Steve Zanotti – Page 27

HANSEL PINOT: MORE THAN JUST ‘NUMBERS’

It has become the norm for consumers to ‘buy by the numbers’ or respond to some other publicity that calls attention to a particular producer. For that reason we still see Walter Hansel’s wines, which have performed admirably for a couple of decades after starting with some cuttings and a little help from Tom Rochioli, as still kind of under the radar. That is both a good thing and a bad thing. It’s bad for them because they are performing well above the crowd but still aren’t quite considered the iconic producer they should be, though they don’t have any trouble selling wine.

The good part is that, because of their less-than-deserved notoriety and rather humble pricing, they are one of the best values in premium Pinot Noir. Take this 2016 Walter Hansel Estate Pinot Noir Russian River Valley. It is all estate-grown and made up of grapes from the five blocks on the property that are also the source of individual vineyard bottlings that do get their share of critical attention. It is loaded with personality, exudes a very tender and engaging palate of dark cherry and mulberry touched with the classic clove and spice notes that define the Russian River’s terroir.

As we have said many times, the ‘little guy’ is usually tasted among it’s higher intentioned siblings and tends to be overshadowed when the reviews are finally published. The thing is, as is often the case, once this one is given the opportunity to shine on its own, it impresses. We have been tasting Hansel wines for a long time and this is certainly among the most appealing. Fresh, lively and at the same time tender and seamless, this is what Pinot Noir is all about.

Wine Advocate’s Lisa Perotti-Brown gives a good assessment of the wine, “Pale ruby-purple colored, the 2016 Pinot Noir Estate has amazingly pure notions of crushed cranberries, Bing cherries and redcurrants with touches of garrigue, tilled soil and bay leaves. Medium to full-bodied, it delivers bags of crunchy red berry flavors and a lovely satiny texture with a very long, lively finish…91 points.”

But we know people, too, and among the individual estate designates, which score as high as 95 points, this one is less likely to get its due. We think the performance here merits a point or two higher. More important than numbers, this is a fantastic performer in the glass winning on all fronts, purity, complexity, palate feel and personality. Less than 900 cases were produced. For Pinot drinkers, this is a must. For our part, we have made the access price a bit more attractive with one of our special ‘click-through’ price deals.

SUPERSTAR IN THE RE-MAKING

Without going into a whole Mitchneresque reach back to the formation of the earth, Atzberg and Singgeriegel are virtually identical in their composition of red stones, slate and gneiss with little topsoil. Eventually, they were separated by a stream called Mieslingbach. Singgeriegel went on to become recognized as one of, if not the top vineyard in the Wachau. Atzberg can trace its history back to the 13th Century and the building called Mauritiushof was used by the monks to collect grapes. The Gritsch family bought the property in 1799, and used the building for wine production.

In recent times the Atzberg Vineyard itself was not cultivated. It’s terraced vineyards high on the hill were unplanted until winemaker Franz-Josef Gritsch and his partners Hans Schmid and Robert Wutzl decided that the spot was too special and important a site to be ignored. They dove in and ‘recultivated’ this historic site with the idea of restoring it to its formal elite status that was mentioned in records as far back as 1382.

Everything is ‘old school’. This 100% Gruner Veltliner vineyard is labor- intensive, with the grapes handpicked and carried in small tubs down to the lower valley. The thinking was that, given the history, if Singgeriegel is such an iconic vineyard, so too should Atzberg be among the stars of the region. If the Atzberg Gruner Veltliner Steilterrassen 2016 (Steilterrassen literally means ‘steep terraces’) is any indication, the ‘reclamation’ project is going quite swimmingly. The juice in the glass definitely gets one’s attention. It begins with a harmonious succession of aromas such as red berries, earthy minerality, apple, pear, wild herbs and spices.

In the mouth, all of this reveals itself in a palate that has not only the anticipated lift but a fairly broad, ample, and tender feel. Some Gruners sting, this one does a lot more caressing while still delivering the kind of bright, energetic experience one expects from this varietal when done right. Somewhat kinder and gentler, it delivers loads of character and finishing salinity. While it should please established fans of the genre, it is capable of winning some new friends for Gruner by virtue of its friendlier texture. The breeding and complexity of the site in the glass support the effort Gritsch and friends have put into it.

