Three Fancy California Pinots for Christmas

Planning to have a fancy pinot noir with your holiday turkey? Here are three possibilities: a

Lioco 2007 "Anderson Valley" Pinot Noir ($48), a

Merry Edwards 2007 "Sonoma Coast" Pinot Noir ($36) and a

Sea Smoke 2007 "Southing" Pinot Noir ($49).

Here's the quick bottom line: all three of these California pinots are excellent.

The Merry Edwards was our favorite by a nose after three days of comparative blind tasting and is by far the best bargain. It is Highly Recommended.

The Lioco, which had very interesting flavors, was a close second and is Recommended.

The Sea Smoke, with its higher level of acidity, represents a different approach to pinot than the other two. It also required more time and more exposure to oxygen to open up and display its full range of flavors.  Recommended for those who consider wines with bright acidity the best food wines and for consumers who are willing to take the time to decant this wine several hours before serving it.

Lioco, a "virtual winery" in that it doesn't own vineyards or wine-making equipment (contracting out for both), specializes in relatively small-lot production of pinot noir and unoaked chardonnay. Grapes are sourced from various California appellations. The "Anderson Valley" pinot noir under consideration here is made from grapes grown in the Klindt vineyard, a site about 11 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean in Mendocino County, which lies just north of Sonoma County. Lioco describes the climatic conditions there as being "extreme," which is said to result in wine of intense flavor.

Intense (and interesting) flavor is in fact what our latest two-person panel noticed most about the Lioco, a relatively full-bodied wine. This pinot was bursting with flavor and, in the words of my companion, flavor that "tasted different in a good way."

At the end of our first evening, my companion rated the Lioco offering and the Merry Edwards pinot, which we both agreed displayed the best overall balance of the three wines, about equal. I placed the Lioco first by a nose, seduced by the flavor.

A day later, at the end of our second meal with these three offerings, we both placed the Merry Edwards first. It had gained a bit of weight and displayed more flavor after exposure to oxygen. "Really good" and "fabulous" were words my companion used to describe this wine, which is made from grapes grown a bit further south than those of the Lioco.

Meanwhile, the Sea Smoke -- noticeably more acidic than the other two -- was creeping up in our estimation. It was staring to open up and in a very subtle fashion, an earthy dimension had crept into its red fruit-focused flavor profile.

On the third evening, my companion still liked the Merry Edwards best while I had flipped back to the Lioco. But we were both increasingly impressed by the Sea Smoke offering. As it gained weight and continued to open up in terms of flavor, it seemed better balanced than had been the case initially when the wine's acidity was what one noticed most.

This, by the way, is the third vintage of Sea Smoke's "Southing" pinot that we have tasted and our findings have been the same each time: this wine either needs to be cellared for two or three years (perhaps more) or it needs to be opened long before consumption. It tends to arrive from the winery still very "tight" and is slow to reveal its considerable charms.

Interested readers can find my reviews of the 2005 and 2006 "Southing" pinots here. (Click on the word "here" which colored blue and underlined.)

The Sea Smoke, by the way, is made from grapes grown in the Santa Rita Hills, another coastal appellation, but located far south of the other two. The Santa Rita Hills, which run east and west, allowing coastal fog (sea smoke) to flow inland and keep the vineyards much cooler than would otherwise be the case, lie somewhat north of the city of Santa Barbara.

To finish up (by reiterating in slightly different words):

The Merry Edwards (14.2% alcohol) displays the best overall balance of these three wines right out of the bottle, is deliciously flavored and has a soft, mouth-filling nature. By the third day, it had also faded the most. It's a truly excellent wine for immediate consumption and it can easily be cellared for another couple of years, but this is probably not a wine one would want to put away for the long-term.

The Lioco is a pinot bursting with intense, interesting flavors on a body slightly heavier than the Merry Edwards offering and noticeably heavier than that of the Sea Smoke. It's a "masculine" wine with attractive spice and a somewhat tangy finish. Drinkable now, its potential for cellaring would appear to be considerable. It's listed as being 14.4% alcohol by volume.

