Oregon 2006

[Craig Camp]

Another hot summer passed here in Oregon - global warming anyone? The fruit set in the spring was spectacular for a change and the vines were brimming with fruit. After two lean years they had a lot of energy and focused it all on fruit production. The summer was marked by a near record number of 90+ degree days, but the nights were cool and dry. As usual, not a drop of rain fell during the summer monthy, but just a week before harvest in late September the skies darkened and along came cloudy damp weather for the better part of a week with some occasional strong showers. Needless to say we were very concerned. However, that concern seems to have been wasted as the sun returned and the weather has been glorious ever since and we have been picking grapes in ideal conditions. This will be a bumper crop here in Oregon with very good quantity (by Oregon standards) and very good quality. How good only time will tell, but we are very, very optimistic. So far we have about 60% of our grapes picked and now we are rushing to beat the soon to return rains.

[JohnL]

any "inside" info on how the 05's are at the moment?

also who made wines worth noting (and searching out).

[Rebel Rose]

You mention in Wine Camp that you are also the harvest chef for the crush crew. What are you cooking? And how in the world do you manage to help out with harvest, prepare 2 meals a day, and find time to write?

[Craig Camp]

any "inside" info on how the 05's are at the moment?

also who made wines worth noting (and searching out).

←

The 2005's are our best vintage to date. Although that's not only because of the vintage, but in changes we have made in the vineyard and cellar. At this point I would rate the vintage excellent with lovely balance and a forward charm.

Edited October 4, 2006 by Craig Camp (log)

[Craig Camp]

You mention in Wine Camp that you are also the harvest chef for the crush crew.  What are you cooking?  And how in the world do you manage to help out with harvest, prepare 2 meals a day, and find time to write? 

←

The answer is I don't find time to write! When I get a second I'll write about our harvest meals. In the meantime there's 20 tons of pinot noir waiting for me

Edited October 4, 2006 by Craig Camp (log)

[Cole Danehower]

Craig may be reticent to speak for more than Anne Amie wines, so I'll chime in on behalf of the 2005 Oregon Pinor noir vintage as a whole: it seems to be pretty awesome! (Let's not forget, either, that there is an entire other, warm climate, wine region in Southern Oregon that grows everything from Albarino to Zinfandel, and my comments here apply only to the Willamette Valley).

I've barrel- and now bottle-tasted 2005 Pinots from a variety of better-known Oregon producers and they uniformly have an element that has been somewhat lacking in many recent vintages: elegance. Both 2004 and 2005 produced very small Pinot crops, but with better overall balance certainly than 2003, and I'd argue even the much vaunted 2002 vintage. For my taste, 2005 are the best Pinots here since 1999.

To generalize: they have good concentration (more than '04), and more of the signature Willamette Valley structure (as in, acidity), without the high alcohol or harsh tannins of many earlier vintages. The fruit flavors are bright and forward, tend to be red focused (though that does vary somewhat by sub appellation) with supple textures and less lavish alcohol. They lack the jammy qualities of the '03s (and many 0'2s) and may disappoint those who like the high-scoring plumpness of those vintages. 2005 was by no means an easy vintage to deal with, but knowledge and experience seem to have produced some amazing wines.

Of course, I believe it is better to follow the producer than the vintage. Good producers will almost always make good wines in bad vintages—great wines in great vintages. So if huge extraction is your favor, find producers who make that style and even in '04 and '05 you'll get bigger wines. But for some of that iron-fist-in-a-velvet-glove quality that the Willamette Valley is capable of producing when the stars align, I'd put my money on the '05s (but get them while you can--supply will be short.)

As for 2006, winemakers I've talked to say the fruit resembles 2003, but with better balance and flavors. Heat summation was nearly as high as 2003 in many places, the fruit all came in at once leaving many wineries scrambling for tank space, and yields were much higher than the last two vintages (despite a lot of dropped fruit earlier in the year). The early money says look for high alcohols, low natural acidity (that can be ameliorated), but really good flavors and ripe tannins.

Of course, this all very early stuff . . . not much has gone to barrel yet, so we'll have to wait awhile to get a better read!

-Cole Danehower

[Craig Camp]

Craig may be reticent to speak for more than Anne Amie wines, so I'll chime in on behalf of the 2005 Oregon Pinor noir vintage as a whole: it seems to be pretty awesome! (Let's not forget, either, that there is an entire other, warm climate, wine region in Southern Oregon that grows everything from Albarino to Zinfandel, and my comments here apply only to the Willamette Valley).

