August 18th had a whole bunch of us descending upon the back yard of our friend for what I hope has become an annual rite of summer—a big ole pulled pork, ribs and fixins-fest. With some wine thrown in.
Our host cooked up some simply delicious pulled pork and ribs, moist tasty cornbread, and all kinds of other goodies. About 20 desserts made for a great end of the meal, and another friend's mobile humidor made an appearance to top it all off with some contraband cigars as the sun went down. All in all, it was a glorious afternoon.
Here are my wine tasting notes, starting with whites and the rose.
2005 Altamura Sauvignon Blanc Napa Valley. The nose opens a bit shy, with elegant notes of smoky sweet pears, melon, flint, crème brulee and an intermittent but unobtrusive grass note. In the mouth, it is much more expressive—indeed it is quite impressive! It is creamy-textured and displays good heft to the body, presenting a very nice mouthfeel overall. The flavors are smoky and rich with nicely integrated oak. A very good showing.
2004 Seebrich Riesling Kabinett Neirsteiner Oelberg. This was an interesting little vertical, and from what I gathered, preferences were all over the place for these three offerings. For me, the two older vintages did not show as well as the youngest one. In the case of this 2004, one finds aromas of ripe pear and candied citrus. In the mouth, it is fairly sweet and plump, but thinning out a touch toward the finish, where sharper acidity comes in. The finish is fairly long, but bittersweet.
2005 Seebrich Riesling Kabinett Neirsteiner Oelberg. The 2005 presents a fresher, more nuanced and complex nose than the 2004, with apricot and lemon sour ball notes prevalent. It is lighter and more restrained in the mouth than the 2004, with more of a powdered sugar sweetness than a fruit sweetness. There is some freshening acidity toward the finish, which leaves a sense of herbal lemon tea. I think this needs some time to come together.
2006 Seebrich Riesling Kabinett Neirsteiner Oelberg. This wine has a fresh and inviting nose of apple, pear and general fruit cup. It seems much more classically-styled than its flight-mates, with more moderate sweetness to the fruit cup flavors and considerably better overall balance. It presents pleasing nuances of flavor and texture and feels clean and easy to drink.
2006 Kosta Browne Rose of Pinot Noir Russian River Valley. A lot of folks liked this plenty (including my wife, who has “instructed” me to order some next release), but I didn’t like it all that much. Far from bad, it just seems a bit shrill and tart to my tastes. There are deep strawberry aromas on the nose, with a hint of cool crisp minerality. In the mouth, it cuts a wide swath of crisp sharp acidity that seems to war with the tart, fresh strawberry fruit. We refrigerated this and tried again on day 2, and it did become more expansive in the mouth, with the acidity a bit toned down, more spiciness, but also with more alcohol poking through.
The reds:
1995 Pahlmeyer Red Wine Napa Valley. Served from magnum. This bottle was attacked by the hordes with a zeal rarely seen from this crowd. And with good reason—this is an outstanding wine! The bouquet opens with an herbal streak that largely fades and integrates pretty quickly. Beyond that is an ever-changing set of aromas that are both complex and elegant—soft leather, clean earth, shade tobacco leaf, red fruits and a shot of oak. A later glass reveals notes of black currant and tar—overall, very lovely. In the mouth, it is full-bodied, layered and plush-textured—showing excellent presence and fine balance. It waits until the finish to lay a soft blanket of fine-grained tannins over the palate—as if to remind you that it can certainly go a while longer. Very memorable, but in an understated sort of way.
1999 Chateau Pichon-Longueville Baron Pauillac. Like the Pahlmeyer, the bouquet changes with each swirl, centering primarily on raw leather, a big hit of tobacco leaf, red currants, dark chocolate and iron. It shows excellent balance in the mouth, and a surprisingly fresh, yet rich fruit profile. Red currants, leaves, minerals and crisp acids lead to a refreshingly crisp finish. This went quite well with food and seems to be drinking very well right now.
2002 Chateau Pichon-Longueville Baron Pauillac. The 2002 is not drinking as well right now, but still offers a good glimpse into a wine with very good potential. It is more purple-colored than the 1999. The nose is a touch primary, with rich black fruits, plum and faint whispers of earth and herbs. It is rather cool-fruited in the mouth, with dark bittersweet chocolate and herbal notes. It displays tingly acidity and bright but chalky tannins that really clamp down after a while. Again, there is good promise and one can sense a classy future for this wine, but drink the 1999 over this today.
