Wine Peeps blog: "Cayuse; Terroir or Wine Flaw" article

I wasn’t sure if I could copy and paste the whole article here.

Wine Peeps: A Wine Blog Cayuse: Unique Terroir or Flawed Wine? Lab Analysis Tells All - Wine Peeps" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Very interesting reading. I haven’t read this blog much since I tend to find them to be “homers” a bit too much. I get stuck on the fact that every time they open a Quilceda Creek they assign it their highest QPR. (They rate wines on both Quality and Value.) They wiggle out of it by saying the peer group in something like Napa Cults, but it would be logical to compare to other WA Cabs as well and these often rate as well for much less than QC.

Anyway, that is neither here nor there. Good to see someone trying to cut thru the BS. I’m not sure anyone is necessarily correct in this debate, though. In some sense, terroir produces the high pH and unbalanced must that yields tons of volatile sulfides. On the other hand, there’s nothing unique about a patch of land that yields a wine that stinks. And winemaking could definitely ameliorate this issue.

I have encountered briney wines before. I kind of like them. Ultimately it comes down to personal taste. I do question why a wine with a dominant chemical signature should be rare, expensive and highly allocated.

Here’s the real money quote from the article:

After dinner, we poured the remaining wine into the lab bottles and labeled the samples for submission to ETS. We requested three tests on the Cayuse, a standard chemistry panel, a sulfides panel, and an ethylphenols panel. [Note: The samples sent to ETS are identified with a sample number so ETS did not, and still does not (unless they read this post) know the identity of the wine they tested.]

Within two days, we had the results, posted online and emailed to us. Then we had a follow-up call with a representative at ETS to discuss the results. The evidence was clear. The Cayuse was a flawed wine. It had volatile acidity slightly above the normal sensory threshold but at a level a massive Syrah can support, but the worst result from the chemistry panel was that it had a high pH level, which made it more susceptible to bacterial attack. The most damning result, however, came from the sulfides panel. Published literature and ETS studies say that low levels of dimethyl sulfide can contribute roundness, fruitiness, or complexity; however, at levels greater than 50 ug/L, it may contribute vegetative, cooked cabbage, or sulfide smells to wines. According to the ETS representative, this wine had the highest dimethyl sulfide level he had ever seen (312 ug/L), more than 10 times the normal sensory threshold (17-25 ug/L), which accounts for the canned corn, rotten vegetables, and decomposed greens flavors. And, those dimethyl sulfide levels and resulting unpleasant sensory characteristics will only increase with wine age, according to ETS. A layman’s analogy for the effects of dimethyl sulfide in wine would be like salt in food. If you add a little salt to your food while you are cooking, it enhances the flavor, but if you dump in the whole salt shaker, all you will taste is salt.

Never had a Cayuse wine, but this story reminded me of a conversation I had with Ron Cavé of Van Bakel & Cavé in Amsterdam. A remarkable guy who teaches wine chemistry (I think I’m remembering correctly) at a university in Dijon, he spent nearly two hours with me in his shop discussing the wines he carries (mostly former students or friends) and his approach to tasting wines in general. He described a rather tortuous process I don’t think many would believe (I choose to) with one of the first steps, usually, being an analysis of the wine in his lab. To be sure, he doesn’t romanticize wine. The thing that sticks out for me was his statement that many common adjectives used by critics/winelovers are actually indications of faults in wines. One of the common culprits in creating these faults (that some of us, me included, love) are the yeasts used in fermentation. I have no desire to mention these for fear of starting something that my limited technical understanding of wine can back up. And without Ron here to contribute, I’ll stop attributing more to him for fear of relying on my already failing memory.

Needless to say, the wines that I like…I like, faults and all. I have no difficulty believing the content of the blog cited in this thread.

Just finished reading the article.

