We had a 2002 Kathryn Kennedy Maridon a couple weeks ago at an offline. I would love to try that one in 20 years.
I think you are totally wrong here, given that Steve has made great Syrah that ages well from Durrell, Wylie, Bassetti, etc.
David, totally wrong is probably an overstatement. Steve is among the best Syrah producers making wines from multiple regions, but he like others is selective about where he sources fruit from in order to achieve that record.
Oh come on. Name the winemaker who says, “just send me some grapes, from anywhere, I don’t care.”
Everyone is selective.
Why the hyperbole? There are plenty of winemakers who only use estate fruit, it that regard they only can make a syrah from their appellation. Their are others who want to make a ripe fruity syrah and choose grapes to make that style of wine, one that some here would argue will not age well. What I’m referring to are winemakers who choose to source grapes from the coolest growing regions, sorry if I didn’t make that clearer. I think we would agree that’s a relatively small group, no?
That’s fine, I expressed my opinion, you can disagree. I have spent quite a few years exploring and drinking syrah from pretty much every grape producing area of California. I have often thought I had found a vineyard/producer combination that had the chance to really compete with Rhone. Then I would taste the wines side by side (with roughly equivalent age). Every single time I ended up concluding that the California wine was riper than its Rhone counterpart (which, for me, is a critical metric in determining how a wine will age and develop). I gave up that quest several years ago, and I do now think there are a few potential contenders, but they are all much too young at this stage to really know what they will be like in 20 + years.
There are any number of aged California Syrahs I’ve enjoyed over the years. I’m not saying they can’t turn into something better, and be very good wines with age. I’m saying I don’t know of any (including any ESJ wines) that meet Craig’s criteria, and will be able to deliver the kind of development he wants, relative to the best Rhone wines.
It’s only my opinion, of course, based on my own personal experience. Your experience apparently differs.
The obsession with cool growing regions ignores the fact that they have warm days in France as well. Hermitage isn’t Antartica. So the wines from California are different…ok. Thank God not all wines from everywhere taste the same.
That being said, there are Syrahs from California that age well and develop fascinating complexity. Yes, my experience is different, likely because I have tasted even more widely. As for ESJ, I was at the table when John Gilman worked through about 10 ESJ Syrahs from multiple vineyard sites, and in fact I provided a number of the wines. He was convinced, I was convinced and everyone else in the room was convinced of the world class nature of the wines. Yes, they were probably a touch riper than wines from the Northern Rhone, but they had as much character and complexity as the French brethren.
Is California Syrah still largely a work in progress? Sure. But to just say they are too ripe and walk away from it is incredibly shortsighted in my studied opinion.
“California Syrah… How much Time in the Cellar”
Alan, if you were to taste 1990 Chave next to 1992 Chave, would you conclude that 1992 will age better, because the 1990 is riper?
There is something defensible in your argument about sites - that the grape is best grown in an area where the worst years barely ripen. That seems to be backed up by experience, say comparing N and S Rhone Syrah. Using the argument to compare individual wines is pretty much objectively wrong. In any region, the best aging wines will not be the least ripe (and perhaps not the most).
To compare aging potential across wines and regions, you need to know something more than ripeness. In fact I’m not sure there is any good predictor except track record.
I truly and honestly have difficulties with any ‘general observations’ about ageability of any wines out there - there are so many variables that can impact it, including ‘reliability’ of closure, cellar temps, etc.
Do cooler climate sites produce wines that will ‘age better’? Well, I think we need to nail down what ‘cooler climate’ means. There are many winemakers who will ‘claim’ that one site is ‘cooler’ than another based on temp degree days, etc, but there wines will still come across as ‘ripe’. And there are others that work with ‘warmer climate’ sources that produce acid driven, cooler climate-like wines.
We are working a totally different ‘paradigm’ here in the US, and in other ‘new world’ wine producing countries, so comparing these to ‘old world’ regions is just difficult. New clones being used; new trellising being employed; different vine spacing being employed; more ‘trial and error’ within the vineyard; different soil composition of the vineyards and slight ‘manipulation’ of the soils pre-planting; much more in depth look at water tables and water usage throughout the growing season; ‘scientitic’ advances in the cellar; barrel/stainless/concrete use; etc.
