Ascona Vineyard, Santa Cruz Mountains

Wine Spectator magazine recently published a series of reports on the 2011 vintage. Their report on California covers Napa, Sonoma and Paso Robles, but omits the area in between. So here is a provisional report on the 2011 vintage for the Santa Cruz Mountains and Santa Clara Valley.

Let's start by getting some boring science stuff out of the way.
Last winter saw one of the strongest La Niña events ever recorded. When this occurs the surface temperature of equatorial waters cools by several degrees, which in turn alters the path of the jet stream that crosses the USA. The effect usually fades in spring, but in 2011 it remained strong much later than usual. The jet stream remained farther south and blew more strongly. The effects were felt across the country, with many states experiencing near record highs or lows of temperature and rainfall.

In California the effect resulted in a spring that was colder, wetter and later than usual. The cold weather delayed budbreak, while rains during bloom affected 'set' - the formation of the grape cluster as flowers turn into berries. Yields were affected across the state, with many regions reporting 20% to 30% below normal, but the Santa Cruz Mountains vineyards were impacted more severely, particularly at higher elevations. Growers are typically reporting yields 40% to 60% below normal, with some vineyards being written off entirely.

Summer was long and cool without unexpected heat spikes; this increased risk of mildew - growers had to be diligent about spraying. Mary Lindsay of Muns Vineyard reported adding potassium to sprays to help boost vine health and encourage better and more even ripening throughout the vineyard. The cool weather did little to help the already late running harvest, and some light October rains brought an additional threat of botrytis. Paul Romero of Stefania Wine called it "a tough, unhappy year - 2010's work with 2008's yields ... larger berries than 2008 but close in quality [and] without the tannin issues".

On the positive side, the long, cool season and low yields rewarded those who had looked after their vines with crops of high quality fruit. Many growers report good balance of acids, fruit intensity and tannic structure, with full ripeness at lower sugar levels. Marty Mathis of Kathryn Kennedy Vineyards described their Estate Cabernet harvest numbers as "perfect as I have ever seen in my 30 vintages".
The expectation is for some elegant, balanced wines at lower alcohol levels. Bradley Brown of Big Basin vineyards said "Quality appears to be remarkable and for those who picked at the right time and maintained healthy vineyards, this could be one of the best vintages in a long time."

References:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/feature/ENSO-feature.shtml
http://www.worldweatherpost.com/2011/06/14/u-s-had-most-extreme-spring-on-record-for-precipitation/#.TsfaBXKwXAg

Share |

Ross Bott runs a tasting group that meets twice a week, on Mondays and Thursdays. The theme for this tasting was Ridge Zinfandels. There were two different wines from four vintages; 1978, 1983, 1985 and 1990. As usual the wines were poured blind, though we had a list of the wines beforehand. The wines were not decanted prior to serving.
The colours of the wines were all remarkably consistent; despite each one being at least 20-30 years old they still tended more towards garnet than brick.

A (1985 Geyserville) - Ranked 3rd overall, no first place votes
The nose was initially musty, though this faded with time. Notes of leather, with raspberry becoming increasingly evident as the mustiness faded. Nice raspberry fruit, with the tannin and acidity well balanced, and a dry finish. Was fading a little by the end.

B (1985 Howell Mountain) - Ranked 4th overall, though it did receive 2 first place votes.
Rich, brambly nose with a herbal note Bright red fruit - raspberry and cranberry, with an earthy 'old world' finish. Held up well

C (1978 York Creek)- Ranked 2nd overall, with 1 first place vote.
Nose showed matchsticks, mushrooms and leather. Mature with flavours of black fruit, coffee, cola and strawberry. Some leather, and a long finish.

D (1990 Geyserville) - Ranked 7th overall.
The nose wasn't great (I wrote 'stinky') - earthy and leathery. There was some debate as to whether it was corked, but it was certainly flawed in some way. Some sweet, ripe, pruney fruit and what I took for brett on the finish

E (1990 Lytton Springs) - Wine of the night; only 4 tasters did not rate it #1 which is almost unheard of at an event like this.
Ripe fruit on the nose, with floral notes. Palate shows loads of rich, sweet fruit - blackcurrant and raspberry - and a long finish. An awesome wine; easily 95+ points.

The last three wines were all a bit disappointing. Unsurprisingly 2 of the 3 were from the weakest vintage: 1983.

F (1978 Langtry Road) Rated 6th overall, despite getting one first place vote.
If I hadn't known that all these wines were Zinfandels I'd have called this as a Petite Sirah. It does in fact contain 30% Petite Sirah as well as 10% Carignane; I think labelling rules were more flexible back then. 
It had the darkest colour of all the wines; nose showed some barnyard and earth. There was some black fruit but this was dominated by some monster tannins. Somewhat unyielding initially, though it did soften a little as time went on.

