I was talking to someone in some tasting room a few months ago - I suspect it was David Cooper at Yoakim Bridge Winery, but I'm not sure - and that person brought up the idea that there has been a distinct odd-even year vintage difference in the local wines, going back at least a decade, maybe two.
The odd vintages have been fruit-forward, bountiful, and not terribly age-worthy; the even vintages have been relatively hard, slow to develop, and lower in yield, yet tended to make what is often called "better" wine.
Arguments- Even years: 1998, 2004, 2008, 2010. 2002 and 2006 not so strong in favor of the argument, but tipping to that side. 1998 perhaps the epitome.
Odd years: 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005. '97 and '01 were hailed by the critics and if you still have a bottle, you'll think you should have gone and went and done it long ago. 2005 is very ripe and "drinking well" right now, and I bought a lot and I'm drinking it as fast as I can. Tastes 4-5 years older or more than it is.
Newer odd vintages, it's a bit early to tell, but I think '07 is following the pattern. '09 reds are still in "release mode", all fresh berry flavors and easy to slug.
Of the even vintages, I can say that '98 and '04 were anything but easy to slug when they were fresh.
I've brought this idea up now with several people who either drink a lot of Sonoma County wine or are in the biz, or both. Nobody has yet told me that I'm "full of **it", and most of those I've talked to know me well enough not to hesitate.
So what do you all think?
John
