Nevan

Really good WA red wine under $10 may be hard to find . . . under $10-$20 is a more reasonable range—you'll tend to get a detectably better wine if you can spend that $5-$10 more. And in that range there is a lot of choice, since the largest of Washington's wineries focus on delivering good value. You might try products from Hogue Cellars, Columbia Crest, Chateau Ste. Michelle, and Columbia Winery (different from Columbia Crest). They all make a variety of solid wines at reasonable prices. Besides Avalonwine.com, check the local wine shops for tastings and timely recommendations of new releases—Esquin in Seattle is great, so is Pike & Western. Depending on where you are, there are plenty of others.

KatieLoeb is quite right about Foris wines: very good quality, very good value, underated producer. One note though, if you are visiting the Willamette Valley (the focus of the previous posts) don't expect to be able to visit Foris: they are located hundreds of miles to the south in the Illinois Valley, just this side of the California border. In fact, their "Fly Over Red" (which is definitely an excellent wine at a great price) was given that name because of all the people (including wine writers) who fly up from San Francisco to Portland in order to visit Oregon's wine country outside of Portland . . . thereby flying over—and completely missing—Oregon's other wine country in the proposed Southern Oregon AVA. PS, Bistro Maison IS superb, but don't overlook the Dundee Bistro in Dundee, just to the north of McMinnville.

In my opinion, the idea of summarizing an entire vintage as "worth" this or that, is a monstrous oversimplification that should not be persued. There are far too many variables in any "vintage for pinot" to make such a sweeping generalization useful (this may be especially true for Pinot noir, but it certainly also applies to other varietals). And I won't even go into the issue of "investing" in wine . . . that is an entirely other subject. The weather conditions in a given year provide a background to the vintage, but it is the combination of regional mesoclimates, site specific microclimates, vineyard management practices, clonal selections, cellar practices, winemaker skills & style, etc. that produce the actual character in any given bottle. In a so-called "bad' vintage there will be individual sub-regions that experience enough weather variation to make their wines distinctively better than those of another subregions, even though they are from the same vintage ("vintage" here being synonymous for "weather conditions" rather than "growing year"). Likewise, no matter what the character of the "vintage," there will be some producers who make better (or worse) wine than others. Take 2002 in Oregon as an example. A very long and warm August through October gave us "great" vintage weather, and winemakers had unusual freedom to decide when to pick. So, some would say it is a great pinot vintage to "buy into." But the fact is, the quality of wine in this vintage especially, is more determined by the decisions the winemakers made. Warmer sites produduced very rapid ripening, and some winemakers chose to pick too fast, resulting in high alcohol cocktail wines that lost a lot of character . . . even in a "great" vintage. Higher altitude sites ripened more slowly, and many of those wines show more structure. Sites with young vines produced very different pinots than sites with old vines . . . so which are the best to "buy into"? It was worse in 2001. Some rain during harvest caused some producers to pick too early, resulting in thinner wines than other producers who chose to wait it out (I remember Ken Wright showing me--in the rain--his "concentrator" where water was being removed from the juice). But since the rains were no where near what they used to be (pre-1998), it is a vintage that was still characterized as extremely good . . . though there are some definitely less than "extremely good" wines. In California, where vintage variation is less, there is still wide variation in the quality of pinots from any given vintage. Even so, folks like Roochiolli (among many others) have proven skilled at making superb wines pretty much all the time . . . so the quality of the vintage is less of a factor than the quality of the producer. So, to end this minor rant, if you really want to "invest" in Pinot noir, I'd suggest following the producer (and your own taste of the wines), not the reputation of the vintage. But then, I wouldn't recommend wine as an investmenbt in the first place!

I first knew SLT in San Francisco and thought it was a kicky local product. Now that there's one in Portland, I try to make a point of stopping in every drive I take to our great metropolis. They do a great job (I love the Staub products)! For KNorthrup (whose rantlet was on the lack of a Crate & Barrel in Portland) and other Portlanders, I just saw this story that says Crate & Barrel has finalized their new Portland location in Southwest, opening fall of 2004 (Portland Sur La Table)

dlc - - any suggestions on where I/we all might find this wonderful sounding wine? I live in the boonies, so it would have to be via Internet/mail. I know how rare/expensive TBAs are, but for a good one, I'm willing to pry open the pocketbook!