The Sea Smoke (14.5% alcohol) needs time in the cellar to further develop. Lighter, brighter and rather acidic at present, it will almost surely develop into a bigger, more flavorful, better balanced wine as time goes by. But compared to the other two, it will likely always display a more "feminine" nature, which is a characteristic that is highly valued among many aficionados of American-made pinot noir.

Resources"

Characteristics of the pinot noir grape

Lioco

Merry Edwards Winery

Sea Smoke Cellars

Cellar Report: Jezebel 2005 Pinot Noir

With the exception of the disappointing 2007 vintage, Jezebel is perhaps the "affordable" Oregon pinot that we have liked the best during the past few years. There have been other very good ones as well, but in some cases, as their popularity has increased, so have their prices.

Jezebel  is the second label of Daedalus Cellars, and in the Seattle area at any rate, it typically sells for less than $20 a bottle. I've sometimes had to pay more when I've purchased it in other cities, generally as a means of introducing friends to an Oregon-style pinot noir that won't break their budgets.

For the purpose of blogging, it is generally necessary to try wines around the time that they are released. Otherwise, what's the point of sharing one's views with others?

But with respect to most red wines, I believe they really need at least a year or two in the cellar before consumption.

I've written about the Jezebel 2005 "Oregon" Pinot Noir ($18, when purchased) twice before -- in 2006 and 2007 -- and you can read those reviews here and here. (Click on the words "here," which are underlined and colored blue.)

In both of those cases, this wine fared very well in comparative tastings. As a result, I was interested to see how it had held up in the cellar, especially after experiencing disappointing results from two far-more-expensive 2005 Oregon pinots. That story was covered in the previous post, which you can read here.

In contrast to the other two, the Jezebel was evolving nicely. The flavor was less overtly fruity and less spicy than when the wine was first released and a hint of raisons was now present on the palate. But the Jezebel was still  mouth-filling and extremely pleasant, all on a relatively light body. In addition, time in the cellar had  made it more velvety down the throat.

Acidity remained at an appropriate level for a "food wine," the finish was clean and no unattractive flavors had crept into the mix.

The bottom line: this now tasted like an older wine, but a nice one and we liked it very much. If you are used to drinking mature red wine, you'd probably appreciate the 2005 Jezebel as it is now. If not, you probably would have preferred it as it was back in 2007 or even in 2006 -- the year of release.

It is a matter of personal taste.

(By the way, if you want to try this experiment yourself, don't buy the 2007 Jezebel. Wait for the 2008 release and don't stock up on it until you've tried a bottle first, ideally in a comparative tasting with a couple of other similarly priced pinots. I hope to be reviewing the 2008 in due course.)

Resources:

Daedalus Cellars

Cellar Report: 2005 Domain Drouhin, Shea Pinots

With Christmas approaching, I pulled a couple of Oregon pinot noir from the "classic" 2005 vintage out of my cellar to see how they were doing.

The wines in question were a:

Domaine Drouhin 2005 "Laurène" Pinot Noir ($62) and a

Shea Wine Cellars "Estate" Pinot Noir ($39).

The results were, frankly, rather disappointing. Neither of these wines was anywhere near as good as I imagined it might be and I would have to rank both as Problematic on the basis of this particular experience.

As usual, our latest panel blind-tasted these wines over two dinners, resealing the partially consumed bottles in the interim.

On the first evening, the Domain Drouhin "Laurène" came across as exceptionally earthy, both up the the nose and on the palate, and not in a particularly good way. This wine smelled and tasted all too much of the barnyard. On the positive side, it had a pleasantly weighted, medium body, plenty of dark-flavored fruit and it was commendably dry.

In contrast, the Shea "Estate," which we had admired for its subtle layers of complexity when we first sampled it back in July 2007 (you can find that review here), was assertively spicy when first opened this time around. The wine had clearly "opened up" as a result of two years in the cellar, displaying most prominently a range of spices such as cinnamon, nutmeg and perhaps cloves. Along with being very spicy, this offering now came across as somewhat "hot," or alcoholic, as well.

