OK, so this is the first Cote Rotie I ever tasted. I found it in the airport tax free shop for 45euros. I saw on the phone that its is 60E in stores, and Ive never seen a cote rotie from any producer at under that price anyway. And the age was pretty good, too, compared to what you can find otherwise here. One year younger than the northern rhone wines I had lately and loved so much.

I was hoping for an exclusive taste like my newfound lovebirds Courbis Cornas Champelrose 2004, Michele Jemms Muriette Cornas 2006 and Crozes Hermitage 2006 but maybe even better since Cote rotie is so legendary and playing hard to get.

Upon opening , the first whiff made me happy. the scent of a real wine that makes me so happy. So far so good. Nice textures fell in the mouth, slight hints of smoke and olive, like I expected, but it is overshadowed by chocolate and cedar. fine finish, some spice, thyme and rosemary. But there's something wrong.

It is closer related to my napa cab/bourdeaux/argentina/supertuscan cab box than my smoky cornas box!

Granted, I do not know what to expect of a Cote Rotie?

Then I started researching. Seems Guigal is Parker's pet. Like the first famous rotie producer because of parker. Napa cabs is also called "parker wines".

Looked at Guigal website. 36 months oak aging in 50% new oak. Also some viognier???

Even with vintage chart of northern rhone calibration, 2006 is the best year, 2007 second and 2004 third.

Checked the Courbis and Micheles Jemms wines, 0!, 12, 18months in varying ages of oak.

That got me thinking.

Maybe this is what you guys have been talking about.

While I love the complexity oak adds to a wine, it might cloak something that comes out with aging of a less oaked wine.

I didnt like the young cornas/crozes hermitage so much, but with aging something in it transcends.

More oak seems to make a young wine more enjoyable to me: that "scent of a good wine that makes me happy" - it makes a tuscany sangiovese blend, napa cab, rhone syrah, argentina cab, bourdeaux taste almost the same - even if its still really good compared to a cheaper lesser oaked wine.

Rioja is weird in this regard there Tondonia has like 8-10 years in oak and is still unique...

But keeping rioja out of any rules, should I revise my perception of oak as:

- bad wine is bad no matter what
- mediocre wine is best with lots of oak
- really good wine requires little to none oak?

Yeah, Im an engineer so Im always looking for patterns and rules of thumb

However, Im really considering to change my favourite region to Northern Rhone.

I just dont know if it should be limited to Cornas/Crozes Hermitage, or it could also include Hermitage, Saint Estephe, Cote Rotie and Gigondas. Is Cornas/Crozes Hermitage suppsoed to be very different from those other subregions?