G (1983 Park-Muscatine, Howell Mountain) - Rated 8th 
The nose was light, with floral, berry and smoky notes. On the palate there was some raspberry and bramble, but it was light, tart and tannic.

H (1983 Geyserville)
The earthy nose showed a 'porty' note. As with the previous wine (from the same vintage) it was light with some brambly fruit. Seemed a bit oxidized, though it still had some tannins left.

Afterwards we were treated to a delicious 1978 Dusi Late Harvest, with 10% residual sugar and 14.2% alcohol.
Colour of amber/tea. Great mature nose with raspberry and port notes. Great flavours of raspberry, coffee, cocoa, fig and dark chocolate backed by nice acidity. 94 points

Share |

I read a post by my friend Jo Diaz, discussing the problems of how we as wine consumers can go about selling a bottle of wine that's in our possession. In her article Jo suggested two well known auction houses. I proceeded to write a detailed comment on her blog, which the capricious software elected simultaneously to reject and delete. Rather than spend the time typing it all in again there I thought I'd answer here instead.

As a private individual you are faced with two distinct problems: firstly, that it's typically illegal to sell wine that you own without a licence* and secondly that it's not simply illegal to ship wine, it is in fact one of only two ways that you as an individual can violate the US Constitution. The 21st amendment - possibly the most tersely worded piece of legislation since the ten commandments - section 2 states: The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.. Incidentally, if you're curious, the only other way that you can violate the constitution is to enslave someone. Of course if you get your slave to deliver the wine then by the legal principle of duos nefas correctum you're probably okay. But I digress.

The simplest, legal way to sell your wine is therefore to contact a local wine retailer who specialises** in such things. In the Bay Area, one such retailer is K&L Wines; they have an entire department dedicated to purchasing private collections. They typically prefer to buy entire cellars rather than individual bottles, so this may not be ideal for someone seeking to sell off a few extra bottles. You will also need to demonstrate provenance; that the wine has been stored appropriately and how you acquired it.

The other legal way its to use a licenced wine auction house. There are several around, but the best known among collectors is probably WineBid. You will need to ship or deliver the wine to them to be appraised; since they are licenced they will provide appropriate paperwork which means that it's they who are legally responsible for shipping (although you are the one who pays). Since it's an auction you can't negotiate a price up front, though you can specify a reserve. However if the wine fails to sell due to too high a reserve there may be a fee to pay. You will also pay a commission of around 15% to 25% of the "hammer price" when the lot is sold. As with retailers, many auction houses don't like to deal in small lots, so there may be a minimum amount that they will accept. It may also takes some weeks before you receive the money for your sale.

There is a second type of auction house which is unlicenced; the best known is WineCommune. This operates in a similar manner to sites like eBay; they simply connect buyers and sellers; they take no responsibility for the legality of the transaction. The benefit is greatly reduced commission fees (around 3% to 5%), but the trade-off is that there's very little comeback. Since selling without a licence is illegal you're breaking the law and there have been instances where the authorities have fined sellers, though these have apparently been people using the service extensively rather than casually.

The last option is a private sale on an online wine forum. There are many discussion forums (or fora, depending on your preferred level of pedantry) which include a commerce or trading area. The benefit of these boards is that you're likely to agree a price close to the real value of the wine without paying commission charges. However it's a good idea to establish yourself as a member of the board before offering wines for sale; the boards can be suspicious of (and merciless to) brand new users posting lists of wines for sale.

If you choose to use either of these latter approaches you hit the second snag: it's illegal to ship the wine without a shipping licence once you've sold it. Carriers won't even accept a shipment if they believe it contains alcohol. So unless you have a contact with a shipping licence you need to be creative. A common approach is to label the package as containing some other liquid, such as Olive Oil; another way is to disguise it using boxed previously used for some other purpose. Either way, rather than taking the package to a carrier's office it's generally considered safer to leave it to be picked up, especially if you work for a large company that has a daily collection. Even so, there have been instances where packages have been intercepted and destroyed, so be aware, particularly when shipping to states with more draconian rules.

So there you have it. You can either pay huge fees, accept a fraction of the wine's value or become a criminal.

* I'm British. That's how it's spelled. And wile we are on the subject, there's a U in Colour.
** See previous. It should be a S not a Z***
*** Which is pronounced "Zed" like "bed"

Share |

Recently I was invited up to Ridge's Lytton Springs facility for their quarterly bloggers' tasting. Although the post count may have slowed to the point where I barely qualify as a blogger any more I wasn't going to let that stop me from going - neither was the weather, which was starting to suggest that summer was almost over and done with.

