine on first taste.
Lascombes – A little lightish on the attack, which is probably good for a Margaux, especially given how modern recent vintages of Lascombes have been. The power does kick in on the midpalate, continuing through with some spice on the finish. Not as brutally tannic as even some of the Graves reds were. This chateau seems to have dialed it back a bit now. 92-94
Kirwan – Dense and extracted compared to the other Margaux wines. Smooth, with a dense modern feel. Tough to detect any Margaux typicity here.
Giscours* – Better than the Kirwan, with some detailed aromas, red-fruitedness, and cologne quality on the nose. On the palate, there’s some real delineation and true Margaux feel here. A surprise outperformer for me today. 92-94.
Du Tertre – Compared to its sibling Giscours, this has more of a lead pencil, darker profile – not as open and delineated. Dense and tannic, this feels a bit broad. Lacks charm, which is not the greatest quality in a Margaux. Still, a very decent wine. 89-91.
Rauzan Gassies – Not a big fan of this wine – lots of licorice character on the palate, without much charm to the fruit to go with it. Has rockiness, with an overpowering quality to the licorice flavors. 87-89
D’Issan - Pretty, definitely more structured and slightly cooler in fruit profile than the 2006 tasted before it. On the palate, structured, nice, will be very good. 92-94.
Palmer* – Nose is very perfumed, with perfectly sweet fruit. Perhaps a bit more dense, round and rich than I might have expected from a Palmer, but nothing like the Cos. Palate is beautiful, perfectly balanced, sweet-fruited; impactful with finesse, with no need for high extraction. A wonderful, complete wine. 96-98+
Beychevelle – showing damp dirt on the nose, which I like. Tough to read, but falls within the house style. Has a dark, brooding quality - clearly good, but not as readable as the 2009. 91-93
Branaire Ducru – shows more perfume and openness on the nose than the Beychevelle. Not as broodingly tannic, either. Has some slightly bitter licorice quality – one can see the comparison to the ’89s, with a bit more power. Maybe like the 2000s?
Gruaud Larose* – the house style is very recognizable here. Has refined mineral, a touch of leafy green, but also cigar/tobacco leaf sweetness to the fruit on the nose. Very engaging sweetness to the fruit on the palate; among the most delineated wines today. Easily among the best overall, as well. Will be a very good Gruaud Larose. 94-96 Tasted again in February at BurdiGala, with consistent notes.
Lagrange – shows more lead pencil on the nose than Gruaud. On the palate, very similar to the Branaire Ducru in its licorice flavors. A little more dark perhaps.
Leoville Barton – showing sweet purplish fruits on the nose, with some peppery spice like the 2009. Not quite as engaging though. Still, very good. 92-94+
Langoa Barton – redder-fruited nose to it than the Barton. Some perfume on the nose that I really like. Has power and spice on the palate. For once, I like this as much as the Barton. The Barton has sweeter, higher quality fruit but the balance here, somehow with the slightly redder fruits and open style, make this just as good as its more heralded sibling wine.
Leoville Poyferre – some refined mineral on the nose. Dark, powerful, anise-inflected. Don’t like it as much as some of the other St. Juliens however. 91-93
Saint-Pierre – some sweetness to the fruit on the nose, and some tobacco leaf, cedary sweetness present too. A little similar to the Gruaud. Has an oaky perfume, but a perfume nonetheless. On the palate, has a tough-to-read density and power. From the nose, definitely promising, in a way similar to the Gruaud. 92-93++, chance for some big upside, but tough to tell right now.
Talbot – has an interesting quality on the nose – some caramel oak, but also a certain nuttiness. A touch of red fruits in the mix, with some licorice as well. Stony mineral on the palate makes me feel very good about this wine. More readable than a lot of the others – like the touch of delineation here. Has a sense of dynamics – not all density. 92-94
Gloria – kind of a licorice-dominated palate. A bit brooding, a little more detail than most vintages? Solid, competent for the vintage. 90-92
Ducru Beaucaillou* - Wonderfully perfumed on the nose – so much so that I checked – twice – to see if someone around me was wearing perfume. Such sweet, pretty fruit. Very good on the palate as well – juicy, balanced. One of the best 2010 Bordeaux I have tasted. Retasted at the end of the tasting (different bottle) with consistent results. 94-97
Clerc Milon – Has a liveliness to the flavors that I didn’t feel in a lot of the St. Juliens, definitely a step up from most of them. Not as brooding, has a dynamic quality to it. Excellent wine. 93-94+
Armailhac – Nose has a nutty, roasted oak quality. Palate is tannic but a bit neutral. 90ish.
Pichon Baron* – A bit of the plummy quality that the Lalande has; very nice, showing easily better than the 2009 did last year. A little spice and power here, with a nice balance between red-fruitedness and darker fruits, with some engaging sweetness. Has the power I’ve come to expect from Baron, but also a finesse that almost feels more Lalande to me than Baron. Good acidity, a touch of floral here… this is definitely less ripe than the 1990 Pichon Baron. Probably my favorite vintage of Baron to date. 93-95+
2nd taste: denser and less floral than the first sample,
Grand Puy Lacoste – tannic, sweet-fruited, but feels a bit tough to judge. Looks to be quite good, but I think I preferred the 2009 at the same stage.
Pichon Lalande* – (January note) Has power, but also an easy quality to it. Not overextracted, but has density, for a Lalande anyway. Smooth, with freshness. A touch of spice. Power without being too expansive. One of the beautiful wines of the tasting. Will always be a dogfight between this and the 2009 Pichon Lalande as to which is better. 94-96
(February note) Similar results as prior tasting at UGC. At BurdiGala, this is more tannic and a touch less ripe than the 2009 tasted just before it, but the consistency from vintage to vintage is noteworthy. Slightly brighter acidity on the 2010, boding for a long life; like this balance just a shade more than the 2009. 95-97+
Tasted back-to-back with Palmer 2010, this showed a bit stonier, with a darker-fruited perfume and not as sweet on the nose, and more anisette character. On the palate, more structure, more tannin, more licorice flavor.