Interesting enough, I opened the 2004 Cailloux, the same bottle tested as “Flawed” in the article, and served it at a dinner a few months ago with two CellarTracker buddies and one total wine-novice. There were several nice wines that night yet everyone thought the Cayuse was the WOTN.

As someone with a scientific background, I am interested in the results and would wish to have a more quantitative comparison with larger data set across vintages, vineyards, peer wineries in “The Rocks”, throw in a Reynvaan or two (since they have the Cayuse touch more than any other peers), etc. A single data point validating one persons position isn’t necessarily “scientific evidence.”

One other comment to the dimethyl sulfite “flaw”…easy to rule out Excessive Vineyard Spray, not in a Biodynamic vineyard. Other aspects such as yeast strains, fermenter shape, etc could all be very real differences in a Cayuse wine, but they may also be exactly the things that set Christophe apart. The notion of “acceptable levels” of dimethyl sulfite means that someone has set a standard for “acceptable” and if Cayuse is indeed above that level than the status quo will deem it unacceptable.

I guess for me it boils down to this; You don’t like Cayuse, so don’t buy it, don’t write about it, get over it. Perhaps he sees the Cayuse Lover as not too much different than Gollum and The Ring, and it is in some percentage that which he does not like because he isn’t part of that group. I personally have never made anyone feel bad for not liking Cayuse…in fact, the most vocal person that would whole-heartedly agree with his sensory descriptions and lab analysis is my own wife who really can’t stand Cayuse. But she also dislikes Bordeaux, German Rieslings, etc because they don’t fit the “Acceptable” profile of what wine is and should be. I still love her for here views, and when I open a Betz, a Saxum, a Lillian, a Lewelling with dinner…she is a very happy camper as am I. So my Cayuse, Pegau, JJ Prum, Leoville Barton, etc are saved for those nights I’m drinking solo, or more enjoyably, for when I can share them with one or more dear friends who, like I, love the intellectual nature of wine, the fact that it can be sooo different, and occasionally beyond special.

Quantitatively, the Cayuse may have data points that point to a flaw, but I again say that we are presented too few data points, and I haven’t seen enough information establishing the measurement standard at which it was judged to be a hard fact. Qualitatively, I think Cayuse is one of my favorite wines, is made with incredible attention in the vineyard and the winery, and can be an amazingly beautiful drink…the top wine I have ever tasted is a Cayuse, three times I have had it with my Cayuse buddies and it is simply, utterly…my Precious!

Well said, Scott

Cayuse lovers will argue with the facts presented.
Cayuse haters will endorse the research, despite the sample size of one.
Nobody will change their mind.

This should be fun to watch.

I really hope articles like this would influence the people already on the list to stop purchasing!!!

(so I can move up the wait list sooner… )

I know of a group that sent a bunch of Cali Cults into ETS for similar tests a few years ago. Most of the wines were ‘flawed’, several that were lauded as having great fruit sweetness had significant RS and one had a borderline illegal amount of VA. I suspect that a lot of the bigger wines that push style envelopes have results that push the envelope in one or more ways.

This is an interesting thread, and one that should ‘raise the question’ about ‘flaws’ with a lot of wines . . .

There is no doubt the average consumer, and many ‘seasoned’ wine drinkers, may have difficulty noticing a wine has ‘above the threshold VA’ levels, instead describing a wine as having ‘a touch of sweetness’ or perhaps ‘elevated aromatics’. And sulfides? Well, they are a natural part of making syrah for sure - and in terms of ‘handling’ it, some try to remove them . . . and obviously others don’t.

With regards to RS and high pH levels, you might be scared to death to run this on some of your favorite CA rhone wines . . . . it is NOT uncommon for certain grapes such as syrah to hit the winery with pH’s at or above 4.0. And no, for those of you who want to tout ‘cool climate’ syrahs, I’m not talking about you . . . And RS? Yep, more wines than you think have ‘a touch’ of RS, helping to boost the fruit quality of the wine, and perhaps ‘soften’ and ‘lengthen’ the finish a bit . . .