Lytton Springs is just off the 101 in Dry Creek Valley - my favourite Zinfandel region overall. The site was originally a Victorian spa and hotel, with the first vineyards being planted from 1901 to 1910. Around 15 additional acres were planted in the 1950s. Ridge has made wine from the vineyard for 40 years and has owned it since 1991. The old vines are head pruned and are a field blend of mostly Zinfandel with small quantities of Petite Sirah, Grenache, Carignane, Alicante Boushet, Mataro (Mourvedre) and others. We tasted through a vertical of the Lytton Springs Zinfandel blend on our visit last year; this tasting would focus on the Rhone varieties. In recent years several blocks of Syrah have been planted to the West, together with some Viognier and Grenache. The latter are typically blended or cofermented with the Syrah, though occasionally they are bottled on their own. The wines are typically only available to members of the ATP list or at the tasting rooms.

Before the tasting Chris took us on a tour of the facility. The recently constructed winery and tasting room is very impressive and eco-friendly; the wooden frame is insulated with blocks made from local straw and clay; and the facility is almost entirely solar powered. The last time we visited the tasting was held on the crush pad, but with harvest in full swing we we assembled in the barrel room. We began the tasting with two Grenache blends.

2002 Grenache
78% Grenache, 13% Petite Sirah, 9% Zinfandel
This wine is a field blend, sourced from some century-old blocks that contain a high proportion of Grenache, plus some younger vines planted in 1991
The nose shows musty caramel and blueberry. There's nice black fruit up front; good rich concentration and plenty of structure. Grenache is typically drunk young since they have a tendency to age fairly rapidly, but this still seems very youthful; perhaps due to the age of the vines and the blended components, I'd say it still needs another 3 - 5 years. 92+

2003 Grenache/Syrah
50% Grenache, 50% Syrah
A softer, fruity nose than the Grenache with more floral character. Unfortunately it shows rather a lot of oak. There's nice black fruit but it's somewhat overshadowed, particularly on the finish. 89

Richard Jennings had brought a mystery wine, and Chris presented it now, blind. He asked us to guess the grape and the vintage. Light in colour, with a meaty, gamey nose suggesting bacon or sausage. On the palate there was tart cranberry, with light tannins and a medium finish. I accidentally caught a glimpse of what looked like a zero on the cork, so guessed 1990. For variety I thought it seemed like an Italian; I don't know what Italian varietals Ridge has made, but we've tasted Sangiovese in the past from that era, so that as my guess. Close, but not good enough; it was in fact a 1990 Rancho Pequeño Barbera.

We then tried several vintages of Syrah in pairs. The newer wines are designated Lytton West, the older ones Lytton Estate; the vines are the same, it's purely a branding thing.

2003 Lytton West Syrah
91% Syrah, 9% Viognier
The nose shows ripe black fruit and some white flowers from the viognier. On the palate there's good rich fruit balanced by some nice tannins. A lot of oak shows on the finish. 90+

2005 Lytton West Syrah
91% Syrah, 6% Viognier
Bright floral nose with notes of pepper. Again there's ripe fruit - lots of blueberry and bramble with some liquorice and a floral note, leading to a long finish. 93+

2002 Lytton Estate Syrah II
76% Syrah 22% Grenache 2% Viognier
In 2002 there were two lots of Syrah; both were blended with Grenache but neither lot really worked. As an experiment one lot got a small amount of  Carignane added,the other got a similar amount of Viognier. Those small additions made all the difference, and both wines were released.
Nose is smoky and meaty, with floral notes. There's plenty of black fruit backed by fine tannins and soft acidity. A medium length finish with a note of white flowers. Very tasty. 92


2001 Lytton Estate Syrah
99% Syrah cofermented with 1% Viognier.
A really gamey, salami, smoky note. The black fruit really pops; plum, currant and berry notes, some liquorice and black pepper. There's a good smooth finish; the tannins are mostly resolved. It's drinking great right now. 93


2000 Lytton Estate Syrah
99% Syrah cofermented with 1% Viognier.
Nose is very faint in comparison with the 2001. This was the first wine that is starting to show some nice secondary characteristics; black fruits with leather and a touch of old-world rusticity. Good finish. 94
 
1999 Lytton Estate Syrah
Smoky, musty nose Assertive fruit and bright acid; seems to have more acidity than previous vintages. Good fine grained tannins. A hint of leather, not as much as in the 2000. 94

1997 Lytton Estate Syrah
Talk about saving the best until last. The nose was smoky, with some chinese 5 spice, The nose is constantly evolving; come back 5 minutes later and notice something new. Rich, unctuous fruit, endlessly layered. Soft and velvety; a delight. 95
A second bottle showed slight variation; a slightly rustic, barnyard note. 94


A great tasting; as you can see, the wines just seemed to get better and better. Huge thanks to Chris and everyone at Ridge for thsi opportunity, and to Richard for the Barbera. Everyone knows that Ridge make great Zinfandels, but the Syrahs and other wines from the ATP series can be just as good, if not better. As I noted at the start these wines are usually only available at the tasting rooms, but are well worth seeking out.