Lynch-Bages – Big, structured, with even more anise quality than the Pontet- Canet. The acidity on the Lynch-Bages is a little livelier, racier, with cooler fruits than the PC. Some real potential for this wine to turn out like the legendary 1989 Lynch. Very good. 92-95
Pontet Canet* – A little darker, more powerful, and structured than the 2006 Pontet Canet tasted before it, with graphite notes. Sweet-fruited, tannic, and rounded on the palate. Very very nice. Structured in style, this is very true to the nature of the 2010 vintage. Has a slightly plummy quality to the acid, which I really like, and again, the lead pencil notes on the palate. 93-95+
St. Estephe - The St. Estephes seem to show a bit more mineral quality than the other appellations, based on a small sample size tasted so far.
Phelan Segur – showing plenty of mineral and open red fruits on the nose. Safe value pick – has got all you could ask for at this price level: pretty, open fruit, lots of structure, graphite and mineral notes. On the palate, lead pencil, touches of sweet fruit. 90-92.
Lafon Rochet – damp earth, a bit of primary-fruited magic marker pungency to the aroma on the nose, with some caramel oak and a touch of refined tobacco leaf peeking through too. Decent fruit, lots of mineral, nice typicity. 91-93
Cos Labory – stony, with fruit that’s not overdone, some sweetness showing through. 90-91+
Cos d’Estournel *- A recognizable house style for recent vintages is demonstrated by this range of 2006/08/10 Cos – a somewhat muddled style to be frank, characterized by dense fruits, some coffee notes, and damp earth on the nose, etc., which results in wines that don’t excite me in the 2006 and 2008 wines. However, the 2010 is clearly a great rendition of this style, offering livelier fruit that lifts this above the 2006 and 2008 by quite a margin. The fruit explodes with some sweetness but also charm and beauty, putting the elements together in a way the other two vintages don’t. Tannic, but quite pretty on the palate, again with lively fruit, juicy acid yet sweetness to the fruit. Lots of structure, some graphite notes. I think this will be a great wine. 94-96
Sweet wines of Sauternes/Barsac
Climens – very nice, not over the top. Good in a balanced way. Served out of decanter, which served this well.
De Fargues – more generously honey-fruited than the Climens, with a slight floral quality. Not over the top. Pretty balanced, really lovely.
Suduiraut – prettiest nose of the sweet wines so far, captivating in its floral qualities and sweet fruit. On the palate, the richest and most honeyed so far, but certainly very delicious.
Guiraud – lighter on the nose and palate than the Suduiraut. Has a slight herbal quality that comes across as a touch bitter on the palate, putting this behind the other sweet wines tasted thus far in quality. Certainly an engaging nose, though.
Coutet - [notes on nose truncated]. On the palate, nice and on the richer side but something doesn’t quite work here, lacking in the finish? Suduiraut is better today in this style.
La Tour Blanche – most captivating nose yet – floral, with a lychee fruit thing going on. Light in style, with just a touch of grapefruit and green apple that makes the nose intriguing. Smooth, lightish palate – very likeable, very very good. Delicate, with personality too. Best sweet wine here?
These notes are gathered from tastings put on both by the UGC and the BurdiGala Grand Tasting, which I attended free of charge as a member of the media.
Last night was an example of my favorite way to enjoy wine – a casual dinner with good friends, with a manageable number of wines ranging from unassuming (but perfect partners to the right foods) to transcendent. Tasted over the course of a leisurely evening, the wines got sufficient air time to open up aromatically and unfurl their full flavors on the palate. Things got off to a bang with a pair of wines that had been opened on nights previous and were ready to strut their stuff. 2006 Karthauserhof Eitelsbacher Karthauserhofberg Spatlese Trocken shows some nice late-harvest fruit in a dry package, but although my favorite rieslings are usual German ones, tonight it can’t keep up with the otherworldly 2005 Franz Hirtzberger Riesling Smaragd Hochrain from the Wachau region of Austria that my friend M has generously brought. Every time I stick my nose in the glass, this wine sends shivers down my spine. Light petrol and flinty mineral aromas float above golden orchard fruit, and I come back to it again and again. Dry and stony on the palate with a touch of bitter pith, but buffeted by deceptively generous fruit, this plants notions of nectar in your mind but goes down like glorious mineral water. I’m enjoying and not scoring any wines tonight, but this one would clearly be in the exalted 95+ point range for me.
Next I pair a 2011 Casa de Vila Verde vinho verde from Portugal with a butter lettuce salad with carrots and roasted butternut squash. From the grapes arinto, loureiro and trajadura, this light, fresh white lives up to the “green wine” name, presenting a palate with fresh herbal green that manages not to come off as vegetal. A nice citric snap here makes the wine lively and juicy. The next time you’re thinking of having sauvignon blanc, try a vinho verde instead – this is better than the vast majority of the perfunctory sauvignon blancs in the same $11 price range.
Chicken and mozzarella ravioli is partnered with two pinot noirs, 2004 La Famille Claude Dugat Gevrey Chambertin La Gibryotte and 2010 Anthill Farms Demuth Vineyard pinot noir. The Dugat, a negociant bottling, is from the 2004 vintage in Burgundy, in which a significant number of wines display a distinct green character of debated origin (one popular explanation involves pyrazines released by ladybugs). I’ve had a number of bottles of this over the years, haven taken a chance on a number of bottles at a bargain $20 price, and it has generally shown some stalky, stemmy character that seems to be a manageable amount of the 2004 greenness, and tonight’s bottle still shows the same. M and I agree that it’s not enough to be bothersome, and this wine delivers enough burgundy typicity and pleasure to justify the bargain price I paid. M does a nice job of picking out the Anthill Demuth as an Anderson Valley wine when I serve it blind to him – and this one is true to the Anthill style – floral and fragrant tart red fruits and hints of beetroot, framed by oak in an accessible, cool-climate-fruited package.
