Carmel, Shiraz, Kayoumi: The Correct TN (K)

[Daniel Rogov]

No one's perfect. Certainly not I. In the column that appears in today's HaAretz (English Edition), the wrong tasting note was used. No one's fault but my own as when I sent in the column I had simply forgotten that I had re-tasted Carmel's 2006 Single Vineyard Kayomi. Just to set the record straight...the following is the note as it should appear. This is also the tasting note that will appear in my books.

Best
Rogov

Carmel, Shiraz, Single Vineyard, Kayoumi, Upper Galilee, 2006: Showing even
better than at earlier tastings. Deep garnet with hints of royal purple and
casting orange and green reflections, a concentrated wine, full-bodied and
deeply extracted yet showing remarkably soft tannins and spicy wood that
almost melts on the palate. On first attack plums and currants, those
making way for black cherries, hints of saddle leather and notes of
asphalt. On the long and generous finish with tannins rising a comfortable
overlay of freshly roasted herbs and cedar wood. Approachable now but what
a waste as this one will start showing its best only in 2011. Cellar
comfortably until 2017. NIS 120. Score 93. K (Re-tasted 9 Jun 2009)

[Mike BG]

What can one say but ... wow!

... and what incredible value for money too!

[Michael P]

Wow! Great tasting note and score!

Is it available in the US? I cannot recall seeing the 2006 version...

[Jonathan Kalman]

I have greatly enjoyed both the 2004 and the 2005 and my early tasting of the 2006 is in complete agreement with Daniel. I have probably drunk more Carmel Shiraz Kayoumi (from both of the vintages mentioned) than any other Israeli wine over the last 18 months and it's become more or less the house wine chez Kalman. This wine is very food friendly, particularly with grilled and barbequed meat. It's also not bad on it's own!

[Daniel Rogov]

Also superb with a platter of hard goats' and cows' milk cheeses. For those who keep kashrut, seriously consider a meal opening with a vegetarian minestrone soup, going on to a salad and then a cheese platter with this wine.

Best
Rogov

[Eli R]

...
Carmel, Shiraz, Single Vineyard, Kayoumi, Upper Galilee, 2006: Showing even better than at earlier tastings. Deep garnet with hints of royal purple and casting orange and green reflections, a concentrated wine, full-bodied and deeply extracted yet showing remarkably soft tannins and spicy wood that almost melts on the palate. On first attack plums and currants, those making way for black cherries, hints of saddle leather and notes of asphalt. On the long and generous finish with tannins rising a comfortable overlay of freshly roasted herbs and cedar wood. Approachable now but what a waste as this one will start showing its best only in 2011. Cellar comfortably until 2017. NIS 120. Score 93. K (Re-tasted 9 Jun 2009)

...
Yatir, Shiraz, 2006: Blended with 15% Malbec, aged in barriques for 12 months, showing full-bodied and concentrated with still firm tannins that need time to settle in. Showing fine balance and structure, the tannins integrating nicely now with a gentle spicy wood influence and opening in the glass to show blackberry, black cherry and prune notes, those on a background that hints of grilled beef and dark chocolate. Best 2010–2017. NIS 134. Score 93. K (Re-tasted 22 May 2009))

Comparing the two fine wines above:

What makes them different:

a. Is it the terroir
b. The grape/blending
c. The Process
d. The winemaker touch
e. All of the above

Having the WTN handy, can one identify which is which in a blind tasting?

Eli

PS. I intend to continue trying to answer this question until 2017

[Daniel Rogov]

Eli, Hi......

Two questions. Thus, two answers.

(a) What makes the two wines different. You offer several options as well as the combined option and I'll opt for the combination.

As often I have said, there is a valid comparison that can be made to the development of human intelligence and to the development of a wine. Both depend on a complex and interacting set of elements, those often reduced to genetics versus environment. As much as some (e.g. Alvin Shockley) have tried to pinpoint the exact impact of both (Shockley supposed it was 80% genetics and 20% environment), that is simply unrealistic, because the interactions are too many, too complex and too dependent on the individual to specify with any level of precision. The same is true of wine.

Apologies, but let me delve further into psychology and relate to the article by Miehl entitled: Schizotypia, Schizotaxia, Schizophrenia. The first part of Miehl's hypothesis indicated that one is or is not born with the genetic composition that will allow for the development of schizophrenia. The person born without it may become quite mad in quite a few ways but he/she will never become schiziophrenic.

