On Wednesday, the Times had an interesting article on California Pinot Noir.
The distinguished panel had a comprehensive tasting of Pinots and these were
their recommendations.

2002 Avila, San Luis Opispo, $10

2002 Leaping Lizard, Los Carneros, $10

2002 Three Saints, Santa Maria Valley, $16

2001 Dierberg, Santa Maria Valley, $28

2001 Melville, Carrie's Vineyard, Santa Barbara County, $43


http://www.latimes.com/features/food...,5877779.story


You may need to register for access but its free and without junk mail.

In article k.net,
Larry B wrote:

On Wednesday, the Times had an interesting article on California Pinot Noir.
The distinguished panel had a comprehensive tasting of Pinots and these were
their recommendations.

2002 Avila, San Luis Opispo, $10

2002 Leaping Lizard, Los Carneros, $10

2002 Three Saints, Santa Maria Valley, $16

2001 Dierberg, Santa Maria Valley, $28

2001 Melville, Carrie's Vineyard, Santa Barbara County, $43


http://www.latimes.com/features/food...,5877779.story


Thanks, but it's a shame they didn't list the entire lineup!


Dimitri

"D. Gerasimatos" wrote in message
...
Thanks, but it's a shame they didn't list the entire lineup!

Maybe not!
Here's the entire article:

"Disappointing" was the overwhelming reaction of a tasting panel The Times
assembled to sample 28 of the new California Pinot Noirs. All the wines were
from recently established labels - new wineries, new labels of established
wineries or new négociant bottlings - whose first vintage was 2000 or later.

The tasting panel included Chris Meeske, former sommelier at Patina and now
owner of Mission Wines in South Pasadena; Allen Meadows, a wine critic whose
Burghound newsletter covers French Burgundies; S. Irene Virbila, Times
restaurant critic; David Shaw, Times food and wine columnist; and Leslie
Brenner, acting Times food editor.

All the wines were tasted blind, arranged in flights according to vintage
(2000, 2001 and 2002) and price range (under $15, $16 to $40, $41 and up).

The overwhelming impression was that the wines are poor reflections of what
Pinot Noir can be. Few showed any of the classic bright red fruit notes for
which Pinot is known. Many were overly alcoholic, unpleasantly vegetal or
simply lacking in character. Only six of the wines won the endorsement of
the entire panel - and even that was lukewarm.

The favorite wine by a wide margin was a 2001 Dierberg from the Santa Maria
Valley in Santa Barbara, priced at $28.

Yet while the panel came in expecting to discover more than a few exciting
new wines - based on the track records of some of the producers and the
reputation of some of the vineyards - general disappointment was so strong
it bordered on outrage, particularly in light of the prices.

"Who do these guys think they are?" asked an incredulous Meadows.

"They are winemakers with no track record and no perspective," answered
Meeske.

It's true, said Virbila, that "a lot of people got on the Pinot Noir
bandwagon without having a feel for the wine."

"I feel like I'm more in a vegetable garden than in a fruit salad," said
Shaw. "I'd be unhappy if I'd ordered any of these in a restaurant."

At this point in the game, nothing measures up to California classics such
as Williams Selyem (when the pre-1998 winemaking team was in place) or to
Merry Edwards.

It is too early in the evolution of California Pinot Noir to know how the
story will end. "Most of these winemakers will never make Burgundian wine,"
said Meadows. "What's being tried are big and massive. What they can't get
with finesse, they are going to bamboozle you with at 15.5% alcohol levels."

Among the wines tasted was 2002 Castle Rock Russian River Valley, at $10.
Virbila called it "pretty" and "clean," but in general the group felt it was
too bland.

The 2001 J.W. Morris California Pinot Noir, $3 at Trader Joe's, is one of
the few that "actually tastes like Pinot Noir," said Brenner.

The most expensive bottle - 2002 Adrian Fog, Savoy Vineyard, Anderson
Valley, at $75 - showed so poorly that we later bought a second bottle from
another wine store to be sure we hadn't gotten a bad bottle. While the
second bottle had less of a sauerkraut taste, it still was an
over-extracted, high-alcohol disaster of a wine that no one wanted to sip
again.