I serve two blind wines with New York strip steaks, and though they are both from Portugal, they show very differently. The 2009 Herdade do Rocim Mariana comes across as a light-to-medium bodied red that’s smooth on the palate, with touches of a bushy, herby pepper on the nose to add interest. All three drinkers who try this one one prefer it to the 2009 Quinta do Portal Colheita Tinto Douro, which is a good wine in a different style – darker-fruited, brooding and more intensely flavored on the palate. A blend of alicante bouschet, aragonez (which you may know as tempranillo), cabernet sauvignon and trincadeira, the Mariana is from the Alentejano region and aged in stainless steel, which together with a nice plummy acidity, keeps it fresh. On the other hand, the Quinta do Portal tinto is a brooding, dark blend of tinto roriz (yet another name for tempranillo), touriga nacional and touriga franca from the Douro DOC, and shows the profile of an international red – French oak aging and dark, concentrated primary fruits. Both wines sell for $15 or less generally, and to me the Mariana especially is a very solid wine for the money.
As we linger after dinner, comparing the reds, I find I can’t help but keep going back to the fabulous Hirtzberger. From there, we move on to a tasty 2003 Gimmeldinger Schlosser Spatlese rieslaner from Muller-Catoir, pleasing with light cinnamon-like spice inflections, and a perennial favorite producer of sweet wines, Alois Kracher of Austria, is the source of our capper for the evening, a 2002 Kracher Nouvelle Vague TBA chardonnay. The residual sugar in both of these wines goes fabulously with a light and pleasing champagne cheddar cheese from the Finger Lakes, giving our guests a last bit of fortification before they venture back out into the blustery New York night.
The Portuguese wines in this report were complimentary review samples received from representatives of Wines of Portugal.
Galloni leaves Robert Parker’s publication The Wine Advocate: anatomy of a coup? And does TWA even matter anymore?
Back in early December, when the news broke that wine critic Robert Parker was selling a substantial stake in his long-running publication The Wine Advocate, pretty much every wine writer and blogger weighed in on the news. I held off on saying anything on this blog, mostly because I generally try to write about wines and not wine personalities (the occasional exception being information about winemakers as further background on the wines), but also because I felt like the other shoe was yet to drop.
The other shoe (or at least the first of a series of “other shoes”?) dropped Tuesday, when Antonio Galloni, the TWA critic declared in the past by Parker himself to be his “heir apparent”, announced he was leaving The Wine Advocate to start his own venture, antoniogalloni.com. This came as no surprise to me, because my view of the likely goings-on behind the scenes at TWA went something like this:
- When Parker started announcing Galloni as his “heir apparent” a few years ago, I felt it was somewhat likely that this had something to do not only with the fact that Galloni has a good palate but also that his career in finance probably gave him the means, both in terms of personal capital and connections/knowledge, to put together a buyout over time to provide an exit strategy for Parker, who was nearing retirement age but not quite ready to hand over the reins yet.
- When the news broke in December 2012 that Parker had decided to sell a substantial stake to a group of investors from Singapore who had originally approached the TWA writer covering Asia/Australia, Lisa Perrotti-Brown, Ms. Perrotti-Brown was also installed as editor-in-chief of TWA. Though Parker downplayed the editor-in-chief duties handed to Brown as mostly ministerial, the timing seemed hardly coincidental. It seemed to me that Perrotti-Brown had engineered a deal that offered Parker more money than he could turn down, and more money than Galloni (who was presumably caught by surprise) could put together to match in the short time frame left (with Parker likely anxious to close by the end of 2012 due to tax reasons) and quite naturally, would include a more prominent seat for Ms. Perrotti-Brown in the new regime. Surprise eleventh-hour coup in place, with Parker insisting he was still in charge for now, the rivalry for control among TWA: the Next Generation was on, but mostly over.
- If my theory is correct that Parker and Galloni had a framework for handover in place previously, around which Ms. Perrotti-Brown was hoping to do a surprise end run, that would explain why she could not go to Galloni (or any of the other TWA writers) to try to cut a deal to keep him at TWA before announcement of the sale was inevitable, as one might have otherwise expected as part of such an acquisition deal. And perhaps, it explains why, on the topic of which TWA writers would be retained, Perrotti-Brown would let this shot-across-the-bow quote appear in the WSJ article about the deal: “There is a plethora of good wine writers out there. It’s a buyer’s market”.
- Presumably that set the stage for Galloni to plan his own surprise announcement in response, that he would leave to establish his own wine writing kingdom rather than stay as usurped crown prince in the TWA domain. Whether he can parlay his TWA cred into a successful, differently-styled venture of his own remains to be seen.
The question remains, what’s left of TWA with Galloni leaving? While speculation has begun as to which experts on Italy, Burgundy, Champagne and California will be found to step into Galloni’s shoes, it’s hard for me to think that this model even works anymore, at least in the U.S. The wine consumer in America has changed.