Yes, this has been my biggest issue with nearly ALL the Pacific Northwest late harvest-style wines: lack of acidity. They have pretty flavors of sweet fruits and flowers . . . but so does canned fruit cocktail juice. I am on a constant hunt for a sweet wine maker in this region who knows the importance of acidity in balancing and brightening a late harvest wine--and mostly I've been disappointed. The closest I've found is Andrew Rich's late Harvest Gewurtztraminer, but even that could do with more acidity.

2000 Ice Wine, Pinot noir, St. Hubertus Estate Winery, Okanagam Valley (British Columbia, Canada) Polished old gold color, hinting at a dainty pinkness, but looking closely, there is no redness at all, just a deep honey gold color. Deep and high-toned aromas of spiced honey. Surprisingly thin texture (for an ice wine) carries nicely sweet (but not as intensely sweet as some ice wines) and flowery flavors of apricots, honey and . . . grapes. Lacking acidity, the sweet flavors are a dessert-unto-themselves, and a refreshing denouement to a short round of traditional pinot noirs. (Note: this is a true ice wine, unlike most American “icewines”, meaning the grapes were hand picked and pressed naturally fully frozen—at –13 degrees centigrade at 48.4 degrees brix

2000 Merry Edwards, Russian River Valley Pinot noir, Klopp Ranch (California) Dark and rich purple color—perhaps too rich . . . Muddled aromas include old milk and dried blackberry fruit. Thick in the mouth with flavors of dark cherry pie and blackberry cobbler, but without ancillary layers of complexity. Drying tannins and good acidity give the wine a lively feel. The finish has a menthol coolness that is an interesting counterpoint to the drying fine-grained tannins. (The next morning the wine hadn’t changed much, but perhaps the fruit flavors were more forward and better focused. Note: Wine Spectator gave the wine a 91 and Tanzer rated it 89. Our group was mystified . . .)

1999 Williams Selyem Pinot noir, Sonoma Coast (California) Light rose petal red color. Initial big musty/gamey/leathery aromas gave rise to question if the wine was corked. Consensus on smell alone was no (and that was from the winemakers in the group), rather that there was some not-unpleasant brett in the wine. In the mouth the wine was thick, velvety, full of ripe red boysenberry fruit—much richer and more pleasing than the nose led us to believe: an organoleptic conundrum!? (Next morning the funky aroma was completely gone, replaced with a tart dried cherry and roasted meat smell. The flavors were, if anything, sweeter and deeper, with an added creaminess and “aged pinot” meatiness not seen at first blush. Note: Wine Spectator gave this wine an 88 and Stephen Tanzer gave it a 91.)

1998 St. Innocent, Seven Springs Vineyard (Willamette Valley, Oregon) Younger purple rims, medium-hued brick-tinged ruby color. Sweet aromas of vanilla and leather hover above under-ripe red fruit and rose petal notes. Tart red cherry fruit flavor with a subtle sweet foundation that is nicely countered by a cranberry edge. Drying mouth feel with dusty tannins and ample acidity. Flavorful and pleasing but not deeply layered. (Next morning the wine seemed remarkably unchanged. Note: Parker (Rovani) gave this wine a 94, and Spectator a 91. The group, composed of Oregon wine weenies, was surprised the wine showed so well. In my cellar I discovered there are two slightly different label versions. Holding the bottles up to the light, the wine color in one label version was clearly more red and the other more “orange.” We sampled one of the “redder” bottles. Makes me wonder . . .?)

