These are tasting notes from the most recent poker game at Zach’s house, won by yours truly, thank you very much. Before the official line-up was served, there were some starters, including a couple opened the night before. These three wines and the last two were not served blind, but all other wines were.
1996 Charles Ellner Champagne Brut “Seduction” Millesime. The nose features yeasty bread, spiced yellow apple and a bit of mineral, but also some sherry and raw ginger notes that come across as too aggressive. In the mouth, it features creamy flavors of old-fashioned ginger ale, toast and citrus tang that lead to a dry finish. I wish this hadn’t featured that oxidative character, as I liked the core elements it had to offer.
1991 Oakford Vineyards Cabernet Sauvignon Napa Valley. This was a leftover bottle from some get-together the night before. I got the very last pour from the bottle, which came with a ton of sediment. I can say that it smells really nice, with vibrant cassis, violets and dark wet earth. In the mouth, it is showing a lot of tannin, with a big smoky and earthy character to go with some dark red fruit and a large-boned structure. I can see that this was probably darned tasty the night before.
2006 Kim Crawford Sauvignon Blanc SP Spitfire Marlborough. I think this was another leftover from the previous evening. The nose on this wine is wide open and singing, with a ton of immediacy and aromatic drive—featuring aromas of oyster shells, gooseberry, limon and honeydew melon. On the palate, it has a bright edge to accompany a fairly luscious mid-palate carrying some weight with it. Flavors of melon and guava are nicely framed by zippy acidity all the way through to the intense and lengthy finish. This is an impressive Sauvignon Blanc, especially for something opened the night before. In fact, I would never have guessed.
Flight One—‘Starter Whites’:
2007 Matthiasson White Wine Napa Valley. This first white wine is very good and is a wine worth seeking out, in my opinion (though at 40 cases production, not easy to find, I am sure). It features aromas of chalk, seashells, herbs, moss, crisp melon and grapefruit in a very classy and enticing combination. In the mouth, it demonstrates a ton of unique and appealing character. It feels direct, lifted and clean, but has a sneaky roundness of body due perhaps in part to its high levels of glycerin. The apple and pear fruit is direct and lively and the finish is clean and balanced, drawing one back for more. It is a blend of 75% early-picked Sauvignon Blanc from Ryan’s Vineyard, 20% late-picked Semillon from Oro Puro Vineyard and 5% Ribolla Gallia from Vare Vineyard.
2007 Scholium Project The Prince In His Caves Farina Sonoma Mountain. Well, this is quite simply a love it or hate it sort of wine. In fact, initially, a few people weren’t even convinced this WAS wine! Or if it was, it had to be a barrel sample or something still in the process of fermentation. The appearance is as cloudy and murky as any wine you will ever see. The nose is just wild. I remember Peter sitting next to me singing under his breath “If you like Pina Coladas, Then drink wine number two”. And that tells you most of the story. This does indeed smell like a Pina Colada (or maybe a Bahama Mama with a strong dose of coconut rum). I also wrote down creamsicle, plantain, Hawaiian Tropic, guava, mango, pineapple and orange blossom. Whatever it is, it is intensely aromatic, almost explosive, and extremely unusual. Personally, I found it fascinating to think about what the hell this could possibly be (turns out to be Sauvignon Blanc with uber-extended skin contact). Anyway, it is a bit more focused on the palate, with guava and pineapple and grassy fern most prominent amongst a mélange of flavors and sensations. The texture is a bit sticky, maybe even gritty at times due to the unfiltered nature of the wine. It is rounded and a bit thick, but finishes on the dry side. I found it fascinating and wild, but perhaps not especially wine-like. It is so far off the reservation that I have no reference point for it. I can’t really imagine what to serve it with (Bananas Foster?), but it sure would be a good conversation starter.
The reds:
Flight Two—‘Trio ‘o Pinot’:
2006 Pali Wine Co. Pinot Noir Keefer Ranch Vineyard Russian River Valley. This one has a lot of spice and toasted herbs on the nose, along with nutmeg and balsa wood. But there is also a sweet blueberry or maybe even boysenberry fruit core underneath that takes a bit of getting used to. In the mouth, it has good intensity and is fairly mouth-filling, with a fine spice edge all the way along its line. It has a good deal of oomph to the flavors, even as some drying tannins sneak in late to coat the teeth. One problem, though, is a sort of medicinal aspirin and acrid smoke austerity that plays around the edges of the palate and distract from what is otherwise a pleasurable wine. Overall, I know liked this more so than did the group as a whole.
2006 Pali Wine Co. Pinot Noir Shea Vineyard Willamette Valley. Of this trio, this wine comes across as probably the safest bet. It is more earthy and woodsy on the nose than the previous wine. It also comes on with dusty sandalwood and creosote notes that surround a core of black raspberry compote. It tastes brambly and stemmy in the mouth, with briary blackberry fruit supported by soft tingly tannins but also a hint of heat. I would probably wait on this one another year or so before trying again.
