'15 PG Marine Sedimentary thoughts; I predict that those who are deeply into Oregon pinot and who bought this are going to be extremely happy. Giddy happy. My three cases arrived Friday. I had to try one last night. In the context of the ‘13 WB Cuvee’ (a somewhat oafish but likable heavyset teenager) it’s successor the '14 (more angular, chiseled, but slightly brash/coarse), the '15 Marine Sedimentary is in a different league. It is medium bodied at best, medium dark, with an immediate impression of cinnamon, allspice, clove. It is as soave and silky as one can ask for while still showing 600 grit grade sanding paper tannin. The balance is amazing. As I seem to recall Jim himself saying, this is the kind of class one would expect in a good $50 bottle. Unlike the two WB wines, this drinks so incredibly well now, I wonder if there is anything to gain by aging. Perhaps some further nuances will flesh out with time. Although hit and miss, Chehalem Winery has made some Stoller’s that I thought were awfully damned good. This reminds me of one of those better Stollers. Thank you Jim.
Mitch,
I opened one bottle after getting my deliver and here was my immediate impression:
“Wine shows/drinks as advertised, with more pommard character than anything else. Dark red fruited with plums being the most pronounced fruit on the palate. This is a sultry, sexy, and smooth pinot noir. It’s way classier than the Berserker sales price would suggest, and is sure to be a crowd pleaser. It isn’t sweet by any means but shows the warm 2015 vintage more so than some of the other PGC wines I’ve had from the previous warmer vintages. Acid seems med/med-low on this one. Probably a pass for hardcore Oregon AFWE types, but I think it will be a hit with your guests.”
I need to revisit the wine but I recall loving the texture of the wine but also wishing it had a bit more zip. I have purchased from PGC in warm years and they always seem to find balance, so I am pretty sure this will age nicely.
I agree that the acid level is low, a bit lower than I would normally like to see, but the wine is not the least bit flabby.
I like to think that I know a fair amount about Oregon pinot-I sure as shit have drunk tons of it-but I don’t profess to be proficient at picking out clones. I am going to guess that Jim mentioned the Pommard somewhere along the way but I normally associate Pommard with a denser, meatier feel to it. It might very well be 100% Pommard, but to this ignorant fan, it reminds me more of Dijon.
From PGC, looks to be about 40% Pommard and 30% Dijon:
http://patriciagreencellars.orderport.net/product-details/0403/2015-Marine-Sedimentary-Pinot-Noir
The Marine Sedimentary bottling takes wine from selected blocks and barrels from across multiple sites. Our entire Estate Vineyard, both Pommard (The Anklebreaker Block) and Wadensvil Clone from Olenik Vineyard and Dijon 115 and Mariafeld Clone from Lia’s Vineyard created to show how the silty marine soil both drives our plants lives and produces wines that are distinct on their own; such a huge contrast to the Dundee Hills wines that we produce and in particular the soil-based Volcanic bottling that we also do. The interaction of dark fruits, stony/earthy-driven characteristics from the Pommard, sweetness from the Dijon 115 and acid and tannin from the Mariafeld produce a wine that will appeal to those that want secondary characteristics, structure, cool minerality and restraint within the context of power to be the hallmarks of their Pinot Noir. This is the inherent nature of wines from vineyard planted in these soils. The basis and largest component of this bottling is the Anklebreaker Block at Olenik which makes up nearly 40% of the overall blend. The next largest component is the Dijon 115 from Olenik, making up about 30% of the wine. The rest of the wineis from select barrels from the Olenik Wadensvil Block, the Winery (oldest vines) Block and Hallelujah Block (1990 planting) both from the Estate Vineyard as well as a single barrel of the Mariafeld from Lia’s Vineyard. No new barrels were used so as to further show the explicit nature of this wine’s literal roots.
I’m not a tasting note pro so I’ll defer to the comments above for specifics and simply say wow, what a wine! Deep color, serious flavor - not fruity, more spicy as Mitch mentions. This feels like a decidedly grownup wine to me - one I took time to savor and explore but still fun. I wish I had bought much more!
No new oak. Let it flow.
I’m curious about your remark that the 2013 BC was the heavyset teenager, and then, similarly, about the ‘14 being more angular. To my recollection the ‘14 was far less angular than the ‘13. The ‘13 with the lighter and more acidic wine, in keeping with the vintages’ relative styles. I found ‘14 to be rather on the plush, more glycerin side. I’ve enjoyed both very much, and buried my remaining bottles to keep away from them. I found the ‘13 was rather angular at the beginning, but put on a bit of weight and texture with some time the bottle. I could be completely off-base but that was just my experience, and seemed to be consistent with the CellarTracker tasting notes. Curious to hear others’ thoughts on this.
OR has a very interesting confluence of marine and sedimentary topologies due to the Missoula Flood which deposited Montana and Washington influences via the massive and I mean massive break in the Missoula ice dam at the end of the last ice age.
I don’t find the PGC Berserker wines tracking the vintage trends you accurately described for 13 and 14. I think Jim described the 13 as having “bass notes” and to me the 14 is considerably more bright and upfront. The 14 has been one of the most popular wines I’ve ever served guests/family. I think it’s a better wine. The 13 has evolved for sure but I like 14 Berserkers better.
Totally agree with you on the BC '13 and '14.
As far as the Marine Sedimentary, maybe my palate was off that day, but there seemed to be an alcohol spike when I tried my lone bottle shortly after delivery. Nobody else has mentioned this though, so maybe I’m off base with this.
Yep, I noticed that. Agreed.
That’s funny, as I have consistently found the two wines to track the vintages. I drank four bottles of the '13 with two remaining, and approximately a case of the '14 with a half case remaining (I know, poor restraint). I have found the '14 to have considerable glycerin on the palate and while very good, initially to push the limit on plush. The '13 I found initially a bit anemic but with some time it filled in, while the '14 integrated better.
