-
2008 Rivers-Marie Chardonnay B. Thieriot Vineyard - USA, California, Sonoma County, Sonoma Coast
I actually compared this favourably to the style of Henri Boillot. The nose shows a moderate amount of reduction, while the palate has both the fat fruit, oak, and mineral/acid cut that I get from Boillot’s wines. Where this differs is the fruit profile. While this is clearly the leanest of the 2008/2009/(corked) 2010 flight, it’s pretty obvious that the fruit here is very plush and broad; not so much the Burgundian style. There are sweet citrus elements here, perhaps a bit of marmalade as well. But all in all, this was my clear favourite of the two sound chardonnays. (93 pts.) -
2009 Rivers-Marie Chardonnay B. Thieriot Vineyard - USA, California, Sonoma County, Sonoma Coast
I liked this much less than the 2008. While this seems to have many of the same hallmarks as the older wine, there isn’t enough of the mineral and acid elements here to give this wine the cut it needs. Already on the nose this is fairly sweet, showing even a hint of caramel. I’m guessing this was also visited by some botrytis (something I personally dislike in chardonnay). The oak here isn’t as well integrated either, showing a slight amount of bitterness and tannin on the back end. (93 pts.) -
2010 Rivers-Marie Chardonnay B. Thieriot Vineyard - USA, California, Sonoma County, Sonoma Coast
Corked. (93- pts.) -
2009 Rivers-Marie Pinot Noir Sonoma Coast - USA, California, Sonoma County, Sonoma Coast
Interesting; I had had this wine about four years ago and thought it to tasted a bit too much like sour strawberry juice. I certainly didn’t get that impression today. The nose on this was really aromatic, with a nice exotic mix of black and red fruit, some spice, and a very mild cola note. The palate starts off very nicely too, with a concentrated attack with the same luscious fruit, but it tapers off quickly on the back end. And despite the almost 10 years of age, this doesn’t display any secondary characteristics. (93 pts.) -
2014 Rivers-Marie Pinot Noir Sonoma Coast - USA, California, Sonoma County, Sonoma Coast
This didn’t show as well as the 2009, but I liked this a little bit more. It’s a more muted and sedate wine, with a nose that isn’t as explosive as the 2009. In fact, there’s a slight bit of reduction on the nose that couples with some riper fruit. The palate is less of a big diminuendo compared to the 2009 as well. It’s more even and doesn’t taper off as much, but the attack isn’t as strong either. This feels more structural to me, and shows a really nice vein of minerality that gives this wine directionality. (93 pts.) -
2010 Rivers-Marie Pinot Noir Old Vines Summa - USA, California, Sonoma County, Sonoma Coast
This was my wine of the night. The nose and palate show a fruit profile that is ripe, but with tart elements. The generous and expansive fruit here leans to the red end of the spectrum. And even though the ripeness here makes you perceive the wine as being somewhat sweet, there’s still some acidity to lift this wine up from being heavy. This is what my conception of great California pinot is, but no matter what, that is not a genre that I enjoy. (93 pts.) -
2010 Rivers-Marie Pinot Noir Gioia Vineyard - USA, California, Sonoma County, Sonoma Coast
A very disappointing wine, though perhaps it suffered a bit by being sandwiched by the two Summa OV wines. This is pretty much the only wine where I picked up pronounced earthy characteristics (or at least, the only wine where it stood out enough that I bothered to make a note of it). The palate is the point of failure here; there’s just too much alcoholic heat on the backend, and not enough other stuffing to help cover it up or support it. (93 pts.) -
2008 Rivers-Marie Pinot Noir Old Vines Summa - USA, California, Sonoma County, Sonoma Coast
The nose here is quite high-toned and volatile. Some at the table said it was VA, but I felt that there was more alcohol and aldehydes than acidity. In any case, it wasn’t the most pleasant. The palate is definitely better than the nose here, but that’s a pretty low bar to beat. The fruit is here, and it’s a mix of red and black, but it feels tired and doesn’t have the generous expansiveness that I found in the 2010. The palate also thins out after the attack. Those of us who owned this wine expressed some worry about it; I’d certainly be interested to know if this note was of a representative bottle or not. (93 pts.) -
2009 Rivers-Marie Cabernet Sauvignon - USA, California, Napa Valley
The nose here is nice, showing a bit of dust, a hint of oak, and lots of black fruit. Missing, though, are the green elements that I love in Bordeaux. The palate is very similar, with a generous amount of supple fruit that doesn’t have much give. Surprisingly un-tannic. In fact, this was something I noticed across the cabernet flight – all the wines are very soft and don’t have any chewy tannin at all. Despite the lower appellation and the age, this also didn’t show any secondary characterists. (93 pts.) -
2009 Rivers-Marie Cabernet Sauvignon Panek Vineyard - USA, California, Napa Valley, St. Helena
This is a step above the other two 2009 cabernets, but not that much of a step up. Of the three wines, I thought that this was the most red-fruited, and showed the most structure. Even then, the structure here isn’t that big. It’s a wine that seems like it will topple over if you give it a gentle shove. Where’s the tannin? This is fleshy and generous, and a bit too easy. I like to work for my cabernet. (93 pts.) -
2009 Rivers-Marie Cabernet Sauvignon Corona Vineyard - USA, California, Napa Valley, Oakville
Like the other two cabernets in this flight, this was a very soft and structureless wine. It’s not overwrought and oaked out of the wazoo, but there’s also far too much give on the palate. The nose is a little more intense than the 2009 Napa, and I think this feels like a denser, more potent version of that wine. The fruit, like the 2009 Napa is also black, and while there’s more structure here, it’s still too easy of a cabernet for my taste. (93 pts.)
