Any (vague) Consensus on Oregon Pinot 2006, 2007, and 2008?

WINE TALK
1

All you Oregon Pinot fans, can you help out a relative novice with vintage generalizations in terms of quality. Just spoke with an Oregon winemaker yesterday and he described the 06 as more Burgundian and long lived as compared with the 05 & 07 vintage.

Not sure if any of the 08’s are up for tasting yet, but I threw them in there just in case.

Thanks!

Chris

2

I’ll go first. I have nowhere near the experience of many others so a large grain of salt should be ingested. Still I just got back from a week in OR, perhaps the equivalent of sleeping last night in a Holiday Inn Express.

Some of the 2006s are overblown, too ripe messes. On the other hand the good producers produced very good wine and in that sense it’s an excellent vintage.

Some of the 2007s are a little thin, uninteresting and perhaps a tad underripe. On the whole I think the vintage is underrated. The percentage of wines that I find lovely and interesting is quite high. I’ll go out on a limb and suggest that the 07s may age better the 06s. I think they are worth lots of attention.

For the 08s I have an n=8 or so, too few to make much of a judgment. Still, my notes on the Patricia Green 08s (and one or two others) and discussions with winemakers and those in the know in the region suggest that 08 will feature the best of 06 and 07. I plan on backing up the truck on 08s at this point. The bottom end 08 Patty Green was on par or better than the 07 vyd designates and I’ve just ordered more.

My 1 and 1/2 cents.

3

That is definitly not the consensus I am aware of . Most consider 05 to be a definite aging vintage with 07 being a possible aging vintage depending on the producer/vineyard.

06 is generally considered to be a ripe, warm weather, fruit forward vintage. Many folks made some very nice wines from this vintage but others are considered to be overly hot and simple. 06 is not generally thought to be one for long term aging though some producers have made some wines that would benefit from short to medium term aging.

That’s the general wisdom as I understand it . . …

4

Was in Oregon last week tasting around Dundee. From what I gathered, 2006 was thought to be a decent/good vintage, albeit a little hot and potentially ripe, 2007 was a mess with rain and a very difficult vintage for most, 2008 is a vintage where if you can’t make great wine you are in the wrong business (i.e. perfect growing season).

Most everyone was very excited for the 2008s, a few of which were in bottle or soon to be in bottle.

5

2006 = Cali Pinot with an OR label
2007 = Burgundian Pinot with an OR label…or something less than desirable
2008 = ? The next 1999 or 2002?

RT

6

Phil Franks is the boards Oregon Pinot expert and he thinks 08 is the best year ever for Or. pinots.

I had a 08 Ayres with Phil and it blew me away.

7

I have 30 cases of Oregon PN in stock and 8 coming.

In September and October of 2007 we had lots of rain starting the middle of September. It looked like a bad year and I backed up the truck on 06’s that were very forward and drinking well without much time on them. As it turned out some of the winemakers make pretty good wine in 07 out of a tough harvest, other 07’s were not so good.

I personally enjoy most of the New World 06’s over the thin 07’s. Some folks think the 07’s are more classical Oregon PN.

08 was a perfect year in Oregon, great Indian summer, perfect football weather and great wine making weather.

The 08’s I have tried are wonderful. Even the low end 08’s are drinking very well.

I suspect that there is a lot of 07 juice sitting in warehouses looking for a home. I have started to see discounted 06 juice showing up. If I were a winemaker sitting on lots of unsold upper end 07 stuff I would be a little concerned. I suspect some growers are going to second label some of their single vineyard wines to get to a lower price point and create some cash. This will certainly help the quality of the $25 and under wines.

I need to increase consumption and make room for more 08’s! But then it seems 09 was a pretty decent year also.

8

No, he’s not. I am the expert around here and don’t you forget it!

I’d love to know who the winemaker was who said '06 was more Burgundian. Not my experience at all. For the most part, as many have said, the '06s are fat, round and tasty but ultimately kind of boring - Calipinot with an Oregon label as Rich said. The '07s are just starting to come around and I really like them. Even the ones that seemed to have a green streak early on (specifically the '07 Evesham Wood Willamette Valley) have dropped the green and fleshed out a bit since they were released.

As for Dennis’ comment about second-labeling (or declassifying) some unsold '07s, that’s gonna be tough since the vast majority of them are in bottle and the late releases are going to hit next month for the most part. The worst part about the '07s is not the actual wine, it’s that some critics panned the vintage early on and scared off the buying public.

