TN: 2017 Pax Syrah Sonoma Hillsides (USA, California, Sonoma County, Russian River Valley)

Tasting notes, varietals, grapes - anything related to wine
Message
Author
Wes Barton
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 3609
Joined: January 29th, 2009, 3:54 am

Re: TN: 2017 Pax Syrah Sonoma Hillsides (USA, California, Sonoma County, Russian River Valley)

#101 Post by Wes Barton » November 7th, 2019, 2:14 pm

The '18 should be out soon, so you can compare that.

Do we really need to go in circles? 1) I asked for links after not seeing any info on their site, and didn't get any. 2) Not on both wines on release sound about the same. 3) Notes on sound bottles about 9 months out sounds about the same. 4) The '16 I tried about 9 months didn't show any significant carbonic character. So *if* there was a change, it's because it didn't matter to the wine's early peak (nor its mature peak). 5) I've made cool climate 100% whole cluster Syrah. 6) I've made quite a few carbonic maceration wines. 7) I've also had 20+ year old wines made with carbonic maceration that aged just fine, even though there was obviously no intention for them to be aged. 8) How the '16 showed at 9 months out is the point. Amazing. Cool climate. Whole cluster.
ITB - Useless lackey

"I've acquired enough wine to seduce an elephant." - Jennifer Robin

User avatar
larry schaffer
BerserkerBusiness
BerserkerBusiness
Posts: 7727
Joined: January 28th, 2009, 9:26 am
Location: Santa Ynez Valley, CA

Re: TN: 2017 Pax Syrah Sonoma Hillsides (USA, California, Sonoma County, Russian River Valley)

#102 Post by larry schaffer » November 7th, 2019, 2:44 pm

Wes Barton wrote:
November 7th, 2019, 2:14 pm
The '18 should be out soon, so you can compare that.

Do we really need to go in circles? 1) I asked for links after not seeing any info on their site, and didn't get any. 2) Not on both wines on release sound about the same. 3) Notes on sound bottles about 9 months out sounds about the same. 4) The '16 I tried about 9 months didn't show any significant carbonic character. So *if* there was a change, it's because it didn't matter to the wine's early peak (nor its mature peak). 5) I've made cool climate 100% whole cluster Syrah. 6) I've made quite a few carbonic maceration wines. 7) I've also had 20+ year old wines made with carbonic maceration that aged just fine, even though there was obviously no intention for them to be aged. 8) How the '16 showed at 9 months out is the point. Amazing. Cool climate. Whole cluster.
Wes,

Please see post 38 for links to details about how each wine was made.

I understand where you are coming from, trying to look at each wine at about the same time after release, bit not sure it matters here.

And as I and others have pointed out, and I know you know from your experiences, 'whole cluster + carbonic'is not the same as 'whole cluster' and the subsequent wines are bound to show differences.

Cheers.
larry schaffer
tercero wines

Wes Barton
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 3609
Joined: January 29th, 2009, 3:54 am

Re: TN: 2017 Pax Syrah Sonoma Hillsides (USA, California, Sonoma County, Russian River Valley)

#103 Post by Wes Barton » November 7th, 2019, 5:37 pm

Thank's for pointing out the links. The tech sheet TNs are very similar. I see Vinous noted some differences, but chalked them up to vintage. Jeb Dunnuck, interestingly noted the '17 was "Reminding me of a san soufre Saint Joseph" and gave it only 90 pts. They don't look like they were describing the same wine.
Notes viewable here: https://www.klwines.com/p/i?i=1383496
ITB - Useless lackey

"I've acquired enough wine to seduce an elephant." - Jennifer Robin

Wes Barton
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 3609
Joined: January 29th, 2009, 3:54 am

Re: TN: 2017 Pax Syrah Sonoma Hillsides (USA, California, Sonoma County, Russian River Valley)

#104 Post by Wes Barton » November 7th, 2019, 6:19 pm

Here's the first of a few threads on this wine: viewtopic.php?t=155798

Post #6 notes the '17 being carbonic, from someone who tasted it at the winery. From an impression or something specifically stated..?

Post #7 notes the '16 being low sulfur.