Share |

In 1977 Marilyn Clark and John Otterman bought a 10 acre property off Hecker Pass Road. They planted 7 acres of Chardonnay and named it Sarah's Vineyard. The first Estate vintage was made in 1983. The winery quickly established a reputation for wines of richness and depth with good aging potential. The winery stood apart from its neighbours, at a time when most of Santa Clara valley was producing cheap 'jug' wine. No expense was spared; even the labels were reportedly printed on stock normally reserved for wedding invitations, printed by a company that produced banknotes using a custom die made by an engraver from Smith & Wesson. However as time went on the price increased drastically while the quality became more variable. By the late 1990s the Estate Chardonnay cost $45 or more a bottle, but was only getting 80 points when reviewed by Wine Spectator.

In 2001 the winery was purchased by Tim Slater, who set about revitalising both the vines and the brand. The estate vineyards were replanted or retrellised, the buildings were renovated and extended, and a stack of brand new high-tech equipment was installed including a neat compact bottling line and a small but sophisticated laboratory. The winery currently produces Chardonnay and Pinot Noir from their estate vineyards and the Santa Cruz Mountains. They also source a range of Rhone varieties from the nearby Besson Vineyard, itself notable for providing Grenache to Bonny Doon's Cigare Volant for over 20 vintages.

The good news is that the 2007 Sarah's Vineyard Estate Chardonnay is far more reasonably priced than it would have been 10 years ago - $30 at the winery, but I've seen it as low as $20 at retail. It shows lots of toasty oak on the nose; On the palate there's apricot, lemon, cream and vanilla, with a rich, almost oily mouthfeel. The oak is very prominent on the finish. Despite its youth this bottle was already starting to show some mature notes; given the low acidity I wouldn't plan on holding it for more than another year. 88

Share |

The Santa Cruz Mountains Winegrowers Association runs an annual Commercial Wine Competition, open to all of its members. This year's competition was held last Monday at Ma Maison restaurant in Aptos, and I was  invited to be a judge. The judging panel is made up of both trade professionals - restauranteurs, sommeliers, wine buyers etc., and consumers.

Judging Table. 8 judges each tasting a different set of wines.

I arrived in Aptos at 9:30 and was greeted by the chilly grey morning skies that help to make the western side of the mountain such a great place to grow Pinot Noir. I signed in at the main desk and was assigned Flight #5 - Pinot Noirs. When everyone had arrived we were led into the restaurant and told to sit at any table, in front of our particular number.

Each table had 8 judges, with every judge tasting a different flight. The purpose of this is so that you can talk to your fellow judges without worrying about affecting the results. The wines were laid out on the table in front of us, with each glass labelled only with a 4 digit code number. We were also given a sample of a white wine (a rather pleasant New Zealand Sauvignon Blanc at a guess) as an introduction.

The organisers gave some basic instructions on evaluating the wine. We were to score on the 100 point scale, with 90+ indicating a gold medal, 85-89 indicating silver and 80-85 indicating bronze. We were advised that around 20-25% of wines typically fall into the Gold category and around half fall into the Silver category. Very few get no medal at all. This seemed reasonable; in my personal scoring system anything below 85 isn't worth buying, anything below 80 is not worth drinking. On this scale 70-79 is supposed to indicate an 'average' wine, so I take that to indicate the mass of sub-$5 supermarket plonk.

As with most blind tastings the wines were poured in the same order for everyone. I typically go through the wines in order and smell them, to get a first impression. I then taste them in an order based on those impressions; if a wine seems odd or unbalanced I'll leave it until last. After tasting them all I'll go through them again to confirm my decisions.

The first flight. Each wine is identified by a 4 digit code number

The first flight was fairly straightforward. There were 7 wines, 2 of which I gave Gold scores to. They turned out to be 2008 Clos LaChance Santa Cruz Mountains and 2008 Sonnet Muns Vineyard. I gave good marks to the 2008 Domenico Santa Cruz Mountains and 2008 Black Ridge Estate.

The second flight had one wine that I found particularly unusual. It had almost overpowering notes of white pepper and spice. After trying it a couple of times I decided that it worked and awarded it a Gold - it turned out to be the 2008 Beauregard Santa Cruz Mountains. Another Gold went to the 2008 Santa Cruz Mountains Vineyard Branciforte Creek, and an honourable mention to the 2008 Ahlgren Veranda Vineyard.

