I would add to the list Peay. Scallop Shelf maybe hits peak in a decade. Had a 2005 recently that had lost no fruit and gained significantly in complexity.
Add Copain. I’m drinking a 2010 Kiser En Bas right now and it is downright youthful.
A few months back, before my visit to the Russian River and Anderson Valley, I wanted to see how one of my old bottles of Merry Edwards would stand up. I took a 2005 Tobias Glen and found a wonderful nose, a very smooth mouth feel and still a surprising amount of fruit in the glass. It was a very interesting that this wine held up so well.
Some specifics for you: Most of the older CA pinots that have really impressed me recently were Littorai - specifically the Haven, Hirsch, Cerise and Savoy from 1999, 2002, and 2006. The 2007’s I’ve had we’re still youthful, the ‘06s starting to transform and show aged character. The 15+ year wines were gorgeous with lots of secondary development without having lost their fruit. Will these go to 25 and beyond? I don’t know.
I can’t generalize to other producers but you’ve got a lot of good ideas in this thread. Ultimately drinking windows are going to be dependent on producer first and vintage second, tuned by your personal preference and mood. I rarely buy California pinot that drinks well with less than 3-5 years of age, and many examples are discussed on this board.
Is anyone able to shed some light on what aspects of a California pinot noir are expected to improve with additional cellaring beyond 5 years? We can use the 2013 Au Bon Climat Knox Alexander that I had in Nov. 2017 as an example. My vague tasting notes at the time mentioned the following: “Pale garnet orange; strawberries and pomegranate on the nose; palate light bodied with light sour fruits similar to the nose; gives way to some baking spice and chai. Not light in flavor. Prefer a bit heavier texture, this was very thin.”
Some professional notes mention that they expect this wine to pick up body over time, but I am not sure if they are using “body” in the same way as I am.
TIA.
One significant label not mentioned with which I have had tremendous long term success with is Chalone.
The 1978 my first experience and was fortunate to have found a second bottle to confirm its staying power at 20 and 23 years years.
More recently the 1980 Chalone Pinots I have had this past year from the UCD Curator’s Cellar in Davis part of BD sale last year has also shown surprising amounts of spicy cherry fruit with a touch of leather and earth. I will hopefully have the opportunity to taste it again with Nevin who ended up with a deeply colored bottle with a great fill as well.
I have not had the Reserve Pinots produced at that time, but have heard excellent reports.
I will update the community on the upcoming tastings of 1969 Associated Vintners, 1974 Hanzell, 1978 Kalin and 1978 Dehlinger Pinot Noirs currently awaiting their fate in 55 degrees.
I expect Clos Saron’s pinots will age beautifully. And really actually need the age to show their best. I’ve had a few at 12 years old or so that have really improved compared to young bottles, which can be quite tight and lean.
I had an amazing visit there a couple of weeks ago, I should really post some photos.
I’ve had some 15+ year old Chalone pinots that were among the best wines I’ve ever tasted.
Nobody is mentioning Pisoni estate, these to me need a lot of age, minimum 5 years and probably closer to 10 for recent wines.
There are really 2 questions here. 1) whether California PN will “last,” and 2) whether it will improve. California PN in general seems to last 10+ years just fine. I’ve had bottles of California PN over 10 years old across the stylistic and price ranges that were delicious.
Were they better than when they were 2? That’s the real question. A lot of producers loved on WB haven’t been around for much more than 10 years, much less 20. I’ve had David Bruce, Mount Eden, and W-S pinots that were 25+ and really interesting. I’ve had a lot of Rochioli and W-S that we’re 10-15 years old, and I enjoy having them In that phase. But are they better than when they were 5? Hard to say, I’m certainly not qualified to do so as I only started drinking them around 2008 and am just now getting to the point of tasting across a 10 year evolution.
For my own tastes, my current favorite 10-year-old Cal PN are from Peay and W-S. Peat in particular has impressed of late, and I tend to think they have improved given how much I like my 2006s and 2008s right now, I’m light of the fact that I stopped buying 3-4 years ago based on new releases. I’m thinking about resuming my buying.
There are really 2 questions here. 1) whether California PN will “last,” and 2) whether it will improve. California PN in general seems to last 10+ years just fine. I’ve had bottles of California PN over 10 years old across the stylistic and price ranges that were delicious.
Were they better than when they were 2? That’s the real question. A lot of producers loved on WB haven’t been around for much more than 10 years, much less 20. I’ve had David Bruce, Mount Eden, and W-S pinots that were 25+ and really interesting. I’ve had a lot of Rochioli and W-S that we’re 10-15 years old, and I enjoy having them In that phase. But are they better than when they were 5? Hard to say, I’m certainly not qualified to do so as I only started drinking them around 2008 and am just now getting to the point of tasting across a 10 year evolution.
For my own tastes, my current favorite 10-year-old Cal PN are from Peay and W-S. Peay in particular has impressed of late, and I tend to think they have improved given how much I like my 2006s and 2008s right now, In light of the fact that I stopped buying 3-4 years ago based on new releases. I’m thinking about resuming my buying.
