I bought this wine with some trepidation. 95 pts from uncle Bobby could mean no good. Straight from my 53 degree storage it seemed very exotic. Big showy nose and fat palate impressions led to a long finish, but the flavors and aromatics are not Calera. Sour cherries and limestone are replaced by blueberry and maple syrup. The balance and restraint that suggest a coiled spring are supplanted by a broadened sense of flavors and the telltale wet hay aroma of ovrrripe fruit. Air only exaggerates these parts of its character. I will say that this is a very good wine, for someone who loves big Pinot. It tries mightily to assert its terroir. The stony veins are still there, but they are buried under all the blue and black fruit. As it warms, the heat impressions become more and more noticeable.
This Sunday, at our annual Christmas tasting, I tasted the '95 and '96 Williams Selyem Riverblocks and the '01 Rochioli Riverblock. They shamed this wine. Their balance and harmony showed through, while still showing wonderfully ripe fruit. I love, even adore Calera. In the last year I have tasted the '99, 01, and '06 Sellecks; and they were all riveting. I really hope that this does not signal a new direction for the winery. I cannot bring myself to purchase the 98 pt Selleck (always my favorite) as I fear it will be even more pornographied. 14.9% alc is not Calera, no matter how hard the stone under the vines may try.
I opened the '07 Mills tonight and that wasn’t my experience at all. While it was challenging to drink at this time, that was mostly the result of the emphatic stemminess, not the fruit intensity. In fact the fruit factor is dialed back in comparison to Calera’s last few vintages. 14.9% is on the high side for Calera but not by any means unprecedented and they have made balanced wines at that level. FWIW, the Sellecks you adored ranged from 14.2 to 14.5% according to Calera’s web site.
I am sure this wine will make many folks happy, and I can never claim to know what is or is not your cup of tea. I tried to express how much I respect the winery and what they do. I simply did not feel that it seemed like the Caleras I love so much. Granted, it is very young, but I felt that the signature of heat was something I have not seen in other Caleras. I will not be buying more '07 Caleras. If you like them, then it is more for you. I will put my money on '06, '02, and others. I understand that the Calera wines I enjoy are often over 14% and do not mean to quibble over % pionts. For me, I sense heat, or I do not. In this wine, I did; in Calera, I usually do not.
I opened a 2007 Calera Pinot Noir tonight. 14.8% alcohol in an entry-level Pinot? The wine is a mess. Sweet and vanilla/chocolately cherry sauce kind of thing. No good, at least for me. Opened a 2007 Prudhon Bourgogne to compare. Now, here is a real sense of place.
There was some discussion a while back about some rather low scores (for Calera at least) from Dr. Meadows, and after trying almost everything but the Jensen, Selleck and Mills, I’m in complete agreement with him and his assessment. Wines were throroughly underwhelming across the board.
I assume you’re referring to the Central Coast bottling if you’re calling it an entry-level pinot? If so that has nothing to do with Calera’s Mt. Harlan wines.
Actually, I excluded Ryan intentionally, due to the recentness of its planting; leaving Reed as the only other “SVD”. The cuvee or melange are blends of the above, and the central coast is not estate. carry on…
(Can no longer afford the wines, but a Calera diehard always…the first barrels of Pinot I ever made came from grapes graciously supplied by Jensen et al.)
Yes, that is correct. Consider me a novice when it comes to Calera’s wines. I understand (now) that the grapes that goes into the Central Coast bottling are purchased. Is the alcohol less pronounced in the Mt. Harlan wines?
I got some heat in one '07 so far and before that some of the '04s. I don’t think anyone will accuse me of being a partisan of high-alcohol pinot noir and I am a huge fan of what Calera does.
Quick question / observation - you note the ‘high’ alcohol level (not at all IMHO) but ‘alcohol’ is not in your tasting notes at all. Just curious whether you noted the high alc or if you just think this level is too high? Just curious . . .
I stand corrected on the %s: I haven’t followed the releases of the 1997 and 1998 plantings. I owe my passion for Pinot to de Villiers’ book, so I’ll have to spurge at some point. Haven’t had the pleasure of trying the Ryan either, but will have to also; I hear they are a great tribute to a really good guy who’s helped a number of us in the biz with our vit studies.
on the note I entered in CT I did mention I noticed the high alcohol (in particular on the back-end of the palate) but I also noticed that the alcohol/heat did recede after some time. I do think that ~15% alcohol is very high for a Pinot Noir. Either way, I’m not a big fan of the particular bottling that I tried last night. It sounds like I should give the Mt. Harlan wines a try, and perhaps not from the 2007 vintage.