We don’t have any flashy reviews. We didn’t find any reviews on this specific vintage, we didn’t really need them to validate that this was exciting stuff. Also, given the laborious nature of the site, we found the price to be more than fair, particularly when compared to an ‘upper cuvee’ from the site called Obere that literally costs more than twice as much. Delicious Gruner that can play with serious food should you choose, this is an early look into what we expect to be recognized as one of the superstar sites of the region soon enough.

HARTFORD HITS A HOMER

New World Pinot Noir is an interesting topic these days. The wine world is constantly in a state of change as people’s tastes, economics, and world-wide competition alters the playing field on a constant basis. We talk with distributors, winery owners, and winemakers on pretty much a daily basis and the subject of Pinot Noir is a recurrent one. Our message over the last couple of years in particular has not necessarily been what the industry wants to hear. While it is still a very popular practice among wineries to make multiple single-vineyard Pinot Noir bottlings, usually at rather premium prices, the people have shown a declining interest in the category over the last few years in recent times.

People still like Pinot Noir. A lot. We aren’t predicting some sort of Pinot Armageddon. But it is clear that, in the part of the world we see, people are considerably less interested in those small production offerings in the $50-100 range. Oh sure there are a few mailing list types that claim that business is great for that sort of thing. But our view of the marketplace would seem to suggest otherwise. If we were to extrapolate our observations and project what market message is, it would seem to be this. A lush, engaging, fruit-driven Pinot always has a place, but a price under $30 would be greatly appreciated. Well, whether inadvertently or not, someone has created the perfect Pinot for the times.

It comes from the Jackson Family stable, a company that achieved wine-world domination by giving people what they wanted. They became a major player from nowhere with a Chardonnay that pleased a wide audience, and built on that success. Later on, it seemed Jess Jackson was concerned about his ‘legacy’, and much energy was spent creating brands that were intended to become iconic like Cardinale, Verite, and the like. Hartford Court estate was the part of the family that focused primarily on individual bottlings of Pinot Noir, Chardonnay and Old Vine Zinfandel .

Hartford achieved great notoriety with these stylish, distinct bottlings, but pricing was a little bit of a hindrance on some of the upper-end offerings. They always made solid, expressive wines at every level, with the occasional home run. But the current Pinot program has to be a little intimidating for consumers because there were so many specialty bottlings at $50-80, it had to difficult to make a choice.

As we did the research for this piece, we noticed Hartford Court was offering 14 different designated bottlings on their website. That’s fine from a winery perspective we guess. The team here has always had ‘chops’. But in the process, whether they wanted to or not, they made one of the best ‘regular’ bottlings in their history in 2017, as if they had once again perfectly read the needs of the market and created this wine to fulfill them, just like those early days.

The 2017 Hartford Court Russian River Valley Pinot Noir does everything right. Deep, saturated color as Pinot goes, classic Russian River spice in the nose along with dark red leaning to black fruits, seamless palate feel, and sufficient weight and tenderness to please just about anyone, Pinotfile or not. It checks all of the boxes and, if it errs, it does so on the side of hedonism.

We could go on but Jeb Dunnuck did a pretty good job of cheerleading here, “A crazy good value, the 2017 Pinot Noir Russian River Valley is the appellation release from this team, and it comes from all of the estate vineyards across the Green Valley, Laguna Ridge, and Sebastopol regions. Complex notes of strawberries, cranberries, violets, pine forest, and flowers all flow to a medium-bodied Pinot Noir that has a kiss of salinity and marine notes, ripe tannins, and a great finish. This beautiful wine competes with wines costing 2-3 times the price…95 Points.”

It checks all of the boxes and, for our part, we’re able to get it to you for under $30. Like the song says, “You can’t always get what you want…”. Only sometimes, you can.