Here are the standouts, listed from least expensive to most expensive:

2002 Avila, San Luis Obispo, $10. Pleasant and medium-bodied, with herbal
aromas, black cherry flavors and not much finish.

2002 Leaping Lizard, Los Carneros, $10. Approachable and well structured,
with the kind of ripe cherry nose you want in a Pinot and some nice
sweet-spiciness on the palate.

2002 Three Saints, Santa Maria Valley (Santa Barbara County), $16. Delicious
and complex, with lush red fruit aromas that signaled an equally lush palate
and bright enough acid to make it a good food wine.

2001 Dierberg, Santa Maria Valley, $28. The clear favorite, with ripe plum
and cherry aromas, silky texture, classic Pinot flavors and lingering
finish.

2001 Longoria, Fe Ciega Vineyard, Santa Rita Hills, $33. A more masculine
Pinot, with pleasing leather and tobacco aromas and firm acid. This one
would be good with cured meats or cheese.

2001 Melville, Carrie's Vineyard (Santa Barbara County), $43. A big,
generous, fruit-forward wine, with enough structure to support its
over-the-top (15.1%) alcohol.

Greetings Tom;


Many of the comments on the general attributes of the California PN could be
applied to the Ontario product perhaps with the exception of high alcohol
content because of our generally cooler climate and shorter growing season.

Perhaps we should expect these kind of results because of the notorious
difficulty with this grape and should content ourselves with only finding
the odd "star". We keep searching and hoping.

To this end I note that the Ontario Wine Society - Niagara Branch is holding
a horizontal PN tasting at the Niagara College Teaching Winery in St.
Catharines on April 27.

The search goes on!
--
Regards
Chuck
So much wine; So little time!

To reply, delete NOSPAM from return address

In article ,
Tom S wrote:
"D. Gerasimatos" wrote in message
...
Thanks, but it's a shame they didn't list the entire lineup!

Maybe not!


It's just as informative to know what *not* to buy, and maybe more so
when that list is longer than the "recommend" list. I am curious if
they tried Siduri, Peter Michael, Flowers, or Rochioli for example. The article
doesn't give a frame of reference as to what was tried and what was not and
the winners are rather meaningless without that context.


Dimitri

In article , (D.
Gerasimatos) writes:


It's just as informative to know what *not* to buy, and maybe more so
when that list is longer than the "recommend" list. I am curious if
they tried Siduri, Peter Michael, Flowers, or Rochioli for example. The
article
doesn't give a frame of reference as to what was tried and what was not and
the winners are rather meaningless without that contex

Hi Dimitri:

I agree with your main point - that's its helpful to know what other wines
were. The NY Times panel tasting does same thing;it's hard to "calibrate" (to
use a phrase that implies exactitude to an hazy concept) without knowing what
they DIDN'T like.

But as to your examples, I think you might have missed the passage:
"All the wines were from recently established labels - new wineries, new
labels of established wineries or new négociant bottlings - whose first vintage
was 2000 or later."

I think it sometimes boggles the mind the prices that some new wineries charge
for some of these wines.

As to the list, if Leaping Lizard is one of the best ones,
..............................

be good to yourself,


Dale

Dale Williams
Drop "damnspam" to reply

In article ,
Dale Williams wrote:

But as to your examples, I think you might have missed the passage:
"All the wines were from recently established labels - new wineries, new
labels of established wineries or new negociant bottlings - whose first
vintage was 2000 or later."


I did miss this passage. I think Bonaccorsi might still fall in that
category.


Thanks for pointing it out.


Dimitri

"Tom S" wrote in message
om...

2001 Melville, Carrie's Vineyard (Santa Barbara County), $43. A big,
generous, fruit-forward wine,

with enough structure to support its
over-the-top (15.1%) alcohol.