On the palate, the Shea was lighter in weight and more red fruit-focused than the considerably more expensive Domaine Drouhin "Laurène."

When these wines were re-opened a day later with a second dinner, the "Laurène" had improved in the sense that its earthy aspect was considerably less pronounced and the wine was, overall, better integrated. But there wasn't any "wow" factor that might justify its rather lofty price.

The Shea, on the other hand, was better on the first evening. By the second time around -- after exposure to more oxygen -- this wine tasted just a bit like nail polish remover -- the mark of a wine that is in the process of spoiling.

All in all, not a good experience.

Impressions of Four California Pinot Noir

I use the word impressions because all of these wines were consumed on the road in California rather than being blind-tasted over more than one day in a comparative setting.

Kosta Browne 2007 "Russian River Valley" Pinot Noir ($??)

I haven't provided a price for this wine because it was purchased in a restaurant and because little if any is available at retail.

When it comes to U.S.-made pinot, Kosta Browne offerings are about as "hot" as cult wines get these days, selling out on allocation at the winery and trading, occasionally, at extravagant premiums on the secondary market.

We tried the 2003 version of this wine about a year and a half ago when it could still be purchased from a retailer at a reasonable price. The full review can be found here, but in a nutshell, I was very impressed, but not initially. The wine only came into its own on the second day -- after it had been exposed to a lot of oxygen.

When I saw several Kosta Browne releases on a rather fancy restaurant's wine list, I was eager to try, in particular,  the 2007 "Russian River Valley" release because 2007 was considered an exceptional year for pinot noir grapes grown in that particular appellation.

There was no disappointment. This wine had a delicious bouquet, was intriguingly complex and exceptionally well balanced from the first sip right on through the meal. Will it be even better with more time in the bottle? Perhaps, but if I owned any of this, I'm afraid I couldn't resist drinking it soon.

Some critics have criticized Kosta Browne pinots as being too intense, to the point of tasting "extracted," but the three of us who tried this one did not find that to be the case. The wine could get heavier with age, however, so if you are interested in a pinot appropriately balanced for food and if you own any of this wine, you may want to consume it relatively early in its life.

If you can find it and if you can afford it, the Kosta Browne 2007 "Russian River Valley" pinot is Highly Recommended. And don't be afraid of ordering it at a restaurant even if you haven't called ahead and asked that it be decanted in advance of your arrival. Unlike some high-end pinots, this one is delightful right out of the bottle.

 

David Bruce 2005 "Santa Cruz Mountains" Pinot Noir ($30)

If you can't find or can't afford the Kosta Browne offering above, or even if you can, track down a bottle of the David Bruce 2005 "Santa Cruz Mountains" pinot noir because it is available and it, too, is excellent.

We had this one for Thanksgiving dinner along with a Sanford pinot (mentioned below) and this was definitely the wine that everyone reached for.

Like the Kosta Browne, this offering has a delightful aroma and offers great complexity of flavors -- a combination of dark and red fruit plus a hint of spice. Very mouth-filling, this wine was perfect with turkey and all the usual accompaniments. The finish was perfect -- long and very memorable.

This is definitely a pinot with a "wow factor" and if you are having turkey for Christmas and are looking for a special occasion pinot to go with it, the David Bruce 2005 "Santa Cruz Mountains" bottling is Highly Recommended.

David Bruce 2006 "Russian River Valley" Pinot Noir ($30)

There are lot of variables involved in growing grapes and making wine, only one of which is the year of the vintage -- 2006 this time instead of 2005. Another variable is the winemaker himself and David Bruce has had a somewhat spotty -- if legendary -- career. He's had his highs and he's had his lows.

Whatever the case, while "perfectly good" in the sense of being not seriously flawed, this David Bruce offering didn't hold a candle to either of the two wines mentioned above.

The bouquet was modest and the flavor, on a medium-weight body, was "predictable pinot" and rather one dimensional as opposed to being interesting.  Moreover, this wine was perhaps a little too sweet to be really good with a wide range of food.