SOMETHING SPECIAL FROM OZ

Every so often, something will come along that transcends not only varietal expectations but the confines of one’s impression of a given region. Many years ago, at a dinner with none other than Aubert Du Villaine, the discussion came up about how an exceptional Pinot Noir, or a landmark Syrah, can almost come across as uncannily similar as they are perceived within the context of higher achievement. This was long before we had ever heard the term umami, signifying some sort of ethereal performance on the palate, but that is essentially what happens. The other day we had occasion to recall that very discussion.

Dan Standish came from a wine family and is a sixth generation Barossan. He spent time honing his winemaking skills in California, the Rhone Valley, Rioja (at La Rioja Alta) and finally working with the boisterous but enormously talented Dave Powell at Torbreck. He was a little late to the party the first time around, his wines starting to show up here as Australia’s star started to wane from the remarkable success they enjoyed in the late 90’s and early 2000s. He only started his own label in 1999 with a small plot of 96-year-old Shiraz vines but the results we tasted here were stellar.

We never forgot the Standish wines and thought of them in the same vein as the top Aussie labels we helped introduce here like Clarendon Hills Astralis, Torbreck Run Rig, Chris Ringland, and Greenock Creek. We didn’t see a lot of Dan’s wines over the next decade. There wasn’t a lot to be had in the first places as his production hovers somewhere under 1000 cases. But we were presented a couple of breathtaking efforts just recently that brought it all back. Current Wine Advocate’s reviewer Joe Czerwinski was clearly as enthralled with the collection of Standish wines he reviewed, saying “I consider Dan Standish the reigning king of Barossa Shiraz.”

Of the Standish The Relic Shiraz-Viognier Barossa Valley 2016 he writes, “Everything about Standish’s 2016 The Relic Shiraz-Viognier is remarkable, starting with the ridiculous color. It’s so dark, so purple, so vibrant. Then the nose boasts soaring florals and stone fruits, while the palate delivers fresh blueberries and dried spices. It’s full-bodied but creamy-textured, with supple tannins and concentrated fruit that lingers on the plush finish. Just awesome stuff…99 points”

Thisis a top-of-the-heap, brilliant wine that compare to Australia’s best in every way but price (they are relative bargains compared to peers Henchke Hill of Grace, Ringland, Penfolds Grange, and Torbreck RunRig). The Relic rises above traditional categorizations in the glass to offer a rare wine experience. It shines well beyond the title ‘Australian Shiraz’ and should be considered among the world’s top tier. We have a few scraps of a couple of other bottlings as well. Do not miss them. (See all Standish)

A ‘GIFT’ FOR YOU

Nobody brings the value drama like the Spaniards, and that goes for every conceivable price level. Izadi was founded in 1987 when the estate was purchased by the Anton family, who then hired Mariano Garcia (formerly Vega Sicilia, now Mauro and Aalto) as a consultant. This bottling is from what is considered by the Anton family to be their premier site, El Regalo, a single vineyard of Tempranillo planted in 1940 on a terroir of chalky limestone clay covered with pebbles near the village of Villabuena de Álava.

‘El Regalo’ means ‘the gift’ in Spanish, and the family clearly considers this bottling a gift of Nature from this unique plot. Hand harvested grapes from 70+ year old vines that are ‘practicing organically’ farmed certainly have the potential to make exciting wine. The press (94 Decanter, 91 James Suckling, 91 Wine Advocate) seems to confirm that happened here. Firmly committed to straddling the stylistic spectrum between traditional and modern, the wine makes no reference to the typical crianza, reserve, etc. hierarchy. It is merely “el Regalo”. The wine sees 20 months in new French oak, more of a nod to the modern side.

The Wine Advocate shows the Izadi Rioja El Regalo 2014 at a $30 retail. But with the current wholesale scenario of a staggering number of brands being offered through a small number of purveyors, there’s a limit to how much the ‘team on the street’ can sell in a given time period, or how committed they are to going beyond just selling the ‘easy ones’. In such an environment, even some really good juice gets lost in the shuffle and the only way to create interest at that point is a hot price, like almost 50% off. At $16.98, this wine becomes even more of a ‘regalo’ (gift). While it lasts.

SO NOW WHAT?

