Opened one a couple months ago, just after this vintage finally hit the market locally here in Seattle. As usual, when I crack a bottle of a new release Reserva, I find myself saying “… yep, tastes like an RLdH reserva, but it’s way too young to drink now …”. Same result for this one. Can’t say I noticed anything specific that stood out either good or bad for the '06 relative to other recent vintages. Will probably check in next on this one in about 5 years (which is my typical MO on the red reservas).
Chris - We opened these all few days ago with María José, and they all showed very well. Personally, I found the '06 to be a bit lighter, with brighter red fruit vibes than either the '04 or '05 bottlings. It has plenty of depth, but not as much weight as either of those vintages.
Full disclosure, I am totally biased. I love these people, sell their wine, and am an all around fanboy.
PSA: while I like LdH wines, I find them unusual in flavor and elevage. Definitely a try-before-buy style. I have some wine buddies who are very put-off by the acetic-saison notes that seem ubiquitous in younger LdH wines-- but maybe that integrates with time?
Back to the “100 percent American oak”
note: We had a suburb 2+hour tour there last Sept. (pre-arranged months in advance by email, and free; contrasted with the shorter tour for a fee that you get if you show up sans reservation). Our excellent guide stressed — when we were in the barrel making room — that each barrel (they make on average about 150-170 per year in recent years, according to a chalk list above the workbench) are seasoned with wine, and then that wine is sold off and not bottled by LDH, so as to minimize oak influence. And as noted earlier, most of their barrels are decades old — and look it! Per the house style they are employed and designed to show very little if any oak.
I have been convinced for a long time that people make up legends and theories about oak, and it causes them to imagine oak flavors that are not there.
100%. It reminds me of that Elio Grasso thread, where a certain group of people were convinced that Elio Grasso was lying about their use of barriques, and literally started counting the barrels they found in winery images to prove it. Yes, some wines are too oaky. But often people are missing the big picture or looking for an easy scapegoat or trying to show how sophisticated their palate is. I can’t count the number of times I read tasting notes on here and it’s like a tasting note of the oak, not the wine as a whole.
Fascinating. I’ve always wondered about larger houses that make more traditional wines and how they manage their new oak. I never thought about just selling off some lesser wine in order to tame the barrels. I always assumed it was used for lesser bottles and/or used in complex rotational programs.
Agree with both of you. I love when I see TN’s that talk about oak notes in wines raised in stainless.
This can also cut both ways where people assume that any famous wine they like can in no way have any signs of wood. Wood is part of wine making. It’s going to show in some way no matter who makes the wine. It doesn’t HAVE to be a negative.
81 and 82 were fantastic years in Rioja. Unlike 2006. LdH will make and bottle in years like 2002 and 2006, and the wines are good, but those are wines I’d drink younger rather than older.
And that’s a great reason to buy it. There are so many wines that “need age.” It’s nice to have some of the less heralded years to drink while you wait!
Not for me. Oldest Bosconia I’ve tasted was the '73. '73 and '76 are both very good, but '81 is at another level.
Oldest Tondonia red I’ve tasted is the '57 (Maria-Jose was kind enough to share a bottle at the end of our tour of the bodega with her). But the '64 is still the best vintage of that one. And the '70 Tondonia white (also shared at the bodega) is the best vintage I’ve tasted of that one.
This. Seems to be quite prevalent especially with Champagnes that show autolytic character, like Dom Perignon or Charles Heidsieck.
This can also cut both ways where people assume that any famous wine they like can in no way have any signs of wood. Wood is part of wine making. It’s going to show in some way no matter who makes the wine. It doesn’t HAVE to be a negative.
Exactly. As long as the oaky notes (usually new oak) don’t jump at me, they don’t bother me that much. Although I prefer the oak use to be as undetectable as possible, I don’t mind the wood tones if they aren’t the first thing I notice in a wine - and quite often my interest in a wine starts to wane quite fast if it tastes like it has been blended with cognac, chocolate chips and vanilla.
However, I disagree that wood is part of wine making. There are tons of great wines that never see any wood. Of course a great majority of the world’s greatest wines are aged in oak vessels of different sizes, but that still doesn’t make it a necessity.