I've barrel- and now bottle-tasted 2005 Pinots from a variety of better-known Oregon producers and they uniformly have an element that has been somewhat lacking in many recent vintages: elegance. Both 2004 and 2005 produced very small Pinot crops, but with better overall balance certainly than 2003, and I'd argue even the much vaunted 2002 vintage. For my taste, 2005 are the best Pinots here since 1999.

To generalize: they have good concentration (more than '04), and more of the signature Willamette Valley structure (as in, acidity), without the high alcohol or harsh tannins of many earlier vintages. The fruit flavors are bright and forward, tend to be red focused (though that does vary somewhat by sub appellation) with supple textures and less lavish alcohol. They lack the jammy qualities of the '03s (and many 0'2s) and may disappoint those who like the high-scoring plumpness of those vintages. 2005 was by no means an easy vintage to deal with, but knowledge and experience seem to have produced some amazing wines.

Of course, I believe it is better to follow the producer than the vintage. Good producers will almost always make good wines in bad vintages—great wines in great vintages. So if huge extraction is your favor, find producers who make that style and even in '04 and '05 you'll get bigger wines. But for some of that iron-fist-in-a-velvet-glove quality that the Willamette Valley is capable of producing when the stars align, I'd put my money on the '05s (but get them while you can--supply will be short.)

As for 2006, winemakers I've talked to say the fruit resembles 2003, but with better balance and flavors. Heat summation was nearly as high as 2003 in many places, the fruit all came in at once leaving many wineries scrambling for tank space, and yields were much higher than the last two vintages (despite a lot  of dropped fruit earlier in the year). The early money says look for high alcohols, low natural acidity (that can be ameliorated), but really good flavors and ripe tannins.

Of course, this all very early stuff . . . not much has gone to barrel yet, so we'll have to wait awhile to get a better read!

-Cole Danehower

←

I could not agree more.

(Hi Cole! Welcome to eGullet.)

[Rebel Rose]

Welcome, Cole! And thank you for your excellent and detailed barrel notes. From your notes, the 2005 pinots seem to be the style I really like.

Now when my parents ask when I plan to come visit, I can say, "Are the 2005's out yet?" (Just kidding, mom!)

[JohnL]

Thanks for your assessment of the 2005's.

I also liked your newsletter--very readable.

(I may actually subscribe!)

I must say that I have heard that 2005 was a very problematic

vintage (this from wineries themselves).

Rain, dilution, rot, low sugar levels etc etc etc.

You do hint at this.

Of course, one must always take vintage assessments with a grain of salt

(as you point out so well here) individual wines need to be tasted and assessed.

I have not tasted any of these wines (you have) so I will defer to your judgement here but I am skeptical as to just how good this vintage really is.

(I agree with you re: the '99's).

I am concerned that there seems to be a spin or conventional wisdom that 2005 is some sort of wine making triumph over nature. Again, this is what I am hearing from various wineries themselves.

I would appreciate your elaborating a bit on this.

In the end--I agree that one needs to taste the wines and make up their own minds.

The 2005 vintage at least sounds interesting at this point--I do look forward to tasting some of the results.

[Cole Danehower]

When you talk with winemakers year in and year out there is certainly the sense that they think (or try to position) every vintage as great!

I particularly like 2005 Oregon pinots because they tend to be of a style that fits my own preference, wheras I don't particularly like 2003 wines . . . and many people would feel exactly opposite, which is part of why wine is fun.

Vintage assesments are definitely dicey. We must keep in mind that they are of necessity broad generalizations. Here in Oregon, vintage variation is quite real and can be dramatic. 2003 and 2004 had significantly different weather, so almost by definition the average wine character (not necessarily quality) will be different. Even so, different sites will produce differently charactered wines (variables include age of vines, altitude, exposure, cropping, trellising, irrigation, soils, etc.). And then, of course, the winemaker will put their stamp on the wine and can alter what the site delivers, or what the average of the vintage is.

So what good are vintage summaries? Well, when faced with wine shelves of dozens of unfamiliar bottles, vintage summaries can be one tool or guide to makign a choice. The average 2003 wine will be very different from the average 2005 wine and having some sense of that difference can be helpful.