We just republished a piece we did more than a year ago that we called ‘score wars’ that spoke of our concerns as merchants about how more reviewers were tossing more and bigger scores into the collective well and how that might adversely affect the public psyche moving forward. In other pieces we have tried to present balanced views of what a ‘score’ actually meant and how the process of evaluating wines en mass, as most of the writers do, can yield much different results than someone evaluating them one or two at a time.

We realize there is no perfect system. But the massive amounts of information that most of scribes have generated over the years is of definite benefit to the consumer in terms of education and guidance. We can still remember the days when most wine reviews came out in the local newspaper on a Thursday (usually as a part of a high-end lunch paid for by the purveyor) or as some adjunct list in a monthly non-wine publication (which were usually way too late for any real market relevance as many of the selections were long gone or blatantly commercial).

The current review environment that has served the industry and consumers reasonably well over the last couple of decades is however at something of a crossroads. Previously consumers had a narrower but more predictable group of reviewers to rely upon. There weren’t that many publications that had significant impact, and you knew the ‘players’.
Whether or not you agreed with, say, Robert Parker, you knew where he was coming from and could calibrate the information within your own tastes.

Nowadays there are many more voices hurling a wide and sometimes disparate range of scores. Also there are significantly greater numbers of wines coming to market, so the amount of information the consumer has to digest to be really informed is daunting. We can tell you this. A few years ago, we didn’t have to know when a publication was due to release a new report (though we usually did). The phones would tells us. Nowadays a publication coming out and causing the switchboard to light up are extremely rare. Why is that?

Granted a lot of publications have changed the personnel doing the reviews and there are more reviewers out there being quoted. That can certainly be numbing to the consumer, especially those that are just getting into it. We like to think we do a lot to parse that sea of info and present it in digestible nuggets. But there is so much. Also, thirty years ago a great friend and mentor told me that ‘great wine is like a bus…if you miss one another will be along.’ That has never been truer than right now. There is an astonishing amount of great wine out there now, and maybe the sense of urgency in light of that is ebbing a little.

We are still believers in the reviewer-based info simply because, for better or worse, you have a body of knowledge and a track record that provides a consistency. We are very specific when purveyors present us score that they show us in print. Far too many times the truth gets ‘lost in transmission’. In the end though, you find out who said it and can calibrate accordingly.

While we are still on board with reviews, however, there are some disturbing trends that could derail a publication’s relevance, particularly with new consumers. Elitism seems to be growing among the ranks of reviewers, particularly if you believe as we do that they are beholden to their subscribers. It is bad enough that the same few labels always seem to come out on top, and they are usually the rarest and most expensive. But lately the ‘historic tasting’ is on the rise. Just who exactly is an article like “Drink Your Idols: Roumier’s Musigny 1976-2008” supposed to appeal to? It’s a small group to be sure.

Another review site has been a little slow on posting their reviews because they are spending a great amount of energy hawking their ‘glamorous’, globetrotting wine shows. No offense but we subscribed to get wine reviews, not to get sold on some other agenda. As Bill Belichick might say, “Do your job.”

In the ‘old days’ competitions and fairs were more relevant. But you don’t know who the people judging the competition are so the ‘findings’ are somehow less significant. However if the reviewer ‘system’ continues to degrade or collapses altogether, what will people do? As we look at the world around us, and the current proliferation of the ‘public forum’ for everything from doctors to mechanics to restaurants, the prospects are a little chilling.

Things like ‘Yelp’, while we have some personal misgivings about the system overall, can be useful in finding certain things. Auto mechanics, for one. Someone can tell if their car runs correctly or not. It’s something everybody has some experience with. Allowing for the fact that the ‘naysayer’ types will respond disproportionately, the public forum may provide useful information in making a decision.

But when the subject is less black and white, and more subjective, the public opinions provided must be taken with a few grains of salt. Like those judges at the country fair wine competition, you have no idea who the people posting on a restaurant on Yelp-like sites are or what their experience/expertise is. A guy could bag on a place just because he didn’t get a free dessert, or say it is ‘hideously expensive’ because he usually eats at Olive Garden.