Post #15 has the original write-up from Pax, where he notes "The 2017 Sonoma Hillsides is a worthy successor to the now immortal 2016." and "The composition is similar, the concept is identical and the wine is absolutely delicious."
ITB - Useless lackey

"I've acquired enough wine to seduce an elephant." - Jennifer Robin

User avatar
Mattstolz
Posts: 1329
Joined: June 26th, 2017, 7:46 pm
Location: South Carolina

Re: TN: 2017 Pax Syrah Sonoma Hillsides (USA, California, Sonoma County, Russian River Valley)

#105 Post by Mattstolz » November 8th, 2019, 8:21 pm

Wes Barton wrote:
October 30th, 2019, 9:11 pm
Mattstolz wrote:
October 29th, 2019, 6:00 pm
larry schaffer wrote:
October 28th, 2019, 5:32 pm
My guess is that there's only one bottling of this wine. Where would the massive bottle variation come from? The real question is whether it is variation or perception? Anyone care to Venture a guess on that?
Ive been thinking its just a polarizing wine.
Nope. The '16 and '17 are the same style. Some people have had both good and bad bottles of the '17. The '17 we had was definitely flawed. We just don't know why there's variation (but are aware of multiple possibilities).
so do you think if im typically a fan of high acid, low intervention, low abv N rhone that I don't need to be sitting on my bottles waiting for them to come together, that my out of balance-ly acidic wine as others have described in this thread is just bottle variation? I would like to hope it is because I really wanna like this wine. it seems like it should check all my boxes when it comes together

Wes Barton
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 3609
Joined: January 29th, 2009, 3:54 am

Re: TN: 2017 Pax Syrah Sonoma Hillsides (USA, California, Sonoma County, Russian River Valley)

#106 Post by Wes Barton » November 8th, 2019, 10:35 pm

Mattstolz wrote:
November 8th, 2019, 8:21 pm
Wes Barton wrote:
October 30th, 2019, 9:11 pm
Mattstolz wrote:
October 29th, 2019, 6:00 pm


Ive been thinking its just a polarizing wine.
Nope. The '16 and '17 are the same style. Some people have had both good and bad bottles of the '17. The '17 we had was definitely flawed. We just don't know why there's variation (but are aware of multiple possibilities).
so do you think if im typically a fan of high acid, low intervention, low abv N rhone that I don't need to be sitting on my bottles waiting for them to come together, that my out of balance-ly acidic wine as others have described in this thread is just bottle variation? I would like to hope it is because I really wanna like this wine. it seems like it should check all my boxes when it comes together
I think it's bottle variation. The wine is intended to be at a peak now, and then age into something else. The good bottles and most of the bad ones didn't note being too acidic. You had what appeared to have been a good bottle, open 4 days. Could the harsh one you had have had moderate acetic acid contributing to it seeming too acidic?

We don't know why there's bottle variation. Presumably yours were all from the same case. But, I'd think time isn't your friend with these wines, with low SO2 and bacteria. I'd drink them in the near term.
ITB - Useless lackey

"I've acquired enough wine to seduce an elephant." - Jennifer Robin

User avatar
Mattstolz
Posts: 1329
Joined: June 26th, 2017, 7:46 pm
Location: South Carolina

Re: TN: 2017 Pax Syrah Sonoma Hillsides (USA, California, Sonoma County, Russian River Valley)

#107 Post by Mattstolz » November 9th, 2019, 5:32 am

Wes Barton wrote:
November 8th, 2019, 10:35 pm


I think it's bottle variation. The wine is intended to be at a peak now, and then age into something else. The good bottles and most of the bad ones didn't note being too acidic. You had what appeared to have been a good bottle, open 4 days. Could the harsh one you had have had moderate acetic acid contributing to it seeming too acidic?

We don't know why there's bottle variation. Presumably yours were all from the same case. But, I'd think time isn't your friend with these wines, with low SO2 and bacteria. I'd drink them in the near term.
the worst one I tried definitely had some acetic acid type notes. the best one just felt like it was still in an elbows and knees phase (it was the week of release so that didn't surprise me though). it felt like bottle variation, but with such a small personal sample size its hard to tell.

User avatar
J.Vizuete
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 374
Joined: March 19th, 2017, 12:15 pm

Re: TN: 2017 Pax Syrah Sonoma Hillsides (USA, California, Sonoma County, Russian River Valley)

#108 Post by J.Vizuete » November 9th, 2019, 8:11 am

Wes Barton wrote:
November 8th, 2019, 10:35 pm
I think it's bottle variation. The wine is intended to be at a peak now, and then age into something else. The good bottles and most of the bad ones didn't note being too acidic. You had what appeared to have been a good bottle, open 4 days. Could the harsh one you had have had moderate acetic acid contributing to it seeming too acidic?

We don't know why there's bottle variation. Presumably yours were all from the same case. But, I'd think time isn't your friend with these wines, with low SO2 and bacteria. I'd drink them in the near term.
+1
John V.

User avatar
larry schaffer
BerserkerBusiness
BerserkerBusiness
Posts: 7727
Joined: January 28th, 2009, 9:26 am
Location: Santa Ynez Valley, CA

Re: TN: 2017 Pax Syrah Sonoma Hillsides (USA, California, Sonoma County, Russian River Valley)

#109 Post by larry schaffer » November 9th, 2019, 8:18 am

Just curious - is that what Pax has to say - at it's peak now and drink them near term? Just curious . . .