For the generation that grew up with Robert Parker, “cool”may have been discovering French wines, mainly from Bordeaux, and then-emerging wines from California. And sure, there will always be trophy-chasers and speculators that will look for a Parker-like guide; perhaps, as TWA’s new owners seem to be betting, the real market for such a guide in the future is Asia. But for America, let’s look at real drinkers as opposed to collectors. Today, young American wine consumers are increasingly priced out of TWA’s traditional bread-and-butter regions like Bordeaux, California and Italy, so they don’t need The Wine Advocate. Moreover, I don’t think they want to be told which wines to buy, the way that the generations before wanted The Wine Advocate to do for them. The Millenials that I know are very open to wines from all regions of all varieties. If they have mainstream tastes, they are just looking to graduate from the Franzia box wine that they chugged in college to say, today’s emerging market wines, like Argentinean malbec or a Portuguese red that gives value for the money. They aren’t hell-bent on being validated as having the dozen highest-rated wines out there, they’re just looking for one good wine at a time.
Those that tend toward more geekery aren’t likely to look to the Wine Advocate, Wine Spectator, or any single source to find new wines, really. The young wine geeks I know in New York (granted, perhaps not a representative sample of what the whole country is like) are more likely to be turned on to wines in a variety of ways. By trying it at their local wine bar (which in New York may well be Ten Bells, Bar Veloce, or Terroir, etc., where they’re more likely to drink lagrein than Lagrange) for example. Cool and emerging for this generation is not drinking wines from the huge brand conglomerates that own Bordeaux and Napa, it’s finding some funky selection from edgy distributors like Dressner or Jenny and Francois at a geeky neighborhood shop like Chambers Street Wines, Frankly Wines or Blanc et Rouge. There, they’re buying grower fizz, gruner, or they’re not buying wine at all – they are just as open to craft beers, spirits like scotch, and mixologist creations. Or they’re finding wines from Wine Disorder, from a blog like Brooklynguy’s, or more likely, a blog that one of their friends writes.
In this changing landscape, wine writers (and that includes bloggers and not just traditional, subscriber-model formerly-print “critics”) will succeed if they focus on artisanal wines, the stories behind them and the qualities that make them fresh, distinctive and worth a look. While I don’t necessarily try to be that hipster with this blog all the time, I hope this site will be one of the many voices you’ll look to for ideas. If the days where one voice could make or break winemakers and influence the style of wines made worldwide are in the past, I for one will be glad.
Going into last week’s UGC Bordeaux tasting in New York, I was half prepared to reverse myself on a call I made after tasting some 2010s as barrel samples: that 2010 was almost as good as 2009, but not quite, unless you are a fan of classical vintages of Bordeaux instead of riper ones. As a fan of classical vintages, I thought that I may well love the 2010 Bordeaux in a way similar to how I adore 2010 Burgundies above their 2009 counterparts in almost every case. Today I can report that no reversal is necessary, but I can modify my statement with a bit more detail.
To sum up, I find 2010 to be a very good vintage in Bordeaux, roughly on par with 2009, but in a different style. While a number of chateaux made better wines in 2010 than in 2009, overall I find 2009 to be more consistent across the board. The most important point is the difference in style – where ’09s were lush, ripe and easy to like, I find the reds from ’10 to have a profile characterized by cool dark fruits, lots of structure and in a notable number of cases, a strong licorice note that is more than I care for, though I expect that will moderate in time. I found some of these wines very difficult to judge – moreso than any of the last four vintages at the same stage, or even the 2010s as barrel samples. As a result, there were a number of wines I didn’t assign a score range to, where I didn’t feel that I could make a call with confidence. I think the nature of the 2010 vintage means these wines are less likable early than the ’09s, but in time, 2009/2010 will be very comparable to the 1990 vs 1989 dynamic of pretty equal but stylistically different vintages.
To my surprise, despite reports from various critics about the freshness of the 2010s, based on my tasting I was a bit disappointed in this regard. While the pH numbers may indicate high acids, something about the overall balance of the 2010s, characterized by lots of tannin and high alcohol levels, left me feeling that most of the 2010s had adequate acid but not an impression of true freshness, at least at this young stage of their existence. There are of course exceptions – Carbonnieux and Dom. de Chevalier among whites, and the Pichons among the reds, to name a few – but the whites from 2010 can’t come close to matching the lively 2007s, for example.
Early reports have cited high alcohol levels in the 2010s, and my overall impression is that the wines indeed feel quite alcoholic, despite their balance. In St. Emilion some wines are a bit extracted; by comparison, the Pomerols and Graves reds seem to have an easy (rather than full-throttle) power – a certain charm without trying too hard. More on the other communes in my next post. For now, here are my notes on Graves blancs and reds from the Right Bank – St. Emilion and Pomerol.
Graves whites (Pessac Leognan)
2010 Haut Bergey blanc - honeyed sweetness on the nose, with a slightly stinky mineral funk. On the palate, decent with Graves typicity. 89-902010 De Fieuzal blanc - not as strong in the mineral funk as the Haut Bergey, this is a more pleasing and harmonious wine. I like this better than most vintages of de Fieuzal, this may be an outperformer at the right price in the value category. 91+
2010 Larrivet Haut Brion blanc - dewy, quality fruits on the nose. Palate shows a rich style as is typical for this house, with fruit that’s on the tropical side (pineapples etc), again of a high quality. A shade better than de Fieuzal if you like a richer style. 91-92
2010 Carbonnieux blanc* - first sample very shy and tight, only giving up a tiny bit of mineral impression that is more refined than any of the wines tasted thus far. On the palate, a citrusy acidity makes this wine fresh and portends longevity. Retasted after some of the other top whites, this was a bit more giving. Overall, like other recent vintages, this shows the most finesse and delicacy among the Graves whites. Very good, but doesn’t seem to excite me as much as the 2009. Considering price, this is again the runaway winner in this category if you like nuance over power. 92-93+
2010 La Tour Martillac blanc - very consistent with prior vintage – a slightly stinky mineral funk on the nose. Palate is competent but undistinguished. Lacks freshness or liveliness. 87-88.
