I put together this tasting last week with a regular tasting group I host who are mostly “civilians” – bright folks with generally good taste about things in general and a fondness for wine, but not people who read wine publications, go to tastings other than the ones we throw, collect and cellar wine, have opinions about Micheal Rolland or whether California pinots have too much alcohol, or anything like that.
My wife and I typically provide the wines so we can direct the tasting into a direction that has some interest and educational value, both for our guests and for ourselves. A side benefit to me is that it gives me an interesting focus group of how civilians respond to different types of wines, as distinguished from the echo chamber of serious wine tasting groups and discussion boards like this one.
The theme was “power vs. precision,” with two each of four different varieties from California (chardonnay, pinot noir, syrah and zinfandel), with each pairing featuring one wine which would broadly be categorized as a modern, extroverted, powerful type of wine, and one wine which is more of a restrained, complex and/or traditional style.
I tried to keep the wines within the ballpark of each other in price and quality so as not to skew the results, and I did some varied aeration to the wines to try to get them showing their best at this age. I did not serve them blind, mostly because the labels would not have influenced my guests anyways and I would have known which wine was which blind. I did always serve the “power” wine second, because I thought both wines would show better in that order.
I asked everyone to score the wines on a scale of 1-10, anonymously, with the following instructions on the sheet: “On a scale of 1-10, 9+ being one of the best wines you’ve had in a long time, 7+ being a very good wine you would like to have again soon, 5+ being a good solid wine, 3+ being a decent wine but not one you particularly liked, 1-2 being a wine you didn’t enjoy and/or thought was poor quality.”
The notes below are just my personal notes, plus the group’s average score and rank, and my score on the 100 point scale.
2007 Mayacamas Chardonnay, Mt. Veeder, Napa Valley. Group 7.5 (4th) / my 94 (1st): Lemon, pineapple, hazelnut, stony minerals, ocean breeze, and a long clean finish. Oak already nicely integrated and the wine is very clean, balanced and elegant. Like a more generous Chablis. This will age a long time, but based on my experiences with younger and older vintages of this wine, I think it will be most enjoyable the next few years. I have become absolutely captivated with this producer’s chardonnays in the last year.
2007 Chalk Hill Chardonnay Estate Bottled, Russian River Valley, Sonoma. Group 5.5 (7th) / my 83 (8th): There is some decent pear and fig fruit here, but the nose and taste are dominated by oak. Not oak in the sweet buttered popcorn sense or the rich creamy sense, but true wood flavor, somewhat bitter and coarse. This was the only wine left over after the tasting and was worse on day 2. Overall, it was not as horrible as those comments probably make it sound, but it is definitely not my style of chardonnay, and it is not even overoaked in the crowd-pleasing style either (e.g. Rombauer, Newton).
2005 Williams-Selyem Pinot Noir, Sonoma County. Group 6.9 (5th) / my 92 (t-3rd): Crisp red cherry and cranberry flavors, slight notes of mineral and pine forest. This has good structure and balance, and it is getting into a good place, but I think will be better in 2+ years. 13.8% alcohol.
2007 Ketcham Estate Pinot Noir, Russian River Valley, Sonoma. Group 8.3 (t 1st) / my 93 (2nd): A great showing for this wine. Bold black cherry and blackberry fruit, but not sweet. Loads of pepper, clove and nutmeg. Really at a great age here, and I wouldn’t think this will improve further. The group loved it. 14.4% alcohol.
2005 Rhys Alesia Syrah Fairview Ranch, Santa Lucia Highlands. Group 5.4 (8th) / my 87 (7th): A pretty extreme wine. Despite opening the bottle to slow ox 12 hrs before the tasting, there was still a huge nose of barnyard, sweat and cheddar cheese. Wild, but in a better way, on the palate. A dark and dense wine, featuring black fruit, olive, soy sauce and hint of black pepper. The group received this better than I expected overall, but it’s not a wine for most people. 14.2% alcohol.
2006 Villa Creek Avenger, Paso Robles. Group 6.6 (6th) / my 89 (6th): (50% syrah, 25% Grenache, 25% Mourvedre). Sweet black fruit, milk chocolate, a bit of spice, and a creamy texture. 15.6% alcohol, but not overtly hot, just a rather simple but crowd-pleasing wine in an extroverted modern style. This might have been a bit livelier a year or two ago.
2007 Ridge Lytton Springs, Dry Creek Valley, Sonoma. Group 8.2 (t-3rd) / my 92 (t-3rd): Although a wine that can age well for 15+ years, it’s already delicious and well balanced. It is much in the style of this wine over the years and a good example of it. Blackberry and boysenberry fruit, violet, a bit of bramble, menthol and pepper, good tannic structure and acidity. Of all the reds, it was the one that would probably best bridge the gap between being popular with civilians and wine connoisseurs. 14.4% alcohol.
2006 Turley Zinfandel Dusi Vineyard, Paso Robles. Group 8.3 (t-1st) / my 90 (5th): This was a bit raisiny, but with other dark berry fruits and nice black pepper. The finish had adequate acidity and no obtrusive heat despite the 16.4% alcohol. This was probably better a year or two ago and I wouldn’t wait on it if you have one.
![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}