• • •

The hook here is quite simple: Failla is that rare Napa Valley winery that produces noteworthy Pinot. Of course, there’s an obvious caveat to this scenario: Failla’s grapes are sourced exclusively from Sonoma County, where coastal climates offer Pinot Noir a relatively cool growing season. For what it’s worth, sourcing fruit has always remained a common aspect of winemaking, and it’s not a trend that should be considered either positive or negative. It’s just how things happen to be. After all, many wineries in the Napa Valley will source their grapes from other areas throughout the county, whether they own these vineyards or not. However, the overwhelming majority of Napa’s purchased fruit is Cabernet, with Chardonnay ranking a distant second. What really sets Failla apart, therefore, is not only the fact that the winery focuses primarily upon Pinot Noir — it’s that Failla leaves Cabernet completely out of the equation, as well.

To be sure, any Napa winery that doesn’t feature Cabernet had better excel in other key areas. Fortunately, Failla winemaker Ehren Jordan has developed a deft touch with Pinot Noir, and Failla has thus carved its own unlikely niche in the heart of Cabernet country. Long before Jordan had launched the Failla label with his wife, Anne-Marie Failla, he had served as the winemaker for Turley Wine Cellars, a position he has held for 15 years now. The well-informed reader might note that Turley Wine Cellars is located just south of Paso Robles, meaning that Jordan will sometimes have to make frequent trips between the North Coast and the Central Coast, especially during key times of the season. Of course, none of this jet-setting would mean anything if Failla’s wines weren’t consistently terrific.

• • •

Over the last few years, those who have been paying close attention to California Pinot Noir will acknowledge the importance of the Sonoma Coast appellation, which offers wines that easily rival those of the more famous Russian River Valley. I would argue that, vintage for vintage, Sonoma Coast Pinot Noir actually trumps Russian River Pinot Noir, at least among the top producers. Even among Failla’s portfolio, I much prefered the Sonoma Coast Pinot to the Russian River Pinot. That said, my favorite wine of the tasting was the 2007 Failla Hirsch Vineyard Pinot Noir, which for me was just slightly more dynamic than the 2007 Failla Occidental Ridge Pinot Noir, also from the Sonoma Coast. Personally, I enjoyed the additional element of fruit within the Hirsch Vineyard Pinot Noir, although the 2007 vintage had certainly been kind to each of these Sonoma Coast wines. I definitely wouldn’t kick the 2007 Occidental Ridge out of bed.

Sharing is caring...

• 

• • •

Now that the 2007 vintage was finally approaching its third year, my goal was to pit some of the most lauded producers head-to-head in a blind tasting (my rule of thumb for California Pinot is to drink them between three and seven years from the vintage date). For me, the wait was finally over, and I was interested in unveiling the best of the best, to see if these mailing-list wines could rise above some of my more “accessible” favorites. With that agenda in mind, I pulled three selections from my own personal stash: the 2007 Kosta Browne Russian River, the 2007 Chasseur Joyce Vineyard, and the 2007 Papapietro Perry Leras Vineyard (the latter selection is not a mailing-list Pinot, yet). Alongside these three wines, my friend Geoff Harner of Mosher Imports added the 2007 Cobb Coastlands, the 2007 Radio-Coteau Savoy, and the 2007 Capiaux Widdoes.

We invited a few other people to evaluate these wines, including a sommelier (Jean-Marie), an enologist (Dianne), and a veteran of the Napa Valley restaurant industry (Andrew). My strategy was to assemble a panel of folks who each offered various wine-related backgrounds, but who might also evaluate the wines through different criteria. Rather than having just one critic hand down an edict, I like the idea of tasting by committee, as I feel it provides much more insight than a single person’s opinion. The task at hand was simple: Each member of the tasting panel ranked the wines in their order of preference, with a “1″ representing the favorite and a “6″ representing the least favorite. Just as in golf, low scores are good scores. I’ve circled the top choices for each individual in red, along with the lowest aggregate score. I’ve only put my own scores (“Yours Truly”) on record, and I’ve left the other four opinions (“The Field”) anonymous. Here’s how it all shook down (click the chart for a larger view):

Depending on how you slice and dice the statistics, two wines emerged as the favorites: The 2007 Chasseur “Joyce” (which claimed the lowest aggregate total) and the 2007 Papapietro Perry “Leras” (which scored the second-lowest aggregate, but which also received three first-place votes). The “Leras” proved quite divisive, in fact, scoring near the very bottom among the folks who did not choose it as their overall favorite. One aspect that is revealing, however, is that all five first-place votes were awarded to the same three wines with the lowest aggregate scores. These three — the Papapietro, the Kosta Brown, and the Chasseur — should boast the broadest appeal. Frankly, I was a bit relieved to discover that the mailing-list selections (the Chasseur and the Kosta Browne) held their own among the flight, although I also suspected that the Papapietro Perry would prove formidable. I have raved about that wine for the last couple years. No surprise that it was also my personal favorite last week. CKGRX29EXX84

Sharing is caring...

