Look, I criticize David as much as anyone, but in this case he had every right to post the tasting notes and every obligation to be honest in them. I am pretty amazed at the defensiveness of the California Pinot lovers on this board - it almost seems like a negative note to them is like a challenge to their manhood.
Yet, these people are the first to criticize Burgundy and tell everyone how much better value California Pinot is than Burgundy. In other words, they can dish it out but they cannot take it.
Arcadian definitely does it well (or at least they did in the wines I have tried). The wine I tried today was Carlo Mondavi’s Raen off the Sonoma Coast, and it worked quite well there, too. If I recall correctly, the Raen was a 2014 and really quite fine.
Sipping on a 2014 Kutch Bohan Pinot Noir right now, and trying to make sense of the “aspartame” thing DavidZ is talking about. I will say that I find this particular bottling to be severely drying in the mouth. That’s something I have not had an issue with in the past with Kutch. I can see where someone who is stem averse would have real issues with this wine, but other than the drying aspect I really like it.
It think it depends. Some stem character evolves well and some just sits there. Some winemakers seem to be blindly trying to mimic wines they like from very different sites, others are clearly making site-by-site, block-by-block, vintage-to-vintage decisions on whole cluster. The better they understand what they’re doing, the better the odds the wines will evolve well.
Some quick thoughts:
-I wonder if that candied character comes from carbonic maceration. Quite possible with all those whole berries.
-You can fully crush and still have 100% stem inclusion, of course. Even gently foot stomp to avoid harsh extraction.
-A rough destemmer can tear through stems and impart a lot of green harshness even though no stems make the fermenter.
-Running everything through a destemmer can still result in a lot of jacks getting through. Depends on the clone and the destemmer.
No problem with the notes. I just find that some of the use of adjectives, not related to the taste of the wine, detract from the seriousness of the tasting note. It implies, to me at least, that the taster has an agenda, a gripe with the wines. Overall, a provocative post that challenges some of the trends within the board. Of the wines mentioned, I have tasted the Alpine 12 and found it a remarkable wine. I will tasted again soon. I have also tasted the Kutch SC 12. Meh for me. Too dark fruit and a bit ripe for my palate, but popular among the crowd. Personally I liked the stem profile in both.
I think everyone should be free to post whatever type of note that want. But likewise, in this forum, people have equal right to respond.
I don’t sense that people are upset that David posted negative notes, nor were they necessarily upset that the notes were about Cali Pinot in particular. It’s that as others have pointed out, these types of notes are a recurring theme from him, and seem to come with an agenda. People recognize that and are annoyed by that.
I will note, however, that this was not a blind tasting. It was known they were all CA pinots. With something as subject as wine ratings, this is certainly a material fact. For my part, I look not so much to the specific ratings or comments, but only to the fact that he did not enjoy the wines. Pity. I wish you better luck in your next testing.
He seems to take a certain glee in beating the crap out of California Pinot Noir in general, and stemmy Cali Pinot in particular, and goes out of his way to tell us all how much he hates these wines and their producers. Though I understand there are a handful of California producers that David likes.
I get it, he thinks California Pinot is bad. Stems are bad. He has every right to take that position. I just don’t understand why he feels the need to keep broadcasting that again and again and again. Though, the other side of that is, and I get this, I don’t have to click in these threads either.
Hmmm, David Z gets dissed at a restaurant and everyone takes his situation seriously rather than assuming he was rude.
David Z hates a bunch of board darlings and he gets the business.
My take away is that ad hominem attacks take a second seat to attacks on darlings.
I don’t take any “glee” in beating up in CA Pinot. You’re right that I think that CA is not a place where top quality Pinot can be grown without heroic efforts, but (x) that reflects my bias that Burgundian Pinot is the benchmark and (y) I find that interesting, not funny - a consequence of California’s unique climate and geology, especially vis-a-vis other places in the world Pinot is grown. In some sense CA pinots are especially interesting for the wine geek because of the complexity in the climate and geology: Can you taste the difference b/w Goldridge and non-Goldridge soils? B/w Navarro and Philo? Etc. And then the winemaking - why does Copain Voisins taste more like the Copain Kisers than the Littorai Savoy? The geology and soils of the Pinot growing regions of CA are way more complex than those of Burgundy.
OK, after all this bickering, let me lay the disputes to rest by posting the definitive tasting notes…
I’d quite look forward to this tasting. I don’t drink a lot of California pinot, but I’ve been quite excited about what people are doing from cooler sites. Visits to Copain and Littorai in recent years have only reinforced me sense that something quite promising is going on with pinot.
These wines just didn’t live up the promise. To be fair, three were not single vineyards. But overall they didn’t seem very complex. Moreover, most seemed to go downhill with air – never a good sign in my book. And all but one were from 2012 and 2013, which have good reputations.
