I don’t like 2007 better - I just don’t dislike 2007. I live in Oregon. I buy the wines every vintage. It’s probably about 40% of what I own. I just don’t understand the 2007 bashing. Stellar? No. Undervalued and good drinking? Yes. Maybe I have a different perspective because I buy every vintage from my favorite producers.
Amen.
Should 2008 the standard to evaluate the success of a vintage? How often does one compare a given year to the best year on record? Why not talk about how 2007 compares to the average year in Oregon? Personally, I’ve found many 07’s preferable to many 09’s, which is based upon my stylistic preference. Will most people like the 07’s better? Maybe not, but I’d bet that a good portion of OR wine aficionados will vote for 07 over 09 or even 06 or 03 or…
I’ve been buying Oregon wines since the 1995 vintage, and none of my buying habits have anything to do with “the trophy aspect.”
2007 is not a very good vintage, to me. The maligned 2001 vintage was better. 1996 was WAY better - a maligned vintage that was absolutely brilliant. The best 1995s are better than the best 2007s. 2007 is 1997 bad.
So I’m not sure what my buying habits have to do with trophies or scores or anything else.
What I do know is that there are more threads that turn into “2007 thread is so great and people who don’t get it just don’t understand it” threads than there are “Scarecrow is overpriced” threads. Hey, people like 2007 OPN - good for them. Just like people like Yellow Tail - good for them, too.
But I don’t think there is any more evidence that people collectively dislike 2007 because of scores than there is evidence that people want to like 2007 because it makes them seem as if they “understand” these wines that the unwashed don’t understand. The “2007 is so good” thing seems to exclusively be a WB affect.
People can make excuses, but if these were wines that really appealed to a large percentage of people who drink Oregon wine, they would’ve sold better. Of course there are some good ones - just as there were good 1997s. But seriously, if I was trying to introduce someone to Oregon wine - and wanted them to gain any kind of an understanding of what Oregon wines might “typically” taste like in a pretty good year, it certainly wouldn’t be a random 2007 that I’d grab.
I posted even though I saw you’d posted this. I think this is an absolutely great question. There has been so much vintage varaiance that it is difficult to find a vintage that “typifies” Oregon. I still think 1996 should be a benchmark - not so much because the wines were “great” but they were wines that tasted like Pinot noir! Had great balance. Good fruit but weren’t jammy. To me, that makes for a good “benchmark” vintage.
Okay, this time I’m not tweaking you. You’re effin’ delusional.
Rachel;
With that statement we can at least partially agree. Not so long ago, Lemelson offered it’s 07 Meyer Vineyard pinot at 1/2 off . I bought a case. It was an acceptable $18 bottle of wine. It was not an acceptable $36 bottle of wine, and I buy quite a bit of Lemelson every year. Having said that, for the same price as either the 08s (which were sold out) or the 09s (still available at the time), I would never have considered the 07s.
Honestly right now, I’m awaiting the release of the 2010s from many of my favorite winemakers. Drinking wise, my 02,03, and 04s are drinking wonderfully right now. I probably have 8-10 cases of those wines, collectively, to drink, so I’m not really interested in buying any 07s. Afterwards, I will move on to my 05s and 06s that will by mid to late 2013 start me into my large collection of 08s. But, if one has no cellar and is offered half price wine, some of the 07s (like Hamaker) might be a good deal. Many, though, at this point I would pass on, even at half price.