Of course, our own individual taste should really be the guide. For instance, a lot of wine publications touted Oregon's 2002 vintage as one of the best ever. Yet I personally found the wines to be too much alike (not much interesting variation by site or producer), too short, and rather uninteresting (so there you go--take my advice with a big grain of salt).

It is certainly true that 2005 was a difficult growing year (whereas 2002 was very easy). Cold snaps in the spring reduced the fruit set significantly. Rain at the end of September caused some problems (some folks picked before, others after, and the fruit balance was different), a long cool spell followed, and disease pressure mounted. Not every site ripened well, or fully.

But, in many places the long cool spell meant prolonged flavor development and so there are a lot of balanced and tasty wines (at least many of those that I've tried). There are also plenty of not-so-great wines. Maybe they picked too early, maybe too late. Maybe the young vines didn't develop as fully, maybe the old vines did . . . there are innumerable variables. And there are certainly not-so-good 2005 wines. The trying weather meant that winemakers had to pick carefully, sort thoroughly, and manage their fermenations closely. A lot of folks did that (there's a lot of experienced people making pinot here) and a lot did not (there's also a lot of winemaking newbies making pinot here).

I'm not trying to make this sound so all fired complicated . . . but in many cases, it is! I just know that I like leaner, lower alcohol pinots where the fruit is in equilibrium with acidity and tannins, and that's what I'm personally seeing a lot of in 2005 (2004 as well) and didn't see in 2003 or even 2002.

But that's just me! I'm not saying I'm "right"! 2005 will not appeal to everyone, by a long shot. I remember one winemaker telling me that a customer just loved his 2003 pinot and bought multiple cases. In 2004 they ordered more, and then called him to say "I've just opened a bottle of your 2004 and it isn't like your 2003 . . . did you add water to it?" Welcome to Oregon pinot noir! I wonder what they'll think of 2005 . . .

(ps--sorry about the length . . . I am often guilty of overwriting/explaining . . . got to get a better grip!)

-Cole Danehower

[JohnL]

When you talk with winemakers year in and year out there is certainly the sense that they think (or try to position) every vintage as great!

I particularly like 2005 Oregon pinots because they tend to be of a style that fits my own pr

I'm not trying to make this sound so all fired complicated . . . but in many cases, it is! I just know that I like leaner, lower alcohol pinots where the fruit is in equilibrium with acidity and tannins, and that's what I'm personally seeing a lot of in 2005 (2004 as well) and didn't see in 2003 or even 2002.

But that's just me! I'm not saying I'm "right"! 2005 will not appeal to everyone, by a long shot. I remember one winemaker telling me that a customer just loved his 2003 pinot and bought multiple cases. In 2004 they ordered more, and then called him to say "I've just opened a bottle of your 2004 and it isn't like your 2003 . . . did you add water to it?" Welcome to Oregon pinot noir! I wonder what they'll think of 2005 . . .

(ps--sorry about the length . . . I am often guilty of overwriting/explaining . . . got to get a better grip!)

-Cole Danehower

←

Cole--thank you for a very sane look at the vintage assessment subject!

I believe that a good critic needs to provide a context for the consumer.

You may have a preference for "leaner lower acidity...." pinots but this should not get in the way of accurately describing other styles of pinot.

Wine evaluation is very subjective but it also has objective elements.

I thought you did a very good job with your descriptions above.

I happen to enjoy both contrasting styles of pinot (lucky me).

What I look for is some objectiveness and accuracy from a critic.

(there is plenty of room for personal preference).

I agree re: winemakers. I have listened to many as a consumer and as a professional.

Understandably, they are selling their latest vintage and like grand parents describing their grand children......

So a good critic can provide some insight. If a wine is well made it is well made regardless of style. There is too much either or permeating the business these days.

Especially important for a consumer (and retailer) is a good idea of what to expect and what to look for good and bad in terms of an overall vintage!

I think you did a superb job (I am closer to becoming a subscriber).

Many thanks

ps

I look forward to bumping into you here in the future!!!!

[Cole Danehower]

I believe that a good critic needs to provide a context for the consumer.

Wine evaluation is very subjective but it also has objective elements.

What I look for is some objectiveness and accuracy from a critic.

(there is plenty of room for personal preference).

I agree re: winemakers. I have listened to many as a consumer and as a professional.

Understandably, they are selling their latest vintage and like grand parents describing their grand children......

So a good critic can provide some insight. If a wine is well made it is well made regardless of style. There is too much either or permeating the business these days.