Was it "tight" and did it need more oxygen to show its true colors? We were able to try the David Bruce 2006 "Russian River Valley" offering over a two-day period and it didn't change much so I don't think so. What you taste when you open the bottle is what you get.

If you want a smooth, somewhat soft, predictably flavored, up-the-middle pinot, and don't mind the price, this one is Worth Considering.  On the other hand, if you are looking for something memorable for a special occasion such as Christmas, this wine is Not Recommended.

Sanford 2005 "Sta. Rita Hills" Pinot Noir ($30)

While the Santa Cruz Mountains mentioned above lie at the extreme northern end of California's long Central Coast, the Santa Rita Hills, lie at the extreme southern end -- close to the city of Santa Barbara.

Sanford, once the winery of Santa Rita Hills pinot pioneer Richard Sanford (now of Alma Rosa Winery and Vineyards), is currently controlled by the Chicago-based Terlato family, which owns a rather eclectic collection of other wineries as well.

As mentioned above, the Sanford pinot was another wine served at our turkey-focused Thanksgiving dinner and it just didn't hold up to the bird and all the usual trimmings.

While this is a nice wine with a rather pretty, somewhat floral bouquet, it is rather light in body -- the sort of pinot I would serve with salmon or perhaps with a main-course salad. It's really not a cold weather, comfort food wine.

The Sanford offering is very red-fruit focused -- think raspberries -- and rather feminine in nature, which is to say charming in a graceful sort of way as opposed to being intense and mouth-filling. It also has bright, fresh acidity, which is generally commendable in a food wine.

We first tried this wine almost two years ago and I rated it Problematic because we detected a persistent and not entirely pleasant cola-flavored component. You can find that report here.   This time around there were no such problems -- perhaps a benefit of maturity or perhaps a case of bottle variation.

In any event, the Sanford is now rated  Worth Considering if this is the type of pinot you are looking for.

Resources

Kosta Browne Winery

David Bruce Winery

Sanford Winery and Vineyards

Joel Gott, Novelty Hill 2007 Cabernets

This posting considers a:

Joel Gott 2007 "815" Cabernet Sauvignon ($17) and a

Novelty Hill 2007 Cabernet Sauvignon ($22).

The Joel Gott offering is made entirely from cabernet sauvignon grapes sourced from four different regions of California. In contrast, the Novelty Hill wine is actually a blend of several different grapes grown in the state of Washington. But since cabernet sauvignon makes up 90% of the total, it can be labeled as such. The other grapes in the blend are 8% merlot, 1% cabernet franc and 1% petit verdot -- all grapes, like cabernet sauvignon, associated with the Bordeaux region of France.

My guess is that the merlot was added to soften this wine a bit to make it easier to drink in its early years.  Not many consumers are likely to cellar this wine for long even if, arguably, they should. The small amounts of cabernet franc and petit verdot were likely included with a view to enhancing complexity.

The quick bottom line is that both of these wines are well made and are Worth Considering.  But at the same time, they differ significantly -- the better of the two being a matter of personal preference and possibly budgetary considerations.

U.S.-made cabernet sauvignon is generally a dark, intense wine that can be rather "tight" and tannic in its early years. It often comes across as rather structured -- having a firm backbone -- as opposed to being soft and or even flabby. In Bordeaux, this grape makes lighter-bodied wine and is almost always blended with varying amounts of merlot and other grapes: in the U.S., it is generally marketed as a stand-alone varietal -- for better or for worse.

You can learn more about cabernet sauvignon here.  (Click on the underlined word "here.")

Typical of U.S.-made cabernet-focused wines, both the Joel Gott and Novelty Hill offerings come across as being "fruit-forward" -- the fruit flavor being that typically identified as black currants.

They differ in the following respects: the Joel Gott cabernet is less tannic and less oaky. As a result, it is softer, more mouth filling and easier to drink -- particularly if one consumes it without food. It also seems to have a red-fruit flavor component that the Novelty Hill offering lacks.

In contrast, the Novelty Hill is a more powerful, more intense wine with a pronounced, but not harsh, tannic backbone. It is noticeably oaky, both on the palate and in terms of its rather spicy finish. This one definitely should be consumed with food.