Cheers
larry schaffer
tercero wines

User avatar
Mattstolz
Posts: 1329
Joined: June 26th, 2017, 7:46 pm
Location: South Carolina

Re: TN: 2017 Pax Syrah Sonoma Hillsides (USA, California, Sonoma County, Russian River Valley)

#110 Post by Mattstolz » November 9th, 2019, 9:24 am

larry schaffer wrote:
November 9th, 2019, 8:18 am
Just curious - is that what Pax has to say - at it's peak now and drink them near term? Just curious . . .

Cheers
i wonder this too. they might be low/no sulfur but theres enough acid even in the non-faulty bottles to protect these things for quite a while.

User avatar
Mattstolz
Posts: 1329
Joined: June 26th, 2017, 7:46 pm
Location: South Carolina

Re: TN: 2017 Pax Syrah Sonoma Hillsides (USA, California, Sonoma County, Russian River Valley)

#111 Post by Mattstolz » November 11th, 2019, 5:30 pm

new data point:

opened another bottle of this tonight and it is very enjoyable with food. acid seems to have integrated somewhat and no flaws to be seen. keep describing it as occhipinti-like nose of herbs de Provence, but the palate has some smoky olive notes and bright fruit as well.

now I'm even more unsure what to think about this wine. I think its really just jekyl-hyde thing with this wine. with a decent amount of flawed wines mixed in with some really good ones.

User avatar
Mel Hill
Posts: 6195
Joined: January 27th, 2009, 12:56 pm
Location: Colorado

Re: TN: 2017 Pax Syrah Sonoma Hillsides (USA, California, Sonoma County, Russian River Valley)

#112 Post by Mel Hill » November 11th, 2019, 7:57 pm

We had the 16 tonight and it was very good. Darker fruits but plenty of lift

User avatar
larry schaffer
BerserkerBusiness
BerserkerBusiness
Posts: 7727
Joined: January 28th, 2009, 9:26 am
Location: Santa Ynez Valley, CA

Re: TN: 2017 Pax Syrah Sonoma Hillsides (USA, California, Sonoma County, Russian River Valley)

#113 Post by larry schaffer » November 12th, 2019, 7:47 am

I wanted to circle back on this thread since there continues to be some 'uncertainty' about how the wine was made compared to the 2016 - and I was really curious since I do all 100% whole cluster reds these days.

Therefore, I reached out to Pax and this is what he said about the 2017 (remember - the 2016 was 100% carbonic):

The 2017 Sonoma Hillsides has some carbonic to it for sure. Most Syrah tanks have varying degrees of uncrushed berries so that there is a good deal of "passive" carbonic maceration character that is released when the wines are pressed. They finish primary and secondary fermentation in Concrete off of the skins.

We do quite a bit of true carbonic with Syrah and other varieties and we typically leave them sealed for 7-9 days... depending on how warm they get... 7 is the sweet spot as far as I'm concerned, just sometimes need to give them a little more if they don't heat up enough. None of those true carbonic lots made it into the 2017 Sonoma Hillsides, all were declassified to the North Coast, as the late season heat screwed us and prevented us from making any true carbonic Syrah that tasted good.... :(

All Syrahs are 100% Whole-Cluster (unless there is a good reason to destem, like 2010 & 2011 when the stems were moldy or poor set like in 2008 in a couple of lots etc.).


I hope that clears things up a bit - though the wines should share a similarity from fruit source, the methodologies alone should make them 'different'.

I did not ask him about 'peak drinking age' but will and will report back.

Cheers!
larry schaffer
tercero wines

User avatar
larry schaffer
BerserkerBusiness
BerserkerBusiness
Posts: 7727
Joined: January 28th, 2009, 9:26 am
Location: Santa Ynez Valley, CA

Re: TN: 2017 Pax Syrah Sonoma Hillsides (USA, California, Sonoma County, Russian River Valley)

#114 Post by larry schaffer » November 12th, 2019, 10:08 am

And a bit more info from Pax, comparing the two vintages:

16 was san soufre... 17 has a free of <20ppm>

both are unfixed & unfiltered.

2016 should improve until 2023 and last a long while...

2017 is more dense and has bigger fruit and will improve til 2025 at least, although I don't seeing it making delicious old bones like the 2016...


It's always nice to get info directly from the source rather than trying to 'interpret', right?

Cheers!
larry schaffer
tercero wines

Wes Barton
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 3609
Joined: January 29th, 2009, 3:54 am

Re: TN: 2017 Pax Syrah Sonoma Hillsides (USA, California, Sonoma County, Russian River Valley)

#115 Post by Wes Barton » November 12th, 2019, 1:09 pm

larry schaffer wrote:
November 12th, 2019, 10:08 am
And a bit more info from Pax, comparing the two vintages:

16 was san soufre... 17 has a free of <20ppm>

both are unfixed & unfiltered.