I had to google aldehydes.
Also it sounds like the wines not having secondary characteristics as a 2009 is a negative to you? Why is that? I wouldn’t expect it to show secondary characteristics at that age
I’m going to call you out here. Every one is 93 points yet your TN’s clearly indicate some wines are far inferior to others. Heck, you even gave a corked wine 93 points. Makes absolutely no sense.
Fair enough, I wouldn’t expect secondary characteristics in a 2009 Bordeaux either. But I’d also expect something in addition to a glob of fruit.
I’m guessing you’ve never read one of Adrian’s threads. Click the wine, it’ll give the real score. There’s a long back story about this, but to sum it up, you can blame people who tell Adrian that his score should be higher or lower.
You won’t get any fruit on 2009 bordeaux. It’s like popping open a 2009 red burgundy right now. All you get is a ton of ripe fruit.
Ah ok. I’m supposed know the inhouse joke (and clicking the wine doesn’t take me to the real note/score, just the front page of CT). Can’t he just post his real score and save all of us the trouble. I’m sorry by why even post if you have to have some secret decoder ring to fully understand them.
Or leave the scores off? Seems like a lot of hassle to confuse people and keep an inside joke going.
I haven’t had it in some years but I remember the '08 Summa Old Vines being not quite as good as some of the surrounding vintages. I thought it was a shorter term drinker for an OV. I never got to try the 2010 with a few years on it but it seemed promising when young.
Couldn’t agree more. Pointless.
actually not true! The corked wine is rated 93-. clearly differentiating it from the others.
maybe that was an edit?
haha
Adrian - it seems unanimous, please drop the BS scoring. It stopped being humorous a very long time ago and really detracts from your notes. You made your point (pun intended), move on.
Wait, I missed the vote. I vote “no.”
You mean folks actually read the notes and just not the score? 
Since he has done this as often as he has, it’s clear to anyone that seen his notes that he is going to score every wine the same score. I really have no problem with that whatsoever.
Heck, I’m sure we can all agree that we’ve all read tasting notes, either those here on the board or for professional reviewers, and then seeing a score that seems to be at odds with those notes.
I say keep it up, my friend.
Speaking as a still relative new person to this board, but long time wino, this does absolutely nothing but aggravate a person not familiar with the “inside” joke. Kinda like this is our club and a slight jab to new people who are coming here for real info.
Before anyone says it, yes I put more stock in a tasting note. Thing is it’s hard to read every single thing here and this makes it hard to calibrate to other people & their scores/notes.
Well I guess my answer to that is perhaps just calibrate to his notes then. Don’t worry about his score, or if you are really interested, click on the note and you’ll see his actual score in cellartracker.
The fact that this is upsetting as many people as it is to me gives meaning to him continuing to do it to continue to make his point.
Sometimes people are accused of sounding like a broken record because they say the same thing over and over again. And sometimes, things just need to continue to be said over and over again
Adrian – Given your notes, I would have thought these would have rated 92 across the board.
Where have you been the last year?
By doing this by definition he’s not drawing attention to his notes. He’s saying “look at my scoring”. And thus the notes will largely be ignored and the point is lost.
Or more often you merely irritate people into not taking you seriously or listening to anything useful might say. IOW, your message is lost.
Only for you because you want a number. Why not just read Adrian’s notes? His tasting notes are so detailed and vivid, that I come away with a very clear idea of the wine and could care less about the score. Besides, some people never hand out anything below 93 or 95, while others of us hardly ever give out anything over 92, so numbers are meaningless anyway.
There are lots of running jokes here (e.g., magnums of 2007 with Chateauneuf with oysters, fake wines from Rudy, Jay Hack’s wine preferences). You’ll get them once you’ve hung out a bit longer. That’s what makes an online community – a continuing dialog with shared reference points.
Personally, I think it’s hilarious – and revealing – that Adrian’s scores irritate people so much. It’s amazing to me that people need them so much, even if they don’t know Adrian’s palate. Crazy!
Forgive me if I don’t follow every single thread and person on this forum and all their related drama. I only read this one as I have recently started to buy RM wines and when I saw the thread I thought it would be a good read on how they age (translated, I was trying to learn something). After reading all the notes and scores, and seeing the scoring issue, I immediately discounted everything I read. Simply as I had no idea of Adrian’s games and thus based on his scores I couldn’t believe anything else about his actual notes. I still have no idea if his notes are correct or if that’s his idea of a joke to, like his scores are.
His games are disrespectful to anyone who reads the notes in an attempt to learn about those wines and isn’t aware of his childish behavior AND to the winemakers at RM as well. Either post legitimate notes and scores or don’t post at all.