• 

• • •

One thing that’s interesting about making annual visits to my favorite wineries is that I can gauge the consistency of my own personal taste. Consistency is important for wine drinkers, since the wines you purchase in the tasting rooms are the very wines you’ll ultimately be drinking at home. This notion seems obvious, of course. But there have been times when I’ve purchased wines, only to pop them open months or years later, and wonder what the hell I was thinking when I bought them. Was it perhaps the last tasting of the day? Was my palate just shot by then? Could I have been drunk? Drinking fine wine can be a somewhat costly proposition, so it’s key to be able to reach into the collection with confidence, knowing that anything you select will taste as delicious as you might remember. It’s important, therefore, to put yourself in tune with your own taste, which is the true benefit of going wine tasting.

I never review my old tasting notes before I revisit my favorite wineries, since I don’t want to be unduly influenced while I’m out tasting wine. Even more importantly, I don’t want to see anyone else’s notes either, and I hate when wineries publish scores alongside their tasting notes. I do admit, however, that wine ratings do interest me from a curiosity standpoint, but I have long since pushed them out of my mind when it comes to buying the wine that I plan to collect and drink. If I’m at a tasting room, and I can taste the wine for myself, does it even matter what the Old Guard thinks? Unless Jim Laube and Robert Parker are coming over to my place for drinks (fat chance of that, since I don’t host a seniors night), then who really cares what they think of the wine I serve? Instead of offering wines that reflect someone else’s tastes, I feel that my selections should really reflect my own tastes.

• • •

Forgive me, I said this entry would be short, and I can ramble in the wee hours. But the reason why I mentioned consistency of taste was that I discovered that I tend to gravitate towards the same two wines at Papapietro Perry: The Pauline’s Vineyard Zinfandel and the Leras Family Vineyard Pinot Noir. In the latter instance, I’ve twice tasted the 2007 Papapietro Perry Leras Family Vineyard Pinot Noir ($49), although these tastings were almost one year apart. Both times, I’ve been absolutely floored by this wine. I would argue that the 2007 Leras may represent the pinnacle of Russian River Pinot Noir. I took a bottle home, and I when I looked at my notes from 2009, I learned that I also took home a bottle last summer (I originally caught this wine just as it was released, and now it’s finally ending its run). In the meantime, the 2007 Leras did compile some nice scores from Jim Laube, as well. Although I don’t agree with his influence, sometimes we do agree on wine.

As for the Pauline’s Vineyard Zinfandel ($37), it was my favorite Zin of the day, although I do remember enjoying the 2006 Pauline’s Vineyard more than the 2007 vintage. In general, I tend to prefer the 2006 Dry Creek Zins to their 2007 counterparts, which seem to have higher alcohol levels in general (though not in the specific case of the Pauloine’s Zin, which was 14.7% for both vintages). The 2007 campaign was a warmer vintage for Dry Creek Valley than the 2006 campaign. Having done some research on the Pauline’s Vineyard Zinfandel, I noticed that 2006 featured an early October harvest, while 2007 noted an early September harvest. More time on the vine allows for more complexity, which is probably why I remember doing back-flips for the 2006 Pauline’s, while the 2007 was delicious, but not as devastating.

Rather than purchase a Zinfandel from the 2007 vintage, I decided to instead stockpile a little more 2007 Pinot, since that vintage represents one of California’s all-time best for the varietal. The 2007 Pinots are beginning to disappear from the market at this point, as wineries are now beginning to offer their 2008s. With this in mind, I purchased the 2007 Papapeitro Perry Peters Vineyard Pinot Noir ($49), which I had briefly considered to be the best California Pinot Noir that I had tasted in a long time — until I tasted the 2007 Leras Family Pinot shortly thereafter. Both wines are formidable, to say the least. The 2007 Leras displays a touch more finesse than the 2007 Peters, but both wines feature a terrific aroma and an incredibly lengthy finish.

• • •

Unti Vineyards is going to get short shrift in this post, since I’m almost at 1,000 words here. But I have exalted Unti plenty in the past, most recently with an entry regarding their 2008 Rosé, which is now sold out. Regardless, I found the 2009 Unti Rosé ($19) to be just as appealing. Among the nine other wines that I tasted at Unti, the one that really caught my attention was the 2007 Unti Grenache ($30), which is 80% Grenache Noir, 10% Syrah and 10% Mourvedre. In my notes, I’ve summed it up simply as “impressive.” On the lighter side, I also purchased the 2008 Unti Segromigno ($24), which is 92% Sangiovese and 8% Montepulciano. It had aromas of mocha on the nose, alongside red fruit on the palate. Quite nice.

Sharing is caring...

• 

Talking to a few winemakers I know, I hear that the 2009 vintage for Russian River Pinot could also be stellar, if this relatively cool weather holds up. That’s always good news. Let’s hope that everything stays on track for the next month or so.

Sharing is caring...

• 

If you’ve already received and sampled your own Kosta Browne 2007 allotment, feel free to share your impressions in the comments below. Do it before all the critics issue their scores from atop Mount Olympus.

Sharing is caring...

•