When I called the winery phone number any doubt I might have had about it really being a "family run" vineyard was put to rest. The woman that answered the phone had to yell a bit to be heard over the three year old in the bathtub. She directed me to their tasting room phone number. Everybody I dealt with was delightful. They took my information and, instead of keeping me on hold, said they would call back. They did. Within five minutes. How many places will do that, instead of leaving you on the line, for such a short period of time? I ordered on a Thursday so they held the wine until Monday, to avoid it sitting in a UPS warehouse over the weekend.
Okay, on to the wine.
The color was light, a bright translucent red. There was almost no blue at all. The nose was musty, mushrooms and earth making the first impression, followed by cherry licorice. Like a lot of California pinots, it was a light nose. You really needed to work to get it. The palate started strong, with strawberries and, I swear it, watermelon, but it was not all fruit. There was some earth there, along with sage. Altogether a full mouth feel, not at all thin and not just fruity (too many pinots are cherry cola and black tea for my taste). At the very end a bit of anise popped up. The finish was surprisingly long, but ended with distinct bitterness. On the second night it had developed a bit more, with some dark cherry and more terroir added to the palate, and the anise/licorice coming through a touch sooner. Also, the bitter finish had entirely disappeared, replaced by a lingering soft fruit/licorice. This was a terrific wine, and (for California pinot) a good QPR at under $30. Under my own personal scoring system I would rate it "the afficianado." Numerically, that is probably a 90-93.
Next was a 2001 Edmunds St. John Syrah "Wylie-Fenaughty." This wine is all over the place. A quick peek at Cellar Tracker shows half a dozen reviews, and not one of them looks like the same wine as the next. I had one of these two months ago and wrote:
Cocoa, red berries, vanilla in the nose. Vanilla, strawberries and blackberries, pepper, tar and smoke. Mouth-filling with a long finish. Very good, trending to excellent based on the QPR.
The only thing about this wine that you can rely on is that you can't rely on it. That does not mean it is bad, just incredibly inconsistent. Not bad, just inconsistent. This time, the same wine from the same store, stored in the same cellar at the same temperature, came off entirely different. The nose was bigger and fruitier, with cherries, licorice and vanilla. The palate started out with the same cherries and licorice, then added distinct cigar box cedar and tobacco, plus some vanilla. Overoaked? Not quite, because it was well balanced, but the oak was there. Medium tannins showed in a mid-length finish, not harsh, but clearly there, and seeming to say "wait a year or two next time." This was a good wine for under $16. It is just a mystery, wondering what you will get each time you open a bottle. I have no idea how I would rate it, since it seems different every time. Last time I gave it 88, and this time I would probably do the same, but for entirely different reasons. I would love to see what others think of this one.