2016 should improve until 2023 and last a long while...

2017 is more dense and has bigger fruit and will improve til 2025 at least, although I don't seeing it making delicious old bones like the 2016...


It's always nice to get info directly from the source rather than trying to 'interpret', right?

Cheers!
Just a reminder of what you're arguing: These wines you haven't tried are so different that a large number of people who love one wine and find the other unpleasantly flawed, are wrong about it being flawed. Or, are wrong some of the time, depending on whatever factors around a particular tasting? You're so confident all bottles of the '17 are sound, without having tasted one, that you didn't bother to ask Pax about bottle variation?
ITB - Useless lackey

"I've acquired enough wine to seduce an elephant." - Jennifer Robin

User avatar
larry schaffer
BerserkerBusiness
BerserkerBusiness
Posts: 7727
Joined: January 28th, 2009, 9:26 am
Location: Santa Ynez Valley, CA

Re: TN: 2017 Pax Syrah Sonoma Hillsides (USA, California, Sonoma County, Russian River Valley)

#116 Post by larry schaffer » November 12th, 2019, 3:06 pm

Wes,

I have not claimed anything about the soundness have any bottles. All I have mentioned is the knowledge that the two wines were made using different methodologies. Therefore, comparisons between the two vintages are pretty tough to do directly.

Since I have an ongoing communication with Pax I will ask him about bottle variation with the 2017.

But please don't misunderstand what I've said all along.

Cheers.
larry schaffer
tercero wines

Wes Barton
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 3609
Joined: January 29th, 2009, 3:54 am

Re: TN: 2017 Pax Syrah Sonoma Hillsides (USA, California, Sonoma County, Russian River Valley)

#117 Post by Wes Barton » November 12th, 2019, 4:03 pm

Larry, you were challenging my perception from tasting them that the main difference was the flaws, then vintage variation. Again, Pax's own note: "The composition is similar, the concept is identical and the wine is absolutely delicious."

So, you're the one who's speculating. I see Pax noting carbonic character in the '17. My own tastings of the '16 and '17 at around 10-11 months after release (mid-Nov.) showed whole cluster character. You're arguing the degree of carbonic character, which was not prominent in either at that point. Your quotes from Pax don't refute anything I said. I see him selecting out lots from the '17 that didn't fit with "the concept". Sorry, but the two vintages were intended to be as much the same style as possible. From Pax's note and others' notes, sound bottles of the '17 are "more dense and has bigger fruit" than the '16. The '17 I had was dull/murky/rotty/rancid. The fruit was knocked way back, not the least bit youthful or bold. That's a flawed bottle, not a preference issue.
ITB - Useless lackey

"I've acquired enough wine to seduce an elephant." - Jennifer Robin

User avatar
larry schaffer
BerserkerBusiness
BerserkerBusiness
Posts: 7727
Joined: January 28th, 2009, 9:26 am
Location: Santa Ynez Valley, CA

Re: TN: 2017 Pax Syrah Sonoma Hillsides (USA, California, Sonoma County, Russian River Valley)

#118 Post by larry schaffer » November 12th, 2019, 4:49 pm

Wes,

Thanks for the reply. Pax was pretty clear that 17 was not fully carbonic but 16 was. That alone would create a marked different wine, no? I think we just need to share a few bottles when we get together next . . .
larry schaffer
tercero wines

User avatar
D@vid Bu3ker
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 33150
Joined: February 14th, 2009, 8:06 am
Location: Connecticut

Re: TN: 2017 Pax Syrah Sonoma Hillsides (USA, California, Sonoma County, Russian River Valley)

#119 Post by D@vid Bu3ker » November 12th, 2019, 6:46 pm

Wes,

Get over yourself.
David Bueker - Rieslingfan

Wes Barton
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 3609
Joined: January 29th, 2009, 3:54 am

Re: TN: 2017 Pax Syrah Sonoma Hillsides (USA, California, Sonoma County, Russian River Valley)

#120 Post by Wes Barton » November 12th, 2019, 10:44 pm

larry schaffer wrote:
November 12th, 2019, 4:49 pm
Wes,

Thanks for the reply. Pax was pretty clear that 17 was not fully carbonic but 16 was. That alone would create a marked different wine, no? I think we just need to share a few bottles when we get together next . . .
You're going in circles on a tangent. The issue is the low SO2 caused bottle variation. Instead of getting over myself, I'll point out the flaws I described are exactly what you can get with a low SO2 wine. I had no idea it was intentionally a low SO2 wine.