2010 Pape Clement blanc - very pretty nose – a mix of mineral funk and tropical, dewy fruits. Feels alcoholic. Very good wine, but doesn’t touch the 2007 and the extraordinary lift of that vintage. 92-93
2010 Smith Haut Lafitte blanc - Has a racy acidity but the fruit is not as attractive as that in the Pape Clement and even the Larrivet Haut Brion. Still definitely in the top group of whites today but doesn’t quite move me. 91-92.
Accidentally skipped but tasted later before the Graves reds:
2010 Domaine de Chevalier blanc* - has a lightness and freshness on the nose with sweet, quality fruits – probably the prettiest of all the whites today. On the palate, a touch heavy, a bit more powerful and dewy than I prefer. Good acid here though, so this should age gracefully. 92-93
Right Bank/St. Emilion
2010 Canon - very dark-fruited, anisette profile. Tight, structured. If this is any indication, the 2010s are showing very differently from the 2009s, and even tighter than the 2010s in barrel. Can hardly get anything from this, not rating it.
2010 Canon La Gaffeliere - Much more expressive nose than the 2010 Canon tasted before it: perfumed, dark sweet fruits with some damp earth aromas. The palate is tasty but a touch bitter on the finish, but I think it will resolve; there is high quality fruit here. Modern but the oak is not overpowering, actually. 93-94; liked this even better than the very good 2009.
2010 Figeac* - [Notes on the nose lost due to technical glitch] The Figeac is very good on the palate, also showing the graphite notes apparent on the nose. Feels alcoholic, but the exuberant, rich and mineral-laden 2010 Figeac is showing way better than the 2009 did last year at the same stage yet stays in line with the historical style of this chateau. Probably the best Figeac I have tasted – this should be one for the ages. 93-95
2010 Clos Fourtet* - Excellent nose – perfumed, with a damp muddy earth that I really like. Tannic and dry on the palate, this is gorgeous: beautiful fruit, very balanced with the structure, earthy elements, graphite notes, etc. Again, better than the 2009. 93-95
2010 Grand Mayne - Notes lost, but from memory, this did not particularly impress me; rated it at the time 89-91. Don’t think it will reach the heights of the very good 2005, which showed well recently.
2010 La Couspaude - Quite good – graphite notes intermix with sweetish fruit, and a touch of exotic Indian spices. Peters out slightly on the finish. An overperformer for the price? 92-93
2010 La Gaffeliere - has a tightly wound nose, like the Canon. Has a touch of curry spice in there. Palate is dark and structured, very tightly wound at this point. Not rating this at this time, but my feeling is that this will be very good.
2010 Larcis Ducasse - Shows a little modern, opulent and open on the nose, with a nice perfume to the fruit. A little neutral on the palate; just didn’t seem to have much oomph. The fruit on the palate doesn’t have either power or much charm to distinguish this at this stage. 89-91
2010 Pavie Macquin - Powerful, perhaps a bit extracted, showing a touch of bitterness on the finish but there’s a lot of sweet fruit of definite quality here to balance it out. 92-94.
2010 Troplong Mondot A bit bitter on the finish, but should resolve okay considering the sweet underlying fruit. 92-94+
2010 Gazin - Nose is very dark-fruited and a little bit tight. Palate again shows a dark licorice character. This vintage is not really hitting me compared to other recent vintages. 91-92+
2010 Beauregard*- a value play in Pomerol? More red-fruited than most of wines today, plus a stoniness showing on the musky cologne nose as well. Smooth, pretty but should show nice delinieation someday. Refreshingly different in the context of this tasting filled with dense wines. 92-94.
2010 Clinet - has a balance between red- and purple-fruitedness that’s unusual in this tasting. Smooth on the palate, not overextracted. A very pretty wine. Will outlast the Beauregard, but the Beau may well show better young. 92-94+
2010 La Conseillante*- has a refined mineral rockiness, dark purple fruits, graphite. Shows licorice notes on the refined but slightly austere palate, with a lot of earthiness. True to the house style, this wine is not really about the fruit, but is exactly what it intends to be. Elegant, composed, regal. 93-95. A complete toss-up as to which is better between this and the 2009.
2010 La Pointe - A bit of dirt/earthiness on the nose. Good and smooth on the palate, red-to-purple fruited; profile a bit similar to Clinet, so this might be a good value alternative? 91-93
2010 Le Bon Pasteur - flavor profile is more cherry here than most of the other wines here, which tend toward dark plums. This is ok, but doesn’t particularly move me. 89-91+
Stay tuned in the coming days for reports on Graves reds, Margaux, St. Julien, Pauillac, the Medoc and Sauternes/Barsac! -Alan
With 2009 Bordeaux having arrived in many stores now, and the Union des Grands Crus tastings for 2010 about to start around the U.S., it’s a good time to revisit my notes from the UGC tasting of 2009s. Today’s post focuses on what I felt were the two strongest appellations of the 2009 tastings – St. Julien and Pauillac. Pauillac is often considered the grandaddy of them all, with its powerful, structured, regal wines like Lafite, Latour, the Pichons, etc. But St. Julien may well have had the strongest showing across the board at the UGC tastings of 2009s – with most wines showing as open and lovely, with ripe, appealing fruit. True to reputation, though, I believe the Pauillacs will age best among 2009s, not only because of their structured, tannic profile, but also because the producers of Pauillac seemed to do a great job of controlling the considerable ripeness of the 2009 vintage, imbuing the wines with a nice, lively plum-like acidity that should serve as a wonderful backbone for the wines to age on. The prices for the 2009s are high – be prepared – but for the dollars spent, there are some legendary wines to be had, like the Pichon Lalande and the Leoville Barton. I’ll be back with more on Bordeaux again soon, after next week’s tastings of the 2010s – it will be interesting to debate for many years as to which of these two exceptional vintages is the better one. In the meanwhile, here are my notes on the 2009 St. Juliens and Pauillacs:
- 2009 Château Léoville Barton – France, Bordeaux, Médoc, St. Julien (1/25/2012)Has a very nice nose – great balance between ripe fruit and mineral and classic varietal character. On the palate, a little more tannic than a lot of the wines tasted today, but clearly has the fruit to back it up. Doesn’t rely on oak for the spice; not showing a lot of minerality now, but I predict it will come out in time. One of the best wines here today. 94-96. (95 points)