My sense is that the Novelty Hill cabernet is a candidate for aging -- at least for a few years to soften the tannins further, and possibly even longer. Will it develop into something really special if cellared for many years? Probably not. This is not an "investment wine" whether you are investing for your own future drinking pleasure or to profit by selling it at an inflated price many years hence.

While the Joel Gott cabernet could also benefit from another year or so in the cellar, this is not a cabernet to be kept for long. It is clearly crafted for pleasurable near-term consumption and should be treated accordingly. If you're looking forward to some robust, cold-weather fare -- maybe a nice steak or a well-seasoned roast -- in the near future and are looking for a reasonably priced, carefully crafted wine to accompany it, you may want to consider picking up a bottle of the Joel Gott 2007 "815" cabernet.  Among other things, it is more widely distributed than the significantly more expensive Novelty Hill offering.

If on the other hand, if you like cabernet structured around a firm backbone of tannin and you like or don't mind flavors associated with oak, you may find the somewhat more powerful, more distinctive Novelty Hill cabernet just what you're looking for. Although more expensive than the Joel Gott offering, it is a lot less expensive than a host of other artisan-crafted U.S. cabernet sauvignons and probably just as good as many of them.

For the record, both of these wines check in at just under 14.5% alcohol by volume. Because of their relatively high levels of alcohol and relatively heavy bodies, both of these wines can be somewhat "heady" if much is consumed at any one sitting. Fortunately, they both keep very well after having been initially opened -- just put the cork back in -- so you can gradually consume either of these wines over several days without any noticeable deterioration in quality.

Resources:

Joel Gott Wines

Novelty Hill

Oregon 2008 Pinots: Three for Thanksgiving?

This posting considers three Oregon pinot noir from the 2008 vintage as candidates to accompany your Thanksgiving dinner. They are an:

Evesham Wood 2008 "Willamette Valley" Pinot Noir ($19), a

Patricia Green 2008 "Reserve" Pinot Noir ($26) and a

Willamette Valley Vineyards "Whole Cluster Fermented" Pinot Noir ($19).

First, ask yourself a couple of questions.

Are you looking for a wine that will nicely accompany your turkey, but probably ultimately get lost amid all the food and conversation? Or, do you consider Thanksgiving an event that calls for a particularly memorable, special-occasion wine that will be savored and discussed, perhaps above all else?

If your answer is "yes" to the second question, you can pretty much forget all of these three wines. None of them are standouts -- wines anyone will remember for long. Not at this point in their short lives, at any rate.

On the other hand, if you answered "yes" to the first question, either the Evesham Wood (with a caveat) or the Patricia Green offering will fit the bill. You may want to avoid the Willamette Valley Vineyards pinot: in comparison to the other two, it came across as watery.

Three of us blind tasted these three wines over a dinner of turkey breast, stuffing, sweet potatoes and sprouts on one evening and then sealed up the partially consumed bottles.  Two days later, two of us reopened the bottles and blind tasted them again with turkey dinner leftovers.

We were all on the same page with these offerings in that our descriptions in both cases matched up perfectly. This is not always the case. Sometimes we agree on a description only to discover we are talking about different wines.

None of us cared for the Willamette Valley Vineyards offering. On the first day, it tasted very watery compared with the other two pinots. After exposure to oxygen, this wine had gained a little weight the second time around, but not enough. It was still on the thin side and in terms of flavor, one dimensional and uninteresting. Not Recommended. At the end of the day, we tossed a fair amount of this bottle out.

The other two are both Worth Considering.

The Evesham Wood is more red-fruit focused, more aromatic, more acidic and fresher tasting. The Patricia Green is slightly heavier in body, focused on darker fruit and more complex in a quiet fashion that requires some concentration while consuming it.

All three of these wines are commendably dry: none of them is flawed by excessive sweetness or the sort of fruitiness that often leads to cough syrup-like flavors.  All three finish very cleanly -- no harsh tannins or excessive acidity. Of the three, the finish of the Willamette Valley vineyards pinot is short and thin; that of the Evesham Wood long and a bit spicy.