For all of the reasons we named, and many more we didn’t get into, it is quite possible that the world of ‘wine reviewers’ might not resonate with the next generation. It may well cease to be highly relevant with the current one if things continue as is. Then what? Wine reviews in the public forum where anyone with a keyboard can anonymously pass judgement whether they are knowledgeable or not? Vinous Yelp? Oy!

SUMMER RERUN: SCORE WARS

In January of last year we put out this piece, but we think the message is still relevant as well as a background for a couple of things we will be generating as the next chapter of this ‘story’.

It wasn’t that long ago, in a place not so far away, that we expressed concern about what would happen to the wine world as the media continued to expand. This was pretty much back when James Suckling left the Wine Spectator to set up his own shop, and our fear at the time was that there might be a certain rise in overall scoring as this new entity tried to garner a readership. After all, it is axiomatic that consumers do not concern themselves with wines that get a B+ (89 point scores), so one of the ways to get your name in front of a new audience was to become more ‘quotable’. How does one achieve that? One way is to issue ‘enthusiastic’ scores on certain wines that would surely be quoted by those of us trying to sell said wine, which in turn would give a certain credibility to the reviewer.

Selling by third party endorsement became a growing industry tool back in the late 1980s as certain wine media sources, mainly the Wine Advocate and Wine Spectator, made inroads into consumer wine awareness by virtue of their easy to digest 100 point scales. Yes there were words, too. But the familiarity of the general populace with number grading because most experienced it in school, and the quick evaluation a consumer could make just by quickly looking up a number, embedded the system in the collective wine psyche.

It didn’t help that most merchants were lazy and quick to adapt to someone else providing sales avenues via published reviews. Using third-party press relieved them of the responsibility of actually doing their own work and removed their liability in actually giving their customers their own opinions. This indemnification made the retail trade the writers’ biggest fans and the constant attention that the majority of retailers gave to third party reviews gave the media tremendous power.

Remembering back however, what was different back then was that the scores themselves seemed to have honest intention on the part of the media to give the consumer the appropriate perspective. Back in the day, a 93 point score was a pretty enthusiastic endorsement, a 95 was a must have, and ‘88’ and ‘89’ were still viewed as positive prose for wines that were value priced. There were shockwaves in the industry when Robert Parker issues his first ‘100-point’ score for a domestic wine, the 1985 Groth Cabernet Reserve. Such scores were quite rare then.

Fast forward a couple of decades, and the value of individual scores gradually depreciated. Sadly after the turn of the century, no matter how glowing the prose, a 90 point score barely elicited a response from buyers and ‘92’ became the new ‘90’ for value wines. Giving a wine ‘89’ these days is like a witness protection program…no one will find the wine because they won’t look that for down the list. All kidding aside, this is what we have observed behaviorally for a while now. But the worst it seems is not over.

Part of it has been predictable given the way the James Suckling site established itself. Suddenly however there are a lot more ‘players’ competing for consumer attention. Antonio Galloni worked for Wine Advocate, then left to set up shop on his own, subsequently purchasing Stephan Tanzer’s International Wine Cellar and incorporating that writing team into the fold. Most recently he hired away the Advocate Bordeaux specialist Neal Martin.

Jeb Dunnuck was brought on to Wine Advocate to focus on Rhones and then got other responsibilities on the domestic front. Jeb left to set up his own service (or more correctly re-setup as he had his own service prior to his engagement with Wine Advocate), knowing full well that his own service would benefit from his exposure with wine’s most influential review source. He just recently kicked off his own program. Given the ‘defections’ and the fact that Robert Parker himself has greatly scaled back his post-sale involvement, editor Lisa Perotti-Brown, MW expanded her role in the Wine Advocate review writing.

So where are we now? Well it is fair to say that previously there were two main review services being followed, 2.5 if you count the respected but not always ‘quotable’ Tanzer publication. Now there are five that directly resulted from the initial two and a number of others that are at varied stages ‘market penetration’, but arguably have much less clout. There are likely some ‘startups’ we haven’t even run across yet that are U.S. based. All of them have plans to become, or in some cases retain a powerful voice among wine consumers. Sadly, it appears that another dangerous score escalation may be in the offing. It has been coming for a while.