- 2009 Château Gruaud Larose – France, Bordeaux, Médoc, St. Julien (1/25/2012)Has a prettiness, a refined floral quality, a touch of green pepper and some slatey minerality as well. Showing good ripeness with leafy underpinnings, this has all the earmarks of a classic Gruaud Larose in the making, and in the long run, will stand up to pretty much any wine in the vintage in my opinion. 93-95 (94 points)
- 2009 Château Langoa Barton – France, Bordeaux, Médoc, St. Julien (1/25/2012)Lots of sweet fruit on the nose – very appealing. Ripe, rounded – shows the vintage. Some mineral as well; very comparable to the Lagrange in a slightly riper style. 93-95 (94 points)
- 2009 Château Léoville Poyferré – France, Bordeaux, Médoc, St. Julien (1/25/2012)Nose very similar to the Leoville Barton in its balance between sweet fruit and rocky minerality. One the palate, the fruit is not quite as engaging as in the Barton, but slightly more plummy acidity makes this a great choice for anyone wanting a little less sweetness to the fruit. Very, very good. 94-95 (94 points)
- 2009 Château Saint-Pierre – France, Bordeaux, Médoc, St. Julien (1/25/2012)The 2009 St. Pierre is very pretty, with perfumed fruit and a touch of mineral – a slightly fuller feeling nose than some of the other St. Juliens. Nice stoniness on the palate, with slightly plummy acidity. Almost tastes more like some of the Pauillacs from this tasting, in its combination of fresh acidity and controlled ripeness. 93-94+. A great under-the-radar choice that has pleased me in prior vintages. (94 points)
- 2009 Château Branaire (Duluc-Ducru) – France, Bordeaux, Médoc, St. Julien (1/25/2012)On the nose, slightly riper and more appealing than the Beychevelle, with more quality to the fruit. Peppery on the palate, with the ripeness of 2009 showing well. 92-93+ (93 points)
- 2009 Château Lagrange (St. Julien) – France, Bordeaux, Médoc, St. Julien (1/25/2012)Nose a bit more refined than Beychevelle or Branaire. Really quite good on the palate – minerality makes this a nice cheaper alternative to Gruaud Larose? 93-94 (93 points)
- 2009 Château Talbot – France, Bordeaux, Médoc, St. Julien (1/25/2012)As in many years, the 2009 Talbot feels like a good, lower-cost alternative to Gruaud Larose – stony with good fruit. 92-93+ (93 points)
- 2009 Château Beychevelle – France, Bordeaux, Médoc, St. Julien (1/25/2012)Has a touch of a certain sweetness to the fruit, very typical of Beychevelle. Cherry licorice flavors, like many of the Left Bank wines today. Smooth, middle of the road, solid with the character of the vintage, but nothing to particularly distinguish this from the other wines tasted today. 92-93 (92 points)
- 2009 Château Gloria – France, Bordeaux, Médoc, St. Julien (1/25/2012)A lot of coffee on the nose, relying a bit on the oak here, but ripe fruits, very appealing wine, given the price level, this is fine. On the palate, decent concentration, middle-of-the road ripeness for the vintage, with some dark notes to anchor the wine. Good for what it is. 92-93 (92 points)
- 2009 Château Grand-Puy-Lacoste – France, Bordeaux, Médoc, Pauillac (1/25/2012)Nice stone/crushed rock aromas on the nose here; excellent balance with very pleasing, fullish fruit here, without going over the top. With a sweet perfumey note as well, there’s an excellent balance between fruit, acidity, minerality – really good stuff. 94-96. Right up there with the Leoville Barton. Great Bordeaux typicity. Factoring in price, this is one to look for in this great vintage. (95 points)
- 2009 Château Pichon Longueville Comtesse de Lalande – France, Bordeaux, Médoc, Pauillac (1/25/2012)The opposite of Pichon Baron right now, in terms of how each is showing on this day. Pretty, refined, among the best wines of the day already, just on the nose. Has a sweetness to the perfumed fruit, which is of incredibly high quality (perhaps only the Pape Clement had fruit of similar quality in this tasting). Nice plummy acidity underpins the fruit here, boding well for aging. Not a power wine at all – finesse through and through. The pretty, perfumed fruit and superlative fruit pushes this to the top of the pack. Might even be hard to identify as a 2009 – it’s so not playing the ripeness game here. 94-96, at least. (95 points)
- 2009 Château Lynch-Bages – France, Bordeaux, Médoc, Pauillac (1/25/2012)Has considerably more heft than the Pichon Lalande tasted just before it. Notes of exotic Asian spice and mossy earth show on the nose. Classic Pauillac with real power to it, but characterized more by floral beauty than spicy power like some other wines today. Plummy tart acidity here, like many of the Pauillacs today, which seem to have controlled the ripeness of the vintage very well. Excellent wine. 93-95. (94 points)
- 2009 Château Clerc Milon – France, Bordeaux, Médoc, Pauillac (1/25/2012)After slipping in the 2008 UGC tasting, the 2009 Clerc Milon rounds back into form to beat out stablemate Chateau d’Armailhac – a little fuller, slightly higher quality fruit here with a touch of damp earth. Palate doesn’t quite live up to the perfumey nose, but still a good claret. I might still prefer the 2005. Has a slightly tart acidity like some of the other Pauillacs today. 92-93 (92 points)
- 2009 Château d’Armailhac – France, Bordeaux, Médoc, Pauillac (1/25/2012)Has fairly full, slightly pruney fruit, with a touch of perfume on the nose. Palate is also quite full for Armailhac, smooth, fairly round. Will be a good Pauillac; not much mineral showing now, but you can see a touch of leafy green, and some stone and graphite. My favorite Armailhac of recent years, better even than the 2005, for my palate. (92 points)
- 2009 Château Pichon-Longueville Baron – France, Bordeaux, Médoc, Pauillac (1/25/2012)First taste doesn’t do much for me – smooth but not refined in feel, with surprisingly plummy acidity for the vintage. Not much power or ripeness considering the vintage. 90-91? Second taste from different bottle: better, with some lead pencil character, fairly tannic with again, the plummy acidity. Perhaps given the character of the vintage, I was expecting something powerful and opulent like the 1990 Baron, but this is surprisingly middle-of-the-road in feel to me. Still, undoubtedly better than the first sample, 92ish and I’m willing to give upside up to 93+ on this one based on track record and the structure showing here. (92 points)
I’ve written in the past about participating in various blind tastings, but this week I had the opportunity for a new challenge: throwing a blind tasting. I’m part of a group here in New York unofficially known as “Leo’s Blind Tasting Club”, which follows an idea put forth by founding member Leo F: rather than the common wine group structure of “everyone bring a bottle”, we take turns hosting the monthly tastings, and the host for each tasting supplies all of the wines for that particular evening. This allows for the
host to plan a very coordinated double blind tasting, with themes for each flight or even an overall theme for the whole tasting. This month was my first turn hosting.