I’d be happy to drink them by the glass, but I’m not a buyer by the bottle at these price.
FYI, David hates stemminess and is highly sensitive to it. He has correctly identified whole-cluster wines in many of our blind tastings. (He seems to have been wrong in the case of Copain.) So you have to read David’s notes with that in mind. I don’t have an issue with stems. Indeed, I tend to like wines where some stems were included.
There was a quarter or a third of a bottle of most left over – a sign that people didn’t repour. I retasted the refrigerated leftovers tonight. Scores are for yesterday//and today.
This seemed so off at first that I replaced my glass, but it still had a chemical note. It was a shame because the balance seemed good, with lots of structure. On day 2, the weird off note was gone and it seems a much more serious wine – with more structure than the rest save for the Clos Saron. Lots of tannin, but not as tough as the Clos Saron. A slight vegetal note on day 2, which may have rendered as chemical on day 1. But there’s both good fruit depth and structure. I wish I had another bottle to lay away for a couple of years, but I have three more of Andrew’s pinots, purchased in a mixed back on Berserker’s day.
I’m surprised David didn’t get the off note, since he’s very attuned to flaws.
A surprisingly high 13.9% for 1,600 feet of elevation in Humboldt County. 79//86 8th yesterday
Nasty? I don’t get that. If there’s a knock on this wine it’s that it’s a little too facile – too eager to please.
Lovely black cherry on the nose; “focused, not overripe,” I wrote. Later some root beer and candy cherry emerged, but I didn’t find it cloying, and I have a very low threshold for cherry cough drops in wine. In the mouth, softer than the rest – softer tannins and lower acid. Some root beer. Some hard tannins on the finish. Nice in its style but not exciting. I didn’t get stemminess. Marked as 12.3%. 84//85
Oak on the nose, and in the mouth, but not overwhelming or out of balance. Nicely balance but … nothing interesting. Noticeable tannins at the back. Snore. Labelled as 12.5%. 82//84 My 6th place.
Very light color – matched only by the Bricewood on that dimension. A trace of oak on the nose and some sweetness in the mouth – oak? fruit? This is Savigny to the Clos Saron’s Gouges. My #1 for me yesterday at 89 points. On day 2 there’s a trace of candy. Overall, this fades on day 2, showing less intensity. I’m surprised it didn’t hold up better. 89//86? 12.7%
Very dark. Ripe black cherry on the nose and in the mouth. In the mouth, big and ripe – much more mainstream Cal pinot than the rest. Some alcohol is apparent, though it doesn’t burn. (It’s marked at 14.5%.) An outlier in this group, but I don’t think it’s in any way a mess and it wasn’t a purple monster. I liked this for what it is and ranked it 2nd with 87 points even though this isn’t normally my style. I can totally understand why others put it lower, but that’s a stylistic choice.
I got some oak and a trace of candy, but I would not at all say this is the most candied. A bit simple, lighter in color and body, probably reflecting the vintage. (On a visit in December 2012, Wells Guthrie was proud of his single vineyards coming in around ~12%.) I can see how what David might have perceived as stemmy, but I think it’s just less ripe fruit. I see no reason to think Copain would lie about not including stems. 13%
Talcum powder floral perfume on the nose. In the mouth, there’s moderate ripeness with good acidity. I get more Bing cherry than plum. It’s a funny combination of green/stemmy with some sweetness in the mouth, but I like it. If you don’t like stems, I can see this would be a turn-off. To me it’s complex. Powerful, rich fruit on the finish. My #3 at 86 and, on repouring last night, I thought I’d rated it too low. I’d give it an extra point or two tonight. 12.9%
Nice oak at first on the nose, and some pinot sour cherry. Taught, less ripe, harder tannins. Almost nebbiolo-like in structure. This is not what I think pinot should taste like. It’s an outlier in structure. Hard tannins on the finish – seem like wood tannins, perhaps. Tightly wound with little fruit showing. I didn’t get VA. On day 2, it’s pretty much the same, with just a little spice in the mouth. Same hard tannins. This is the Gouges Nuits of this group. My #4 at 85. I’d bump it up a point tonight, but I’m not at all sure if this will come into better balance. 13%
I had purchased a couple of these different producers over the years and found the wines to be good initially but left most of the lists due to finding the wines to sweetly fruited. The odd part to me was reading critics reviews on these wines…Rhys has become so sweetly fruited and rich that I can’t drink the Pinots anymore, the Chards and Syrah are great though. Kutch, a wine that I once liked has also become very sweetly fruited that it’s just too much.
I also wondered how the fruit could seem so ripe in such low alcohol wines, interesting conversation.
![[scratch.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/4/42a16863a8714da3c1604419e3eb9206bb87aa50.gif "scratch"){kind=small}