2006 Pali Wine Co. Pinot Noir Inman Olivet Vineyard Russian River Valley. This Pinot shows off a more warmly red-fruited personality on the nose—with aromas of raspberry and dark cherry riding atop bark, cola and brown spice notes. It is warm and inviting on the palate at first, with an extremely open-knit feel to it. As you move through it, though, it seems to suffer from a lack of structure and it too easily lets its alcohol come forward. It is rather full-bodied for a Pinot Noir, showing a very rounded texture, but just too much of a goopy sweet character. When it was revealed, I was shocked that this was Inman fruit, as I do not associate that vineyard with anything but crisp and elegant Pinots with fine minerality. I have a 375ml of this in the cellar and will let it sit a while to see where this ends up.
Flight Three—‘1996 vs. 1997 Cali Cabs’:
1997 Chateau Montelena Cabernet Sauvignon The Montelena Estate Napa Valley. This wine has a great bouquet, featuring sweaty saddle leather, barnyard earth, campfire embers, cassis and plum aromas in a nicely composed package. It definitely demonstrates a youthful character in the mouth, with some sticky or perhaps chalky tannin definitely in play, but also a great streak of lifted acidity all the way through. There’s a ton of rich and dense black currant and blackberry fruit here, along with some fine dark chocolate flavors. But the whole thing plays in a very balanced way, and the wine hums along with great harmony and overall feeling. While this is still on the youthful side, it is extremely nice and my WOTN. By the way, my incorrect guess was that this was a 1996.
1996 Beringer Vineyards Cabernet Sauvignon Private Reserve Napa Valley. This is a very interesting contrast to the previous wine. First off, it comes across as more elegant and pedigreed on the nose, with aromas of fine milk chocolate, cherries, crème de cassis, menthol and newer leather combining in a finely polished fashion. In the mouth, it is again more refined and silky, though still approaching full-bodied. It is not enormously deep, instead coming across as pretty and smoothly-textured. There are some rounded tannins lurking beneath the milk chocolate, cherry and raspberry fruit, but the wine as a whole is refined and easy-flowing. My guess on vintage here was wrong again.
1997 Gallo of Sonoma Cabernet Sauvignon Stefani Dry Creek Valley. On the nose, black currant, briery mixed berries, warm leather and forest fern aromas cut through a bit of vinyl or chlorine character and manage to carry the day. That potential whiff of TCA never plays out on the palate that I can tell, though. There, it is medium-bodied but fully-fruited and immediately flavorful. Indeed, this wine is wide-open, pushing the abundant fruit flavors ahead nicely and combining them with an abundant tangy acidity. It seems simpler and much less tannic than the previous two wines, but there is no doubting that it is open for business right now, with its plethora of cool and refined fruit providing plenty to like. I did manage here to guess the right vintage!
1996 Spring Mountain Vineyard Cabernet Sauvignon Reserve Spring Mountain District. At the other end of the spectrum, this last wine in the flight is deep, dark and mysterious, smelling of volcanic rock, ash, smoke, coffee grounds and black currant and blackberry fruit and tasting of brawny but cool black fruit, coffee and exotic spices. It shows off plenty of musculature, density and meatiness, but also a coolness and structure that makes it seem more ropey than rounded. Indeed, it is a taut package of Mountain Cabernet that delivers a certain feel of classicism that really works for me. I guessed the vintage correctly and had this down as my #3 wine of the night.
At this point, there was a break to eat some delightful Korean food cooked by Tom. There were 2 sakes brought along, as well, though I did not make note of the names, nor take any tasting notes.
Flight Four—‘Grab Bag with a Cheapie’:
2007 Substance Merlot Washington. This wine smells of dirty tire rubber, sweet blueberry powder and mocha paste. I was guessing cheap California Syrah. In the mouth, it hits you with a huge wallop of spiced blueberry fruit on the entry and it stays warm and spicy throughout, migrating to more of a plum character. It tastes pleasant, but it feels a bit sweet and simple at times and comes across as somewhat blowsy and unstructured. I think most of us correctly identified this as the “cheapie”.
2005 Clos de Los Siete Clos de Los Siete Mendoza. I think at some point along the way, it became obvious that nearly all of the wines in the line-up were domestic. However, this wine stood out immediately as NOT domestic, and in fact I guessed it to be French. It is salty and mineral-tinged on the nose, with charcoal, smoke, creosote and black fruit all found within a taut package. In the mouth, it is tightly-coiled, lithe and smooth-textured all at the same time. It is medium-bodied and features late tannins clamping down on the finish. Flavors of Belgian chocolate, leafy black currant and black beans are supported by fine wood, nice spices and a seemingly Old World sort of balance and restraint. When it was revealed, I was shocked (and maybe dismayed) to see that this is a wine I have tried several vintages of in the past and always pooh-poohed as being boring and somewhat flat. Several others really disliked this wine (Jud called it “nasty” and Peter called it “generic crapola”), and I was quite surprised to find myself in the opposite camp. Oh well, live and learn! 50% Malbec, 30% Merlot, 10% Cabernet Sauvignon and 10% Syrah.