Most of the members of the club have a deeper cellar than I have, so I wasn’t going to be able to match other club tastings where, say, hosts poured entire flights of gems from the 70s or 80s. In planning my tasting, I decided to build around what I could offer to the group: the benefit of my experiences as a wine blogger. I’ve had the opportunity to taste a lot of wines off the beaten path, as at trade tastings featuring wines from non-mainstream regions like the Jura, Greece, Portugal, Toro, Navarra, right down to groupings as specific as cool-climate chardonnays from Canada. In those wine travels I’ve come across a number of overachievers, and have often said to myself “this wine could totally pass for a wine from [fill in a heralded region].” A tasting like this one was a perfect opportunity to test some of those hypotheses.
As a starter wine to welcome the group to Trattoria L’Incontro in Astoria, where this dinner was held, I poured my favorite champagne of all time – the 2001 Vilmart & Cie Champagne Coeur de Cuvée, which I’ve blogged about in the past in this post. Paired with cheese and vegetable-filled cream puff hors-d’oeuvres, this got us off to a great start- lively and exciting, showing complexity uncommon in the 2001 vintage and mouth-watering acid, this drew raves. Although I warned the group that I would be pitching curve balls on this night, everyone pretty much called this as champagne, with pretty accurate guesses on age, mostly ranging from 1996 to 2002.
Onto the first white flight, built around comparing some French chardonnays from less vaunted regions to a very typical white Burgundy. The first wine in the flight shows golden color and a slightly smoky, flinty nose. Out of nine blind tasters, this garners a few votes as favorite of the flight, and some guess Burgundy; other guesses include pinot gris and gruner veltliner. This one is the 2009 Domaine Tissot (André & Mireille now Stéphane) Arbois Les Bruyères. Although savagnin, poulsard and trousseau seem to get more of the buzz around Jura wines, I feel the chardonnays from the Jura are underrated and stand up well to white Burgs, as I think this one does.
The next wine, buttery-opulent but saved by counterbalancing acidity, is our benchmark wine of the flight, 2007 Domaine / Maison Vincent Girardin Puligny-Montrachet 1er Cru Les Combettes. This wine gets a majority of votes for wine of the flight – but not because everyone is a Cote d’Or Burgundy snob. In fact, more people guess Cali Continue reading Throwing a blind tasting: planning and pouring for Leo’s Blind Tasting Club
Today’s post is the next installment of my Wine and a Movie feature, and today I have an appreciation of the works of two acclaimed but probably under-discussed master craftsmen. On the film side, we have Gus Van Sant, who you may know by his films “Good Will Hunting” and “Milk”, among others, although I want to focus on 2008′s “Paranoid Park”, based on a novel of the same name by Blake Nelson, and my favorite of Van Sant’s films.
On the wine side of things, I present 2010 Cameron pinot noir, from the Dundee Hills AVA, made by John Paul, one of the pinot pioneers of Oregon. While “Burgundian” is a word mentioned in conjunction with a lot of pinot noirs from Oregon, Cameron is among the very few producers in the US whose wines truly deserve the label. Also, Cameron has possibly the coolest official winery bottle shot I have seen, here it is (with “Jackson Pawlick”):
Paranoid Park opens with a preview of what the viewer is in store for: risky and unusual music choices that don’t always work but keep the audience on its toes, eschewing the easy comfort of cliches for pieces that subtly portend what is to come in the story. Nino Rota’s “Porticina Segreta” alternates between whimsical and foreboding, and Billy Swan’s 70′s hit “I Can Help” serves as unpredictable anthem to introduce us the film’s protagonist, Alex Trumaine, a sixteen year old skater kid in modern-day Portland, while simultaneously hinting through its lyrics at the drama set to unfold.
The 2010 Cameron pinot noir is also full of surprises. The nose offers funky earth more often offered in wines from the Cote d’Or than Oregon. The fruit has a racy, tart edge but is full with intensity that you expect from single-vineyard wines but not from an entry-level appellation blend. There’s plenty of Oregon pinot noir typicity here, but the savory loaminess that I find too dominant in many Oregon pinots functions here as a lovely earthy accent. I purchased my bottle for $35 and was quite happy, but certain retailers in Oregon often sell this bottling for under $20. At that price, this wine is a sick, sick deal considering the Cameron wines are hand-crafted and sustainably farmed. If you can find it under $20 this is probably the best American pinot noir in its price range.