A few years back, after the sale of the Advocate, Robert Parker did a ‘second look piece’ on 2002s from Napa Valley. Now here was one of the most powerful critics of any kind, someone who had been generally judicious in handing out triple digit reviews (with the possible exception of elite Bordeaux and Guigal and Chapoutier speicalty bottlings). But in this particular issue in June, 2012, in one section, ‘The Bob’ handed out nineteen 100 point scores! Now granted, one could argue that this was the beginning of Parker’s ‘farewell tour’ after a storied career and he was making friends. One could also point to the lineup (Abreu, Harlan, Sloan, Schrader) as the Napa Cabernet version of the ’27 Yankees. So what’s a few 100s among friends. That was unprecedented at the time and we saw it as a departure from the conscientiousness of Advocate’s prior history.

But it is what has been happening recently, with reviewers operating in new positions or trying to establish new services, really has us concerned. Lisa Perotti-Brown’s first significant foray into the Napa Valley generated fifteen 100-point final scores and 32 that were either 99 or had a range score that touched perfection (98-100). Perhaps a little surprising to some is that three Chardonnays were awarded triple digits. Pretty rarified stuff.

Not to be outdone, there was plenty of firepower to Jeb Dunnuck’s opening report of the Napa Valley. Now one of Robert Parker’s strengths was his enthusiasm which he could convey through the written word. Jeb showed plenty of numerical excitement in his inaugural work, handing out no less than 31 ‘100s’ and a good slug of ‘99s’ (21 actually). Thirty one ‘perfect’ wines? In a single category? Really? Someone used the term ‘jumping the shark’ for this opening salvo/love fest. More important, if the perfect score becomes commonplace, it also will seem less special and have less impact, not to mention how it undermines all of those poor souls that only got ‘96’ which, ‘back in the day’, was a very good review.

We could make a few, albeit less sensational examples to illustrate what we are talking about with respect to the current round of ‘score wars’, but it’s the overall impact that is the problem. With more publications slinging around more 100s and other lofty marks, perspective goes out the window. The consumer will start getting confused, even numbed (a number of the trade already have), and sensationalism will rule the day. With so many more items pushed up against that finite ceiling (since you can’t have more than 100 points) separation becomes much less clear and it all starts to lose meaning.

In the end, if this proliferation of over the moon scoring continues, where does it end? People thinking the only way to get a decent bottle of wine is to pay $300-500 on somebody’s mailing list? Does ‘95’ become the new ‘89’?

Is there really that much perfection in the world or are all these writers trying to win friends and influence the marketplace for their own agenda? It’s hard to say but it is clear we are entering dangerous territory.

These publications are supposedly designed to help consumers sort through the myriad of wine choices out there. Passing out big scores like Halloween candy might get the writer ‘in big’ with the wine elite. It might help Andy Beckstoffer charge even more for his grapes. But we fail to see how it helps the consumer very much, and they, my dear reviewers, are the ones that pay your bills. If, for whatever reason, your audience stops listening, it’s nearly impossible to get them back.

LAUREL PRIORAT SHINES AGAIN

Sometimes it is interesting to go back to the beginning. In 1988 Daphne Glorian, at the time employed by an English Master of Wine in his Paris office, decided to spend her life’s savings on 17 terraces of hillside vines just outside the village of Gratallops. Newly minted friends René Barbier and Alvaro Palacios encouraged her and together with Carles Pastrana and Jose Luis Perez, they pooled their talents and resources to make a new style of wine in a region rich in history but that had only really produced sturdy wine for the local markets. In 1989 the modern Priorat was born.

Fast forward to today, and Clos Erasmus is considered one of the elite producers of the Priorat. Their body of work is impressive and includes 98 (twice), 99 (three times) and 100 (twice) point efforts as reviewed by Robert Parker. The problem with Clos Erasmus through the years has definitely not been quality, but quantity. There has been precious little to go around. Old vine Grenache, Carignane and a little Cabernet fruit make magic in Priorat in the right hands, and Daphne, along with her current super-star winemaker, the diminutive, dreadlocked Ester Nin are at the top of their game.