Once again, the '16, being fully carbonic, did not taste "fully carbonic" 10 or 11 months after release. That's the non-flawed benchmark. It tasted like a world-class cool climate 100% whole cluster Syrah that merited the 100 pt. rating it got.
ITB - Useless lackey

"I've acquired enough wine to seduce an elephant." - Jennifer Robin

User avatar
Mattstolz
Posts: 1329
Joined: June 26th, 2017, 7:46 pm
Location: South Carolina

Re: TN: 2017 Pax Syrah Sonoma Hillsides (USA, California, Sonoma County, Russian River Valley)

#121 Post by Mattstolz » November 13th, 2019, 3:28 am

larry schaffer wrote:
November 12th, 2019, 4:49 pm
Wes,

Thanks for the reply. Pax was pretty clear that 17 was not fully carbonic but 16 was. That alone would create a marked different wine, no? I think we just need to share a few bottles when we get together next . . .
reading what you posted from Pax, it sounded like both had LOTS that were fully carbonic, but that it was all whole cluster. but it sounded like some was made non-carbonically as well and they were blended to create the final wine in 2016? am I reading that wrong?

when others note that this is a bigger wine, but feels like a good cool climate Syrah, Im curious (and sorry if this is thread drift) but how do sound bottles of the Hillsides compare with wines from the likes of Gonon, Allemand, etc? I've never had a chance to try any of the big name N Rhone producers, and curious how this stacks up with them.

User avatar
D@vid Bu3ker
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 33150
Joined: February 14th, 2009, 8:06 am
Location: Connecticut

Re: TN: 2017 Pax Syrah Sonoma Hillsides (USA, California, Sonoma County, Russian River Valley)

#122 Post by D@vid Bu3ker » November 13th, 2019, 3:55 am

No. Pax’s note specifically says that none of the fully carbonic lots made it into the 2017.
David Bueker - Rieslingfan

User avatar
Hank Victor
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 439
Joined: July 21st, 2018, 8:36 am

Re: TN: 2017 Pax Syrah Sonoma Hillsides (USA, California, Sonoma County, Russian River Valley)

#123 Post by Hank Victor » November 13th, 2019, 5:15 am

Mattstolz wrote:
November 13th, 2019, 3:28 am
larry schaffer wrote:
November 12th, 2019, 4:49 pm
Wes,

Thanks for the reply. Pax was pretty clear that 17 was not fully carbonic but 16 was. That alone would create a marked different wine, no? I think we just need to share a few bottles when we get together next . . .
reading what you posted from Pax, it sounded like both had LOTS that were fully carbonic, but that it was all whole cluster. but it sounded like some was made non-carbonically as well and they were blended to create the final wine in 2016? am I reading that wrong?

when others note that this is a bigger wine, but feels like a good cool climate Syrah, Im curious (and sorry if this is thread drift) but how do sound bottles of the Hillsides compare with wines from the likes of Gonon, Allemand, etc? I've never had a chance to try any of the big name N Rhone producers, and curious how this stacks up with them.
The only “big name” N Rhône producer I’ve had is Chave’s Hermitage 2010 which was in 2018. The wine was significantly bigger, more structured, and more intense. Can’t really compare the both besides the fact that both wines got 100 point ratings.
- ITB
Take a chance, Columbus did..

"Two years away from being two years away”

User avatar
D@vid Bu3ker
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 33150
Joined: February 14th, 2009, 8:06 am
Location: Connecticut

Re: TN: 2017 Pax Syrah Sonoma Hillsides (USA, California, Sonoma County, Russian River Valley)

#124 Post by D@vid Bu3ker » November 13th, 2019, 5:17 am

The Hillsides did remind me a bit of very young Gonon (regular, not VV).
David Bueker - Rieslingfan

User avatar
larry schaffer
BerserkerBusiness
BerserkerBusiness
Posts: 7727
Joined: January 28th, 2009, 9:26 am
Location: Santa Ynez Valley, CA

Re: TN: 2017 Pax Syrah Sonoma Hillsides (USA, California, Sonoma County, Russian River Valley)

#125 Post by larry schaffer » November 13th, 2019, 7:38 am

Wes Barton wrote:
November 12th, 2019, 10:44 pm
larry schaffer wrote:
November 12th, 2019, 4:49 pm
Wes,

Thanks for the reply. Pax was pretty clear that 17 was not fully carbonic but 16 was. That alone would create a marked different wine, no? I think we just need to share a few bottles when we get together next . . .
You're going in circles on a tangent. The issue is the low SO2 caused bottle variation. Instead of getting over myself, I'll point out the flaws I described are exactly what you can get with a low SO2 wine. I had no idea it was intentionally a low SO2 wine.