While “Paranoid Park” employs dreamy visuals (courtesy of star cinematographer Christopher Doyle, also making an onscreen cameo) to tell its elliptical story, the real genius of this film lies in its sound: from score and source music to the inventive sound design that seals the viewer’s immersion into Alex’s world as the mystery surrounding the death of a railroad security guard near a skate park known as ‘Paranoid Park’ is peeled back layer by layer.
One of the few terms as overused as “Burgundian” is “Hitchcockian”, as applied to countless copycat films that mimic the Master of Suspense rather than taking his inspiration in new directions. “Paranoid Park” plays to me like a film that Alfred Hitchcock would make in the modern day (with a splash of Kieslowski thrown in), which coming from as big a Hitchcock fan as I am, is a true compliment, especially considering that I’ve never been able to watch the shot-for-shot remake of “Psycho” that Van Sant did early in his career. The dialogue among teenagers here is largely improvised, coming across as how kids of that age really talk as opposed to the overwritten teens seen so often in modern TV and film. Flashes of humor buffet the story’s progression, and Alex’s relationship with his vapid cheerleader girlfriend, and the choice of music underneath one of their arguments, is a real hoot.
If you think that poetry can’t be found in a movie about skate punks, or a humble appellation blend domestic pinot, sit back, hit the play button and let the shifting aromas and textures of the Cameron Dundee Hills pinot noir accompany the lyrical soundscapes and visuals of Gus Van Sant’s underrated Pacific Northwest drama. The strains of Elliott Smith’s “Angeles” and Cast King’s “Outlaw”, together with the advice of the more substantive female in Alex’s world, his friend Macy, serve as an appropriate coda to the film, and perhaps, the last sips of the bottle. Cheers,
Just a quick post today with some tasting notes that may be useful for anyone looking to buy wines from the Anthill Farms 2012 Fall release slated to go live today. I don’t have time to do a full background on Anthill Farms this time, but in a nutshell, they are an up-and-coming producer making mostly pinot noirs and syrahs sourced from the Sonoma Coast and Anderson Valley/Mendocino county regions. In general, I find AF wines to be balanced but approachable, with generous fruit but delicacy as well. The pinot noirs offer quality comparable to favorites of mine like Copain, Rhys and Rivers-Marie and the single vineyard bottlings are priced attractively, sometimes at around the same price as appellation blend bottlings from their competitors. I had the chance to taste some Anthill Farms pinots at the In Pursuit of Balance tasting in New York a few months ago, and a few of those wines are in today’s release. I’ve also included some other historical tasting notes from my own past purchases of AF wines. To join the mailing list, visit www.anthillfarms.com
- 2010 Anthill Farms Pinot Noir Tina Marie Vineyard – USA, California, Sonoma County, Russian River Valley (4/18/2012)
A bit of a citrus blossom topnote on the nose, from the stems – reminds me a bit of some Rhys wines on the nose, and Anthony F. says he could see a similarity to Rhys’ old Alesia Falstaff bottling. Structured and full on the palate. Balanced with a really nice juiciness. Smooth, pretty, good acidity. 91-92 (92 points)
- 2009 Anthill Farms Pinot Noir Comptche Ridge Vineyard – USA, California, North Coast, Mendocino County (4/18/2012)
From Mendocino, a little north of Anderson Valley. More perfumed on the nose than the 2010 Demuth, with some dirt/mud in there as well. Served a bit cold, this has spice and pepper on the palate. Quite good – will look into picking up this bottling in the future. 91-92 (91 points)
- 2010 Anthill Farms Pinot Noir Demuth Vineyard – USA, California, North Coast, Anderson Valley (4/18/2012)
A little spicy, otherwise very Anderson Valley in its restraint, floral as well. Very pretty, slightly high-toned. Anthony Filiberti suggests that this may be a shade more elegant than the ’09 in style. Fruit forward, a hint of stewed character to the red cherry fruits on the palate. Consistent overall with last year’s Demuth which I really dug. (91 points)
- 2009 Anthill Farms Pinot Noir Abbey-Harris Vineyard – USA, California, North Coast, Anderson Valley (2/19/2012)
Too early to drink this, but I wanted another check in ahead of the new Anthill release. Pretty aromatics, very Anderson Valley. Not as approachable as the Demuth that showed so well recently, but this may be the more serious wine, with tannic material that needs time to resolve. 90ish today, up to 92+ in the future. (92 points)
- 2009 Anthill Farms Pinot Noir Demuth Vineyard – USA, California, North Coast, Anderson Valley (11/20/2011)
Really enjoyable – has the elements I want in a CA pinot – light, silky texture, appealing fruit, fresh acidity. The fruit is quite sweet and has a bit of sap to it. My only quibble is that on the finish, the sweetness to the fruit reminds me slightly of saccharine. With extended air, floral notes and a touch of anise come out on the nose. Some might find this a bit thin, but I find it properly delicate for a pinot. 92, seriously pushing 93 at times – an irresistable wine, and surprisingly approachable now. (92 points)
- 2008 Anthill Farms Pinot Noir Anderson Valley – USA, California, North Coast, Anderson Valley (11/22/2010)
Had a small pour; tried hard but couldn’t detect smoke on the nose of this small sample anyway. The palate was what I expected, a bit tart with cranberry and rhubarb flavors and cool climate in style. Decent, and not marred by smoke on the palate, at least for the one gulp I had. Fine but lacks excitement. 87-88+. Overall, the profile tends toward what I like so I look forward to trying single-vineyard bottlings and other vintages of this. (88 points)