Chris, OK, I’m younger than most of us arguing in this thread, but my parents have been buying OPN since 1985. They even bought the 86’s and 87’s which were double the price of the 85’s and, I’m told, were almost universally terrible (I’m pleased to say I’ve never tasted them). I’ve tasted a lot of the wines since the mid-90’s although not on release. I agree that 96 was underrated, (I didn’t taste most of the wines until they were 8-10 years old), but disagree that it’s a benchmark. Even having grown up here, I can’t think of a single vintage I would consider “typical” or a definite benchmark. To quote those more articulate than me, “our weather is effed” and it’s rare when any year is similar to another year. I think a lot of the bad opinion of 2007 has to do with prices. In the world market for Pinot is 2007 a good value? Maybe not - OK, probably not. But are the wines terrible? No. Am I jumping on the band wagon to try to impress others and show them I’m smarter than the unwashed masses? I don’t think so (and besides, I don’t think anyone really cares what I think). I thought this before I joined WB. Non-locals didn’t buy 2007 maybe because they saw better QPR for Pinot elsewhere. Fine. But a lot of us locals still bought them and are enjoying them for what they are. But we have that tendency here to eat and drink the local wines/beers/food/produce regardless of what other tell us we should think of them. In all seriousness, I don’t mean this last point insultingly, but it is a pretty big part of the Oregonian personality. We like to call it our Pioneer Spirit, but you can less politely call it “we don’t care what you think” attitude. Again, I don’t mean it disrespectfully. If anything biases my view of 2007, it’s likely that, but I still think they’re far better wines than what you do. And it sounds like we’re unlikely do change each others minds. Cheers
As Rachel said, the '07s are what they are, and they are mostly honest wines with the better ones showing real character. I get a lot of satisfaction out of the vintage, and find them hitting a higher percentage right now than
other higher rated years. (If anyone really thinks that 2001s are better, they can have any that are still alive).
That does not mean that I think '07 is a better vintage than '02, '04, '05, '08, '09, and '10. (It is certainly better than '01 and '03. To my taste better than '06). The '05s, '08s, and '10 are just not ready at all, and the '09 that are drinking well are not showing what the vintage will ultimately deliver. The '04s are tending towards a ripeness that gives the dried and candied fruit certain critics gush about. When you want a show-off wine that’s great, when you just want a wine with dinner, maybe not.
Notes above in the thread indicate that certain '07s are darker, more concentrated than the typical '07s. Funny, I’ve had a lot of them like that.
P Hickner
+1
This is why I love OPN soooooo much!
I’d suggest getting into the '06s first, there doesn’t tend to be much structure with them, so they’re not going to last very long. I think '02s are drinking beautifully, with '03s hit/miss. '05s still have a couple years until “prime” I’d say. I’d also get into '09s before I’d touch '08s. Like '02, I think '08s will age beautifully for a long while.
I agree that sales volume is the good indicator of how well a wine appeals to people, but a wine’s appeal is determined in several ways (scores being one of them). But in a discussion about the quality of a vintage or a particular wine, I don’t like the idea of using sales volume to define its quality. There is too much swill that appeals to a lot of people with no correlation to quality. 
John; Pretty much agree with you. Even my 09s will be long gone, before many of my 08s are touched. I’m not seeing the downward spiralling of my 06s that you allude to. Most of mine still need 2-3 hours of decant before they even start to open up. Will probably lay off most of my 05s also for another year or so. We have a few 07s that will get consumed in the couple of years. Don’t think more age will do them any favors.
Holding back on some special great 02s. Slowly drinking others.
Pretty much drinking my 03s.
Will hold a few 04s, but will consume most over next 3 years.
Holding 05s, or giving them long decants.
Drinking 06s, but most need several hours of decant. Top names are still hold.
Drinking 07s
Don’t even think about the 08s.
Just take an occasional peek at 09s, mostly hold. Have had both a 09 BH Evelyn and Boulder Block in the past month. Infantcide, should have known better.
First 2010 shipment arrives this week. Still waiting for my letter from Dick S. and Doug T., others on order.
Nice post. To both your comment and Rachel’s… I strongly believe 2001 was better - though, absolutely, most of those wines are over-the-hill - and in 2018, so will the 2007s. And I do think that much of the appeal of OPN is in the yearly variations.
But just because I love OPN and consider a number of winemakers to be friends (though I have not spent near the time out there is recent years that I did ten to fifteen years ago), I don’t feel a desire to defend every vintage. And it seems like every vintage gets praised, when wine is on the shelves.