1996 Calera, Jensen Vineyard, Mt. Harlan Pinot noir (Central Coast, Mt. Harlan AVA, California) Brownish edges, great gamey nose with caramel overtones and layers of cherry and strawberry fruits. Excellent mouth-filling feel, lots of plumy fruits, especially raspberry and currants, accented with tons of spice cake and an edgy earthiness. Powerful acids on the finish, fresh and full tannins. Tremendous character, very burgundian, superb! (Tasting the wine this morning it showed more figs and dried cherry notes . . . still quite fresh and very satisfying . . . quite a breakfast wine!)

1997 Clos de la Roche, Hubert Lignier (Grand Cru, Morey-Saint-Denic, Côte d’Or, Burgundy) Full brick red color. Big earthy, meaty aromas of dried cherry and strawberry (described by one tasting group participant as “tres French stank”) that hinted at brett. In the mouth there is a controlled explosion of red cherry, dried oregano, black raspberry, pencil shavings, campfire smoke, orange zest flavors. Clean acid balance with a long finish whose tannins sneak up on you from behind, silently leaving you with a pleasingly puckered mouth. (The next morning this wine offered even more complex aromas, with added notes of warm pumpkin, melon, and smoldering leaves The texture felt more velvety, and the tannins more drying. The overall experience was still beautiful and stimulating. Note: Parker rated this a 94 and Tanzer a 92 . . . the group, while roundly disparaging the whole notion of ratings, felt that this time the experts were, if anything, overly conservative!)

Our tasting group, dubbed “The Purely Pinot Group” met last night for our periodic tasting of . . . purely pinot noir. Usually following a theme (vintage, region, producer, etc.) this set of seven wines was instead a short ramble through California, Oregon and Burgundy, with a concluding side trip to Canada. We called this tasting “A Pinot Miscellany.” Summary notes follow in separate postings in order to facilitate later searches for individual wines. All the wines were tasted blind. Though it is not at all our goal to rate or rank the wines (we are simply after broadening our tasting experience), inevitably the group tended to favor some wines over others. This is MY order of preference, and it generally reflects the group sentiment: 1997 Clos de la Roche Hubert Lignier 1996 Calera, Jensen Vineyard, Mt. Harlan 1998 St. Innocent, Seven Springs Vineyard 1999 Williams Selyem, Sonoma Coast 2000 Merry Edwards, Russian River Valley, Klopp Ranch 1998 Torii Mor, Quail Hill We ended the tasting with a 2000 Ice Wine of Pinot noir produced by St. Hubertus Estate Winery, Okanagan Valley, British Columbia (VQA)—which we all found really interesting and intriguing. Tasting notes follow in separate postings, spaced out for delivery ease (or perhaps, just spaced out tasting notes . . .).

To answer your questions, yes chaptalization (and acidification) is legal in Oregon . . . though a useless concept for vintages since 1998. As for being anonymous, well, I'm strictly a local wine writer and absolutley small potatoes. I'm also unfamiliar with proper net-community etiquette (eGullet is my first online group grope, and I already seem to have blundered into some mistakes), and felt that I was here because I wanted to learn and share, not promote and brag, so it seemed better to just use my middle name. I didn't want to be thought of as forwarding my own agenda every time I posted because that's not really what I'm about (probably why I'm small potatoes!). Maybe that wasn't the right approach and I've made another big mistake, I don't know?? Thanks for the tip on Kacher not distibuting BF . . . didn't know that! Yes variability in Oregon Pinots is a reality, especially in older vintages, but widely tasting through the more recent vintages tells me that the variability is lessening as 1) vineyards mature, and 2) young winemakers mature. Finally many producers have been around enough to have gained a bit of a track record. As for Panther Creek, one of my favorite pinots from Oregon of all time was their 1999 Knights Gambit Vineyard (which was a very small, one-time only release). The PC wines in our tasting were still quite tannic and even harsh, though that really appealed to some in the room!