Yes, are some of these used in ‘old world’ areas? Of course - but the ‘learning curve’ has gotten much flatter here as we’ve able to truly ‘see’ what has been done elsewhere over centuries and compress into decades.
There is no doubt that some CA syrahs will be able to age wonderfully in a cellar for decades. Will they ‘compete’ with the best of the Northern Rhone? Good question - and one that I am not inclined to answer. But there is no doubt that the wines of many mentioned here - from Qupe to ESJ to Bill Easton’s Terre Rouge to Dehlinger to Alban (at least some years) to Andrew Murray (again selectively) - will age wonderfully and reward those with patience.
To me, the key to ageability certainly starts with vineyard source, but just as important is vintage variability and winemaker ‘input’. To me, great acidity will be key, and yes, this will usually, but not always, be higher in cooler climates. I do believe that ‘riper’ syrahs will suffer over time - but YMMV and defining ‘ripe’ is not an easy thing to do.
I’d love to be involved with retrospective tastings of syrahs from the late 90’s - but I’m really most excited about a retrospective of syrahs from the past decade - in another decade or so 
And one last thing - I do believe that some of these wonderful syrahs are probably equally best enjoyed younger than older. I believe some do need time to shine, but others can be fantastic right out of the gate - with a ‘different’ expression than aged, but equally as enjoyable . . .
Cheers!
And I buy some California Syrah (selectively) because, as you say, diversity is good. And there are some outstanding California syrahs out there. I had a 95 ESJ Durell recently that was outstanding, and actually still very youthful. Bottles of 94 and 96 Dehlinger can still be extremely youthful today, and will be interesting to follow over the next decade and more. Lagier Meredith 99 is a fabulous bottle, and barely shows any age today (just to cite some examples off the top of my head). But in answer to Craig’s original question, I still haven’t had a single one that could match up to the best examples of old world Syrah I’ve had. So I guess what I’m saying is that, for now, and in my opinion/experience, Rhone is still the king, but California is doing great, and maybe someday we’ll see more parity.
But I do stand by my contention that riper wines in general will not age and develop as well as those which are closer to the edge. Does Rhone have warmth? Sure. 2003 Chave was a monster wine on release, fabulously rich and concentrated, but I seriously doubt it will end up being a “classic” Chave 20-30 years after vintage (I don’t own any, so won’t be finding out for myself). But even that warmest of all vintages produced a wine that, in a lineup of a bunch of California Syrahs, would be pretty much in the middle of the pack for ABV.
I’ll just add my agreement that ESJ syrahs (the only CA producer that I’ve had multiple older bottles from) age wonderfully. A recent 1992 Durell was perfect but a recent 1993 Durell was still a bit too young for my palate.
Well, the last time I had a 92 was probably with you - I think your bottle. I don’t have any notes or recollection of drinking the 90 recently, so can’t compare the two. I thought that 92 was tremendous, still retaining great intensity, and surely has another decade or more of good life ahead of it.
You are, of course, right that track record is the ultimate guide. Without that, it’s quite a crap shoot. Isn’t that what you invited us to do with your opening topic? 
There are actually a few examples of California producers who have altered the style in which they make wine. Wells Guthrie is one. Pax Mahle is another (and there are surely more, those are two that I followed from their early days). The earlier wines of both are still very drinkable, but in my judgment bottle age has not done anything magical for them. Copain’s more recent Syrahs, which have focused on cooler vineyards, or were picked earlier from the same vineyard, I think show much better, are more interesting even young, and seem to be on a pace to age very well. It’s too early to tell for sure, I’m taking a risk in extrapolating where I think those wines might go.
I don’t have as much experience with Pax’s more recent Windgap wines, some of which came from the same vineyards he made the early Pax wines from, but they too seem to offer more potential, IMO.
Peay is another producer I’ve followed for a long time. Their two different 2004 Syrahs were off the charts good early one, with all kinds of fireworks and complexity. Now they are still very nice, but seem a little pedestrian, and haven’t developed anything particularly interesting at this stage. Maybe I’m judging too early, and need to wait another 20 years (the point of your topic). The 2005 Peay Syrahs, OTOH, were not nearly as interesting or enjoyable early on, in fact they were on the leaner, backward side. But wow are they starting to gain interest today and become incredible wines. Where will the wines from those two vintages be in 20 years? I don’t know, we don’t have a track record to pull from, but I’m personally betting on the 2005.