Back to 2001 - I think that’s also a vintage that could be (or could have been) a good one as a palate gauge. For my money, it was like a baby-1999. And while maybe they are largely over the hill now - and I can only imagine that I have a few left in the cellar, they lasted way longer than the 2000’s, which were all fruit, no structure. That was an over-rated vintage. 2000 was a baby-1998 - another overrated (but better than 2000) vintage, that was largely praised simply because it was better (or perceived as being better) than 95, 96, & 97. 1996 is probably (even if there are wines that are still drinkable) not a good benchmark only because everything is much riper now, year-in-and-year-out. 1996 produced a lot of Burgundian wine. (But now I am just rechurning my old material, like a band on the nostalgia circuit.) But I’d say the 2001 Beaux Freres was the most Burgundian PN they’ve ever made (belying the winery notes that almost had a “we regret to release” tone that always cracked me up - clearly it wasn’t the kind of wine they like to make, but it had a lot of appeal).
Unfortunately (for these purposes), I bought very light from 2003 to 2005, so don’t feel like my comments are based on a broad enough cross-section to be remotely relevant. From the few 2008s I’ve opened… I like the 2006s better. I have a hunch 2008 will end up in the 98-00 category - tasty but fairly short lived - but that is on a reasonably small cross-section - and I don’t mean as short-lived as 2000. I haven’t tasted anything from 09 or 10 yet.
(Just saw Gordon’s new post, after working on my tome.)
I still have one or two 95’s - Panther Creek Shea.
1996 - I still have a couple of bottles - unfortunately the vintage couldn’t last forever. Bought a case of Elk Cove Roosevelt five years ago - maybe half were gone, but half were beautiful! I think I have two left.
1997 - long gone. Though for a time, I would buy every 97 KW I could find.
1998 - lasted in the cellar longer than 97 and 2000, but not terribly long.
1999 - still have a bunch, maybe ten bottles? - and always happy to uncover one I didn’t realize I still had.
2000 - never better than the day they were released, I finished all of mine probably five or six years ago.
2001 - just a couple left (like Panther Creek Freedom Hill), but I kept them longer than 2000 and 1998.
2002 - I have a lot of “last bottles” probably a few cases worth of 2002. I’m sure that, like 1998, there will be a day that I drink one and think “shit, these things are going downhill” and I’ll race through them in a matter of months.
2003-2004-2005 - because I didn’t buy that much, those tend to be what I drink now, without much rhyme or reason.
2006 - I pop these time and again and am in no hurry.
2007 - I probably should drink my way through them sooner than later. In total, I maybe bought three cases worth from the vintage, and have opened probably half of it.
2008 - Pretty much just sitting on them.
2009+ - haven’t opened a thing.
Cris;
Good post. I had the last of my 96s with Thanksgiving turkey last year. Still showing great. The last of my 99s were finished off, with friends, at a couple different Off-Lines a couple of years ago. My oldest OPN are now the 02s.
You two should get a room. 
I’m not sure how Oregon winemakers differ from winemakers in other regions in focusing on the good points of a vintage - as opposed to saying ‘you know don’t buy this dreck it’s dreadful’ - how many California, Burgundy, etc. winemakers say that? Frankly unless you are talking OR PNs from 1984 there’s not a lot of those vintages, there was even a critical hype for 2006 (and 2003) - but those are the vintages I would not tout as successful from my perspective. If someone likes those wines, by all means please buy them and drink them, as I will continue to buy and drink 2007s. If everyone had the same tastes many wineries would go out of business because no one would buy much in certain vintages. The fact that the majority of people buy a particular vintage bothers me not but you won’t convince me it is because of the innate quality of the wine; many people buy Yellowtail and Budweiser, but that doesn’t mean I like them or that you can convince me they are a wine and beer of any interest or distinction.
And to actually agree with Chris on a point, I too liked many 1997s, especially KWs. So not everything involves a battle of opposing trenches.
Yup.
RT
On the other hand this topic ultimately led to a pretty nice tasting of '07s…
Oh no, they were all vile. ![[snort.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/b/bdc3944606213c4dca6c1169cf0a166c8bc4f8c9.gif "snort.gif"){kind=small}