Last Monday, a group of us convened in Portland for the 2nd I-Guess-We'll-Make-It-Annual All Friends Post-IPNC Oregon Pinot Noir Vintage Review Tasting The object of the tasting was to deepen all of our tasting histories with Oregon pinot by sampling as broad a set of Oregon’s premier pinot producers from a single vintage as we could gather together and swallow in a sitting (prior to dinner). Last year we did 1996 and found them to be far better wines than the prevailing wisdom held. This year we did the less-than-vaunted 1997 vintage and found them to be as variable as everyone expected, but with some particularly pleasant surprises. Attendees included two Oregon winemakers, two wine retailers, a local wine writer (me) and some ardent and knowledgeable consumers. I won’t provide consensus tasting notes for each wine (it’ll take me awhile to compile the audio tape), but will present the wines and overall comments from the group, for those interested. We blindly tasted the following (in order), all 1997 Oregon pinots (with one surprise ringer): 1) Sokol Blosser, Redland Vineyard 2) Flowers, Camp Meeting Ridge (a ringer from Sonoma) 3) Elk Cove, Roosevelt 4) Herschel 5) No Wine 6) Bethel Heights, Southeast Block Reserve 7) Ken Wright, Carter Vineyard 8) Archery Summit, Arcus Estate 9) Archery Summit, Cuvee du Ronde 10) Cristom, Reserve 11) Beaux Freres 12) Chehalem, Ridgecrest Vineyard 13) Domaine Serene, Evenstad Reserve 14) Torii Mor, 4 Winds Vineyard 15) Torii Mor, Temperance Hill Vineyard 16) Panther Creek, Shea Vineyard 17) Panther Creek, Freedom Hill Vineyard 18) Broadley Vineyards, Claudia’s Choice 19) Broadley Vineyards, Marcile Loraine 20) Evesham Wood, Cuvee J 21) Steveson-Barrie, Glasgow Vineyard 21) Torii Mor, Balcombe Vineyard 22) Torii Mor, Olson Vineyard A few words on the vintage. 1997 was the largest yield Oregon had ever seen to that time. Generally, clusters were large, yields per vineyard were large (lots of dropped fruit before harvest, but still lots left at harvest time). 1997 was the last vintage of significant rain during harvest (at least through 2002), and depending on when individual producers picked, fruit concentration was affected by rain (I don’t think there were any concentrators in use then . . . unlike today). Consequently, 1997 has a reputation for relatively light wines, high acids, low extraction, and less than optimal ageability. In his summary comments, one of the winemakers said that most vintages since 1997 have been a “cake walk” relative to 1997 . . . and that 1997 was a vintage to learn from, whereas recent vintages were not. For him, the wines showed that there were many poor picking and winemaking decisions made, and that in general, winemakers had tried to make bigger wines than the fruit would allow. Today, he felt, Oregon knows a lot more and would likely make better wines given the same vintage conditions. His summary comment was that if we had just tasted 22 red burgundies, we would have had a lot more fun (I'd have to agree)! The other winemaker seemed to concur, commenting that the wines showed a lot of manipulation (chaptalization, for example), but that it was unavoidable given the vintage. He also noted that the wines were from vineyards that were much younger then, and that may have been reflected in the relativbely unconcentrated fruit, but that he was pleased to see there were a number of good wines that still retained body, flavor, and character. Other participants commented that they felt the vintage showed better than they expected it would, with wines that still retained good fruit and good textures . . . “even though some were kind of weird.” One comment I particularly agreed with was that the vintage showed the lighter style of Oregon pinot, which itself has fallen out of fashion, mostly due to the ability in recent vintages for Oregon to produce big extraction, high concentration wines . . . but that this character alone doesn’t necessarily make the 1997s worse wines. Throughout the tasting there were some wide differences of opinion on individual wines—indicating that the wines definitely still contained enough character to spark debate . . . they were not quite over the hill. In summarizing favorites, the group coalesced around a few wines that simply stood out as having more depth and vibrancy. The most frequently named favorite—and consensus choice for best wine of the evening--was the Elk Cove, Roosevelt Vineyard. The second most frequently named favorite was the Domaine Serene. In both cases people thought the wines retained full fruit and depth and were well balanced. Other wines receiving multiple votes for inclusion in the top 3 were the Torii Mor, Olson Vineyard, and Archery Summit Arcus Estate. I can’t wait for next year when we do the 1998s!