I was fooling around on CT this evening looking up collections where others had tried some of the smaller producers that I collect, e.g. Paul Lato.
Got me to thinking, in your experience to really “get” a producer’s style, what mix of tastings are required, before you feel comfortable you know what you’re getting on future purchases. For example, drinking multiple vintages, all varieties, etc.
Two. If the producer is consistent one year to the next, it’s not usually an accident.
But “producer” is different from the winemaker, who may make wine differently for different producers. Some winemakers may have signature styles that travel and make many of their wines recognizable, others not so much. In the latter case, it would be 2 vintages from a particular vineyard.
Greg, good point. My use of the term “producer” was borrowing from Cellar Tracker.
Try one of their wines in a bad year. If they can make a good wine then, I’ll be convinced. 2004 is why I love Meo-Camuzet.
I agree with this point.
Personally, I think there’s too much focus/concern over consistency from year to year, and not enough on making the vintage. I think letting the vintage character show through, and trying to bring out what’s interesting about the vintage can also be the best way to let the terroir show through…and too much focus on consistency can mute both.
Tho, to GregT’s point, the wine should be consistency good…just not necessarily the same. Tho the terroir should come through and be recognizable and provide the connection. In a perfect world, you should be able to taste two vintages side by side and ‘get’ the wine (tho 3 might be easier). I find it easiest to taste it (if they’re young) over a couple of days.
I dunno. But a sample size of two years is not exactly what I would call a “track record”.
This is a great question. That said, I think it really boils down to the number of varieties the producer works with. Burgundy is essentially two grape varieties, where as a producer like Ridge is making juice from a myriad of different grapes. For me, personally, the number fluctuates between 2-5 bottles depending on how many different grapes/bottlings the given producer offers up.
It only takes once to get hooked on a great producer.
True enough, especially when I think about some of the great bottles I’ve had.
For me, I’d say tasting at least 3 vintages, preferably vintages relatively close together, and vintages that have some inherent differences between them.
A lifetime, hopefully.
Maybe I’m expecting too much…but I think to understand a wine-maker’s wines it would take tasting multiple bottlings over several vintages. For me…to feel like I really understand a wine maker/producer. I’d have to say I’d want to taste 25+ bottles/wines over a period of 3-5 years at a minimum. I think the longer you taste wines from a producer or wine maker the better your understanding.
This is why I think the way WS “Blind tastes” is BS. They have the same person tasting the same wines year-in & year-out. I think any taster worth their weight would soon be able to identify wines after 4-5 years on a 80/20 average. So I think there’s a chance when they score…they have a better understanding of what/who they’re scoring than they want folks to think.
One. If you’re lucky enough to visit a top winemaker or a tasting given by one, one exposure to the likes of Thibault Liger-Belair, Domaine Fourrier or a tasting taken by Aldo Vacca of Produttori (like we had the other night) is enough. What they say and the way their wines express themselves, make you clear about the maker’s philosophy and style. I’m not saying you walk out after one visit or tasting knowing everything about the house and style, far from it. However, the best are, IMO, so clear about their philosophy and approach you can “get” them, and what they are trying to do, with one exposure.
Other newer and perhaps lesser producers may be figuring out their approach and philosophy and experimenting and not yet at that stage.
Cheers, Howard
I agree on this idea. 1998 Cali Cabs are a great example. The 1998 Araujo, which I got for a song, was outstanding and the 1998 Opus (yes, that maligned wine) was also excellent. Great producers make very good wines even in bad years.
However, I think the answer to the OP is three bottles of the core/flagship bottling. Let’s take Carlisle. Mike Oficer makes some weird stuff (Grand Noir? Gruner?) but to understand Carlisle, I think you need to have three of his Zins. Dumol? I like their syrah and chardonnay, but three of their pinots are what you really need to drink.
It all depends on how you define “know”. As pointed out by others it can be as little as one or two or it can be many more than that but it all really depends on what one consideres knowing a producer.
I worked at a winery running their tasting room on weekends and tasted the wines weekly. I thought I knew those wines better than any until after working there about 9 months the 1988 Merlot, which was not a real enjoyable wine for me, started to turn into something really nice. This wine showed no signs of ever turning into something good but finally at about age 5 it started to shine. The 1989 and 1990 versions of the wine were good from the time they were bottled.
I have noticed the same thing in wines where I buy 3 or more bottles of a single wine but drink them over many years. If I make a judgement on the first bottle, I have often ended up chaning that judgement by the time I drink the last one. I am not talking about wines where one can sense that the wine will be good but wines that just seem meh. The base level Girard Cab from 2007 was one such wine. I drank the first 2-3 bottles and was convinced that the wine will never really offer much enjoyment but the final bottle last fall proved me wrong again.
Yep. Fell in love with the wines from Jacky Truchot the first time I tasted one (it was a 1985 Chambolle Musigny Sentiers).
Other times it takes longer. There have been times I really didn’t love a producer when I had just tasted young wines from them. Once I had an older wine or two I began to understand the younger wines better. Two examples for me have been Willie Schaeffer and Chandon de Briailles.
Not sure. If I judged Burgundy producers by their 2004s, I would like very few Burgundy producers.
Just takes one good bottle to begin to understand what people are talking about, and many to become an expert. Whatever that number is it’s pretty arbitrary, and maybe relative to whatever table you’re sitting at.
If the producer is bad, just one.
Yep. For me, Foley Claret - only took one.