The final flight was unusual in that the first and last wines seemed very strange; I left them until the end and declared them both to be not medal worthy. My favourite turned out to be the 2008 Woodside Estate, with 2008 Muccigrosso and 2009 Soquel Estate also scraping Golds.

We then had a pause while the administrators tallied up the scores to determine the top 10 wines. While we were waiting there were some snacks including some delicious rillettes on mini croissants.

Finally the top 10 wines were revealed. We were told the variety in each case, and they were presented in order of lightest to heaviest, so I sampled them in that order. I was suprised to see that the winning Pinot Noir was not on my tasting list. It turned out that there were so many entrants that a fourth flight of Pinots had been given to a different set of judges, who had also been tasting the 'mixed' reds and blends. Frankly I wasn't overly impressed by their choice; there seemed to be a lot of sulphur evident, with the nose showing struck match and the fruit muted.

One of the judges analysing a wine.

Picking a favourite from 10 completely diverse wines is tough; ranking them in order is tougher still. Of the reds I particularly liked the Cabernet Sauvignon which was revealed to be the 2007 Woodside Estate; they also were awarded the best Zinfandel. I correctly guessed that the Petite Sirah was from Sones, though I thought it was probably from French Camp. The Soquel Chardonnay was very good and well balanced, and the dessert wine - a 2004 Angelica from Picchetti - was in a class of its own in more ways than one.

But in the end the top award went to Martin Ranch for their delicious 2009 Thérèse Vineyards Malbec. What's even more impressive is that Martin Ranch also scooped the top honour last year for their 2007 Lester Family Vineyard Syrah. Congratulations to Dan and Thérèse Martin!

Top 10 wines (Santa Cruz Mountains AVA unless noted)
2009 Martin Ranch Thérèse Vineyards Malbec Santa Clara Valley, Dos Ninas Vineyard
2010 Soquel Chardonnay, Ben Lomond Mountain, Meyley Vineyard
2009 Black Ridge Viognier
2007 Byington Pinot Noir Block 4
2008 Martin Ranch JD Hurley Merlot, Santa Clara Valley
2008 Sones Petite Sirah, Lodi
2008 Bargetto Syrah, Nelson Vineyard
2007 Woodside Cabernet Estate
2007 Woodside Zinfandel Estate
2004 Picchetti Angelica of Chardonnay

Share |

Last weekend Paul and Stef of Stefania Wine asked for volunteers to help out at the Chaine d'Or vineyard in Woodside, so on a glorious Sunday morning I drove up to lend a hand. Chaine D'or is located close to the junction of 84 and 35 (Skyline). It's a pretty 2 acre vineyard on a south facing slope, planted in 1987. The upper and lower blocks are Chardonnay, with a block of Cabernet in between. It is laid out in rows running north-south at the top, gradually curving to almost east-west in the lower part. The vineyard uses the Vertical Shoot Position trellising system which originated in France and is now common practice, particularly up in Napa and Sonoma, but at the time its use in California was considered novel. In Chaine d'Or there is a single lower wire around 3' off the ground to which the vine's cordons are trained. Above it are two pairs of catch wires which are fixed (in some vineyards they can be raised and lowered, but not here) and at the top, around 7' up there's a single wire that the vine's tendrils can latch on to.
The rootstock is unknown; it was whatever the nursery had in at the time. Paul's guess was St. George since that was popular then, though the leaves don't seem to match.

View of Chaine d'Or vineyard looking south. Morning fog burning off the mountains.

I arrived a little after 9AM. The crew had already started; some had been there since early morning. We were tucking the vine shoots under the catch wires as well as removing suckers and shoots without any clusters. (The grapes are fed by the leaves further down the shoot; any shoots without fruit simply use up nutrients and water.)
As you can see by the first picture, left untouched the vines will grow in all directions and their tendrils will wrap around those of vines in the next row, making passage difficult. This also provides an environment where powdery mildew can proliferate. Once tucking is complete the vines can be treated by spraying with organic sulphur.

Finished rows of vines. Workers and tractors can move easily between the rows.

Suckers are shoots emanating from the base of the plant.
In this case the sucker is coming from below the graft,
so the leaves are those of the original rootstock (left).
Compare size and shape that of the grafted Chardonnay.

Vineyard work is, like most forms of farming, pretty laborious. The essential tools are sunscreen and water; a hat is advisable and pruning shears come in handy.

The job was straightforward; feed the flexible shoots under the two sets of catch wires and point them at the upper wire. The shoots are flexible and rarely break by accident, unlike the brittle stems of many garden plants like tomatoes. It all seems very simple and relaxing; just you, the vines, a nice warm day and the constant scream of motorcycles tearing up and down Skyline; it sounded more like Laguna Seca than sleepy Woodside. The work doesn't seem particularly strenuous, but I certainly noticed the effects in my back and shoulders later that evening!