I don't doubt this is a flavorful wine, but I do have issues with wine that
is that high in alcohol. I know these issues have been discussed before here
and that the California sunshine and late harvest have a lot to do with it,
but I still find these alcohol levels a bit high.


dcr

"David Rheault" wrote in
:


"Tom S" wrote in message
om...

2001 Melville, Carrie's Vineyard (Santa Barbara County), $43. A big,
generous, fruit-forward wine,

with enough structure to support its
over-the-top (15.1%) alcohol.

I don't doubt this is a flavorful wine, but I do have issues with wine
that is that high in alcohol. I know these issues have been discussed
before here and that the California sunshine and late harvest have a
lot to do with it, but I still find these alcohol levels a bit high.


dcr


I agree. PN at +15% (heck at +13%!) is wrong, it's just wrong...

d

"dei" wrote in message
.40...
"David Rheault" wrote in
:


"Tom S" wrote in message
om...

2001 Melville, Carrie's Vineyard (Santa Barbara County), $43. A big,
generous, fruit-forward wine,

with enough structure to support its
over-the-top (15.1%) alcohol.

I don't doubt this is a flavorful wine, but I do have issues with wine
that is that high in alcohol. I know these issues have been discussed
before here and that the California sunshine and late harvest have a
lot to do with it, but I still find these alcohol levels a bit high.


dcr


I agree. PN at +15% (heck at +13%!) is wrong, it's just wrong...

d

Here is a possible antidote:

"California produces Dolly Parton wines, but Oregon is Juliette Binoche,"
Lett says. The taste of Sunshine State pinot can often be jammy, almost
stewed-except in cooler regions such as Carneros and the Russian River
Valley, where the fruit doesn't over-ripen. By contrast, Oregon pinots show
more of the reserve and finesse of their Burgundian ancestors. Cool-climate
pinot is also higher in acidity, which makes it more
food-friendly-especially with the lighter fare (chicken, fish and
ethnic-fusion dishes) that people like these days. And it's lower in
alcohol, on average 10-12%, compared to the monster cabernets and shirazes
grown in warmer climates that can weigh in at 14% or more. "If you just want
alcohol, for God's sake have a martini," says Lett.

http://www.nataliemaclean.com/articl...rld_wines.html


dcr

"D. Gerasimatos" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Tom S wrote:
"D. Gerasimatos" wrote in message
...
Thanks, but it's a shame they didn't list the entire lineup!

Maybe not!


It's just as informative to know what *not* to buy, and maybe more so
when that list is longer than the "recommend" list. I am curious if
they tried Siduri, Peter Michael, Flowers, or Rochioli for example. The
article
doesn't give a frame of reference as to what was tried and what was not
and
the winners are rather meaningless without that context.

The article did mention that these are either new wineries or new
designations from existing wineries. That narrows it down a lot.

Tom S

"D. Gerasimatos" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Dale Williams wrote:

But as to your examples, I think you might have missed the passage:
"All the wines were from recently established labels - new wineries, new
labels of established wineries or new negociant bottlings - whose first
vintage was 2000 or later."


I did miss this passage. I think Bonaccorsi might still fall in that
category.

Not quite. His first vintage was 1999.

Tom S

"dei" wrote in message
.40...
"David Rheault" wrote in
:


"Tom S" wrote in message
om...

2001 Melville, Carrie's Vineyard (Santa Barbara County), $43. A big,
generous, fruit-forward wine,

with enough structure to support its
over-the-top (15.1%) alcohol.

I don't doubt this is a flavorful wine, but I do have issues with wine
that is that high in alcohol. I know these issues have been discussed
before here and that the California sunshine and late harvest have a
lot to do with it, but I still find these alcohol levels a bit high.


dcr


I agree. PN at +15% (heck at +13%!) is wrong, it's just wrong...

I disagree with that as a flat assertion. I've tasted 15+% Pinot Noirs that
are so well balanced that the high alcohol isn't all that obvious. IOW, the
wine has to be big in _all_ dimensions, or it won't taste right.

OTOH, it's nearly impossible for a low alcohol Pinot Noir (~10%) to taste
balanced. They usually taste thin.

Tom S