Here are examples of what CT offers, basically going down the line of what each reviewer is saying and trying to take a representative term that implies weight and ripeness. Both wines rate similarly, and similarly well. It seems to me the overwhelming community experience is in line with vintage, though neither is regarded as a big or particularly ripe wine. And while one can sometimes criticize the overall merit of the community at large, in this case the community is essentially people here.
2013:
tart
bright
thin
tart
dark fruit (for counterpoint)
tart
light floral
cranberry
cran-cherry
rich (again for the counterpoint)
fresh red berries
2014:
intensity
nose a bit ripe,
sweet, ripe, almost confected (Bob H)
medium
fruity/lively
tart red berries
broader shouldered / hard candy (Frank Murray III)
“others pegged this as a Cali pinot”
Anyway, I like both wines quite a lot, wish I’d bought more of both, but to me the 2014 is clearly the riper wine.
My experiences match yours, Michael.
I had the same experience as Ron, in that the 14 has been a crowd-pleaser. That said, I strongly prefer the 13, but I tend to have a preference for lithe, red-fruited wines. While the 13 as put on weight with time in the bottle, the 14, was a much bigger from the get go. It’s a darker/riper wine and I think the California comparison is not unfair.
I don’t find the PGC Berserker wines tracking the vintage trends you accurately described for 13 and 14. I think Jim described the 13 as having “bass notes” and to me the 14 is considerably more bright and upfront.
First and foremost, the focus of my note was the '15 Marine Sedimentary but since I commented on the '13 and '14 WB Cuvee’s for comparative purposes, I realize my comments are fair game.
Michael Powers, why would you cite to CT comments for support? This is what our world has come to-anonymous stuff on the internet is suddenly deemed to be credible support for anything you want it to be, when and if it suits.
Ron Felthoven gets what I am referring to and it sounds like Jim Anderson himself has a similar description. Maybe it is a problem with semantics and interpretation of inadequate words. The '13 WB in my very humble and quite possibly deluded mind is very “bass note”, less structured and comes across by virtue of that as being full-bodied. The '14 is as Ron states more bright, forward, and what I call “angular and chiseled”. Another way to say the same thing is that the '14 has more structure. And again for what very little it’s worth, I have gone back and forth but for the most part I prefer the '13. It is more savory and linear at the moment. The '14 imveryho will better benefit with time. The '14 is more interesting but just not as cohesive at the moment. But let me say it again-I don’t claim to be a particularly adept or talented taster. I take pride in certain things and probably have too much ego as to those particular things (bikes, audio, music namely) but don’t mind being labeled flat-out deluded on perceptions of taste.
I’m not Michael, but I think the CT notes are particularly interesting in this case, since the wine was marketed to WB, so nearly all the notes are likely to have come from people on the board. I haven’t checked in on the 14 lately, but the 13 I had a few months back has blossomed into a really nice wine, with more body and spice notes than on release. I don’t find the 14 all that interesting at the monment, but perhaps it needs to shed some baby fat. At any rate, that’s why they make chocolate and vanilla.
Valid point. Again, I need to be more like my hero, Tom Hill. Whenever someone questions Tom on anything of a subjective nature, he lets it go. He has no need to defend himself. Wise people possess that quality.
Admittedly it’s been a while since I opened a '13 and should probably do a side-by-side with the '14 at some point. I also won’t discount that my perceptions could be different than others, or wrong.
I think Corey gets it right, and I mentioned this earlier myself, these aren’t random tasters on CT, but mostly Berserkers, some of whom post quite frequently and at least two of whom I mention above. I mention Bob and FMIII because I have them set as favorites on CT and their names jumped out at me, but I’m sure if I looked more closely we’d see a number of regulars providing notes for those two wines. I suspect that those notes are credible support for a discussion of a comparison of the two wines. That said, if we took any two vintages of any two wines, each with over 100 tasting notes, and tried to determine which was the riper or weightier vintage, I’d assume there’d be a consensus and that it would be correct. Obviously it would depend on the vintages and the wines, but in Oregon, with the stark distinction between the '13 and '14 vintages, I’d suspect that to be true more often than not.
In any case, this wasn’t asked to call you out, like it was a parlor trick, “can you taste persimmon in that wine?” or something like that. I just found it interesting that I’ve consumed multiple bottles of two vintages of the same wine and you posted what I consider to be wholly different interpretations of those wines, particularly with something as fundamental as weight/ripeness. I was legitimately surprised too see the '13 referred to as “oafish” and “heavyset” and the '14 referred to as “angular” or “chiseled.” If you put up those two descriptions without telling me which wine you were describing, I would have, without a doubt, assumed you meant the opposite vintage. My recollection on vintage character and CT notes was consistent with my finding so I simply sought to explore that a bit further, particularly after Ron expressed the same thoughts. That’s all.
Here we go again Michae1 POwers. I should just be quiet. It aint worth it. I see from your posting history you like mixing things up with people. I saw that you recently argued with Wes Barton, one of the more knowledgeable people on this Board. There’s a fine line between exchanging viewpoints and making sport of disagreement. I have better things to do than engage.
Wow, you’re quite the sensitive flower. You asked me a question and I answered, assuming that you actually wanted an answer. This is after you sternly took me to task for using CT as a source of information (again, about wine). I’ll just leave you to your musings then. I should have known better than to have a wine discussion on a wine board. It may well have been a moment of madness; I’m sure I’ll think better of it later and come back to apologize.
PS, I can’t for the life of me remember what issue I argued with Wes Barton about, but this place would be boring AF if people so deferred to knowledgeable people that they didn’t offer contradictory viewpoints when they felt it was warranted.