Once again, the '16, being fully carbonic, did not taste "fully carbonic" 10 or 11 months after release. That's the non-flawed benchmark. It tasted like a world-class cool climate 100% whole cluster Syrah that merited the 100 pt. rating it got.
Wes,

Still waiting on hearing back from Pax on the bottle variation issue. Though lower than usual SO2 could cause bottle variation, have you noticed the same phenomenon in the 2016, which was sans soufre?

I think it's great to have 'opinions' about these things, but to come off with complete certainty is a bit challenging to me. As usual, of course, YMMV . . .

Cheers.
larry schaffer
tercero wines

User avatar
larry schaffer
BerserkerBusiness
BerserkerBusiness
Posts: 7727
Joined: January 28th, 2009, 9:26 am
Location: Santa Ynez Valley, CA

Re: TN: 2017 Pax Syrah Sonoma Hillsides (USA, California, Sonoma County, Russian River Valley)

#126 Post by larry schaffer » November 13th, 2019, 7:40 am

D@vid Bu3ker wrote:
November 13th, 2019, 3:55 am
No. Pax’s note specifically says that none of the fully carbonic lots made it into the 2017.
Thank you for once again providing clarity, my friend. It's interesting in this thread how folks see what they want to - and are not actually reading what I'm posting. Then again, perhaps it's just me . . .

Cheers.
larry schaffer
tercero wines

User avatar
Alan Rath
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 18881
Joined: April 24th, 2009, 12:45 am
Location: Bay Area, CA. Sometimes out to lunch.

Re: TN: 2017 Pax Syrah Sonoma Hillsides (USA, California, Sonoma County, Russian River Valley)

#127 Post by Alan Rath » November 13th, 2019, 8:59 am

D@vid Bu3ker wrote:
November 13th, 2019, 5:17 am
The Hillsides did remind me a bit of very young Gonon (regular, not VV).
My description of the 2016 was "the best St Joseph you have ever had".
I'm just one lost soul, swimming in a fish bowl, year after year

User avatar
Paul Gordon
BerserkerBusiness
BerserkerBusiness
Posts: 504
Joined: July 23rd, 2009, 10:50 pm
Location: Yorkville Highlands

Re: TN: 2017 Pax Syrah Sonoma Hillsides (USA, California, Sonoma County, Russian River Valley)

#128 Post by Paul Gordon » November 13th, 2019, 10:50 am

Wes Barton wrote:
November 12th, 2019, 10:44 pm
larry schaffer wrote:
November 12th, 2019, 4:49 pm
Wes,

Thanks for the reply. Pax was pretty clear that 17 was not fully carbonic but 16 was. That alone would create a marked different wine, no? I think we just need to share a few bottles when we get together next . . .
You're going in circles on a tangent. The issue is the low SO2 caused bottle variation. Instead of getting over myself, I'll point out the flaws I described are exactly what you can get with a low SO2 wine. I had no idea it was intentionally a low SO2 wine.

Once again, the '16, being fully carbonic, did not taste "fully carbonic" 10 or 11 months after release. That's the non-flawed benchmark. It tasted like a world-class cool climate 100% whole cluster Syrah that merited the 100 pt. rating it got.
Wes

I have observed that carbonic character does fade quickly in the bottle. Perhaps the non-carbonic fruit elements emerge? Our 2016 Elevacion Syrah showed a lot of carbonic notes straight after bottling but after a year in the bottle the carbonic character was a lot more subtle.
Also I do not think of 20 ppm SO2 as particularly risky. We have always bottled reds at 20-25ppm free and never seen a problem.

Paul
Paul Gordon
Halcon Vineyards

Wes Barton
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 3609
Joined: January 29th, 2009, 3:54 am

Re: TN: 2017 Pax Syrah Sonoma Hillsides (USA, California, Sonoma County, Russian River Valley)

#129 Post by Wes Barton » November 13th, 2019, 1:29 pm

larry schaffer wrote:
November 13th, 2019, 7:38 am
Wes,

Still waiting on hearing back from Pax on the bottle variation issue. Though lower than usual SO2 could cause bottle variation, have you noticed the same phenomenon in the 2016, which was sans soufre?

I think it's great to have 'opinions' about these things, but to come off with complete certainty is a bit challenging to me. As usual, of course, YMMV . . .

