California Syrah Sucks, Sayeth The New York Times

[Fat Guy]

In Wednesday's dining section, New York Times wine writer Frank Prial reports the following about California Syrah:

Given the praise lavished on these syrahs, the Dining section's tasting panel may be forgiven for having looked forward to this sampling of 23 bottles.

At best, though, the collective attitude of the three regular panelists, Amanda Hesser, Eric Asimov and me, and our guest, Richard Luftig, the wine director of Washington Park restaurant in Greenwich Village, was one of restrained enthusiasm if not disappointment.

We found highly likable wines, yes, but too often we came across uninteresting ones of little character, with flavors cobbled from the winemaker's bag of tricks rather than from the syrah grape. During the tasting, I noted that the range of these syrahs was from A to D. I wasn't alone in thinking that these syrahs should have had more guts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/01/dining/01WINE.html

What sayeth you?

[Randall Grahm]

Dear Steven,

Let's just come right out and say it. California wines (syrah included) just don't have soul. By soul, I mean soil and by soil I mean terroir, or that wonderful dense minerality that you experience when you get a good chewy Cornas from Clape or Hermitage from Chave. I think that California syrahs are becoming more interesting, especially as they are coming from cooler areas and are tending to be more varietally typical, i.e. white pepper and anise rather than just raspberry jam. But in the absence of terroir, we New World winemakers, scoundrels that we are, are compelled to dig into our bag of tricks and yes, I don't think that gives the same deep satisfaction as examples of the real deal. R.