Navarro 1998 Pinot Noir Deep-End Blend (Anderson Valley) 13.9%. Very advanced on the nose, and browning, at first opening. Dont be fooled, as this is a massive deception. With air, the wine takes on flesh, fat, and power, bringing dark and, truth be told, somewhat obvious fruit of the fat, Central Valley berry type to the palate, with hints of freshly-ground coffee bean, bitter chocolate, raw morel, and molten glass. Its very, very intense, and really shouldnt be opened anytime soon. In fact, air only serves to anger and intensify the fruit, while the structure still fully intact shows no signs of dissipating. All that said, I dont know if theres complexity or pinosity here; the wine seems to take abrupt, noisily-accomplished steps towards all the things that make pinot noir compelling, without any of the accompanying intellectualization or complexity that one expects from the grape and the region. I suspect a little too much effort in the cellar, and I wonder if this might not be the fate of many highly-touted New World pinots of similar ilk. Still, one could do profoundly worse, and while the wine bears the imprint of work, it is in no way trafficked or steroidal. Its just big and more than a little buffoonish, yet full of skill. Its Boo Weekley in a bottle. (10/08)
Glen Fiona 1997 Syrah (Walla Walla Valley) Massively primary, and yet I dont know that it will escape that character. The fruit tends towards blueberry, blackberry, and plum, and theres the aroma (but not the tactile sensation) of freshly-tanned leather, but the tanning liquids are absent, and while the wine is very, very delicious, the structure required for longer aging seems prematurely absent. I dont think this is going to fall apart anytime over the next decade, so an optimistic hold is warranted (unless you love the boisterous fruit, in which case: drink now), but I suspect this will make old pillows rather than old bones. (10/08)
Nalle 2004 Zinfandel (Dry Creek Valley) 13.9%. A bit more advanced than Id have expected just a bit, though with some of the very pleasant wild-berry fruit (tending more towards red than blue, purple, or black) having yielded to spice and a wavy, still-indistinct earthiness. But its such an easygoing pleasure to drink. (9/08)
Coturri 2001 Zinfandel Forsythe (Napa Valley) 15.9%. This tastes very much like the Coturri grenache, which just cant be good. Its an overwhelming explosion of slutty fruit given a massive sheen of oak; not the flavor, but the polish, which (for me) is rarely a positive for zinfandel. The acidity is vibrant, and the wine is despite the temple-throbbing alcohol, which is immediately noticeable quite chuggable, but theres just nothing interesting in this bottle. Except, perhaps, the next mornings hangover. (10/08)
Tulocay 2001 Zinfandel (Amador County) 15.7%. Based on the color, Id think about drinking this. Based on the palate, Id wait. Based on the structure, Id have to choose against Caol Ila. How to solve this dilemma? Twisted, back-country berries and black pepper-dominated spice mark the wines unmistakable origin, but theres a little more heat than usual (even for often-fiery Amador zin), and a lot of spirituous invective. As a pure expression of fuck you Californicated aggression towards even its most spiritually native of grapes, its a triumphant achievement, and I honestly do admire it for that quality. I even enjoy it on those terms. As a wine in the greater world of such beverages, however, its a bit much. (10/08)
Glen Fiona 1997 Syrah (Walla Walla Valley) Massively primary, and yet I dont know that it will escape that character. The fruit tends towards blueberry, blackberry, and plum, and theres the aroma (but not the tactile sensation) of freshly-tanned leather, but the tanning liquids are absent, and while the wine is very, very delicious, the structure required for longer aging seems prematurely absent. I dont think this is going to fall apart anytime over the next decade, so an optimistic hold is warranted (unless you love the boisterous fruit, in which case: drink now), but I suspect this will make old pillows rather than old bones. (10/08)
Nalle 2004 Zinfandel (Dry Creek Valley) 13.9%. A bit more advanced than Id have expected just a bit, though with some of the very pleasant wild-berry fruit (tending more towards red than blue, purple, or black) having yielded to spice and a wavy, still-indistinct earthiness. But its such an easygoing pleasure to drink. (9/08)
Coturri 2001 Zinfandel Forsythe (Napa Valley) 15.9%. This tastes very much like the Coturri grenache, which just cant be good. Its an overwhelming explosion of slutty fruit given a massive sheen of oak; not the flavor, but the polish, which (for me) is rarely a positive for zinfandel. The acidity is vibrant, and the wine is despite the temple-throbbing alcohol, which is immediately noticeable quite chuggable, but theres just nothing interesting in this bottle. Except, perhaps, the next mornings hangover. (10/08)
Tulocay 2001 Zinfandel (Amador County) 15.7%. Based on the color, Id think about drinking this. Based on the palate, Id wait. Based on the structure, Id have to choose against Caol Ila. How to solve this dilemma? Twisted, back-country berries and black pepper-dominated spice mark the wines unmistakable origin, but theres a little more heat than usual (even for often-fiery Amador zin), and a lot of spirituous invective. As a pure expression of fuck you Californicated aggression towards even its most spiritually native of grapes, its a triumphant achievement, and I honestly do admire it for that quality. I even enjoy it on those terms. As a wine in the greater world of such beverages, however, its a bit much. (10/08)
