NV Henriot Champagne Blanc Souverain Brut- France, Champagne (4/9/2012)
Acceptable, but not that great - chalky and acid, but lacking much else - sort of inert both on the nose and in the mouth. Not really bad, but there’s just champagnes out there that offer so much more at this price point. I had expected some tertiary complexity, but none to be found. (86 pts.#
2010 Odem Mountain Winery Cabernet Sauvignon Volcanic- Israel, Galilee, Golan Heights #4/9/2012#
Unpleasant, something that could be stomached with no better option at a seder but nothing more. Odd mix of weedy, green notes and a touch of RS. Candied red fruit. It’s like they tried to spoof it but couldnt get the vegetal notes out. Tastes nothing like Cab Sauv - not sure what it tastes like, frankly. #80 pts.#
NV Scharffenberger Brut- USA, California, North Coast, Mendocino County #4/9/2012#
Not bad. Powerful without being ripe or yeasty- I’d bet there’s a fair dollop of Pinot in this blend. #87 pts.#
1999 Mayacamas Vineyards Chardonnay- USA, California, Napa Valley, Mt. Veeder #4/8/2012#
Meh. Lemony, nice acid spine, but oaky as fuck. With this much oak, you need more fruit to stand up to it. IMO. #86 pts.#
2008 Rhys Syrah Skyline Vineyard- USA, California, San Francisco Bay, Santa Cruz Mountains #4/8/2012#
Much better than other Rhys/Alesia wines I’ve tasted. Stems, oak, too much of each, but the blackberry fruit is not cloying or over the top, and I like the very syrah-like floral notes. Well-balanced, but all about the fruit and oak and flowers - very new world. Very good. #88 pts.#
2010 Rivers-Marie Pinot Noir Sonoma Coast- USA, California, Sonoma County, Sonoma Coast #4/8/2012#
Syrupy, frankly sweet, simple, cloying. Don’t get these TRB wines. #82 pts.)
I recognize that you’re pedantic, but that’s not how the scale is used by anyone. Find me someone on CT with a mean score of 75-79, and then we can talk.
The scale is meant to apply to ALL wines, not just the subset of wines that people on this board (or CT users) tend to drink. 75-79 is probably average if you consider the large universe of cheap plonk that constitutes 99% of the wine market. But most people who take wine seriously don’t drink that stuff, so their mean scores tend to cluster at higher points on the scale.
Ron, the average of all wine is probably Two Buck Chuck or Yellow Tail or something else that is $4.99 at a supermarket, right? Or some similarly-priced Vin d’Pays from an industrial-scaled co-op that is reasonably free of flaws. That is what “should” be 75 points according to the scale you posted.
I understand the notion of selection bias and recognize that the “average” (mean) score will not be between 75-79 just because “average tasting” wines are supposed to be scored as such based on the scale (apparently, from David’s response, he does not). I still disagree that wines that are almost undrinkable, even to an experts such as yourselves, should be given an 80. If that makes me pedantic, so be it.
But that’s the result of self-selection, because everybody makes an effort to buy and drink wines that they will like better than the average wine. You would expect each person’s average rating of the wines he’s bought and drank to be better than the average unless he’s making an effort to buy and consume below-average wines, for one reason or another. So an individual average in the 80s or 90s is not inconsistent with “the average wine” rating in the 70s and really bad wines rating in the 50s and 60s.
However, I can report from experience that using the bottom three fifths and even three quarters of the score distribution will result in hate mail from people who rate those wines much higher and thus feel that everybody else is obligated to do so as well, so going with the gentleman’s B+ is an effective way of avoiding making waves.
I’ve had two bottles of the 99 Mayacamas chardonnay in the last month, and I sure didn’t find them to be oaky at all. Very lean, lemony and minerally, with great energy and precision to them. But that’s wine for you, we each see these things differently, plus there is undoubtedly bottle variation in 13 year old chardonnay like that.
The 99 Mayacamas chard was my bottle, and David’s right, it was very oaky. Much oakier than my previous bottle was, which had more depth and concentration and was quite a bit better.
Strange that it would be oaky though, as IIRC Mayacamas uses hardly any new oak. Their website says 6-month in large oak tanks followed by a year in French barrique, but doesn’t say whether the French oak is new. Of course, the website says only what they do now, not what they were doing in 1999, but Mayacamas hasn’t really changed its winemaking in 40 years or so.
I don’t know how the chardonnay is oaked but I know the new oak percentage on the cabernet is something like 4%, so I doubt the chardonnay gets much. I do know that a lot of what often gets called oakiness in chardonnay comes from malo and not from oak, so it could be that’s what’s going on here, although I’m not sure if these see malo either…
Perhaps a better descriptor rather than “oaky” would’ve been “loads and loads of vanilla”. It wasn’t that nutmeg-spice french oak, it was straight vanillin, like mainlining mi-T-fine.
Shocked this post didn’t get more play. I found it absolutely right on the money, and absolutely hilarious.
As for the Mayacamas Chardonnay:
Annual production of Chardonnay also averages nearly 1,500 cases. It is made entirely from Chardonnay grapes. Pressing is accomplished immediately after crushing and destemming. Cool fermentation follows and lasts about three weeks. Secondary malolactic fermentation is not induced. Then Mayacamas Chardonnay is given several rackings and a light fining during the next six months of aging in 600 to 1,200 gallon American oak casks. A year of aging in 60 gallon French oak barrels preceeds bottling. These wines usually reach maturity at five to eight years of age but some hold near their peak for many more years.
Sure, it could have been different in 1999 when the buttered popcorn insanity was at full swing, but Mayacamas isn’t really one to dick around with wine making techniques just to bank of fads…that’s kind of the opposite of their approach.
Perhaps the Chard got some heat exposure? I find that slight heat exposure results in a more caramelized taste and a more oily texture. It also tends to make the wine seem flabby, which would lend to the perception of oak/graininess/malo.
I saw your note and am inclined to agree. The only thing stopping me from giving it the same score was that I knew it was something that would appeal to a large group, and it did have a touch of acid, so I let it slide. I completely understand your questioning the herd on that one, the wine seems very heavily manipulated.
I think the Rivers Marie and the Rhys are not ready to drink yet. I had a 2009 Rivers Marie sonoma a few months ago and thought it was too young, but vintages with more age on them have been absolutely delicious. Having said that, they are also made with a specific new world style that may not appeal to everyone.
I just had a Rhys/Alesia syrah that strongly matches your description. This is not a good sign :
2006 Rhys Alesia Syrah Fairview Ranch
The nose is fruity, floral and enticing. The taste has dark wild berries and a bit too much sweet oak. The finish is earthy and slightly funky. This did not change much on day 2. Overall, a little too heavy-handed for me. 87 points
Have to say I disagree with you here, I don’t see the Rivers-Marie sonoma improving with age. I don’t think age is taking away that overly sweet black cherry root beer flavor. I’d be happy to be proven wrong, but I doubt it.
I haven’t had the 2010 and am basing my opinion on previous vintages. Have you had the 2006, 2007 or 2008 bottling? Do you think the 2010 is significantly different than those?