I’ll be curious to hear what others have to say as well . . .

Cheers!

I’m a pretty simple and basic kind of guy. I try a wine…I like it or I don’t. If you need Parker or a lab to justify your likes and dislikes, I think you are missing the point of enjoying wine entirely.

Darren,

I’d love to think the wine biz is that simple these days, and perhaps you are the exception to the rule . . .

But look at this board - and look at how wines are dissected all of the time in tasting notes, etc. I’m not saying this is good or bad, but at the end of the day, you don’t drink points . . . or reviews . . . or labels . . . . or recommendations . . . You drink wine - what’s INSIDE the bottle. And if you like it, great - if not, there’s plenty more out there to choose from . . .

That said, it is interesting to hear stories and read results like this - as I said above, it does point out that sometime what you think you know about a wine your really don’t . . .

Cheers!

Larry,

Agreed, we drink what’s in the bottle but I think the people who post here (and blog about wine) are interested in why some wines taste the way they do both intellectually and to understand what it is that makes up wines that they like (or really dislike) so that they can find those (or avoid them).

I’m not sure the lab results in the article linked help much, though, since we can’t see results for the other WA Syrahs out there and even if we could most of us don’t have the expertise to relate such figures back to a profile.

Rick,

I agree with everything you wrote for sure.

And I also agree that without having other wines to compare/contrast the data to, it is much less useful . . .

Cheers!

Unfortunately, it’s not quite that simple if you buy wine with the intent to age it. Assessing a bottle at a point in time and deciding if and how much you like it is one thing. But in purchasing wine for future consumption, you have to make an educated guess of whether or not you’ll still like it in 5 to 10 years or more, which is something else entirely. Most flaws seem to get worse with time, and that is where my only fear lies with Cayuse. Oddly enough, this hasn’t played out in my very limited experience with them. For example, in the '06 Cailloux I drank shortly after release I found a lot of those polarizing cabbage and fur scents. I wouldn’t say I really liked them, but I didn’t dislike them either. They added complexity and uniqueness, which IMO was a good thing. However, in a second bottle drank a few months ago those components were much less intense - almost gone entirely. The wine had really rounded out and, aside from still being borderline overripe and slightly sweet, had generally improved. Since my own limited experience goes against the notion of ‘it gets worse with age’, it’s hard for me to draw any conclusions from the article or my past tastings. Hopefully it’ll all be figured out by the time I finally make the list. In the meantime, I’ll keep buying a few bottles a year at retail.

I’d love to hear others opinions on Cayuse wines with respect to their development over time.
Also, it appears that the ABV has come down over the past couple years. Does anyone know if that is an intentional change or just a result of the vintages?

Good for WinePeeps getting the test done – and good for them identifying it (correctly) as a flawed wine.

As 1WineDude has written about brett, “I don’t subscribe to the belief that the concept of terroir extends to poop-aroma-inducing yeasts (and possibly dirty winemaking equipment). When the day comes that winemakers deliberately cultivate the wild yeasts that induce those off-odors, and it can be proven scientifically, then I’ll stop calling it a flaw and instead refer to it as a poor winemaking decision. But until then, it’s a flaw.” (Calling the Brett Police on the Loire | 1 Wine Dude" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

A couple months back, I eagerly put my nose into a bottle of '08 oregon pinot that I had dropped $50. I had previously liked everything from this producer. As soon as my nose went in the glass, though, the smell of band-aids was completely overwhelming. It was as if I had opened an industrial sized box of band-aids and mixed it with some hospital-grade anti-sepctic. Just not acceptable – and not terroir.

Absolutely agree

From my POV the issue isn’t whether there is a technical flaw. A lot of the the analysis I think is done with an eye towards broad consumer acceptance, i.e. mass market or perhaps even critical acclaim. I’m sure there are some wines I enjoy that have a technical flaw (i.e. Brett) and others I don’t (i.e. Brett, again). It depends on the expression of the flaw and the context. Brett as band aids sucks. Brett as farmyard can be more interesting.