Cheers.
Both bottles of '16 I had (a year apart) were absolutely solid. I've seen no notes of bad bottles of the '16. But, the are (at least) three threads on here for the '17. About half the people chiming in from Dec. 2018 report something wrong with their wine.
ITB - Useless lackey

"I've acquired enough wine to seduce an elephant." - Jennifer Robin

Wes Barton
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 3609
Joined: January 29th, 2009, 3:54 am

Re: TN: 2017 Pax Syrah Sonoma Hillsides (USA, California, Sonoma County, Russian River Valley)

#130 Post by Wes Barton » November 13th, 2019, 1:35 pm

Paul Gordon wrote:
November 13th, 2019, 10:50 am
Wes Barton wrote:
November 12th, 2019, 10:44 pm
larry schaffer wrote:
November 12th, 2019, 4:49 pm
Wes,

Thanks for the reply. Pax was pretty clear that 17 was not fully carbonic but 16 was. That alone would create a marked different wine, no? I think we just need to share a few bottles when we get together next . . .
You're going in circles on a tangent. The issue is the low SO2 caused bottle variation. Instead of getting over myself, I'll point out the flaws I described are exactly what you can get with a low SO2 wine. I had no idea it was intentionally a low SO2 wine.

Once again, the '16, being fully carbonic, did not taste "fully carbonic" 10 or 11 months after release. That's the non-flawed benchmark. It tasted like a world-class cool climate 100% whole cluster Syrah that merited the 100 pt. rating it got.
Wes

I have observed that carbonic character does fade quickly in the bottle. Perhaps the non-carbonic fruit elements emerge? Our 2016 Elevacion Syrah showed a lot of carbonic notes straight after bottling but after a year in the bottle the carbonic character was a lot more subtle.
Also I do not think of 20 ppm SO2 as particularly risky. We have always bottled reds at 20-25ppm free and never seen a problem.

Paul
Exactly. I've made that point over and over. Some people aren't interested in "actually reading what I'm posting".
ITB - Useless lackey

"I've acquired enough wine to seduce an elephant." - Jennifer Robin

User avatar
larry schaffer
BerserkerBusiness
BerserkerBusiness
Posts: 7727
Joined: January 28th, 2009, 9:26 am
Location: Santa Ynez Valley, CA

Re: TN: 2017 Pax Syrah Sonoma Hillsides (USA, California, Sonoma County, Russian River Valley)

#131 Post by larry schaffer » November 13th, 2019, 3:10 pm

Qes,

I dig your comments but you're really pretty funny. The low SO2 should not be the issue - or one could use that argument that there was zero in the 2016

Let's share a bottle soon please . . .

Cheers
larry schaffer
tercero wines

Wes Barton
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 3609
Joined: January 29th, 2009, 3:54 am

Re: TN: 2017 Pax Syrah Sonoma Hillsides (USA, California, Sonoma County, Russian River Valley)

#132 Post by Wes Barton » November 13th, 2019, 4:24 pm

larry schaffer wrote:
November 13th, 2019, 3:10 pm
Wes,

I dig your comments but you're really pretty funny. The low SO2 should not be the issue - or one could use that argument that there was zero in the 2016

Let's share a bottle soon please . . .

Cheers
Something went wrong. I'd suggested that there a lot of possibilities why, but bacteria took off in a lot of the bottles.

Anyway, this bizarre unending tangent over the degree of carbonic character came as a rebuttal to me refuting the idea that the reason half of the people noted something wrong with the bottles they tasted came down to preference. That the two vintages are so drastically different in style that half the people tasting the '17 mistook style for flaws. All those people are wrong. The people who've tasted both good and bad bottles were wrong some of the time, apparently.

Yet, you go to Pax and don't even bring up the dozen or so "off" bottles people have commented on, but rather seek info to help you win an internet argument over a wine you haven't tasted. You accused us, a group who have zero issue disagreeing over the many bottles we share, of having some sort of mass hysteria, yet you can't see that Pax described to you, and in the release notes, a wine made as similar as possible, given the vintage differences. The '17 hit a whole bunch of markers I recalled from the '16 a year earlier, despite its flaws (it went around the table first).
ITB - Useless lackey

"I've acquired enough wine to seduce an elephant." - Jennifer Robin

User avatar
D@vid Bu3ker
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 33150
Joined: February 14th, 2009, 8:06 am
Location: Connecticut

Re: TN: 2017 Pax Syrah Sonoma Hillsides (USA, California, Sonoma County, Russian River Valley)

#133 Post by D@vid Bu3ker » November 13th, 2019, 5:03 pm

There are significant differences between the two vintages. You are not making the discussion any easier as you conveniently ignore those differences.
David Bueker - Rieslingfan

Wes Barton
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 3609
Joined: January 29th, 2009, 3:54 am

Re: TN: 2017 Pax Syrah Sonoma Hillsides (USA, California, Sonoma County, Russian River Valley)

#134 Post by Wes Barton » November 13th, 2019, 7:09 pm

D@vid Bu3ker wrote:
November 13th, 2019, 5:03 pm
There are significant differences between the two vintages. You are not making the discussion any easier as you conveniently ignore those differences.
So much so that half the people trying it find the '17 flawed, but are wrong. Got it.
ITB - Useless lackey