These rustic hillsides produce wines of great power and character, yet in Ester’s hands also retain a surprising elegance. Bordeaux had something like a three century head start on these folks and one has to appreciate how far Priorat has come in a mere three decades. Like Bordeaux, particularly things like Chateau Margaux’s Pavillion Rouge or Lafite’s Carruades, Laurel is a ‘second’ wine comprised of the younger vines on the property, plus some declassified Clos Erasmus. It is also another poster child for our mantra of buying little wines from the very best producers because they have better fruit, more talent, greater commitment and higher standards. As with the first growth sourced examples we cited earlier, It is a ‘second’ wine only relative to its exalted sibling.

Bottled unfiltered and unfined, the wine has a little bit of a wild side which gives it an exotic element, but it is absolutely packed with character and screams of its class and breeding. We have followed Erasmus since the 90s and have tasted most of the offerings of Laurel along the way. It seems like they are working at a higher level these days, which is saying a lot. The 2016 Clos I Terrases Priorat Laurel is once again a sensational effort and arguably worthy of ‘best yet’ considerations. Laurel has always been impressive but it seems Ester is refining her touch. The vintage didn’t hurt either.

The Laurel 2016 shows fruit flavors of currant and black cherry, plus notes of coffee, cocoa and that insistent minerality from the llicorella (yic-o-raya) black slate soils makes Priorat a very special place for grapes. It is aromatic, inviting, layered and remarkably engaging. It delivers plenty even if you aren’t feeling cerebral and just want to relate to it on a purely hedonistic level. If you need some numbers, this second wine received 93 points or better in every vintage since 2004 save one (2010, curiously enough the only vintage reviewed by Neal Martin during a very short stint as Advocate’s Spanish reviewer). All the numbers aren’t in yet, but Jeb Dunnuck opened the topic with a 95 point review.

Dunnuck’s narrative makes the point, “The 2016 Laurel is sensational stuff and, in truth, matches several older vintages of the grand vin (Clos Erasmus) in quality. A blend of 80% Grenache, 15% Syrah, and the rest Cabernet Sauvignon, aged 16 months in a mix of oak, concrete, and amphora, this deep purple-colored beauty offers up a fresh, vibrant bouquet of blueberries, crisp plums, violets, and spring flowers. Possessing full-bodied richness, beautiful depth of fruit and richness, and a fresh, elegant style, it’s a brilliant wine that’s going to evolve gracefully for 10-15 years.”

Is there such a thing as a ‘blue chip’ second wine? We think so.

HIDDEN CAB STEAL

Talk about hiding in plain sight, this particular offer has us scratching our heads. In a world where Cabernet is king, and Napa Valley is the center of the Cabernet universe, why on earth would you market a Cabernet as Provenance Deadeye Napa Valley Red Wine 2016? The front label doesn’t even say that, or anything else. There is simply an artist’s rendering of something that loosely resembles a rifle sight or crosshairs zeroing in on some sort of target. While we had a good ‘what were these people thinking’ chuckle, the wine inside was anything but a joke.

This surprising complex Napa Valley ‘red’ is in fact 96% Cabernet Sauvignon (well into the realm where it could be labeled varietally) that sees 21 months in barrel! It has a real almost-old-school feel to it, and reminds us of some great Napa Cabs from the mid-90’s as Napa was just entering its cult period and things hadn’t gotten too ‘out of hand’ yet. Dark red and black fruit, something that could be described as “Rutherford dust” (though we have no idea where in Napa it came from), wonderful balance and a dense, juicy, rather polished palate, we expect most folks that are fans of Napa Cab will love the juice!

There’s the ‘rub’ and the advantage. Finding competent Napa Cabernet for under $50-60 is no easy task these days. Looking at the bottle, however, you would have no idea that this was Cabernet, and not some goofy proprietary kitchen sink blend vying to be the next ‘Prisoner’. The beauty is that neither will anyone else unless they read something about it somewhere (though there isn’t much). Apparently, this is the first release so few have seen Deadeye at all. Good vintage, fine effort, a delicious Cab for a modest fare and almost ‘witness protection’ anonymity, it’s a great deal as it is and there is no guarantee that the next one will hit the mark the way this one does.