Especially important for a consumer (and retailer) is a good idea of what to expect and what to look for good and bad in terms of an overall vintage!

JohnL: Right on and well stated. I completely agree with you. I hope I'm all about information and perspective . . . not prescription and polemics (and if I ever tend toward the latter I know there'll be plenty who will point it out!).

Thanks for the conversation . . .

-Cole

[Craig Camp]

When you talk with winemakers year in and year out there is certainly the sense that they think (or try to position) every vintage as great!

Cole - I don't think that's exactly true. I think we see each vintage as different and unique with its own combination of qualities and faults. For example, you would be hard pressed to find a grower here in Oregon that would classify 2003 as either great nor their favorite vintage. However, most producers made excellent, if atypical wines. Certainly not wines they are looking to replicate, but wines that within the context of that vintage are well-made and enjoyable to drink. I find most serious producers accurately describe the character of each vintage and few that would claim every vintage as great.

...but then again maybe 2003 was a great vintage, after all, it got a lot of big scores in The Wine Spectator

[Cole Danehower]

Hi Craig:

I didn't mean to imply that there is a vast conspiracy to position each vintage as "great." And certainly winemakers describe the issues with each vintage when you talk to them--but I still think there is an unavoidable sense that every vintage is wonderful until proven otherwise (usually a few years later).

I well remember being told how great the 2003 vintage was when I barrel tasted through many, many Willamette Valley cellars (and I worked that harvest, and knew about the heat and sugars and everything coming ripe at once). I, myself wrote positively about the vintage, even while still trying to describe its anomolies. I would ask about high alcohols and I would be told, yes they are high, but look at the overall balance, everything is big and luscious! In fact, I was a little taken aback recently when visiting a winemaker during harvest to hear him knock the 2003 vintage . . . the same one he so proudly poured me from his barrels in 2004.

The proof of the vintage is in the bottle a minimum of a year after it has been released, I believe. So much that was said positively about 2003 in the barrel (including what I wrote) proved hollow when I tasted the wines in bottle later (and I regret the way I wrote some of my early vintage reports in 2003).

Now, all this is certainly understandable. As I think it was JohnL said, these wines are like the winemaker's children, and what parent can be truly objective about their offspring? But there is, IMHO, still a tendancy to want to market every vintage as positive. Before the "easy days" of selling out your Pinot inventory, this was a greater temptation. Winemakers are not being evil or deceptive when they talk positively about their vintages, but I still believe you have to filter their comments through a lense of mild skepticism.

Anyway, that's how I see it.

-Cole

[Craig Camp]

I well remember being told how great the 2003 vintage was when I barrel tasted through many, many Willamette Valley cellars (and I worked that harvest, and knew about the heat and sugars and everything coming ripe at once). I, myself wrote positively about the vintage, even while still trying to describe its anomolies. I would ask about high alcohols and I would be told, yes they are high, but look at the overall balance, everything is big and luscious! In fact, I was a little taken aback recently when visiting a winemaker during harvest to hear him knock the 2003 vintage . . . the same one he so proudly poured me from his barrels in 2004.

←

I think part of the problem is at harvest too many winemakers are excited by ripeness of fruit in itself without enough thought to acidity and pH. Fortunately this is changing fast and vintages like 2003 are an education for all of us. Now when we taste the 2004's, we realize how out of balance the 2003's were. These lessons will help make better wines in the future. For example, crop loads were kept higher in 2006 than 2003 and this is making the wines more balanced as most vineyards reduced crop too much in the hot 2003 vintage and the resulting wines were often over the top because of this.

[Rebel Rose]

I still believe you have to filter their comments through a lense of mild skepticism.

You're absolutely right. Winemakers and winery owners can't help it, the energy and excitement and optimism of crush always overwhelms us with optimism. And even if one has reservations about the vintage, when everyone around you is gushing about the wondrous fruit and balance and flavors, who wants to be the only voice saying, "well, I don't know about this vintage . . . we're not getting very fruit! "

From a journalistic perspective, however, I am amazed and disheartened by the gullibility of the press. Every year they pick up the harvest press releases and every year they regurgitate reports about how this is the best vintage ever. It would be refreshing to read some reports from writers who have seriously followed the vintage from February on, and who take the time to call smaller growers about their prospects for selling their fruit. That's where you'll find the real stories, the concerns, the struggles--not from the PR departments of large wineries.