As for '08, well . . . Phil and I are in agreement and we tasted together over Labor Day weekend. The early wines we tasted from bottle and barrel are incredibly complete and balanced, with aromatics that will just blow you away. It’s too early to tell for sure, because they could change completely over the next couple of years, but it could easily be the best vintage since I’ve been here, which is 12 years. Some might give the edge to 2002, but it’s not looking like that’s going to be the case. Let’s just say you’d be happy to have loads of wine from either year.

My dos centavos’ worth.

9

Bob,

By chance have you tasted any of JKC’s 07’s? My club shipment is coming up for the WV and Limiteds…and I was thinking I might just take the minimum.

10

I haven’t. In fact, I’ve never visited there. I wouldn’t be too worried about his '07s, though. Jim is by all reports a very talented winemaker, so I’m sure the wines will be excellent. The only reason you might cut back is to save your money for the '08s.

11

Thought that might charge you up.[diablo.gif]

[oops.gif]…unless they meant 03 Burgundy.

RT

12

Well Bob, since I never had the pleasure of drinking with you and since you very rarely post TN’s and since I know Phil and trust his palate, I’m going to stick with my statement that Phil is the boards Oregon Pinot expert.

Now if I needed advice on Trader Joe’s wines… [wink.gif]

13

Paul (and others),

I misspoke (mis-typed/brain fart) on the characterization of the vintages. He actually said exactly what you state here. Sorry for the confusion.

Anyway, it was John Thomas that I was talking with and yes, I requested to get on his list. What a nice guy! He said in 2007 he picked right before the rains started and thereby avoided the most serious problems with dilution. I’ll be ordering when I get the offer.

Chris

14

Got my case of 07 Thomas ordered and in the pipeline. Plan to pick it up in Carlton in a couple of weeks.

15

spent a few days there… and like Bob/Phil (actually was there at the same time, but missed each other)…

06 - ripe, fruity
07 - thin for me, but some like it… apparently more complex
08 - best of both, if Parker was rating it, it’d be the best in 9 life times

16

2006 was a really easy year to make decent wine. The grapes all pretty much got ripe at the same time, there was no rain so you could harvest whenever you wanted, there was little rot, and yields were high. Most people made very approachable, easy drinking wines. Hell, even the brewer at the Golden Valley Brewpub made a terrific 2006 in his spare time. Will they improve with age? Who knows, but I doubt it. 2007 was a much more challenging year, but the winemakers with more and better experience made really good to great wine. Those that didn’t know what they were doing made thin, diluted, uninteresting wines. The brewer at Golden Valley knew enough to avoid even trying to make wine in 2007.

In summary, if you had to pick a bottle from an unknown random producer, I would pick a 2006 over a 2007. You have a better chance of having a decent experience, especially when young. But if you want to put a bottle away and get to pick the producer, I would pick 2007 over 2006.

I figure that I’ll have a good handle on 2008 by Thanksgiving, and fully expect to buy more of the vintage than either 2006 or 2007. Actually I already bought a case of a terrific dry Riesling by R. Stuart from the Ana vineyard in the Dundee Hills.

17

People are pretty much nailing it here. I can only add that in 2006 I didn’t know about Heater Allen brewing, so it was a good but not great harvest for the area. In 2007, I enjoyed my first and then several Heater Allen brews, and a difficult harvest was made better. I think that helped the wines. Then in 2008 I was totally dialed in on Heater Allen brew, the weather cooperated, everyone made excellent wines, the world was a better place for it. I was so excited I figured I’d make commercial wine myself in 2009, sort of join in the fun. This year, there was enough worry about weather to require plenty of Heater Allen brew. Then things turned out really nice, and we celebrated with even more Heater Allen. Soon harvest will be done, and we have Heater Allen to thank, once again.

[training.gif]

18

LOL! This year was a little slow due to some production issues at the brewery - we only supplied beer to about eight wineries. Next year we’ll be in full “Winery Supply Mode”!

19

I’ve enjoyed sharing several glasses with Bob and would be very hestitant to sell his experience or palate short. He speaks OR Pinot more fluently than any consumer (and a number of Willamette ITBers) that I’ve met. Perhaps a winery owner like board member Scott Wright might be more of an expert? With respect to QPR TNs, we can’t all be Rob Rosania!

RT

20

flirtysmile

Seriously, I wouldn’t sell Phil short, either. It helps that his palate and mine align right down the line on pinot noir and perhaps that colors my judgment, but I think he’s an excellent critic and probably better than I am. He also knows all the back roads just like I do! I just had to razz Father Saxon.