This is a fair point - typically the idea behind a single-vineyard effort is to showcase some unique sense of terroir or other interesting characteristic of the grapes from that vineyard, which usually show up as delicate secondary components or “just in the background somewhere,” so to speak. With the style of these wines, though, it’s hard to imagine something like that really coming through.
I could be quite wrong, of course, but the tasting notes given certainly don’t belie much difference. The Great Oaks does sound a bit weighter than the Stolpman, as “inky black” compared to “dark ruby.”
Like I said, the Terra Bella to my palate was just a bit off-balance, but I suppose trying to contain 15.9% alcohol (meaning it was probably pushing 17+% in reality - can you say “porrrrrrt?”) is no mean feat. It’s entirely possible that the blending helped a bit, but I’d be surprised. It’s not awful for what it is, though, and it’s not over-oaked. I can absolutely understand why people like it.
Well, I don’t think I ever responded to your thoughtful post in the “Wine.Woot Rating System” thread on the subject, and I’ve got to be a good boy and run off and get ready for school now, but in short - though there are some real clunkers on CT, there are also a lot of experienced, deliberative tasters, and it’s usually relatively easy to tell the difference (and, as in this case, sometimes it’s just blatantly obvious). I typically give very little credence to wine entries with only one or a few reviews unless they’re from tasters I recognize, but where there’s a significant number of notes on a wine (say, ten or so), I think the level of sophistication among the tasters more or less averages out and the bundle of reviews becomes somewhat useful.
Also, as a tool, CT is helpful less for indicating the depth and complexity of a particular wine, and more for general notions of style and quality of manufacture. If someone throws out the word “jammy,” then I can pretty much figure out what the wine in question is. Or if the notes generally cite a similar flaw - too oaky, too boozy, too acidic, etc. - then it’s a fair assumption that the wine actually does have such an issue.
It’s really just a matter of separating the wheat from the chaff.
Legally, the maximum alcohol in a wine labeled 15.9% alcohol would be 16.9% - the leeway is + or - 1% above 14.0%.
Note that whatever this is, it is not table wine under the legal definition.
I have always enjoyed a little vintage Port, and have enjoyed some of the better California Zinfandel ports (Quady through '79, Wellington, etc.) and those made from traditional port grapes (e.g. Ficklin, Quady) - as dessert wines in very small quantities.
There have been very high alcohol wines, especially from the Central Coast, around for a long time. I think I still have a (long over the hill) bottle of 1978 Monterey Peninsula Winery Shell Creek Cabernet Sauvignon that was over 15% alcohol. I don’t remember how I ended up being given half a case and half a case of their rather lovely 1978 Late Harvest Zinfandel - a wine with high acohol, high residual sugar, and some charm as a dessert wine served with dark chocolate. The Cab was just hot, overripe, and a curiosity. At any rate, I regarded them as an experiment and drank most of it over some 20 years. Let’s just say that whatever charm the wines had in youth was all the charm or interest they ever had. They were never food wines, really, and hardly the sort of thing to sip casually by themselves. Cui bono?
Parker apparently loves these wines, which should assure commercial success. Well, I’m sure these are wines for those who like wines like this.
I have a couple bottles left of an Australian Durif that lists 16.0% and is easily the strongest unfortified wine I’ve ever tried - but it’s dry or close to it, making it seem much more restrained (in absolutely the loosest sense of the word) than legitimate Port. It’s actually not bad on its day, a single small glass at a time, but it would be absolutely impossible to pour with a meal. As in all things, context is king.
I just opened the bottle of Syrah from the last Andrew Murray offering. I was decidedly not a fan. It was a hot, jammy mess, and the first time I’ve been actively disappointed by wine.woot offering. Definitely not looking to buy again.
Just because something can be done doesn’t mean it ought to be done. Some of these wine-creations rather remind me of some of the more unusual postures in the Kama Sutra: if you’re both sufficiently limber, they’re possible, but one you’ve done them to say you have, you rarely (if ever) try them again because they’re just not that enjoyable.
Well I tried to get you all a spreadsheet today, but the Stolpman isn’t listed at all on the website, and the Great Oaks only has the 2006 listed (at $30). If someone from the winery can chime in on what the current winery-direct prices are for these two, I’ll finish up that spreadsheet for you all.
But in any case, with the Reserve going for $50 ALONE on the website, this deal means you are buying the Reserve and getting the other two for FREE.
Am I the only one here looking forward to the upcoming 2011 RPM Wine.Woot Kama Sutra/California Yoga/Historical Wine Tour? Don’t be shy, put your name on the sign up sheet.
I can only say that I believe Santa Barbara’s claim to fame as the birthplace of the modern hot tub around 1958 should be considered equal to any claim to fame from its vineyards. See Elder, Leon, Hot Tubs (Capra Press Santa Barbara 1973) p. 14.
Oh Master, you are indeed a wealth of information…so we should make the tour the 2011 RPM Wine.Woot Kama Sutra/California Hot Tub/Historical Wine Tour?
Regardless of the alc level, I thought the last vintage was really enjoyable,and certainly doesn’t drink like a wine with levels that high. It’s well balanced and not “hot” at all.
Right on…thanks…The 2007 has been described to me as more fruit-forward, a little less “earthy”, and a bit richer. It is certainly a bit darker. I personally prefer the richness of the 2007, to the 2006…but as you know, everyone’s tastes are quite varied out there…which is part of the reason that wine is so much fun…we get to please some people, we get to challenge others, and we unfortunately bring out the haters sometimes too… Thanks,
The 2007 is considered a banner year down here in the Santa Ynez Valley…all grapes of all varieties were able to get as ripe as the winemaker dare allow…in general the wines from 2007 are a bit higher in alcohol and extract, while having great acids to balance out the often heady wines… Thanks,
Higher alcohol isn’t always about heat, though. Having tasted a handful of this producer’s wines, they seem to be generally dense and extracted. This does seem to counter-balance the alcohol. But you still end up with something very viscous with very big body and heavy mouthfeel.
Personally, my preference is for Syrahs from cooler climes like Santa Maria (Bien Nacido), Los Alamos (White Hawk, Alisos) and even the rare version from Santa Rita Hills. While not light, usually these are more elegant and spicy. The Syrahs from further inland tend be more powerful, meaty and thick. I appreciate the feral character, but the heaviness just isn’t what I prefer.