The person born with the gene on the other hand is said to be schizotypic (i.e. having the genetic ability to develop schizophrenia). That is no guarantee that that person will become schizophrenic. What is then required are two levels of interaction with the environment, the most important of which Miehl called "the schizophrenogenic mother" (a mother or other parenting figure that presents a child with traditional double-bind dilemmas) and this in turn brings the child to the state of schizotaxia. The shizotaxic is not a full-blown schizophrenic but is probably what would most could call a thoroughly neurotic person. Only with a later secondary environmental interaction does the person go on to become a full-blown schizophrenic.

Much is the same with wine. The grape that starts off badly will never produce a fine wine. The grape that starts of well may or may not produce a fine wine, among the various elements involved being terroir, trellising methodolgy, vineyard maintenance, etc. Even if the grapes arrive in the winery in fine condition there is still no guarantee that a fine wine will result, now the influences being the methodologies used in the winery, the decisions and tastes of the winery and yes, even the commercial considerations of the winery. Only if all are in tune will a great wine result.

Long, roundabout way to explain what seems like (but is not) a simple phenomenon.


(b) Can one tell the wines apart in a blind tasting? Indeed I would say that even the moderately -practiced palate will be able to tell the two wines apart. Whether one will "like" one or the other better is, however, very much a matter of one's own palate - that is to say, "you pays your money and you takes your choice".

My suggestion, as often it has been - purchase one bottle of each. Invite several friends over to share a meal. Open both bottles at the same time (do not decant), pour one glass of each for all present, not revealing which wine is in which glass and let them decide for themselves if they can tell the difference, how they perceive those differnces and which they enjoy most. (If t'were I, first tasting would be before the meal and then to go on to finish the bottles during the meal)

Best
Rogov

P.S. And if anyone thinks the above a bit confusing, just wait a few moments. I am shortly going to post my tasting note for the Ya'ar Yatir 2006.

[Doug Z]

Apologies, but let me delve further into psychology and relate to the article by Miehl entitled: Schizotypia, Schizotaxia, Schizophrenia. The first part of Miehl's hypothesis indicated that one is or is not born with the genetic composition that will allow for the development of schizophrenia. The person born without it may become quite mad in quite a few ways but he/she will never become schiziophrenic.

The person born with the gene on the other hand is said to be schizotypic (i.e. having the genetic ability to develop schizophrenia). That is no guarantee that that person will become schizophrenic. What is then required are two levels of interaction with the environment, the most important of which Miehl called "the schizophrenogenic mother" (a mother or other parenting figure that presents a child with traditional double-bind dilemmas) and this in turn brings the child to the state of schizotaxia. The shizotaxic is not a full-blown schizophrenic but is probably what would most could call a thoroughly neurotic person. Only with a later secondary environmental interaction does the person go on to become a full-blown schizophrenic.

and in my own field, the famous 2 hit theory....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knudson_hypothesis

Knudson suggested that multiple "hits" to DNA were necessary to cause cancer. In the children with inherited retinoblastoma, the first insult was inherited in the DNA, and any second insult would rapidly lead to cancer. In non-inherited retinoblastoma, two "hits" had to take place before a tumor could develop, explaining the age difference.

just sayin'

[Yon Muyal]

Hello Daniel,
I hope you are well.
Do you have any tasting notes on the Kayoumi Shiraz 2005 and Kayoumi Cabernet Sauvignon 2005?
Thanks in advance!

Kind Regards,

Yonatan

[Daniel Rogov]

Yonatan, Hi....

Following are my most recent tasting notes for the wines in question.

Best
Rogov

Carmel, Cabernet Sauvignon, Single Vineyard Kayoumi, 2005: Dark garnet with green and orange reflections, full-bodied, open textured and generous showing a spicy, peppery mouthful of blackberry, currant, coffee and black olive notes all leading to a long, round and mouth-filling finish. As this one develops look for an appealing hint of smoked meat rising. Drink now–2013. Score 91. K

Carmel, Shiraz, Single Vineyard, Kayoumi, 2005: Dark, almost impenetrable garnet, full-bodied, with silky tannins and showing fine balance and structure. Opens with a burst of dark plum and currant fruits, those yielding to notes of asphalt, bitter herbs and sweet-and-spicy cedarwood. Comes together as elegant, complex and long. Drink now–2012. Score 91. K

[Gary J]

Wow! Great tasting note and score!

Is it available in the US? I cannot recall seeing the 2006 version...

Sorry Michael, the 2006 has not yet arrived in the US.