Could be, though structural tendencies as well as aromas/flavors can be related to variety. My reason for thinking the oiliness is related to the grape is that I’ve experienced it in a range of Roussanne wines, from Beaucastel to SQN.
To me umami is a mouth-watering almost mouth puckering (but not in an acid-y sort of way) sensation with savory/almost herbal (but not green) notes. It is hard to describe, not having grown up with it, and maybe umami isn’t the right word for it, but it seems common to wines with significant amounts of Roussanne.
Thanks for the note. I can answer this question - its been my experience that these age very well. In fact, I tend to get very little enjoyment out of SQN whites when they are young. I prefer them to let them age least 4-5 years. I am still drinking my whites from '01 and '02 (when you could buy them by the case from MacArthurs…). Of course, the 2014 could be the exception but in general I have had a positive experience with aging SQN whites.
The Southern Rhone is warm (across the growing season – not two weeks ago when I was there!) so the whites tend to be low in acid. So I’d guess that the oiliness of Beaucastel blanc is due to acid/pH, not some other element in the grape. You get a similar texture in very ripe chardonnays, viogners and even dry but very ripe rieslings (e.g., some German Grosse Gewachs).
Mine was a serious question. Was yours? Seriously, not trying to stir the pot, but the comment I replied to talked about everybody being above average. In the case of wine, if one’s assumption is that one will only drink 1-2 95+ Point wines per year then it is reasonable to assume that that person’s worldview (on wines) is a relative scale. Personally I think it is possible (not probable) to drink nothing but 95+ point wines all the time because I think there is a Platonic ideal of sorts, and any/all wines could achieve it. So, for me, it has nothing to do with California white Rhônes.
I’m not sure, but I think we may be talking past each other. I’m afraid I don’t understand the parts I’ve bolded. Maybe you can elaborate.
The comment about everyone being above average is a line from Prairie Home Companion and a joke about grade/point inflation. Every kid gets a B+ or an A; every wine is fantastic!
When you referred to a relative scale, I thought you meant according to type of wine. For instance, one might say this is the greatest Albarino or dolcetto ever (or California Southern Rhone white blend) and therefore give it 100 points, while on an absolute scale – relative to more complex or better balance or more long-lived wines – it might warrant 85 points.
But I don’t think anyone really intends the 100 point scale to be used that way. I think they usually mean it in the context of all wines. I would call that an absolute scale. There is some implicit notion of percentiles and distribution of wines across the point scale. (Perhaps that’s what you meant when you said “relative.” I’m not sure.)
Of course, assuming an “absolute scale,” the number of 95+ point wines one drinks will depend on (a) your financial means and (b) how generous a grader you are.
“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?”
I may have made an incorrect assumption, but it appears that you think of wine quality as being relative, or on a curve. So that the best wine you have (whether categorically–e.g., white CA Rhônes–or not) would score 100 points, and other wines would, by necessity, score less, and there would be very few wines with the higher scores, and many more wines with lower scores. I think it is possible (again, but not probable) that every wine could be 100 points. I don’t think of percentiles, which is, to me, the relativism I referenced. Kind of reminds me of getting 48% correct answers on a physics test in college but getting an A–as I see it, that’s a failing grade. Conversely, if there were 10 people in the class and one got 94, eight got 95, and one got 96, using a relative scale the 94 would fail, the 95s would get a C, and the 96 would get an A, when, to me, they all did A work.
If we’re still talking past each other I apologize.
I didn’t mean to grade wines on a curve. I think of the scale as absolute, not relative to a type of grape, so a simple quaffer sauvignon blanc that would be lovely on a summer afternoon wouldn’t end up in the 90s.
My point about percentiles was just that for many people (including critics like Suckling and Galloni), nothing ever seems to get below 94, so in practice the scale runs from roughly 94-100. Even assuming all these wines are good (and palates will differ), I don’t find that many wines that approach perfection, and thus warrant scores like 97. And certainly not this SQN.
When you say in theory all wines could score 100, do you simply mean that you’re not grading on a curve? If so, we agree. In that case, our agreement may just be empirical: I don’t think the number of extraordinarily good wines is much smaller than some people do. For me the top end is anchored by the handful of truly astounding wines I’ve had over 30-some years – for example, '61 Palmer, a 49 JJ Prum, a 59 Huet Vouvray. Very few things come close to those for my palate. Certainly not many that are within three points of those.
There is no right answer to this. Grades/scores are just a guideline. I agree with the 97 for the SQN(as others did) and some do not. Once more, to each their own.
Thanks for your patience. Yes, we agree on that point (not grading on a curve). I now would agree that the difference is empirical, just as you said. Either I am less discriminating or have had less truly astounding wines such that my “absolute, 100-point scale” is maybe stunted at 90 points on your scale, but they are 95-100 points on my scale
At a dinner last night, we were served two whites blindly. The first was crisp and had some minerality. The second was fuller bodied and had a fair deal of oak. Neither had any distinct fruit profile. The first was a Chablis and the second was a South African chardonnay. QED.
2014 Sine Qua Non Lightmotif- USA, California (2/2/2017)
Well…another mailer is due soon, so I had to pull a cork to try this before making a decision. A deep golden yellow in the glass. On the nose initially it reminded me of Chapoutier’s St. Joseph Blanc Les Granits. Strong scents of multiple tropical fruits, nutmeg, and oak. On the palate notes of pineapple, Asian pear, green banana, and passion fruit. This is a big, big wine…the alcohol is obvious to me, dominant even. However, because of the acidity and fruit it’s easy to forgive and I believe helps strike a balance. I don’t know how a wine like this might age. Because of the alcohol, I’m tempted to drink this sooner rather than later. However, I also wonder if this might be one of those freak wines that CAN age and surprise. Outstanding…and VERY unique.