2003 Pride Mountain Vineyards Cabernet Sauvignon Napa Valley. This wine is very interesting on the nose, with earthen notes of dirt, fern, worn leather, jalapeno pepper and aloe supporting a deeper well of chocolate brownie and sweet, very ripe boysenberry fruit aromas. In the mouth, this is just totally caressing in texture. It wraps your tongue in its rich, velvety character and pulls you in. The fruit is rather sweet, but very luscious and deep, supported by full-throttle cashmere tannins. Yes, there are times when the mind rebels against the syrupy sweetness, but the fuzzy warmth and enveloping succulence just shuts that rational thinking part of the brain down for the most part. This is a wine of pleasure, made to be drunk on its own (as in this setting). I was its willing victim and named it my #4 wine of the night.
2005 Sojourn Cabernet Sauvignon Sonoma Valley. This Cabernet, in comparison, is a whole lot fresher all around. The nose is fresh and cool, featuring aromas of blueberry and cool earth. It is smooth and luscious on the tongue, but youthful and showing plenty of tensile structure to go with some fudgy tannins and lithe acidity. It flows directly and in a tight sphere, with fine balance and easy weight. The finish is level and balanced, with a crisp, welcoming character. My #5 wine of the night, and although I was a fan of the Pride Mountain on this day, there is no question that if I were asked to serve a Cabernet with a meal, I would pick this Sojourn over that Pride without hesitation.
Flight Five—‘Not for the Timid’:
1998 Turley Petite Sirah Hayne Vineyard Napa Valley. First off, some of the earlier flights definitely had wines I would also label as “not for the timid”, but alas this flight does indeed manage to take it up a notch (though not in a good way, in my opinion). The nose of this PS is full of blueberry fruit and creosote. In the mouth, it has a decidedly sweet entry, an enormously goopy but open-knit mid-palate and a ferociously tannic finish. It needs time to somehow balance that roller-coaster ride out, though it is hard to see how that can be accomplished. I know a lot of people were singing the praises of this wine, but I cannot say that I was among them.
2004 Turley Petite Sirah Hayne Vineyard Napa Valley. This wine is frighteningly purple in color, and indeed it also smells extraordinarily young and primary—with aromas of boisterous and sweet mixed wild berries the predominant theme. The wine then proceeds to coat every square inch and every crevice of the mouth with huge spicy tannins and oak, as well as masses of spiced berry fruit that just keeps on pumping even as your tongue cries out for mercy. I guess I have to label myself as the “timid” on this one, as it is indeed too much for me.
2005 Alban Vineyards Syrah Reva Alban Estate Vineyard Edna Valley. The last wine of the official line-up is unlike anything that has come before it. It smells totally animalistic (in a good way), with aromas of bacon fat, beef jerky, roast beef jus, cracked black pepper, hard plastic luggage and dark forest earth dominating the blackberry fruit that manages to sneak in from time to time. It is simply a refreshingly unique bouquet that invites the taster to sip. I wish it had followed through on the palate, though, which is instead thick and rich like a milkshake in the mouth. It is intensely dense, lush and creamy—full of mocha paste and blue and purple fruits. It has abundant body and huge presence, but clearly needs a lot of time.
Post-game wines:
2003 Domaine le Murmurium Côtes du Ventoux Opera. When all was said and done, Zach was still down in the basement looking for more wine. This was the first one I tried from the after-hours offerings. It gives up fresh and lively aromas of crushed red berries, red licorice and forest greens. It is open and overt on the palate, with tangy red licorice and raspberry flavors framed by pretty big tannins. It is quite tasty now and seems to have the stuffing for some considerable aging.
1999 Vérité La Muse Sonoma County. I have to admit that I knew nothing about this producer when I spotted this bottle sitting out meekly on a far corner of the counter, and indeed nobody seemed to be talking about it at all. So, I poured myself a glass without much in the way of expectations. But, wow, this is really good! A huge thanks to Zach for mildly slipping this beauty in at the last minute, as now I want to learn more about this producer. In any event, it has an extremely appealing bouquet of black currant, Fuji apple, smoke, plum, BBQ sauce, green pepper, tomato leaf, leather and volcanic rock. It tastes a bit ashy on the entry, but quickly fleshes out to reveal a tasty blend of classy red and black currant fruit and a bit of fine melted chocolate flavors. There is simply great balance to the wine in all phases of the game, with a smooth, impeccable texture, pure flavors and outstanding length carrying it along effortlessly. What a nice wine, and my #2 wine of the night. 89% Merlot and 11% Cabernet Sauvignon.
-Michael
