I realize that I can hardly be considered objective on this topic but thought I might chime in anyway.
The oldest CA Pinot that I have tasted was a 1953 Martin Ray (from what is now Mount Eden). It had aged magnificently and was probably in better shape than 90% of the '50s era Burgs that I have tasted. It reminded me of a Richebourg from a great vintage.
Also, I have cellared a broad range of vintages of Mount Eden and Santa Cruz Mtn Vineyards Pinots from the '70s and '80s. I can only think of one wine (the '87 Mount Eden) which seemed a little past peak. The other bottlings (back to '75) have improved with age and are still going strong.
I’m assuming your love affair with Pinot Noir began when you encountered well-aged Burgundies that you considered “profound,” correct? Of the California Pinots you have cellared from the '70s and '80s, were there many that you would say are “profound” wines in that sense (as opposed to wines that have “simply” improved with age)? If you were to have encountered these wine “double blind,” do you think your opinion would be as positive? (I can appreciate that it is difficult, if not impossible, to speak objectively on such a topic.)
Harry,
Those are good questions. There are many variables at play (winemaking, vintages, sites) and very few examples of CA Pinot to draw from. To provide some context it’s important to remember until the '90s CA Pinot acreage under vine was extremely limited. Also IMO most of the expansion that came afterwards was in poor sites.
Now to answer your question. Without a doubt the '53 Martin Ray was profound. It drank like a great Grand Cru. I think all at the table would agree with that assertion.
On the '70s and '80s MEs and SCMVs, I have tasted some bottles of the '79s and '80s that were also profound. Probably the best anecdote I can offer is that I once served a bottle of '88 SCMV to a preeminent Burgundy critic and he said he would never have guessed anything other than Burgundy and thought it resembled a well aged Nuits 1er cru.
FWIW, I regular place our pre-commercial bottlings (2001, 2002) of the Home Vineyard in blind lineups with Burg lovers. It is rarely identified as different or less complex than the similarly aged Burgs in the lineup.
Love aged Burgundy. Don’t love aged Cali PN. Same with Bordeaux vs. Cab. Those few who manage to make California wines that bear resemblance to their aged French counterparts suffer from middle-of-the-road syndrome; they are neither as good as typically-made Cali wines for the same price when young, nor as good as typically-made French wines for the same price when old. To me this is a signal they are trying to do something the terroir is telling them not to do.
I’ve had enough wines from Oregon in the early 90’s to know that wineries like Eyrie, Elk Cove, DDO, and a few others can age well. I’ve had some excellent Beaux Freres as well (but nothing over 14 years past the vintage date). The 1990 Elk Cove Reserve Pinot Noir was as good as some Grand Cru’s (and better than some too) that I’ve had. All in all I think we will just need some time to see where the wines go…and balance is going to be the key.
I would disagree for a number of reasons. I think that statement is a bit outlandish because of the history (track record) of Burgundy, as well as the level of quality of some Burgundies, both young and old. I’ve never even had the really big guns, but here’s an example. I recently tried 2010 Clos des Lambrays. I realize that preference plays a role and all of that, but as a lover of certain CA and OR PN’s, and I do mean I really love some of them, I have NEVER had a young Pinot Noir from anywhere other than Burgundy that I thought was even close to that good. period. One of the 2002 Ponsot GC’s, same deal. I’ve even compared some domestic Pinot Noirs that are among my favorites to these wines side by side, and it makes my favorite domestic PN’s look not so good.
Now, I will accept and even agree with the idea that the best CA and OR Pinot Noirs can and will become as good as a lot of the really good Burgundies, and that the best from CA and OR are just as good in their youth as some really good Burgundies in their youth, but I just don’t think anything has been produced outside of Burgundy that is as good as the truly great ones, and I haven’t even tried the supposed best ones (other than tiny tastes of Rousseau Chambertin, which seemed probably amazing, but at a big tasting with a tiny pour, I really don’t know) .
If you had said “the reason CA Pinot is not accorded a lot more esteem than it is by most people is that they are typically not allowed time to fully mature”, I would have simply agreed.