The vines were on the whole looking healthy; most of them are over 20 years old and a few are showing signs of common diseases, such as shoots with red, shriveled leaves.

Cabernet Sauvignon is a later maturing grape,
so it was largely unaffected by the weather;
the clusters looked to be in much better shape.

Sadly the Chardonnay crop appeared to be exceptionally small; it's doubtful that there will be enough fruit for a commercial release.

It may surprise some of  you to know that this year's crop is not determined by the weather at the time of flowering (though obviously that can have an effect) but by the weather the previous spring. That's when the buds which would produce this year's crop developed. Spring 2010 was particularly cold, with lots of late frost, and it's likely that Chardonnay yields across the state will be significantly lower in 2011.

We called a halt at around 2PM after a good 4 hours of work. We still hadn't quite finished; there were a few rows left, but Paul's day crew would take care of them the following morning.

Overall it was an enjoyable way to spend a summer morning, but for a deskbound computer geek like me it's hard to imagine doing this on a daily basis. The next time you look at a neatly manicured vineyard remember that it doesn't get that way by itself; spare a thought for the humble labourers, and raise a glass to them.

Share |

Summer has finally arrived and last Friday was a gorgeous day for a drive up Black Mountain for another of Ridge's regular wine bloggers' tasting. This event was held in the newly opened Black Mountain Suite - a brand new conference area located above the existing tasting room. The room is accessible via the old winery building, which now boasts fine new reproductions of some old photographs featuring the Ridge founders, a youthful Paul Draper and even Oseo Perrone, who first planted grapes on the mountain top over 100 years ago.

To celebrate the opening of the new suite we were being given the opportunity to taste through the latest library releases of Monte Bello. Ridge maintains a significant stock of older vintages and regularly tastes them to follow their progress. The wines were to be poured blind; our task was simply to put them in chronological order. Sounds easy enough, right?

As we settled down and prepared ourselves we were offered a sample of the as-yet-unreleased 2008 Monte Bello Chardonnay. Nose of green apple, lemon and wet stone; flavours of tart apricot and lemon with fresh grassy notes and some vanilla; the oak was not obtrusive despite it's youth. 92

We then began to taste through 11 vintages of Monte Bello. The wines were labelled A through K and were poured in pairs, which meant that you couldn't go back and compare against a wine from a previous pairing. This made the task harder still. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

A My first impression of this was that the colour suggested a young wine. Unfortunately that can be deceptive with Monte Bello. It seemed lighter than the accompanying wine B. The nose seemed ripe and fruity nose, with lots of black fruit, some mint and eucalyptus; the palate had plenty of tannin and blackcurrant, but overall it seemed a little lean and tart; a bit closed. Overall I think it was my least favourite and I guessed that it was from a 'lesser' vintage, such as 2004, 2000 or even 1998. 91

The colour of B was noticeably darker than A; a deep garnet. The nose was very rich and rustic; a much thicker mouthfeel, with stacks of tannins, less evident fruit and lots of earth, though less acidity. A big and meaty wine. I guessed it to be significantly older than A; probably mid 1990s. 92+

C seemed darker still than B. Plenty of that eucalyptus and mint; rich and balanced. Lots of bramble, blackcurrant and black cherry flavours. The tannins are much smoother. I could drink this all day. It still had plenty of life, but I doubted I'd want to keep it much longer. Mid 1980s? 95

D was the first wine that really showed significant age. The colour was a deep brownish red, and despite having been double-decanted there was still some sediment. It smelled old - lots of leather and cigar box notes. In the mouth there was still some fruit but loads of secondary characteristics. The tannin was mostly gone. It was certainly the oldest so far; I guessed it would probably be the oldest overall. It didn't improve in the glass beyond the first delicious taste; this was a fine example of a mature Monte Bello. Certainly 1970s, maybe even older. 96



E was the first controversial wine. The color was a dark red, with some bricking around the rim. However the nose was odd; almost cheesy - Fred to my right called it soy. Certainly it had some savoury notes; it tasted fine and the odd note blew off somewhat with time. 92

Chris took note of the various comments on the nose and reappeared with a second example of the same vintage. The colour of this bottle seemed slightly redder; the odd note wasn't present and overall it showed significantly more fruit. It was alittle cold to start with and improved as it went on. I began to wonder if this was the much-maligned 1986, though it didn't seem quite that old. Early 90s? 94+

F was another great mature example though it didn't seem as old as D. There was a nice red-brown colour and a fascinating nose of rich leather and dried fruit.
I guessed it was younger than D but not by much. Probably mid 1970s. 96

