WineLovers Discussion Group

2003 Pedestal, Washington State

There is a series of wines being produced in Washington state wherein each gets some fancy consulting winemaker's help and its own proprietary name. Michel Rolland's contribution is the 2003 Pedestal, a merlot made, I'm told, in a Pomerol style.

I plunked down $55 and opened a bottle just to see whuzzup.

Interesting wine. All the usual Parker compliments apply, like unctuous and hedonistic. It is also lavishly oaked and heavy, full of blue fruit and vanilla ice cream flavors. Decantered, it sat unstopped on our counter for three days begging for attention it never really got. Bob, who adores vanilla ice cream, liked it more than I did but not enough to go fill a glass--it was just so devilishly big it didn't offer any sanctuary: no refreshment, no sit-back-and-go-ahhhhh moments. And of course, it's still a baby. So though it definitely owns much of the conventional signs of high quality, it's not a wine I can appreciate now and it might never be. [/list]

Jenise, I've been meaning to ask you about the general reactions to this unusual approach to wine making. I haven't seen much in the press about the entire lineup of wines, just a few reviews of specific wines. And, of course, the general website info: http://www.longshadows.com/aboutlsv.aspx

What has the local reaction been in Washington?

Regards, Bob

I was not that enamored as well. My note:

2003 Pedestal (Long Shadows), Merlot, Columbia Valley, Washington, $55, 553 cases. Michel Rolland had his hand in the making of this wine, along with Allen Shoup. If you like the intense, full extract, blow-your-hair-back style of wine, this is for you. Very intense, rich flavors of blueberries, black cherries, dark chocolate, and cedary spice are augmented by generous but rounded tannins; 86/85.

Parker gave it a 94 rating! Spec gave it a 92! Nonsense. It seems some people have lost perspective. I'm glad to see some verification from you -- I took a little behind-the-scenes heat for my score.

I got a chance to taste this at a wine-shop tasting in March.

It was in a word, dissapointing. Low acidity, and no flavor definition. Fat, flabby fruit, overloaded with oak and alcohol. Tasted twice over the evening, no real development in an hour of time. Boring.

Although this is very young wine, and in some ways badly in need of a little bottle age, I don't believe it has the backbone to age gracefully. Avoid.

Dave

You guys there in Washington should pop over to BC and grab a bottle of the Cedar Creek Merlot, the `03. I am about to post a WTN as it is merlot month. While here grab a TV and watch Edmonton win the Stanley Cup on monday in Carolina!!!

Stanley Cup

Does it have Merlot in it?

Good one Randy!! You cannot believe the racket in town right now, cannot imagine what monday will be like if we win this one. We have two sports bars in our operation, both were packed at 5pm. No merlot, they are all drinking Bud!!!!!

Bud????!!! At least drink some beer....

Bob, good question about the local take on these wines. And my answer is: I'm really not sure. I know one other person who has bought some of each release (I have four), but in general most people I talk to aren't even aware these wines exist. And the fact that the bottlings don't carry a common name seems to prevent them from forming a marketplace identity--there's no immediate recognition factor upon encountering one that it's related to the others. You kind of have to know what it is to know what it is.

Randy and Dave: we're of the same mind on the Pedestal. But one of my wine friends up here went ga-ga over it, and was, as he put it, "buying every bottle I can get my hands on". That's why I opened the bottle I did, to find out what Hal had found so interesting.

But one of my wine friends up here went ga-ga over it

After seeing the Parker score, or did they actually try it and get a rush?

The latter. Can afford whatever he likes, and he and his lovely wife love lush, big fruit: big California cabs, Quintarelli amarones, that kind of thing.