1993 Ridge Zinfandel Sonoma County. (75% Zinfandel, 25% blend of Carignane, Petite Sirah and Alicante) This bottle kind of got lost in our cellar. When I pulled it out of the rack, I noticed that Paul Draper had written on the back label that this wine was made in a style that “is not intended for extensive bottle aging”. Well, what does he know! I’m not sure what he considers “extensive”, but this wine has held up quite nicely, indeed. It opens with a porty nose of plum and raisin and dark earthy funk, but as it sits in the glass, it changes a lot and air seems to tame it quite a bit. Then, one finds plenty of cedar dust and a more red-berried fruit profile—very interesting transformation! On the palate, it is mildly restrained and somewhat elegantly-styled, offering solid balance, a juicy dark and red berry fruit profile and a smooth, easy texture with soft tannins barely hanging on. It offers up a tangy, dusty finish with spices and smoke, but also some sharp acidity. A nice and pleasant surprise.
2003 Turley Zinfandel Old Vines. The Turley presents classic aromas of deep brambly berries, different takes on chocolate, dark mocha and Christmas fruitcake. There is a hint of high-toned volatility, too, but I did not find that distracting. It is actually not especially unctuous or over the top in the mouth, but rather solidly-structured with dark raspberry and chocolate flavors. There are some chalky, cocoa-tinged tannins present, but the wine is still rather easy-drinking, though the finish does seem to leak a bit of alcohol.
2004 Peter Franus Zinfandel Brandlin Vineyard Mount Veeder. Here is a Zin that presents jammy, sweet aromas of blueberry/blackberry/boysenberry coulis or perhaps mixed berry pie. In the mouth, it is like drinking sweet blueberry pie. There is just an overall jammy sensibility to this wine, both in flavor and texture/body. The fruit itself is plush, though again with a sweet-tooth edge. Tannins are very rich and plush, and there is some heat to contend with toward the back of the palate. After several days in the refrigerator, it did come into better balance, so I might suggest waiting on this for some time to see what happens.
2005 Carlisle Zinfandel Tom Feeney Ranch Russian River Valley. One encounters a rich, voluptuous nose on this Carlisle of coffee, plum and toasted herbs at first, followed later by more of a rhubarb note. In the mouth, I thought it was showing a bit young, with the fruit confined to a somewhat narrow beam of sweet blueberry cobbler. I did hear some positive buzz around the table about this wine, but I could not help but feel it needed some more bottle age to show its best, especially as one contemplates the fine, classy tannins that clamp down hard on the spice and pepper-tinged finish. I expect more complexity and power will come to bear with some added cellaring.
2001 Hartford Zinfandel Dina’s Vineyard Russian River Valley. I never got a chance to sample this particular bottle.
2003 Hartford Zinfandel Dina’s Vineyard Russian River Valley. I also took a pass on the 2003 and 2004 on the day of the tasting, but was able to take both of these home for tasting the next evening. Of the two, this 2003 was by far my favorite. It shows off a nose of mixed berries and plums, with both of those elements reflected on the palate, as well. In the mouth, it is big and chewy, with rich chocolaty tannins that coat the inside of the cheeks. I’d say this needs a few years more in the cellar, but can also be enjoyed today by those not averse to tannin.
2004 Hartford Zinfandel Dina’s Vineyard Russian River Valley. This has that electrical tape note on the nose that I find in so many of the recent Hartford Zin bottlings. Beyond that, there are briary berry fruits that offer a pleasing counter. In the mouth, blue fruits and oak are the notable elements, with the oak and tannins leaving the mouth drying and puckering. Like the 2003, I would suggest giving this more time.
2004 Tensley Syrah Colson Canyon Santa Barbara County. This is a very dark, opaque purple in color and it really seems to coat the inside of the glass. On the nose, there are all kinds of berry aromas, cherry cola, mocha and a confectionary note. In the mouth, it fairly explodes on the mid-palate with all kinds of cool spices, ground coffee and blueberry and boysenberry fruit. It is almost too much to handle, as it really coats the tongue with its pure, sweet fruit. I would probably give this 2-3 years before re-visiting, or drink it now for its pure fruit expression. This is a wine I’d like to try again on its own—not at the end of a marathon of wines!
With the cigars and sitting out in the dark:
2000 Croft Vintage Port. From 375 ml bottle. The nose here is fruity and well-integrated, showing very little in the way of spirits or any sort of overt heat. Solid fruit concentration in the mouth, with nice balance, it shows a seamless fruity character that is not overly sweet. Again, there is little in the way of heat, which makes it surprisingly easy drinking after all these other wines. A nice way to end the evening!
Needless to say, it was a nice way to pass a pleasant Saturday afternoon/early evening.
-Michael