G was another dark one, again showing plenty of sediment despite the decanting. The nose didn't seem to be giving that much away; some smoke and earth. On the palate there was huge fruit; lots of bramble and blackcurrant. The tannins are chewy, so it's clearly a younger wine that will improve with age. Mid to late 1990s? 95+

H Looked older than G. It was very earthy, both on the nose and the palate. I took a wild stab and guessed early 1990s. 94

I think of all the wines I surprised me the most. There seemed to be some browning on the meniscus; Lots of coffee and chocolate and stacks of delicious fruit. I jokingly suggested the 2005; it seemed a big wine from a ripe year so I guessed 1990. Wes thought it seemed older. 95+

I think everyone instantly recognised J as a barrel sample of the 2010, if only by the bright purple colour. This has got better each time I've tried it; there's huge primary fruit and immense structure - it's likely to be a particularly long lived vintage. Some of the tasters went so far as to declare it their favourite. 95+

Finally K was clearly a very recent release; I couldn't be certain which but the youngest wine poured (after the barrel sample). At this point we were wrapping up and I failed to take detailed notes. 93+

So after much umming and ahhing I finally decided on the ordering J K A G I B H C E F D. Boy was I wrong; the only ones I correctly spotted were the oldest and the newest. The actual ordering was J K B C A E G H I F D. I only managed to put 4 out of 11 in their correct positions. I was only slightly encouraged by the fact that the best score anyone managed was 7 out of 11!


D 1977 ($400) - Perhaps it should have been easier to spot, given that I only tasted it a month ago. In comparison to the rest it seemed even older, though still holding its own.
F 1978 ($475) - I got this too. 1978 was a very good year, so it's unsurprising that it seemed noticeably younger than D
I 1981 ($185) - I was astonished by this. I'd have said it was a decade younger. I don't recall having tasted anything from 1981; the advice I've been given in the past was that 81-83 was a run of three weaker vintages. Excellent value.
H 1985 ($300) - This one fooled me by a decade as well. I had it as early 1990s.
G 1990 ($250) - Getting a bit closer; I had it as late 1990s
E 1994 ($250) - I went for early 1990s. I think that qualifies.
A 1995 ($300) - I was wrong about the lesser vintage, but I'll stand by the 'closed' comment. I think this needs more time.
C 1999 ($225) - Chris was amused by my comment that I could drink this all day, since the genesis of these tastings can perhaps be traced to comments that Wes and I made on the same wine a couple of years ago - see my original post and the notes from the follow up tasting. I think the 1999 is showing rather well right now and would again question whether it's one to hang on to in the long term.
B 2000 ($225) - Slightly younger than I thought. Surprisingly big for what's generally considered a weak vintage.
K 2006 ($150)
J 2010 ($NR)

Huge thanks to Chris and the staff at Ridge for a hugely enjoyable - and somewhat humbling - event.

Share |

I realise that this blog is starting to look like a Ridge fan page, and for that I apologise. But the assemblage tastings at Ridge are some of the most fun events of the year, so it's not one that I miss if I can avoid it. In addition, Wes Barton usually organises a picnic with some unusual older vintages to taste.

We began the official tasting with the recently released 2009 Jimsomare Chardonnay. I didn't realise I was tasting it for the first time, so largely glossed over it and didn't take much in the way of observations beyond a lemon sorbet note and a distinct mineral character. I was keen to get on to the main event, which comprised 4 vintages of Monte Bello going back over 30 years.

There's not much I can say about the 2005 Monte Bello that I haven't already said. I consider it to be an excellent vintage with concentrated fruit (by Monte Bello standards) and amazing depth. 95

I tasted the 1995 Monte Bello a couple of months ago at the wine bloggers' tasting and loved it, once it had opened up. The nose is earthy, with plenty of black fruit; rich flavours of bramble, blackcurrant and hints of mint and eucalyptus. There is still plenty of tannin and it's still a way from its peak, though it wouldn't be a crime to drink it now with a good steak. 94+

I don't believe I've ever tried the 1977 Monte Bello before. The mid 1970s produced a string of very good vintages; 1977 was a drought year which can result in small, tough berries with concentrated flavours and tannins. I have no idea what this was like in it's youth, but I'm betting it was a chewy, tannic monster. The deep brick red colour tells you it has some age, although few would realise how much. The nose is great, with earth, leather and underbrush. In the mouth there is tart black fruit, with leather, cigar and herbal notes. Despite its age it still has plenty of tannin left. Delicious. 94

The current release is the 2007 Monte Bello. Of the four finished vintages it smelled the ripest, with some dusty oak. There was lots of brambly fruit, with some mint, violet and graphite notes. Balanced and well structured, as you'd expect. 94+

Finally the barrel sample of the 2010 Monte Bello. The blend is currently 74% Cabernet Sauvignon, 20% Merlot, 4% Petite Verdot and 2% Cabernet Franc. The colour is a very deep purple - the darkest for a few years. 2010 was a cool vintage resulting in berries that were on the small side with thick skins. The violet note from the Petite Verdot was particularly evident. There's lots of tannin, with plenty of black fruit and floral notes. It certainly comes across as a wine to cellar for a long time; buy it for your unborn children.

