TNs: The new 2015s from Morgen Long (Willamette Valley Chardonnay)

When I got the email from Seth at Morgen Long Wines announcing the release of three new cuvees from the 2015 vintage, I was excited. I jumped on the inaugural 2014 release based on the strong recommendation from someone here on these boards. I popped one, was very impressed, and cellared the rest. When the email came out, I had a business trip planned to Oregon and thought, on a whim, I might as well pick up the wines when I was there. Seth very graciously and generously agreed to meet me and open all three of the wines to taste.

Seth is a passionate guy, and I was really struck with how well he balances traditions of working with Chardonnay grape (from his time in Burgundy) with also independence, and a desire to (in some ways) do his own thing. It’s a nice combination of respecting what the Burgundians have already perfected, learning from that, but applying his own Oregon twist to the process. He’s also very respectful and appreciative of the guidance and help from other vintners in OR and WA (and France). I like how one of his main philosophies is to keep oak treatment very consistent from vintage to vintage. In other words, resisting the urge to oak some years more (hotter years vs. cold years) and others less, in an effort to let the vintage, and what that translates into the raw material, shine through.

The wines were served cool, but not cold. The light was dim, so I couldn’t really see the color very much. There are just impressions, not thorough tasting notes. All three wines were distinct, and all were very good. This is the order in which we tasted:


2015 Morgen Long Wines Chardonnay Willamette Valley - aromas of peach skin, lemon rind. Great balance of some roundness on the palate with a lot of acidity. Lean and austere, but not painfully so. Grapefruit, mineral flavors…persistent finish. This saw no new wood, and it shows. Lip-smacking and really tasty.

2015 Morgen Long Wines Chardonnay Yamhill Vineyards Yamhill-Carlton - on the nose, there was an almost pepper-like or flinty note , and a lovely jasmine/white flower note to marry with the under-ripe white peach and citrus aromas. A great blast of lemon oil on the palate, and some gravel. Seth notes this is the most similar, to him, to the single cuvee he made in 2014. Just a slight step up in complexity and weight, but so zippy and mouthwatering.

2015 Morgen Long Wines Chardonnay ‘Sandi’ Willamette Valley - some barely noticeable oak influence on the nose (ever so slight, and well-done). Rounder on the palate with more pronounced fruit, Rainier cherry, kumquat, lemon zest. Again, a consistently energetic verve in all three of these wines is present in the Sandi. With the most pronounced fruit, this actually has the lowest residual sugar of all three.


In short, I thought these wines were exciting, unique, and definitely worth a buy. Buttery, rich Chardonnays these aren’t. They’re mouthwatering, tight, acidic, exciting wines and represent a fine lineup, top to bottom. Thanks for the time, Seth!

Glad to hear. I picked up a couple bottles of the WV bottling and am looking forward to trying.

I can’t imagine any of these wines have RS. Do you mean lowest starting brix?

Jim, that’s what I thought, but that’s the term he kept using. Maybe he was dumbing it down for me…I know what brix is. They ranged from 2.2 g/l down to 1.8 (I believe). He also used the term in the release email. But, regardless, no, they’re all bone dry.

It will be interesting to hear from him. I can tell you with years of experience that 2.2 g/l RS makes for at best an off-dry wine.

In the useless CT info thread, I got you linked via TNs. [cheers.gif]

I must have missed something then, because there is NO off-dry nature to any of these wines. They’re crisp, bone dry Chards. Hmm…odd.

Brandon,

It was a great pleasure to spend some time with you last week! Thanks for your time and support. I appreciate you sharing your impressions as well. And, it is my view that you didn’t miss a beat.

I do think the conversation about residual sugar is a tricky one. Sweetness, like acidity, is all about perception, and there are plenty of confounding and contributing factors: wine temperature, time since bottling, native vs. cultured yeasts, enzymes, DAP/food, whether water, acid or sugar was added, when it was added, fermentation temperature, duration, kinetics, amount of new wood, cooper, forest, toast level, time in wood vs. time post wood aging (level of wood integration) as well as glycerol, ethyl alcohol, acidity, SO2, pH, fining, filtration, food or no food, glassware, moon phase, acuity of palate,and on and on…

Sometimes wine with more new wood tastes sweeter than wine with less new wood, even if the level of residual is higher in the wine with less new wood. Maybe this due to elevated levels of glycerol and/or ethyl alcohol being more or less apparent in relation to new wood? There is definitely Oregon Chardonnay on the market with 3 g/l or more. Some of it is really good! I do get the feeling that new wood might hide residual better than used wood?

All this to say, I don’t think it’s always as straight forward as it seems it should or could be.

Jim,

My understanding of residual sugar is fairly elementary, so correct me if I am wrong. I tend to think white wines that are 0-1.5g/l (0% to 0.15%) inhabit the spectrum of absolutely bone dry to dry. Getting Chardonnay that dry without cultured yeast seems to be a worldwide obstacle, and 2015 showed me this. I agree that white wines that are over 2g/l (0.2% +) and especially as they get to 3g/l or more (0.3% +) can definitely be more viscous with sweeter aromatics and flavors and less cut of acidity and a different perception of alcohol, glycerol and ethyl alcohol. Depends on all those factors of acidity, alcohol, SO2, fining, filtration etc. I definitely think upwards of 3g/l or 4g/l to 10 g/l (0.3%, 0.4% to 1.0% residual), most red and white wines will begin to taste off-dry and then sweet, and are much more perceptible as such, unless acidity is high enough as in Chenin, Reisling etc.

My chemistry showed the '15 Willamette Valley bottling at 2.6g/l (so, 0.26%) after 16 months on lees, which is why it was sterile filtered. Would I want it lower? Yes. Had I inoculated with cultured or encapsulated yeast, I’d be frustrated if it stuck there, but I did neither and gave it ample time on lees. It is what it is. With 40ppm free SO2, and the filtration, perhaps there is less perception of the 0.26% rs, especially with 5.8 g/L TA and alcohol at 13%. I think it’s an engaging and interesting wine. Do I love it? Kind of.

The '15 Yamhill Vineyards bottling is unfined and unfiltered with 1.9g/l (0.19%), 50ppm free SO2 and about 25% new wood. I love this wine. The '15 cuvée Sandi is unfined and unfiltered with 1.7g/l (0.17%), about 30ppm free SO2 and 50% new wood. I love this wine too. Finished pH, with full malo, is 3.29 and alcohol is 13% across the board.

I’m really interested to see how these wines drink as they age. I showed Kate these wines a couple weeks back. I’d be happy to open them for you as well and am intrigued to try your 2015 Durant.

My 2016’s fermented non-inoculated in barrel and range from 0.3 g/l to 1.6 g/l at this moment in time. I’m happy about this. The barrels that are 1.4 and 1.6 g/l haven’t been directly sulfured, but are being gradually sulfured with my topping wine. After the 2015 vintage, I changed a few things for 2016: I’m in a new/different winery, used a bit more sulfur in the press pan, maintained more solids in barrel, stirred less while encouraging a higher ambient fermentation temperature.

Very informative, Seth, thanks. You probably shared some of this with me in Portland, but I’m not so strong with all that sciencey stuff. I don’t know…there was zero perceptible sweetness to me in any of the three wines, and I’m pretty sensitive to any RS in dry wines.