Having been intimately involved with beginning the Dehlinger Syrah program, I should point out that those vines were only a few years old in the early '90’s. We were impressed at how good and complex the first vintage was (1992) and I am pleased at how well the wines have aged. With that in mind, one should consider how good things will get when vine age increases and the best sites are identified.
I have been saying for some time now that I think the best (for my taste) sites around here will be subject to an underwhelming vintage when an extremely late, cool season intersects with early serious rains. As a producer, so long as rose exists as a Plan B in those rare vintages, I’m OK with that.
I think 1986 was Thackrey’s first Orion. I may still have a bottle somewhere. At the time, it was very impressive given the competition and easy to pick out of a blind tasting due to the Eucalyptus notes. Quite interestingly, he focused more on old vines rather than specific sites.
Those '90’s ESJ Syrahs have been very interesting as well. Might be time to dig some out.
It is easy to find disappointing examples on any side of the pond(s) with this variety, though.
That was a 91. Now there you could have a good argument about which is better and which will live longer (riper 90 or less ripe 91). Both are tremendous wines and should be very long lived. Of course both are riper than the 92 and I expect they will outlive it by a good bit, though Chave is a really good ager in lesser years.
My point here is that in general, ripeness is good for aging potential, not bad. There is something more complex you need to figure out in your argument - perhaps that you want wines where in good years with full ripeness, the growing season is as long as possible. In those places, excepting unnaturally hot vintages, you could still get the best wines from the ripe years. I’m not sure that is exactly it but it makes much more sense than “less ripe ages better.”
Fred, thanks for your comments. I’m holding on to some Dehlinger Syrahs back to 96 (maybe 95) and I’m interested to see what happens with them. They’ve been very nice throughout so far.
Didnt see anyone mention Arcadian. I had a 2000 syrah, want to say it was garys…possibly my favorite wine ever.
Of course. Implied in my argument is that the greatest wines come from long, moderate, even growing seasons. But underlying that is still the principle I am advocating: that a perfect, even growing season in California is never going to produce a wine that lasts and develops as well as the same from Rhone. Because, with a very few exceptions, every one of those perfect California wines is 1-2 percent higher in alcohol. I’m not making an argument that higher alcohol is a priori bad, but that it is a marker for other things going on in the grapes, which yields an end product which, while it might be tremendously flavorful and perfectly balanced, misses some key factors that allow it to get to the same place a great Rhone wine will get to in 20-30 years.
I’ve been on a quest for that holy grail of California syrah that could age as you describe in your OP for many years. I’ve discovered many very fine wines in the process, some of which I continue to buy, and most of which do age very nicely. But not one has shown the promise yet of elevating itself to the best aged Rhone wines I’ve had the opportunity to drink.
I hope it’s just a matter of time for someone to find the right vineyard site, and the right vintage conditions. But, as Kevin Harvey pointed out in another recent thread, a cool growing site in itself doesn’t replicate the conditions in the Rhone. The length of growing season, lack of rain, and other factors are all different - not to mention soils, clones, vine age, etc., etc.
Alan,
Every one of those perfect California wines is 1-2% higher in alcohol???
Have you read the alcohol levels on Rhone wines lately? They are not 12.0%.
I posted on a 2001 ESJ Wylie-Fenaughty a few weeks ago that is evolving beautifully.
I bought a bunch of the first generation Rhone Ranger syrahs in the 80s. Sadly, they didn’t evolve and some collapsed.
I found a 2000 Copain a few years ago (can’t remember the vineyard) that was quite interesting, though it long predates Wells Guthries’ epiphany about harvesting less ripe fruit. (I mentioned to Wells that I’d enjoyed it a few years ago, and he looked at me like I was crazy and said something about how he didn’t know anything then.) I’m optimistic about Copain’s Mendocino syrahs from recent vintages. They seemed to have the structure and fruit, without overripeness, to go somewhere over time. We shall see.
The original Phelps syrahs could develop nicely. But they tore up the vineyard for phylloxera, as I recall, and then replanted syrah someplace else. The couple I’ve had from the new fruit source were fairly pointless.