Afterwards we enjoyed a picnic in the gardens and sampled some other older vintages.

1990 Zinfandel Alegria Vineyard, Russian River Valley
Herbal, with earthy, dried berry flavours. Rich and dry. The tannins are fully resolved. 92

1976 Lytton Springs
90% Zinfandel 10% Petite Sirah
Lovely complex nose of leather, dried flowers and caramel. There is plenty of acid, some tart raspberry flavours, perhaps a bit tired. 89

1977 Zinfandel, San Luis
60% Zinfandel, 35% Petite Sirah, 5% Carignane
The nose wasn't great - seemed stale, with mushroom and compost. However it's still got some fruit; sour redcurrant with savoury notes.  83

1996 Geyserville
75% Zinfandel 17% Carignane 6% Petite Sirah 2% Mataro
Great nose; lots of herbs, with some raspberry syrup. A lovely wine; plenty of rich fruit, lots of structure, still improving. 94

2007 Old School Zinfandel
Seemed very ripe, with some residual sugar. Intense Raspberry syrup, a little oak. Not really a food wine; it might go well with chocolate. 89

Share |

Since 1983 Cinnabar has been making a range of wines from both estate fruit grown at the vineyard in Saratoga and fruit purchased from Centarl Coast and beyond. Following founder Tom Mudd's death in 2007 the winery and vineyards were sold to Mount Eden, but winemaker George Troquato continues to produce great wines under agreements at a number of locations. The winery maintains a tasting room in the village of Saratoga.

The entry level wines carry a distinctive yellow label and are made primarily with fruit from Central Coast. I recently received two samples from the range for review.

2008 Mercury Rising, California
Mercury Rising is a blend of Bordeaux varieties sourced from several different regions, including Paso Robles, El Dorado and Lodi. As a result it carries the California designation.
There's a lovely nose of chocolate and blueberry, which follows through on the palate. The oak is prominent but not overpowering. It's full bodied and mouth coating, with a medium finish. This may be the best vintage of Mercury Rising that I can remember. The retail price is $21, but I've seen it as low as $15 and can highly recommended it at that price. 89

2009 Chardonnay, Monterey County
Chardonnay is a versatile grape whose wines range from being flinty and acidic to flabby, oaky and buttery. Sadly this one strays too far in the latter category for my tastes. There are some nice tropical fruit notes, but there's too much sweetness and not enough acidity; it's bland and simple. And while there's a ready market for wines like that it's already packed with examples at half the price. 81

The real gems of the Cinnabar range are the Santa Cruz Mountains wines, as well as some limited release wines made in small quantities and only available directly from the winery.

2006 Cabernet Sauvignon, Santa Cruz Mountains
Opens up with an earthy, smoky nose betraying a little heat and barnyard notes. On the palate there's firm acidity, with notes of mint, eucalyptus and brambles. As it opens up the fruit becomes more defined, with blackcurrant and plum adding to the mix, and the earthy notes recede. Very good indeed. 92

2007 Chardonnay, Santa Cruz Mountains
Now this is more like what I want from a Chardonnay. The nose shows white flowers, wet stone, brine and lime. Flavours of lemon and lime, with salty notes. The oak isn't prominent at all. Acidity is a bit on the light side. 89

2008 Syrah, Sextant Vineyard, Paso Robles
Nose shows notes of roast beef, dried fruit and menthol.
Flavours of redcurrant and blueberry with mushroom and allspice notes. The finish is oaky and tannic. Softened up with air, but really needs some cellar time to show well. 89+

2008 Sorcerer's Stone
Last year cinnabar released a non vintage wine entitled "Lot 310 - Philosopher's Stone". This was a blend of 2/3 Zinfandel and 1/3 Teroldego, and was a fascinating and delicious wine; I wish I'd bought cases of it.
The 2008 Sorcerer's Stone is the successor to that wine. It could be labelled as a Sonoma County Zinfandel since the remaining components are just 10% Petite Sirah from Clarksburg and 5% Teroldego, which I presume is also from the Mistral vineyard in the Santa Clara Valley.
The nose showed a lot; fireplace, black pepper and herbs, with black fruits and other savoury notes developing over time. On the palate there were rich yet rustic raspberry and blackberry flavours, with a long finish. The oak doesn't seem quite integrated yet, but it certainly has the stuffing to warrant cellaring for a year or so. 91+

Share |