TN: Martinelli's (chard, pinot, syrah)

Poured last night, non-blind, in flights of 2. Except #5 and #10 were poured solo. Popped and poured, no decanting.


\

1. 2006 Woolsey Road Chardonnay, $39

nose: oaky, yeasty
mouth: medium full body, buttery
score: B+


2. 2005 Martinelli Road Chardonnay, $51

nose: huge vanilla, light oak
mouth: medium body, oak, spice, cinnamon, light yeasty
score: A

3. 2005 Charles Ranch Chardonnay $51

nose: tropical fruits, light spice
mouth: medium body, oak, light gluey, light tropical fruits
score: B

4. 2005 Zio Tony Ranch Chardonnay $53

nose: glue (in a good way), vanilla, tropical fruits
mouth: full body, glue, vanilla?, flabby need more acid
score: B-


5. 2005 Three Sisters Chardonnay $63

nose: toasty oak, tropic fruits, tropical
mouth: full body, vanilla, light coak
score: B+


6. 2005 Bella Vigna Pinot $43

nose: forest floor
mouth: medium body, forest floor, vanilla, needs time
score: A-


7. 2005 Martinelli Lolita Ranch Pinot $65
nose: dusty
mouth: medium body, dark fruits, light stemminess, needs time
score: B


8. 2006 Bondi Home Ranch Pinot $63
nose: red raspberry
mouth: medium body, earth, chocolate, light wood
score: A


9. 2004 Bondi Home Ranch Pinot $58
nose: dark dusty fruits
mouth: full body, dark fruits, very light stemminess
score: A


10. 2004 Terra Felice Syrah $48
nose: bourbon, char, berry liqueur
mouth: full body, blueberry liqueur, medium tannins, black fruits, one dimensional
score: B-

Comments:
I was quite disappointed in this tasting, and I was the host. I normally love Martinelli wines and felt that many did not live up to their normal standard. I could really pin down a reasoning, and I looked through my cellar log to see when they all arrived in case of heat damage (#7 and #9 arrived together a while back, the rest arrived just this month). Could it be travel shock? I would think 3 weeks was enough but could easily be wrong.

The chards are “classic California style” and by that I mean big toasty oak, big fruit. There could have been a bit more fruit, normally there is. Thus my disappointment.

The Syrah was fascinating in its monolithic way. Will it turn into something beautiful? I’m just not sure. Quite disappointing. I don’t mind CA syrah, I don’t mind Aussie syrah, big bold and in your face is fine, but this really had nothing going on, just blue/black liqueur. For a syrah nut (that’s me) who appreciates everything from N. Rhone to Central CA to Aussie, this wasn’t giving me any reason to go back and sip again.

Glue. Larry Archibald commented and we all used different descriptors from sour oak to glue. None of us, experienced tasters and some with PhDs in chemistry, could quite pin down the nose and what it was and what causes it in the winery. Not something I tend to find in Martinelli chards and not something I would ever purposely seek out. It isn’t horrible, but is distracting.

I have about 3oz left in most of the bottles so will retry today or tomorrow, with 24/48 hours of air, to see if they have improved.

The scores I publish reflect the quality of the wine, not so much how I enjoyed it. Was it well made? What flaws exist? Balance, etc etc. I can give a cabernet an “A” score although I hate drinking Cabernet because it was a well made wine. We’re seeing that here with the Martinellis.

I then use my commentary at the end to talk about that in a bit more detail and add my enjoyment comments. I’ve often thought about having TWO sets of scores. One set for how well it was made and the other set for how much I enjoyed it. In some of my TNs you will see an “enjoyment” score. Often noted as “buy more” or “sell” or some other notation saying whether I’m happy to have more in my cellar or will buy more or sell everything I have for $0.01/btl.

I also note that I don’t detract for “high alcohol” out of the gate, if I perceive an alcoholic hotness I will note it, and that will detract from the score. But if I don’t taste/smell it, why should I read the bottle, see 15.7% and then say “that’s not good”. The score comes from what is in my mouth if that makes any sense. Same for “over extraction”. If the balance is there, fine. But if it has huge fruit and no acid, for instance, it gets noted in the TNs, not necessarily as being “over extracted” but rather too much of one thing and not enough of the supporting components.

Thanks for the notes. From a personal enjoyment perspective, I usually find Martinellis range from the B-/C+ up to A. I realize that they’re not for everybody (and I have stopped buying the quantities I used to buy), but I still they tend to be well-made wines that offer enjoyment in their style.

Thanks Jeff. How would you compare these with the marcassins you had recently. Interested to get your thoughts on, say, how the Bondi or Three Sisters compare between the two producers given the same winemaker (I think) and vineyard.

I find the Martinelli’s to be more distinct. What I mean by that is that with a full horizontal I can find differences between the bottles. I’ve never thought there was a “hand” in a Martinelli, but did with the Marcassins.

We have a tasting in the planning stages that will put, side by side, Martinelli and Marcassin. Same vintages, same vineyards, same varietals, blind. We will see what the results will show. Should be fun.

I’ll also note, FWIW, that the Martinelli Reserve is my favorite bottling. Yes the SVs are good, but for some reason the Reserve is, year in and year out, the most consistent, very very pleasurable wine and one I’m always sad to see disappear when I drink my last bottle.

Pretty comprehensive tasting ,and thanks for the notes!

I did one like this last year at the winery and had slightly better results w/ what we tasted.

Regarding Marcassin ,those wines to me seem just more distintive ,and better(for my taste) ,but there’s that price(ouch)

If you do a side by side w/ both ,will look forward to the TN’s.


Cheers,
G.

I look forward to those TNs as well.