I think Greg makes some great points here. On this board and elsewhere, we often get into the specifics of ‘natural wines’, of filtered vs. unfiltered, of native vs ‘commercial’ yeasts, etc . . . and therefore there seems to be a desire to learn more about the ins and outs of the process and its results - and NOT just focus on the final product.
I agree that one should enjoy what they drink regardless of points, etc . . . but at the end of the day, one should also understand what they are drinking in a little greater detail (I am talking about the ‘wine geeks’ here on this board and others, and not necessarily on the entire wine drinking population) . . .
Larry and Greg, I agree with much of your last few posts. I can accept that my wine-worldview may change a bit by this discussion in understanding that it may not be The Rocks in Milton-Freewater that lead to all of the Cayuse Funk, and that in some people’s eyes these choices might be bad ones because they perceive these as flaws. But I have walked the vineyards with Christophe, seen how he pushes the envelope in the vineyard in ways most winemakers can’t/won’t take the time or money to do, and I believe these efforts show through to the final product in some way, whether you label it as Terroir or not. To each there own, Drink what you Like, Like what you Drink…
However, if the blog’s intent had been to show the difference between Terroir and winemaking decisions that may be mistaken for Terroir, I think they did a bad job of it by singling out Cayuse and secondarily pointing a judgmental finger at Cayuse lovers who may have defended the style of these wines, irrespective of it being Terroir or whatever. IMHO - At best, poor PR and writing on their part, and at worst, a risky thing to put in print given the Cayuse-Reynvaan relationship and this recent thread…
IIRC, Cabot Kimberly’s Syrah was talked about on these pages quite a bit for having some less-than-mainstream nuances, I recently received 3 in a trade that I specifically asked for because of my love of things like this.
As someone who loves all things syrah, I too enjoy the ‘non-mainstream’ attributes of syrah - the funk, the peppery quality of a cool climate syrah, the chalky minerally quality of some young Cote Roties that I’ve had. Is ‘bacon fat’ for everyone? Of course not? And can one point to such things and say they are ‘terroir’ or ‘site’ or ‘winemaking’ driven? Well . . . if it occurs often enough and it becomes a ‘signature’ of that specific wine or vineyard or winemaker, short of tearing it apart via science, the proof is in the pudding . . . er final wine.
Enjoy what you enjoy - and just remember that the blog provides an n of 1 - see if they can test 20 of Christophe’s releases and then 20 or 40 or 100 other such wines to really begin to get statistical significance in what they are finding - otherwise, you can really be assured of a ‘cause/effect’ relationship here . . .
I think everyone is a bit naive if you think that the wines were unique only because of terroir. Love them or hate them, this shouldn’t change anyones opinion on the quality, or value, Christophe works his ass off and I respect that greatly, only how long you care to age them. But that is true of any wine with a ph near 4.0.
If you want cookie cutter, sterile filtered wines, just shop the bottom 2 shelves at your local big box retailer.
There is absolutely wine-making involved and not just terroir. Always the case. Taste a bottle of Reynvaan and you can certainly taste the Cayuse influence (Baron consults for/makes Reynvaan as well).
The article questions why cayuse stands out amongst other wines from the same terroir… perhaps I am just sucked into his marketing, but he does things differently- to start with, he uses only native/indigenous yeasts- everyone else (broad stroke, but mostly true) innoculates with cultured strains- that right there can account for a major difference and account for some of the “flawed” notes (as I understand it)
I don’t really have any strong opinions on this subject as I think I may have had one Cayuse wine in my life – so cannot comment intelligently ion their style and/or flaws.
My only question is that, from this discussion and from comments on the blog, the wines are being described as “love them or hate them” type of wines or as “one man’s flaws and another man’s gems,” etc. And yet it seems that all of the broadly published critics seem to love them. If a wine is really that polarizing wouldn’t it make sense that at least some of the broadly published critics wouldn’t like them?
Great points as usual. You truly would believe that at least one major critic would ‘take exception’ to some of the ‘flaws’ if they detracted from the finished product, but AFAIK, this has not happened . . .
Not sure critical “consensus” proves or disproves much of anything in this case. There’s Gregutt, who is quoted saying he believes these wines must be tasted non-blind to be understood. I understand he’s saying context matters, but he’s also saying he tastes the wine non-blind and subject to bias due to knowledge of producer. Then there’s Jay Miller, who is notoriously unreliable and has been criticized for tasting standards that embarrass even the notoriously cronyistic wine community.
A sample of two or three critics doesn’t indicate much to me, especially if they aren’t tasting blind. Beyond that, critics are often looking for different qualities than the typical consumer. Critics want wines that have defining features. There are many massive, ripe wines that critics universally love that are polarizing to consumers, for example.
Yes, Tanzer has rated Cayuse since 2002 I believe, and they are always near the head of the class from a numerical rating standpoint. In fact, the 2005 Cailloux “neutral barrel” received the highest score he has ever bestowed upon a WA wine at 96 points. Too bad Christophe wont bottle and sell the damn thing as I’ve had it twice and its simply terrific.
I meant to say that at least some of the critics wouldn’t like them. And I guess what you are saying it the point that I was getting at. If a wine that is seemingly thought of by many people as being a polarizing wine isn’t found to be polarizing by any (or very few) critics – perhaps that says more about wine criticism than about the wines themselves.
So a buddy posts a Facebook photo of an 05 Armida he is drinking and I get to make the initial comment and post “Hey, in all likelihood it’s a flawed wine” - you should have seen them jump down my throat!
They are certainly entitled to express their opinion however they want, but
after reading the piece I did find it a little disingenuous and slightly ego driven.
I did find it interesting that her response to the WWR blog was
Sean,
Obviously, I disagree with your points and analysis. But nice gamesmanship to try to get comments on your blog at my expense.
What I find interesting about this thread is that you all can defend Cayuse and it’s fans yet when Robert Parker loves '97 Harlan everyone is so quick to vilify him. Here we have a wine that has been proven, at least by one lab, to be flawed. That is much more concrete evidence than members here posting negative tasting notes about the Harlan.
I realize he’s a critic but can’t he just like '97 Harlan for what it is then? We can all just move forward knowing that his palate tends toward wines with possible VA.
Sorry to stir the pot. I just see parallels to that debate.
It could also be a case of the critics generally liking the wines, but the general drinking going away scratching its collective head … resulting in a situation where people often think they’re supposed to like the stuff. It’s how I think about James Joyce – you won’t dare find an English Lit scholar who pans him, but many people think he’s opaque and borderline nonsensical. That could be the case here.
No dog in the fight, either, and can’t think if I’ve had a Cayuse wine. It is interesting to see that so many note stewed/vegetable aromas and flavors, but I don’t recall ever seeing such notes mentioned in a professional review. Just throwing ideas out there. It’s like brainstorming … instead of working.
![[winner.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/07ec25c9fd71159fe15d7f1ba5fad64e91238d0e.gif "winner"){kind=small}
![[soap.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/a/a7ea1fffd3ef237e8f19d17a83270ad8452218ca.gif "soap"){kind=small}