The more compelling issue is demystifying wine. It all comes into focus when a wine’s characteristic aromas can be attributed to high levels of sulfides. Flaw or not, the levels are well above sensory threshold. It really challenges the perception of this producer. Critics say you need to know what you’re tasting to enjoy it. To me that’s the tail wagging the dog. If the wine is for personal consumption, first and foremost the consumer should enjoy it. Gregutt gets called out quite rightly on this note. He calls it terroir, but it’s really elevated sulfides.

It’s no secret I like Cayuse, probably would be one of the very last mailing lists I would drop were I having to cut purchases to that extent. But the basis for the blog post IMHO has less to do with Quantitative Analysis or the Socratic Method, and more to do with measurement against the statistical Mean and trying to “Prove a Point” (with a single point )

As the winemakers among us can attest, there are so many variables that could contribute to some of these “Flaws”, but I feel that term (Flaw) in and of itself is inappropriate. We all generally agree TCA is a flaw, and not a one of us would relish in the opportunity to drink a lineup of TCA tainted wines. Yet wines that routinely fall outside the statistic bell curve for one or more other measurements are often lauded and enjoyed greatly. To puff out your chest (or blog) and say you are vindicated in your opinion that these are flaws just because you spent the money to send this single wine to a lab and they agreed with you is less about the wine and more about the writer and his Freudian Ego.

If you want a safe recipe for wine, try this:

Crop at 2 Tons per acre, control pests and weeds as per Monsanto recommendations
Harvest at 25 Brix
Crush with no Stems, Ferment in 1T open fermenters
Punch down 2x/day, pump over every other day
Inoculate with Pasteur Red
Throw in some Fermaid K for good measure and to keep your bugs happy
Press off into 100% New Oak (Mix of American and French Barrels, medium toast)
Rack twice
Filter and Fine
Bottle with a synthetic cork
Sell at Trader Joes/Kroger/Walgreens

Yes I’ve thrown some big scientific words (actually methods) in this reply, and yes I’m a bit of a smart-ass, but I really get peeved when people try to use science as a weapon when either the science, their method, or the overall premise is flawed.

Christophe ferments with native yeasts…ergo, how about a lab analysis of native yeast fermentation wines and their perceived flaws? Christophe uses a variety of fermenter styles…uses extremely tight vineyard spacing…uses draft horses to plow his rows and keeps Hungarian pigs nearby…Biodynamically farms…listens to Frank Zappa while wines are undergoing Mallo…

Could these wines have flaws by his or even an industry accepted benchmark? Absolutely. But at the same time I feel one man’s flaw could be another’s gem, and given the passion of those who enjoy these wines, they length of wait to make the allocation list, the secondary market value of said wines…I feel the free market has spoken. And that market may not necessarily be the same target demographic that reads WinePeeps.com, attends a weekly tastings of perfectly acceptable wines, or that is looking for a homogeneous marketplace for Syrah.

Oh, I’m willing to bet they didn’t cover the Frank Zappa effect in his “Certified Specialist in Wine” course either …

I agree with what you have to say about flaws. They’re an industry standard, especially when it comes to wines aiming for mass appeal. I also agree the motivations of the Wine Peeps folks are suspect. I’ve read their blog sporadically, and it always seems they find exactly what they want to find. They love Quilceda Creek, and thus they always rate it both as a delicious wine and a great “value” at $100+.

But you are overlooking the fact that the emperor has no clothes in this case. You point out all the interesting techniques the producer employs which no doubt attract attention from critics and collectors. But what’s the end result? A wine with massively elevated sulfides. Maybe that is directly from the terroir, but it also is something that can come from a variety of other sources. All this is saying is that a much less fanciful wine could offer you the same funkiness. So I do think there’s value in the post for this reason.