2016: had twice. Wow I wonder how a wine can taste so northern Rhône like but in back of my head say maybe it’s even a bit fruitier. But the northern Rhône can have more savoriness and it wins. Or does it? Northern Rhône still wins to me but a great wine pax is
2017: Had twice. train wreck. huge acidity but humongous hole in the mid palate like only picking too early in California can do. But also has volatile acidity. I left my last bottle in the cellar for 15 years but I expect red wine vinegar as that is pretty close to what it is now.
2018: had a bottle today: magenta, slight amount of cloudiness. Tastes like carbonic macerated California Syrah. On the other has nice sweetness and acidity and is a very nice bottle to drink. Just don’t have expectations for greatness any more than a fruity carbonic like Beaujolais will for you.
So bottom line is 2018 is a a very tasty Cali Syrah that I don’t think will age long however compared to 2016 and 2017 is not anything northern Rhône like in nature.
the 2017 has gotten better and better as it gains bottle age in my opinion. have had 5 bottles at this point over the last year and the last 2-3 have been HUGE improvements over the early ones. the acidity has really started to integrate. im gonna try to hold my last one for a couple years because if the trend continues it’ll be a really pretty 10 year old wine.
far as I can tell, Pax calls the 2018 a blend of the 16 and 17. will probably open my first 18 this week but curious to hear other opinions like this one.
for the record: I’ve also tried a bottle of the Viticole blend that was cofermented with some Viognier in 17. I think it helped.
I only had the 2016 once and found it ‘interesting’ but wasn’t sure how it would age. I enjoyed it more on Day 1 than Day 2.
I’ve had a bottle of the 2017 and posted about it at the time - I found it enjoyable and not the ‘train wreck’ others found it to be. It was earthy and floral and had some great acidity - and was quite refreshing. And better on Day 2. I still have at least one bottle left - and hope to enjoy it soon.
I’ve gotta get my hands on the 18 to compare. The wines were made differently - the 16 was 100% carbonic IIRC while the 2017 was not. Not sure if the 2018 is - and would love to find out.
Stolpman is making a syrah in the same style - have not tried yet but will need to to compare/contrast. I will say that this style is so different than other syrahs so I understand why it is as ‘controversial’ as it is. And there did appear to be some ‘bottle variation’ in the 2017 - not that I experienced it yet.
Largely agree with the OP original poster on the 16 and 17. Have had both 3 times each and still have bottles left in the cellar. Haven’t tasted the 18. Look forward to doing so thanks for the notes. I continue to enjoy both the Hermit and the Sonoma Hillsides and look forward to the 18’s.
I opened my first bottle of the 2018 last night. significant difference from the 2017. out of the gate much more balance.
I tasted my first bottle of the 2017 at release last year and remember thinking “THIS is the wine that got 100 points??” and that first night it was in the low 80s for me. maybe. it wasn’t till night 4 or 5 that I liked that first one. It took almost a year for the acid to integrate to an enjoyable bottle on night one. The 2018 feels like it is already at that stage. the acid and VA are in check, its clean, it checks the fresh dark fruit and spice boxes, and its got a nice long finish. Comparing it to $50 N Rhone I think it can hold its own for the most part.
2017 Hillsides Antonio Galloni, Vinous Media gave this 94. I liked it at 95.
I emailed Pax and he indicated this wine was not going to live up to the 2016 which was given 100 points. I love Syrah’s and the 2017 is very Northern Rhone for me. If you are expecting a lot of fruit and power this wine is not for you.
![[popcorn.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/1/1ca9f29573458cca2424a66a50d6c1261081dd3e.gif "[popcorn.gif]"){kind=small}