What's the caveat with respect to the Evesham Wood offering? When first poured , there were lot of white crystals near the bottom of the glass or clinging to its sides. These "white diamonds" as they are sometimes called are harmless tartaric acid and are said to be indicative of grapes that have been harvested at the correct time and of complexity in the wine. They disappear fairly rapidly.

But a lot of consumers, including two of our three panelists, didn't like the sight of these crystals and one panelist thought the wine tasted a little fizzy at first (I didn't think so) . Everyone agreed this wine got better over time.

All of these three young wines really need to be decanted and allowed to breathe for a couple of hours before you serve them and that process should cause the crystals in the Evesham Wood offering to disappear before anyone sees them and freaks out. So I don't consider them a problem. But be warned they may be there if you don't decant and some members of your family or guests may think the wine is "bad." It isn't.

After the conclusion of our two tastings, I took a look at what the wineries themselves had to say about their offerings and I sometimes wonder if winemakers ever drink competing products because they all seem to think theirs its the best wine ever made even though even fairly unsophisticated comparisons will often easily demonstrate otherwise .

To be fair, Evesham Wood says nothing about any specific offerings, talking only about its philosophy and approach to winemaking. It allows the wine to speak for itself and the winery doesn't post links to or cite any reviews on its website.

Both Patricia Green and Willamette Valley Vineyards, on the other had, describe the wines reviewed here in terms that are seriously over the top. Reading them (you can do so by following the links below and exploring the sites), one would think these wines are nectar of the gods. Don't believe it.

For the record, the Evesham Wood and Patricia Green pinots are listed as being 13% alcohol by volume while the lighter and thinner Willamette Valley Vineyards offering checks in at 12.5% Those figures are all lower than has been typical of Oregon pinot noir during the past decade.

Resources:

Evesham Wood Vineyard and Winery

Patricia Green Cellars

Willamette Valley Vineyards

Impressions of Five Washington State Reds

Here are some brief impressions of several red wines produced in the state of Washington.

Prices are from when the wine was originally purchased.

Betz Family Winery 2003 "Clos de Betz" ($28)

This merlot-focused "Bordeaux blend" has improved in the cellar in that its tannins and overall texture have softened from when it was first released, leaving it more pleasant, more mouth-filling and easier to drink. It is the most pleasingly complex and sophisticated of the five wines considered in this posting.

Although winemaker Bob Betz typically insists that his offerings can be enjoyed when they are released, I strongly recommend cellaring these wines for a few years. They have a lot of structure and will both soften and open up to display more flavors over time.

Alcohol 14.3%

Betz Family Winery is located in Woodinville, Washington, just outside of Seattle.

-----------

JM Cellars 2002 "Tre Fancuilli" ($29)

This is a cabernet-focused blend that also includes merlot and syrah. The last-mentioned grape gives this wine a somewhat spicy aspect lacking or less pronounced in Washington State blends made only from grapes associated with the Bordeaux region of France. Syrah is a Rhone-region grape.

The addition of syrah, a fairly hefty 15% in this case, makes this wine a bit heavier in body than it probably otherwise would be and introduces a hint of blackberries in the mix of flavors. Whether you like that, plus the pepper spice, is a matter of personal taste. I found it a little disconcerting and somewhat confusing. Maybe I'm too much of a traditionalist.

Despite being a year older than the "Clos de Betz," this wine tasted younger -- still a bit rough on the palate. Not really ready yet? Perhaps.

Alcohol 13.8%

JM Cellars is also located in the Woodinville "wine ghetto."

-----------

Wineglass Cellars 2001 "Reserve" Merlot ($28)

A straight-forward merlot, this eight-year-old wine now has a brownish red color in the glass, reminiscent of an older Bordeaux. But while that color in the Bordeaux might be indicative of the emergence of more in the way of non-fruit flavors, the Wineglass Cellars offering simply tastes of what might be described as "mature fruit."

