2004:
I’ve liked this winery for a long, long time. I always think they are like an Oregon version of Navarro - great with the white wines and good with the reds, but then always realize I am underappreciating their Pinot.
Their style tends toward the mid-size - I think the wines are generally similar to Bethel Heights PN, for instance. And my drinking pattern is always the same - I’ll open up a young bottle, which will seem fairly flat. I’ll let them sit in the basement for a few years (basically avoiding the bottle), and, if it doesn’t have a lot of years on it, it’ll be a wine that is really good but could stand some age. Per usual, that was the case here.
Cherry red fruit, with darker, sorta anise-like undertones, but a nose with a lot of red dirt. Not tannic, but gets nice structure from the acids. Very soft finish. Tastes like it is 2 or 3 years old, not 7 or 8. I think this has got another five years in it, easy. Fine job. Had with pesto pasta and then over a couple of hours after.
Just had the 2003 tonight. Similar flavor profile. Blacker undertones (like black pepper). Not quite so dirty a nose as the 2004, so it seems a little more simple. Absolutely more tannin (though not oppressive) than the 2004. The problem is that it is just plain hot. There’s no funk here (thinking of Jim’s post on the other thread), but especially the heat suggests the wine is on the downside of its life. Definitely one to be opened now.
Not sure I tasted these two, but a couple of their 03 and 04 PNs (possibly the reserves) were the hottest OR Pinots I’ve ever encountered. A number of reliably palated friends endorse Chehalem. I really enjoyed one of their unusual 2000 Wadenswil PNs, but it’ll take several more positive experiences to work off my admittedly negative bias.
RT
I have not (that I recall) experienced this before in one of their wines, but there was no mistaking it. I think I’ll head the other direction over the next week and open up through 2007 (even though these - to me - are young wines from them), but 2003 seemed to be a cautionary tale…
I didn’t see it on the label - which speaks to my vision more than the label, because it must be on the label - but their website says the 2003 is at 16.0% - which would explain a lot.
For shits and giggles, here’s what it has on the website, going back to 1997:
1997 - 13.4%
1998 - 13.8%
1999 - 13.0%
2000 - 14.9%
2001 - 14.4%
2002 - 14.1%
2003 - 16.0%
2004 - 14.2%
2005 - 13.7%
2006 - 14.8%
2007 - 13.6%
2008 - 12.9%
“One of these things is not like the others.”
Tonight, the 2005. I suspect this will benefit from more time in the bottle.
Crazy funky nose. Cranberry. But that funk - crazy. I know some will say “forest floor” but I don’t buy it. So once I got it in my head that it was like somebody pooped in a glass of Ocean Spray, it was harder to consider the wine more seriously.
Once the funk mostly blew off - probably an hour - I got a bit of minty quality to it. Big. Tannic more than acidic. Kind of a clipped finish. Big and dark but not a fruity-dark. Odd wine. Tobacco.
Given how well their PN’s age, I’m inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt and suggest, if you have just one bottle, wait until 2017.
Last night, the 2007.
Surprisingly alcohol-dominant nose, combined with cherry and cranberry. Serious whiff of Robitussin.
The wine was pancake flat - little acidity, very one dimensional. There was more sustained fruit than I expected, but it just was not at all lively. Won’t improve because there isn’t the structure and the fruit will only fade.
Tonight, the 2006.
Cherry nose, with a lot of non-fruit notes - leather, black soil.
Darker fruit flavors than some of these others - cherry, but some blackberry, too. Bright acidity. Assertive tannins. And unfortunate bit of bitterness on the finish - would benefit with an hour or two to breathe (as I just popped and poured). Odd oiliness on the back palate.
I kind of want to set it aside and revisit in a couple of hours (or a day!). The complexity is a big step up from yesterday’s 2007 - as is the brightness. But the burnt-tongue-bitter finish is the kind of thing that can take a proverbial 90-point wine down to 80. I think age will help, but I wouldn’t bet my life on it.
I’ve enjoyed tasting through these in a short window of time. And the bottles have largely reinforced by belief that Chehalem makes some deceptively ageworthy PN.
Interesting comparison. The '04 and '05 sound like the picks of the litter. Most of the higher end '05’s still need several more years of rest.
2002 tonight and, yes, this stuff ages great. Leather and red dirt nose. Black cherries. Almost a lime-y quality on the nose. A little raspberry in there. Great nose - just floats right out at you.
I like the structure here - fine tannins and really nice acids, though with the slightest sourness. Mid-weight, but lush. Not chewy, but soft.
Longgggg finish, though on the finish the fruit seems a bit darker. The only downside is that the slight sourness even outlasts the finish, with a slightly green aftertaste - but is hardly noticeable when drinking with food (pesto-pasta tonight).
I think this is really nice - though I like the 2004 better. I don’t think it is going anywhere, any time soon - but I don’t expect it to get any better, either.
I’m not sure I’ve ever had the Chehalem Stoller but was blown away by the 2009 Chehalem Ridgecrest Pinot Noir in Charlotte recently. I do like Stoller’s own wines so should try the Chehalem version,.