There is a boatload of freshly sawed oak on the nose – raw wood. (Not unpleasant.) Same thing in the mouth: the oak dominates. It’s a big wine but there’s a lots of acid and the wine has a savory aspect. Seems to have substantial age. We were guessing 10-15 years.
My guess was a somewhat clumsy grand cru Burgundy, or possibly a New World chardonnay. There was no varietal signature, which is often the tip-off that a wine is a chardonnay.
Hello! A Sina Qua Non. It’s labelled at 15.4% ABV but the alcohol wasn’t conspicuous at all and the wine was structurally balanced. What was weird was the mature fruit profile. I guess the mix of grapes explains why there wasn’t any distinct fruit profile. Or maybe the oak just obliterated those.
Not a wine I would buy, but drinkable, which many 15.4% wines aren’t for my palate.
The WA score is silly, though:
Score: 97
Starting with the whites and a rich, thrillingly concentrated and unctuous wine from Manfred, the 2014 White Wine Lightmotif is made from 47% Roussanne, 21% Chardonnay, 14% Petite Manseng, 11% Viognier and 7% Marsanne that spent 19 months in a combination of concrete eggs, new French oak, neutral barrels and a tiny portion in stainless steel. Coming from close to equal parts Eleven Confessions, Cumulus and Bien Nacido vineyards, this beauty sports a medium gold color to go with a rich, layered profile that carries tons of ripe peach, honeycomb, pineapple, flowers and citrus. Pure, elegant and silky on the palate, with full-bodied richness, it never puts a foot wrong, is ethereally textured and has a great finish. Drink it anytime over the coming decade.
Thanks for the note. Curious at what temperature this was served? And was the alcohol more noticeable - or the oak or any potential RS - at room temperature?
I don’t recall this being unusually cold when first served. We drank it over 15-20 minutes, so it had some time to warm up even if it had come straight from the fridge.
With the mature flavors and that alcohol level, I wouldn’t hold this long-term if I owned it. But who knows. I never would have guessed 15.4% and it had decent acid – it wasn’t flabby.
I always find the statement that chardonnay has no signature to be an odd one, though I’ve often heard it said. That’s just not consistent with my interpretation of the grape. Or are you saying that often if a wine is not showing a varietal character, it turns out to be chardonnay? If this then it would suppose that Chardonnay can make a wine with varietal character but can also produce a fairly transparent wine devoid of varietal character? Of course, I don’t taste much (any) wine blind these days, which is probably necessary to discuss this with any accuracy. Maybe I’m just wrong!
Obviously, the aromatic grapes like riesling, muscat, gewurtz are relatively easy to spot. But lots of others such as sauvignon blanc, chenin blanc, semillon, arneis and vermentino – to name a few – have signatures that you can often recognize. Of course, any wine can be deflavorized with high yields, the wrong site or poor winemaking.
Over many years of tasting blindly, I’ve very often found that when I couldn’t find any fruit signature, it was a chardonnay. Can I tell a white Burgundy, a California chardonnay or a Chablis tasting blindly? Sometimes, but usually because of the oak or the flintiness or acidity – something other than the fruit flavors.
John - I’ve had the same experience. I like the SQN whites more than the reds actually. Those I’ve had are over 15 pct but they don’t show any heat or alcohol and they do retain acidity. I don’t know if it’s natural acid or not, but they never have that SweetTart taste that sometimes comes when the sweet juice is acidified. They’re interesting wines. And I have no idea how long they might age, or what they might turn into. I have a handful of bottles that are going on six years now, so one day I’ll find out.
Michael - I agree with John about Chardonnay. it’s a fairly insipid grape on its own, which is why it’s so often manipulated - it’s left on the lees, stirred, fermented or stored in oak, etc., all of which adds some body, texture, or flavor. On its own, it’s akin to something like Melon de Bourgogne and if it’s picked early enough can make a similar wine - mostly about acidity but quite nice when you’re in the mood. When it’s left to ripen more, it gets peach and honeydew melon flavors that I’m not fond of. But as compared to something with strong signatures, like the grassy grapefruit Sauvignon Blanc or Verdejo, or the floral softness of Grenache Blanc, or the straw-like notes of Chenin Blanc, it just doesn’t have the same identification.
I also think that certain grapes ‘play better’ with others naturally, and some simply do not. Some make themselves heard, regardless of the other components, and others become a bit more ‘muddled’.
It sounds like your experience was the latter. I dig both Roussanne and Marsanne, and I’m sure both give this wine that richness you describe. And I have to believe the Petite Manseng was added for its natural acidity - but this is just a guess.
Sounds like a wine I’d like to try with about a decade of bottle age on it, like a nice roussanne or marsanne, as they really begin to strut their stuff by then.
Personally, I like the reds more than the whites. Regardless, for a peer group of California, white Rhone varietal wines, have you had others you thought deserved higher or lower scores than the 97 Pt score from Jeb? Not arguing, just asking to place this in context…
In the context of all wines I’ve ever drunk, I would give this maybe 86. (I’m a tough grader, so that’s not a bad score. I don’t taste many things I give more than a low 90s score to. I’m happy to drink 86-point wines on my scale, though not at the price of this one.) This wine was decently balanced, but the only real flavor was oak.
I don’t drink a lot of California white Rhones, so I can’t really put it in that context. I liked this a lot more than most of them, which I often find hot and flabby. I would just as soon drink Steve Edmunds’s Heart of Gold (grenache blanc and rolle/vermentino) at ~$25.
But I remember when a 97 was given out a couple times a year.
John… Have read some of your comments on other wines, I thought your comments were actually quite positive. My point was more that in its peer group, I think the wine might rate a fairly high score.
But I remember when a 97 was given out a couple times a year.
I remember when $35 bought you a very serious wine too I get that, but IMO, wines are better all over the place these days. Competition in the marketplace forces producers make better and better wine.
What percentile would you consider a 97-point wine? To me it should be a very, very high percentile – a very small share of all wines. Or is everyone not only above average but above 95 points?
For me this wine isn’t even close to being in the top 2% or 3% or even 5% of all serious wines (by which I mean those that one would bother to score). Maybe in the top 5% for California white Rhones, but that’s not much of a recommendation for me since I’m not crazy about that category.
To put it another way, I would have given it about the same score when I thought it was a heavy-duty Burgundy. It seemed too oaky and didn’t offer much else.
I get that, but IMO, wines are better all over the place these days. Competition in the marketplace forces producers make better and better wine.![[wink.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/04707e6a7bbb03e0153e349d8a9270d30e1e9525.gif "wink"){kind=small}