Its not bad:  this is a very drinkable wine with the right fare -- perhaps red meat of some sort. It's smooth and very dry, but it lacks any sort of "wow factor" that one might rightly expect from a "reserve" wine with several years of cellar time. My guess is that this one would have been at its best consumed a couple years earlier when the fruit tasted younger.

Alcohol 14.7%, which is getting up there.

Wineglass Cellars is located in Zilla, Washington, which is near Yakima.

----------

Abeja “Columbia Valley” 2003 Cabernet Sauvignon ($39)

If you like cabernets that are soft and approachable upon release -- and largely devoid of noticeable tannins --, you may like the approach Abeja takes, but you may not like the price.

“Pleasant but far from memorable,” said one of our regular panelists.

My complaint about the Abeja is that both the cabernet and the winery's chardonnay are over-oaked: in both cases, the flavor of vanilla is very strong. In the case of the cabernet, it seems to compete with rather than compliment the flavor of the fruit.  In the chardonnay, it simply overwhelms the fruit.

The 2003 cabernet does not come across as complex. It lives on its soft, mouth-filling, highly approachable nature. This is a wine you can drink immediately after release and it seems very much crafted with that in mind.

Alcohol 13.8%

Abeja is located near the town of Walla Walla in Eastern Washington and it operates a very popular small inn along with the winery.

---------

Syzygy 2002 “Columbia Valley" Cabernet Sauvignon ($24)

I've had a several different wines from Syzgy, another Walla Walla winery, and have generally found them to be good -- designed for relatively early consumption -- but not great.

This one, however, was a disappointment. It tasted slightly of  nail polish remover when first opened and that flavor became more pronounced over time. The wine was not undrinkable -- just not right somehow.

There were other flavors as well, but they seemed somewhat disjointed. With exposure to oxygen over the course of thee days -- the partially consumed bottle re-sealed between tastings -- the flavors of this wine fell apart as opposed to coming together.

The finish was very odd indeed.

Hopefully, this was a case of problems with a single bottle and not a result of aging.

Alcohol 14.6%

Syzygy, along with several other wineries, is located just outside the town on Walla Walla on a redeveloped military airfield.

Cellar Report: Adelsheim, Cameron Pinot Noir

With Thanksgiving in mind, this posting takes a look at a couple of Oregon pinot noir from my cellar -- to see how they are doing.

The wines in question are an:

Adelsheim 2005 "Willamette Valley" Pinot Noir ($29) and a

Cameron 2005 "Dundee Hills" Pinot Noir ($28)

(The prices quoted are from the time of original purchase, a couple of years ago.)

Here's the quick bottom line: the Cameron was a spicy, lively offering that was best when first opened. The Adelsheim was initially rather tight and subdued. Although it took a long time to develop, it was ultimately the better wine.

The Cameron is Worth Considering while the Adelsheim is Recommended for patient consumers.

I opened these wines about an hour before dinner and as usual, after sampling them over an initial meal. the partially consumed bottles were re-sealed. Two of us then tried them three more times over the next four days. While the Cameron got more and more earthy -- and not in a good way -- the Adelsheim gradually gained complexity and was at is best at the end of the period.

If you have any of the 2005 Adelsheim in your cellar and want to drink it with your Thanksgiving dinner, decant it several hours before consumption and swish it around vigorously in the decanter. This wine needs lots and lots of oxygen to show its true colors.

When first opened, the Adelsheim was dark and a bit brooding in the glass. The Cameron was noticeably a brighter red, especially in the ring of color where the surface of the wine meets the glass.

On the nose, the Cameron displayed a very pronounced and powerful bouquet -- rather spicy and a little "hot." In contrast, the bouquet of the Adelsheim was quiet and smelled of a dark fruit such as plums.

Both wines had want I would describe as a medium body for an Oregon pinot noir.

The Cameron had little in the way of perceptible tannins while those of the Adelsheim were very mild. In terms of acidity, the Cameron was brighter; the Adelsheim milder, but not flabby.

On the palate, the Cameron offered predominantly raspberry flavors in terms of fruit while the Adelsheim was focused on darker fruit flavors.

Both wines were commendable dry -- none of that sweetness that sometimes plagues Oregon pinots -- and both had long, pleasant finishes, that of the Cameron more spicy and more refreshing.