"I've acquired enough wine to seduce an elephant." - Jennifer Robin

User avatar
D@vid Bu3ker
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 33150
Joined: February 14th, 2009, 8:06 am
Location: Connecticut

Re: TN: 2017 Pax Syrah Sonoma Hillsides (USA, California, Sonoma County, Russian River Valley)

#135 Post by D@vid Bu3ker » November 13th, 2019, 7:34 pm

You really are making no sense. I get a strong feeling that you have an axe to grind.
David Bueker - Rieslingfan

Wes Barton
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 3609
Joined: January 29th, 2009, 3:54 am

Re: TN: 2017 Pax Syrah Sonoma Hillsides (USA, California, Sonoma County, Russian River Valley)

#136 Post by Wes Barton » November 14th, 2019, 5:36 pm

D@vid Bu3ker wrote:
November 13th, 2019, 7:34 pm
You really are making no sense. I get a strong feeling that you have an axe to grind.
Do you think, despite Pax saying the "The composition is similar, the concept is identical and the wine is absolutely delicious." in comparing the '17 to the '16, that the wines are a different style?
ITB - Useless lackey

"I've acquired enough wine to seduce an elephant." - Jennifer Robin

User avatar
D@vid Bu3ker
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 33150
Joined: February 14th, 2009, 8:06 am
Location: Connecticut

Re: TN: 2017 Pax Syrah Sonoma Hillsides (USA, California, Sonoma County, Russian River Valley)

#137 Post by D@vid Bu3ker » November 14th, 2019, 6:08 pm

I am focused on the actual process. 2016 was 100% carbonic. 2017 none of the carbonic lots made it. 2016 no SO2. 2017 added SO2.

Substantial differences.

I have had multiple bottles of both vintages, and they are clearly different. None of my 2017 have been flawed, but when first released it was too primary for my taste.

Beyond that, I have not encountered a flawed bottle, so I cannot comment.
David Bueker - Rieslingfan

Wes Barton
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 3609
Joined: January 29th, 2009, 3:54 am

Re: TN: 2017 Pax Syrah Sonoma Hillsides (USA, California, Sonoma County, Russian River Valley)

#138 Post by Wes Barton » November 14th, 2019, 6:28 pm

Not what I asked.

Do you get carbonic character on the '16 now? Did you a year ago? Surely on release.

Is the degree of carbonic character THE reason they are different? Or, is it mostly vintage differences? Something else? Is it reasonable for someone to state they are the same style? If I made a Pinot Noir and a Gamay in the same style, would they taste the same? Inquiring minds want to know...
ITB - Useless lackey

"I've acquired enough wine to seduce an elephant." - Jennifer Robin

User avatar
D@vid Bu3ker
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 33150
Joined: February 14th, 2009, 8:06 am
Location: Connecticut

Re: TN: 2017 Pax Syrah Sonoma Hillsides (USA, California, Sonoma County, Russian River Valley)

#139 Post by D@vid Bu3ker » November 14th, 2019, 6:54 pm

Honestly Wes, I see no point in your line of questioning, especially since you keep changing the question. Again, I think you have an axe to grind.
David Bueker - Rieslingfan

User avatar
D@vid Bu3ker
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 33150
Joined: February 14th, 2009, 8:06 am
Location: Connecticut

Re: TN: 2017 Pax Syrah Sonoma Hillsides (USA, California, Sonoma County, Russian River Valley)

#140 Post by D@vid Bu3ker » November 14th, 2019, 6:57 pm

p.s. my note on the 2016, from late 2017 is on CellarTracker.
David Bueker - Rieslingfan

Wes Barton
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 3609
Joined: January 29th, 2009, 3:54 am

Re: TN: 2017 Pax Syrah Sonoma Hillsides (USA, California, Sonoma County, Russian River Valley)

#141 Post by Wes Barton » November 15th, 2019, 2:46 pm

My question is about this bizarre tangent that derailed the conversation. From my tasting of a flawed '17, I perceived an array of components that it had in common with the '16. I didn't experience either wine in the "too young" stage. I didn't get notable carbonic character in any, which is something that fades away by that point. The fruit differences, which I couldn't compare due to the flaws, are something that will fade with time. What I tried didn't show the big, dense fruit or the harsh acidity and cranberry others got. From what I got with that bottle, it showed like a wine that wouldn't be the least bit out of place in a vertical with the '16. I concluded the two vintages are ultimately of the same style and got subjected to a stream of mansplaining from someone who hasn't tasted the wines. Trying to clarify where I was coming from is how we got here.
ITB - Useless lackey

"I've acquired enough wine to seduce an elephant." - Jennifer Robin

Post Reply

Return to “Wine Talk”