1993 Calera Selleck (RMP 69) Trounces 2 Grand Crus

WINE TALK
1

In order of tasted:

1993 Calera Selleck - Light color, brownish tint. Violet purfumed nose. Tart cherry, earth, five spice flavor. Ripe fruit balanced by great acidity. Unbelievably long finish. 96

1998 Drouhin Echezeaux (Domaine). Dark fruit, blackberry nose. Flavors of blackberry liqueur, ripe fruit. Good tannin/acid balance, moderate finish. Still young. 91

2003 Labourie Roi Charmes Chambertin (Negoce). Berry fruit nose. Flavors of ripe cherry liqueur. Tannins slightly chaulky. Moderate finish. 89

The above were tasted with a buddy of mine, Dale Wilson. He remarked that the Calera might be the best bottle of wine he has ever had.

Interesting that RMP rated the Calera 69 points in 2003. Bottle variation? Poor storage? I had a bottle of the 1993 Calera Selleck about 4 years ago with similar tasting notes to tonight, but on this evening, the wine performed even a little better.

On the topic of Calera, I am also intrigued that of the last two very different vintages, 2005 and 2006, Parker has a huge preference for the 2005s and gave them monster scores. Burghound went the other way and gave his monster scores to the 2006s. Given the characteristics of both vintages and the styles of wines I believe that each taster prefers, this is the way I would have guessed that the scores for each would have gone. As a Calera fan, it is just really nice to see that they reacted to what the vintage gave them, and produced 2 sets of wines that are great in their own different personalities.

2

Fascinating results, Errol. That '93 Selleck sounds wonderful. The earliest vintage I’ve tried was the '99 Jensen, back in 2004. Based on that experience, I’m still holding off on my other bottle. This summer though, I did open up an '00 Jensen, which was lovely but still in need of time to my palate. I hope to hang on to enough of them to be able to taste one when I think it’s actually becoming mature.

A question, since you clearly follow the winery: have you noticed significant differences in the wines or their aging curve after the winemaker change (when was it, the late '90s?)? I wonder if recent vintages are following the same path that your '93, for instance, did in its youth.

3

Jamie, I believe that there has somewhat recently been a change in winemakers. Personally, I have no experience in drinking anything newer than 1993, as Josh Jensen took a very steep price increase for his wines just after that time, and as a result, I fell off as a customer. However, I am not sure there has been a price increase since then, and the wines are getting fantastic acclaim, so I have been back for the past 3 vintages now, at prices that now look like great value. However, my plan is to save their wines for at least 5-10 years before drinking them.

4

I’m a huge fan of Calera and, given their ageability, think their current pricing is very fair.

5

Thanks for the reply, Errol. Perhaps someone will chime in with the facts about winemaker changes and whether that translated into stylistic differences. It sounds like I should keep my eye out for the '06s though.

6

also a Calera enthusiast but these PN wines need real sideways time to shine folks. had a few early 90s bottles @ REDD in Yountville a year or two ago and they all blossomed after an hour or so in a decanter.

7

+1

Love their Viognier as well.

8

I am the lucky person that was able to go through this test with Errol, and yes, this bottle of Calera may well be one of the best bottles that I have ever had. The nose was just wonderful. It was violets, floral with a spice drifting through that was just addicting. It is not a full bodied wine, but the finish really just stayed with you for a long time. The Echezeaux and the Charmes-Chambertin were very good wines, and probably would have scored higher without having to be compared to the Calera. I thought the other two were better with the food than without, but that could be in part that they were younger wines.

Errol of course did not tell me that Mr. Parker and I were going to treat the score as if I were dyslexic from his scoring, but I agree with Errol as to the score. I would give the nose a 98 and the mouthfeel and taste a 94-95 with the total right at that 96 number. I guess it cannot be validated enough that any bottle on any given night can be special.

Dale

9

Add me to the chorus here. Marvelous wines. Did a tasting of 2005s and 2006s recently, and they were showing well and youthful. 2005 definitely seemed a bit riper and rounder. The 2006s were less plush but definitely built in that classic Calera mold.

10

I’ve had a few Sellecks that were bona fide Grand Cru stuff.

11

I was just checking out the library releases and they have 94 and 96 Mills and 97 Reed available from the winery. $63, $69 and $71/bottle, respectively. I may have to pick up some of those and see how they compare. Has anyone had any of these to give advice of one over the other(s)?

thanks

12

Hi Dale, welcome to the board! Parker rated the 97 Reed 90 pts, but who knows what that means?
[scratch.gif]

13

The 96 Mills has great reviews on Cellartracker.