PINK WINE TIME: PART 2

Muga Rioja Rosado 2018 -This one just rolled in, making it a little late to the ‘party’ but the distinctive styling and lifted freshness make this a fine summer quaff and the pricing has made it a consistent favorite over the last few seasons. This is made as a rose (as opposed to being the result of a saignee or bleeding of red grapes) and the blend is 60% Garnacha,
30% Viura and 10% Tempranillo. The usage of the white Viura gives this rose some impressions of white stone fruits like white peach to go along with the more traditional berry flavors. Lifted, fresh, and very food-friendly, this is another value performer.

Terrebrune Bandol Rosé 2018 –As we spoke about the Pradeaux in part 1 of this rosé focused piece, we mentioned that the 2017 may have been our favorite of the lot for that vintage. In the 2018 lineup, this could well be the MVP (Most Valuable Pink). These folks have been doing great work for a while but the 2018 just seems to have a little bit more ‘pop’ and vigorous yet engaging fruit. As is the norm, Mourvedre (50%) is the star of this show with the other half of the wine is split roughly equally between Grenache and Cinsault. Half of the juice is saignee (bled from the red grapes) while the other half is made directly into rosé. Limestone and organic farming are key elements in this story, with this pink as the happy ending. Equal impressions of both berries and yellow stone fruits like peach and apricot, that cool, funky little twist is the Mourvedre speaking its piece, and there’s a nice touch of minerality to the finish.

La Mordoree Cotes du Rhone Rosé 2018-This family winery has been a Winex favorite for a long time and this is the entry-level bottling among 4-5 different rosés that can range up to $50. We like this one because it gives the Mordoree experience at the most attractive price, and this 2018 is the most engaging we have had in some time. Their pinks have a huge following and for good reason. This version is made up of 40% Grenache, 30% Syrah, 15% Cinsault, 10% Carignan, and 5% Mourvedre. In the glass the Grenache appears to be the lead singer, delivering a broad, juicy blast of decidedly red berry fruit. It’s rounder in the mouth than some but still maintains plenty of freshness and finishes with a touch of garrigue. Far too easy to drink and a strong choice for under $20.

Leoube Rosé Cotes De Provence 2018 –Our lineup of pinks changes every year based on our tastings, so it is important to note that Leoube has been on the roster five of the last six vintages since we first discovered it. Though it doesn’t make much of a point of it, the folks that bought the Chateau in 1997 made their money in organic groceries. Also the property is located next to one of the top sites for the famous Domaine Ott. As a matter of fact, Jean-Jacques Ott of Domaine Ott wanted to sell his property but still wanted to stay in the business. The new owners of Leoube just so happened to be looking for a winemaker at the exact same moment. So, Jean-Jacques and his son Romain head over to Leoube after selling their eponymous property to Roederer Champagne and boom, magic. Now, father and son Ott work the vineyards and make the wine at their next-door neighbor. A crisper and more delicate style with a pale salmon hue, it is mainly Grenache and Cinsault with bits of Syrah and Mourvedre. Light, dry, fresh, berries, apricot, and citrus, and a touch of salinity in the finish, it is quite civilized.

Nervi Conterno Il Rosato Piedmont 2018-You can make rose out of anything, as the market continues to prove. But not all of those efforts are compelling. But there are a few cases where a non-mainstream example shines brightly. We have seen rose of Nebbiolo before, but not very many and not very often. The way this one came out, there might be a lot more folks trying their hand at it, though hitting this mark will be no picnic. The grapes come from the Nervi estate in Gattinara that was acquired by the Giacomo Conterno estate, hand-harvested with the intent to make a pink wine, fermented in stainless steel and then exposed to the lies for four months. Made from 90% Nebbiolo and 10% Uva Rara, this has an inviting nose of melon, berry, wild herbs and that perfumy floral aspect that is Nebbiolo. Deceptively broad on the palate, with plenty of energy underneath, this delivers in an aperitif scenario but has enough substance to play with some meat and sausage dishes. A 91 score from vinous. A cool diversion in pinks.