WTN: Obscurity Cellars 03 Old Man Murrill Zin and other notes

Obscurity Cellars 03 Old Man Murrill Amador Zin

Great classic Zin plum berries fruit flavor with soft integrated acid and tannin finish. The acid was mixture of cherry and citrus. Not Tartaric distinct acid. Perfect dryness for me. If wines are too dry then the acid becomes to prominent from my point of view.

http://www.obscuritycellars.com/wines.htm

Rutherford Grove 2001 Merlot $19

Rutherford Grove is in Napa...yea in Rutherford. This to me was
pretty fruit forward but still with a thick acid component.
Blackberry and cherry fruit dominate. It could use another year to be
pretty go. Not completely dry, but it has a peppery finish with a
hint of tannin.

Lolonis 03 Cabernet Sauvignon Redwood Valley $19

No heavy tannin that dominate a lot of napa cabs. The acid was soft
the fruit grapey (what a concept to describe the fruit as tasting like
grape). I like this because it was not very cab like. In fact, here
is another review of a much older vintage that describes the same thing.

http://www.gangofpour.com/underground/n ... lonis.html

Von Strasser 04 Diamond Mountain Cab

This was far from ready to drink. The layers were so distinct they
could have been pulled out with a fork. The fruit is muted by
tannin, oak, and acid. Seemed to have bottle shock to me. The tastes
not integrated at all. It will taste entirely different in 5 years. I am not going to wait.

Welcome to WLDG, Rod.

It's great to see a new poster with such a clear idea of the types of wines he likes.

How much does the Obscurity Zin sell for?

Thanks for the notes, and welcome.

Regards, Bob

Welcome Rod and good to have another tasting-note partner here!! Where are you located??

[Jenise]

Rod, welcome to the group, nice post. I'm curious about the Von Strasser, after describing how unready it was to drink and how all would change in five years, you then said "I'm not going to wait". Was the 'not' a typo, or are you going to pour your remaining bottles on the azaleas?

Thanks for the warm welcome! I am a real believer in technical wine tasting, i.e., tasting notes should be broken down in equal parts to 1) fruity component; 2) sweetness; 3) acid components; 4) Tannin. This is simple and practical. Most TN only describe the fruity part of wine.

Obscurity cellars was $18.

Re: the waiting game. Obviously wineries have to sell product, but on the other hand they age wine too. I would rather buy a wine that is closer to being ready to drink. Wineries know that the market is 97/2. 97% of wine bought is consumed within 2 days of purchase. Additionally, I think that a wine that is less integrated is not likely to become well integrated after 5 - 10 years. So why waste the cellar space.

"I am a real believer in technical wine tasting, i.e., tasting notes should be broken down in equal parts to 1) fruity component; 2) sweetness; 3) acid components; 4) Tannin. This is simple and practical. Most TN only describe the fruity part of wine."

I'm startled, Rod, I must confess. Maybe I've read (and written) too many tasting notes from too many fine tasters, but the statement "most TN only describe the fruity part of wine" is flat out wrong in my reading and writing experience.

Your approach to technical wine tasting is just fine; every wine lover who keeps notes should write them primarily for their own personal benefit. If those four categories fit your bill, more power to you.

I notice that in the notes you've posted you do describe other components of the tasting experience -- length of finish and oakiness, for example. There are many other attributes that tasters here often consider -- there are so many different aromas in wine that fruit alone is extremely limiting -- how about earth or leather or chocolate or ....

And your formula wouldn't really work for many white wines which have little if any tannins.

In any event, thanks for highlighting the components you look for in a wine -- it helps the reader understand what you are trying to communicate.

Regards, Bob

Yes I see your point. I guess I would put all those things you mentioned in the aroma/fruit category. Volatile esters are what I consider the fruit aspect, but maybe I could add another couple categories:

1) aroma/volatile ester
2) fruit
3) sweetness
4) acid character
5) tannin
6) Other characteristics, e.g., mouth feel or odd flavors

I don't really care about appearance, but one could include that too.

Here is an example of what I am saying:

From the nov 06 WS is a review of Clos de Papes Chateauneuf-du-Pape 2004 96 points

"Amazingly refined, with a pure, silky current of raspberry ganache and cassis flavor that glides along supple tannins. Hints of mocha, mineral and garrigue check in on the long, pure finish."

This mostly a description of the aroma components of taste. It does not tell you much about what the wine is actually like. How sweet is it? Is the acid tartaric, malolactic or citric. How strong is the tannin taste relative to other flavors?

My point is that reviewers need a more accurate description of the wine tasting experience.

Interesting comment about buying wines for aging. I guess you're right, but one response might be some wineries DO emphasize wines that are meant to be cellared. That's certainly what the winemaker at Von Strausser told me. They are going for a niche market, so to speak???

I am guessing that if it starts out without integrated taste that it is not going to end up with integrated taste.

I cellar wines and I know from that the WS top Cab list that a lot of the best CA wines are made to age. I would prefer to not gamble $200 bucks that a wine is going be that much better than a wine that tastes fantastic now. If it takes 10 years the chances are that I will have opened it too early and will be disappointed on spending so much and waiting for something never soften enough. The tannins and the acid still dominate the taste after 10 years.