I drank an '05 Reulling on Monday. It was excellent. Better than my '05 Premier Cru Burgs. I didn’t even notice the alcohol. Still a baby. I have 2 more. In five years, I’ll open an '05 Aubert pinot and an '05 Hospices Mazis. You an I can decide then. Put it in your calendar. But while we’re waiting, I think I’ll polish off some of my older Aubert chards without worrying about premox.
Here’s the TN on the Reuling - I mentioned you in it.
Found this in my cellar last night and gave it a whirl. Think I received as a gift many moons ago and completely forgot about it.
2003 J Vineyards & Winery Pinot Noir (USA, California, Sonoma County, Russian River Valley)
1/19/2014: Very light colored and translucent. Earthy and restrained on opening. Settled into a great food wine with sour cherry, forest floor and spice. Paired fantastic with sea urchin/avocado, oysters, pork belly, lasagna.
No doubt that Cali pinots can get better with age, at least for my palate. Had some great older Arcadians, Fiddleheads, Au Bon Climats.
I have a pretty decent stash of pinot in cellar now and am looking forward to drinking at 10+ years.
Considering how heavily invested members of WB seem to be in both GC Burg and big player Cali PN, can someone, maybe several people, for the good of the many, open some 10-15 year high end Cali and blind taste it alongside some decent 1e and GC burg and let us know? I know it would be a painful and disheartening experience, but someone’s gotta jump on the grenade…
Over the past three years I’ve had the pleasure of drinking two Oregon Eyrie Pinots from the 1970’s. A 1975 and a 1977. Both drank beautifully because they were so well balanced. Eyrie has a program where they taste their library wines and toss those that are bad, and recork those that are still drinking well. If you can get winery direct South Bloc Pinots from old vintages, you can be assured of their quality. The '75 I had was from my cousin’s cellar and purchased the wine upon release. The '77 was from Eyrie’s library release program. If I recall correctly, the '77 cost $250. The winery’s library release program was detailed in the Wine Spectator a couple of issues ago.
First of all, Burgundy drinkers adore pinot noir and are acutely aware of the number of serendipitous historical flukes that were necessary for it to become what it is in Burgundy today. Most have no trouble figuring that if you run the probabilities, the likelihood is strong that there are other places in the world, as yet undiscovered or barely discovered, where it could flourish just as well but where that perfect storm of historical flukes never occurred. And, finally, most are also all too well aware that prime terroir in Burgundy is a very precious asset that grows more precious by the day. As a result, most Burgundy drinkers I know take an intense curiosity in the efforts to make great pinot noir in other areas of the world. It is a lot like the interest that cosmologists take in the search for alien life. The odds are that it is out there somewhere, and there is absolutely nothing that would be more exciting than finding it. And thus when there are stirrings that someone in California or Oregon or New Zealand or elsewhere has nailed the grape, our first reaction is the line from Fox Mulder’s poster in the X-Files: I WANT TO BELIEVE. Which is to say that our minds are not so closed as you think and we are actually very inclined to put these wines away as science experiments to see what happens when they mature. I have done that. I know many others who have done that.
The results, so far, have been slightly more fruitful than the search for alien life. There is a small number of California pinot noirs that have shown the ability to age as well over the short period of time that even low-level Burgundy can handle almost effortlessly. There is a much larger number of California pinot noirs that receive incredible acclaim on the basis of how they taste young that cannot handle even that small amount of age. The number of California pinot noirs with a track record for aging and improving over the time span that serious Burgundy can age and improve (i.e. decades) can be counted on one hand. This is not because nobody has given them the chance. It is because marshaling the perfect storm of factors necessary to nail it is not easy and the odds that it is going to be done in the first or second generation of trying are infinitesimal. That is especially the case when the winds are actually pushing hard in the opposite direction, and the critics who are best-positioned to help move things along are instead encouraging the production of wines in a a style that is not constitutionally designed for ageability in the first place. The California wine that does break through and perhaps eventually prove itself as California’s Chambertin or La Tache will not be one of the wines that America’s best-selling wine review publications are promoting. The hard truth is that these wines have been allowed time to fully mature and the reason they are not given the same esteem as Burgundy is that we have seen the results and they have not been good.
Nice post, Keith! What you are saying is what I’ve always suspected. It took hundreds of years of wine making for Burgundy to get where it is today. If there is a CA or OR “equivalent” to a Grand Cru Burg, it may well come along faster than that, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.