If one were to stop right there, I would say the Cameron was the better of the two.  But that began to change as we sampled the partially consumed bottles on subsequent occasions. As mentioned above, the Cameron became increasingly earthy as it was exposed to more and more oxygen -- barnyard earthy as opposed, to for instance, forest floor or truffles earthy. This aspect came to dominate the wine over time to the point where it wasn't very pleasant.

In contrast, the Adelsheim offering started to gain complexity in a good way, eventually becoming a very attractive and interesting wine. But it certainly took a long time.

If you own these wines and are wondering how long to cellar them, I would advise drinking the Cameron now. In contrast, I think the Adelsheim would profit from several more years of aging.

Both of these offerings are listed as containing only 13% alcohol by volume, which, if accurate, is attractively low for this type of wine.

Syrah From California and Washington

I should start by saying that we are not regular drinkers of syrah and thus the following comments should be read in that vein.

From time to time, I order pinot noir from Alesia Wines, a unit of Rhys Vineyards, of San Carlos, California. Rhys recently announced that it would start offering a syrah made from grapes grown in the Fairview Ranch Vineyard of the Santa Lucia Highlands and offered regular customers a trial bottle at an attractive price.

Looking in my cellar, I discovered a comparable syrah from grapes grown in the state of Washington and decided to compare the two.

The wines in question are an:

Alesia 2006 "Fairview Ranch Vineyard" Syrah ($19) and a

Nefarious Cellars 2006 "Rocky Mother Vineyard" Estate Syrah ($40).

(The $19-a-bottle price of the Alesia cited above is the introductory price that I paid. This wine will be priced considerably higher when it goes on general release.)

Both of these are full-bodied wines that appear somewhat inky purple in the glass. Of the two, the Nefarious had the most pronounced bouquet -- rather peppery.

On the palate, both wines were predominantly blackberry flavored and not particularly complex. While the Alesia was smooth and easy to drink , the Nefarious was spicy and a little rougher. Both were a somewhat "heady" -- my other panelist and I felt we had to be careful how much of these wines we consumed at any one sitting.

As usual, we re-sealed the partially consumed bottles and re-opened them on a couple of subsequent days to  determine how they would react to additional oxygen. Changes were slow in coming, but by the final day, each seemed a little better than it had been initially. While my companion favored the Alesia throughout the period in question, I found the Nefarious gaining ground toward the end as being a bit more interesting.

My sense is that both of these wines were very "tight" when first opened with some of their potential flavors essentially locked up within. Both would probably benefit from additional years in the cellar -- although neither has any harsh tannins that need time to break down. Alternatively one could decant them several hours prior to consumption.

On its website, Alesia claims that the Fairview Ranch Vineyard "produces one of the most identifiably unique expressions of syrah in the world. In particular, we love the intriguing citrus notes and pronounced minerality of this wine."

Neither my companion nor I detected much in the way of citrus notes or pronounced minerality, but, as I mentioned at the beginning of this posting, we are not experienced consumers of syrah.

Likewise, the Nefarious syrah, which comes from a vineyard near the shores of Washington's Lake Chelan, fairly far away from the state's major vineyards, but still within the Columbia Valley AVA, was described by one critic as tasting of "blackberry, black cherry, smoke, espresso, toasted walnuts and hints of caramel, all very lightly intertwined. The flavors are so beautifully wrapped that it would be easy to overlook the complexity – the density – presented here."

Well, we were apparently indeed guilty of overlooking all that complexity because neither my companion or I were able to identify most of the flavors listed above. But, according to various experts, the "leathery" quality of syrah generally emerges more clearly over time.

Neither of these wines is at present readily available, but if you happen to have any or have the opportunity to purchase them, I would rate them Worth Considering and recommend that you cellar them for a few more years. Both of these wines should be able to age for a considerable period of time.

For the record, the Alesia is listed as being 14.25% alcohol by volume while the Nefarious checks in at 14.5%.

Resources:

Rhys Vineyards

Nefarious Cellars