I also think that’s a factor, the SVD is better idea is not always true. I think that’s particularly true for Pinot Noir if a vineyard or a winery’s block has limited clonal diversity.
-Al
Sometimes, an unimportant wine is more fun to enjoy than the more important wine.
My wife says, different situations affect this equation and she agrees with the OP and others.
Perhaps “more accessible and therefore enjoyable” rather than “better”. I really like the Peay Sonoma Coast Pinot in a “less is more” sort of way, even if it doesn’t have the depth or complexity of their upper tier wines.
I agree with your wife (tell her!).
Sometimes when I have no or modest expectations for a wine, I can be pleasantly surprised and as a result maybe I overestimate how good the wine was…
On the other hand, when I taste a reputed/important wine, my expectations can be pretty high. If the wine doesn’t quite live up to these expectations, I will be a bit disappointed and may underestimate how good that wine was.
I think it is definitely possible for some wineries more expensive bottlings to get too much attention in the winery with oak, extraction, etc. The nice thing is, when the less winery-made wines match your palate (like they do mine!) then this ends up being a deal!
however, my favorite wineries (Patty Green definitely included here, Jim!) are my favorites because I trust the palates and knowledge of the people making those wines, and they balance whatever makes that fruit more expensive, whether it be barrels or ripeness or what have you, with freshness and brightness and finesse. The best wineries make wines that are worth their price, regardless of the set price point!
2 Likes
99% of the Pinot Noirs I drink come from Burgundy. I love well-made lighter Burgundies like Bourgogne Rouge. The wines can be very enjoyable and go well with lighter food. But, in most cases the higher appellation wines from the same producer turn out better with time IMHO.
The word lighter makes me pause. I think about Alesia (Rhys) and Kutch as examples. I don’t find the Alesia Anderson Valley or the Kutch Sonoma Coast lighter. What I do find in both of these wines is strong quality, and yes, less expensive. I actually liked the 2016 Alesia AV better than the 2016 Rhys Bearwallow in my tasting last year at Rhys. And I remember the terrific quality of the 2015 Kutch SC, and also the 2 recent bottles of 2017 Kutch SC, that are drinking fantastic. Both the Alesia and Kutch are less expensive than the single vineyard components.
One other big issue is the barrels. Normally the entry level Pinot Noirs are in used oak for a much shorter time, making the wine perfect for early drinking. Most everyone’s top cuvees see new oak for longer periods and rarely show well that first year after release.
Put me down as a supporter of Al’s opinion too.
Moreso than any other variety (save maybe pet), the idea that extended aging will allow a new world pinot to evolve to a point of beauty is false. Some rough edges may diminish, a wine that was tight may become more generous, and that is pretty much all one can rationally hope for. This has been not only my own experience but the reported results of tastings of older Calif and Oregon pinots.
Agree with Al as well - the better pinot noirs, particularly if they see more oak need time. Just because a grand cru from a great vintage is a little tough at 8 years old doesn’t mean it won’t eventually eclipse the village wine or bourgogne rouge that is more attractive at the time.
With Oregon Pinot Noir, I totally disagree. I don’t have a lot of experience with aged Cali Pinot. With better Oregon PNs, a few things consistently happen (in my experience): fruit softens up a bit allowing those lovely earthy flavors to balance the fruit out (which is still strong, mind you), acid peeks through a bit more as the tannins subside, and the aromatics absolutely blossom. For me, my favorite Oregon Pinots don’t just hold as they age, they definitely improve.
First, I am probably stirring the pot a little and for that I apologize. I mean well. Promise.
acid peeks through a bit more as the tannins subside
I think I know what you meant to say, but tannins are acidic.
and the aromatics absolutely blossom
This does sometimes happen but the adjective “absolutely” is tough for me to agree upon. In my experience over 20 years time, many of the tighter wines soften up and offer more pleasurable aromatics. A tiny fraction go from un-giving to nirvana. I have had many where some minor “thorn” became more pronounced with time as the fruit subsides-the dill character often found in St. Innocent wines comes to mind. Where I am coming from is this perspective; a well balanced wine will show as balanced even young. Pinot is no different and unlike Burgundy, new world pinot by and large does not go through some alchemy-like evolution in the bottle. We got to this point of the discussion when Al Osterheid offered that the more expensive bottlings often need more time to show their best. I don’t disagree with Al (I don’t recall ever disagreeing with Al on anything), but I have a comment as to the degree of improvement. It is only subjective. Your experience is your experience and I can not be right and you can not be wrong.
At first glance I thought this was a pure troll thread. But, no. This comes down to your own subjective POV on what “better” is. I’d think ‘lighter’ wines are usually considered less complex. And isn’t complexity generally considered better? So I’d vote no on this thread.
Of course if you like lightness over other traits then more more power to you. You’ll probably save money on wine!
Rich you’re much more experienced than I am, but aren’t there many wines that are lighter bodied and yet highly complex + sought after? Anything Romanee St Vivant for example. Or think of 50 year old Barolo. In general it’s probably easier to sense complexity / aromatic nuance in a wine that doesn’t have a ton of heavy fruit or structure to hide it
often worse
Well I think this exposes the limitations of ‘lightness’ as a descriptor. For sure a wine can be not heavy and deep and complex. But I’d never say that RSV is typically a producer’s less expensive wine, light or otherwise. Unless you’re comparing it to La Tâche!
Often, yes.
I think it depends on the producer’s target style. A producer whose aim is to make weightless, complex, light bodied Pinot will often make a bigger, fruitier, “crowd pleasing” style entry level wine.
A producer going for big jammy Pinot might declassify some of the less intense fruit, use less oak, and make that the entry level wine so they can save the most concentrated juice for their top tier bottlings.
I should have asked Dan the really important question - better for what?
I think that frequently I prefer the wines that see less oak.