TN: 2017 Arista blows 2017 Aubert out of the water!

WINE TALK
1

I recent posted a tasting note of my first Aubert Chardonnay, which was 2017 Larry Hyde&Sons. The CT reviews of this wine were off the charts, so despite the wine’s youth, I decided to pull the cork. I’ enjoy well made Cali Chardonnay, so I had very high expectations. I was a bit disappointed, and personally found the wine too big and overblown for my tastes. People on this forum said that I drank the wine too young, and that Larry Hyde was probably not the best vineyard for an intro.

As an interesting exercise, I decided to pull the cork on a wine from another well regarded California Chardonnay producer from the same vintage. I thought it would be a nice comparison. I chose the 2017 Arista Ritchie Vineyard Chardonnay, and I thought it was fantastic. I’d drink this over the Aubert 7 days a week. Both are well made, but this is so much more in keeping with my taste. The ABV is above 14%, so still quite a big boy, but worlds away from Aubert. Here is my TN:

Just lovely. A pale golden color that looks incredibly youthful. Nose is not super strong, but incredibly fresh like a summer garden, notes of recently cut grass, uncut flowers, wild honeysuckle. Acidity is medium plus, body is medium, so well integrated, surprisingly restrained, and hides its >14% alcohol well. Like the nose, the flavors are fresh, young, energetic. There is a life-force in this wine that is undeniable. The flavors are mandarin orange, candied lemon, yellow apple, a touch of spice and vanilla from the oak. I disagree with one of the previous CT reviewers; I think the oak here is perfectly integrated, and provides the nicest little accent notes to the finished product. Like the vanilla in your whipped cream, or a touch of sea salt on a piece of chocolate. There is a surprising, and difficult to describe, Sauvignon Blanc-ish character that is hard to put my finger on. It’s not unwelcome, just something I noticed. I really love some California Chardonnays, and this really hits the nail on the head for me. It will age well for at least 5 years, but is also fantastic now. Highly recommended!

2

A nice explanation of why you preferred one to the other.

Reading CT reviews, you have to consider that there’s a significant self-selection factor. People who rate wines there tend to own them, which usually means they like that style (unless they bought them blindly based on points).

Moreover, people who post notes on CT may be inclined to rate positively wines they’ve bought even when they might prefer others in the same category if they tasted them side by side blindly.

Bottom line: CT scores are most useful if you already know and like the type and style of wine. If you like Aubert, the scores of their wines are likely to be more valuable in differentiating vintages and bottlings. If that’s not your style, you may find the scores baffling.

1 Like
3

Noah, I had a 2017 aubert powder house over the weekend that didn’t show well. It didn’t for the next three days either (yes I had 1 glass a day). Think the Aubert 2017’s are in a dumb, awkward spot now.

1 Like
4

Hyde Vineyard is a special place for me. Although a bit warmer than some of the coastal Sonoma vineyards, according to David Ramey, the clay soils impart great acidity which make for short-term cellaring before drinking. Personally, I think the Hyde chardonnays are best enjoyed at about 6-8 years. Ramey’s Ritchie and Hyde offerings are a great study in how the sites differ. For me, I have always enjoyed the Hyde more than Ritchie which is of course fantastic too. Ultimately, the two wines you are comparing are well done and personal tastes will lead you to your next purchase . . .