This is a great point. I’ve found a lot of wines that just don’t really get more interesting with age. They simply thin out. They’re good, but they never take on any secondary characteristics or additional complexity that makes me enjoy them more. On the other hand, sometimes I prefer the less fat, robust fruit profile that comes with several years in bottle. The uninteresting wines are the saddest to me. I find these a lot from 2006 and 2007 now, where they’ve just not moved at all apart from having fruit fade. I need to write something more on this later, but, in my experience, there has not been a more disappointing vintage for California Pinot than 2007 in the past 15 years. It’s aged unevenly and many of the wines have just fallen apart.
Tell me more, please. The thing that initially attracted me to Calera were some mid-80s bottles that I had with 20+ years on them. Calera was one of the last lists that I gave up and I have a substantial number of bottles aging. I guess you are saying I should start drinking them.
Not necessarily, Calera received huge Parker scores for their ultra-ripe 2007 Pinots, and demand and prices rose accordingly. I believe, although admittedly on limited data because I stopped buying with the 2010 vintage, that they then changed their style to keep Parker happy.
Hmmmm… Just for the sake of friendly discourse…
The conventional agreement is: … the vast majority of wine is not aged, and even wine that is aged is rarely aged for long; it is estimated that 90% of wine is meant to be consumed within a year of production, and 99% of wine within 5 years. (Source Wikipedia, via Windows on the World Wine School: Frequently Asked Questions, Kevin Zraly:.)
Now, if you accept that as true, why would any winery go out of their way to make wines that cater to the 1% of wine buyers (like the fine vinorati here), instead of the 99%, especially in California where the fruit is the primary defining (and attractive IMHO) characteristic .
I’m very pleased when my wines last and and get better after 5 years, but I will willingly, if grudgingly trade that for the having them not be inaccessible/undrinkable for the preceding 5 years…
In fact one of my most popular Pinots is from Sonoma Mountain fruit, and is pretty darn Jammy most of the time (for pinot anyhow) , and it sells out on release, and I tell people don’t hold it, because in this particular case, in 750ml bottles, it really does not have a lot of tertiary flavors worth waiting for.
Now I collect a lot of Pinot (and Burgundy) and spend a lot of time analyzing it, and I’ve had virtually all of the wines mentioned in this thread many times, but I personally think multi-dimensional fruit flavors are what’s best about California Pinot Noir, and that’s best presented 2-5 years from vintage date.
Not to mention that I see people all the time in restaurants currently drinking 15’s & 16’s , right now… People murder young Littorai’s at restaurants a lot!
I have drank a ton of wonderful William Selyems over the decades, and even though I have had quite a few stellar bottles that were 10+ years old, the fact is that that’s relatively few and far between, and they are best around 5 years, depending on the vintage. (i.e I’m holding the 13’s and moved on to the 14’s for now)
If I want Burgundy, I drink Burgundy (and I drink it a lot), not some distant California homage to another Continent & Time.
Great examples of very fine, and fruity California Pinots not mentioned here: (Although I love Dehlinger, Marcassin, Sea Smoke)
DuMol
Papapietro-Perry
Wren Hop
Della
Masut
Donelan
I agree with the premise above that where California Pinot shines is its fruit, and that endearing quality is what often fades with age. If tertiary flavors don’t develop, then perhaps the wine showed its best a few years after release.
But I don’t buy the argument that if only 1% of the world’s wine is intended for a long age that producers will just accept that as fact and only create products for immediate consumption. And the top 1% of buyers (represented on this board) are certainly willing to plunk down more for a specialty product. Wine is already a high end commodity and top tier producers love finding a niche market.
Also, guys like Jenson and Clenendon (disclaimer: I like ABC but have had several let downs with Calera) cut their teeth in Burgundy and winemakers are often the type that does things “for the love of the game”… so I tend to think they do their best to recreate the thing that won their heart in the first place
Whether Cali PN has the raw materials to improve is a great question, but I don’t see the producers listed throughout the thread shying away from making wines intended for delayed consumption. Belle Glos, sure… it falls apart after 3-4 years. But Rhys, littorai, W-S, Copain, Gary Farrell, Failla, all espouse Burgundian practices as part of their model.
Also interested to know anyone’s thoughts on Oregon wines >10 years old…
Oregon has several producers who have shown to age well > 10yrs.
Drouhin
Eyrie
Cameron
Cristom
Evesham Wood
St Innocent
White Rose
Goodfellow
From personal experience. There are others but I haven’t had the opportunity to try them.
Arterberry Maresh
Bethel Heights
Evening Land
Thomas
To name a few.
Also my experience Oregon is more acid driven, so it’s a style you need to enjoy. My CA Pinot experience is very limited. Concentrated yet restrained is what Oregon does best.
Largely I think the age worthiness is more dependent on vintage and to a less extent on producer, but I recently popped a 2012 ABC chardonnay that was at its absolute peak so there must be truth to Jim’s comment.
I don’t have the budget right now to age (and still drink) wine much past 5 years of age. It’s too much of a risk for me that these wines will be over the hill. I’m sure when I’m in my 60s I’ll have many a 10+ year old bottle in my cellar.
Just finished a bottle of the 2010 Dehlinger Goldridge pinot last night and it is still excellent and fresh. Have several more bottles of this and older Dehlingers and they age fantastically.