Fun In Sonoma: Kendall-Jackson's Boutique Wineries

My co-conspirator and I spent the weekend in Sonoma where we got a chance to visit some of Kendall-Jackson's boutique wineries in the area. KJ isn't a name that I usually associate with quality wine, but it turns out that the smaller wineries in their portfolio, which aren't sold under the KJ name, are quite capable of turning out a high-end product. In particular we spent time at Hartford Family Winery, Benziger Family Winery, and Stonestreet; I'll talk at length about each in a moment, but first I'd like make some general observations about the overall experience.

So, where to start? I've said in the past that I didn't think I could tell the difference between a $20 bottle and an $80 bottle of wine, but I'm fairly confident that's no longer the case. There's no magic in appreciating high-quality wine; you don't need to be a super-taster or anything like that. You really just need to be exposed to enough $20 wine and enough $80 wine to realize that there is a marked difference between the two. Going through the tours and tastings at the KJ wineries this weekend was, in large part, an excercise in understanding the differences in process between the two, and why those differences matter.

Kendall-Jackson, by their own admission, is heavily focused on what our guide referred to as a "sense of place". This goes beyond the typical talk of terroir; they're not just concerned about soil composition but also temperature and elevation and the orientation of the vineyards and so on, all the little bits that impart distinct character to a wine. Right now their "big thing", if they can be said to have a big thing, is mountain vineyards. The standard line that I heard repeated on a number of occassions is that vines at higher elevations are stressed by the relatively harsh conditions and produce a reduced yield of smaller berries. This, in turn, increases the skin-to-juice ratio, resulting in a more intense product.

Someone's certainly buying the propaganda. According to the folks at Stonestreet, fruit grown on the floor of the Alexander Valley retails for $3k - $4k a ton but the stuff grown in the surrounding mountains can go for as much as $14k/ton. So, even with a reduced yield, there's definitely money to be made growing grapes at elevation.

But location is really only the beginning. The actual process of growing the grapes and turning them into wine is a laborious process characterized by excess attention at every stage of production. The vines are absolutely pampered; they're given lots of space, hand-pruned, and hand-picked, all of which definitely increases the overall quality of the finished wine at the expense of drastically increased labor cost. Interestingly enough all of the wineries which we visited spent some time explaining their crushing and juicing setups. Everyone either had a manual sorting table or was in the process of putting one in, they all talked about how they eliminated "jacks" (tiny bits of stem) to reduce unwanted tannins and, in general, emphasized how gentle the process was for the grapes. And then there was the usual voodoo surrounding the fermentation and aging process that everyone has come to expect. The main takeaway from the experience is that if you only select the best grapes from the best vineyards and then coddle them through the entire process you're going to end up with a really great wine that costs an arm and a leg.

Its interesting to think about what makes Sonoma different from a wine region like, say, Walla Walla. I've noted previously that Walla Walla takes itself very seriously, and definitely produces some good wines, but there's a certain homogenaity across the wineries in the region. If I may be allowed some mildly-informed speculation I would say that this is, to a large degree, a result of the relative youth of the region. Walla Walla hasn't been doing wine for as long as Sonoma; there are a lot of new-ish wineries that are trying to establish a name for themselves. None of these wineries has quite the sense of self that places like Hartford or Stonestreet have. Their processes probably aren't as refined and, because such knowledge takes a number of growing seasons to accumulate, they likely don't understand their vineyards in the same depth either. When you're established, have refined your processes, know your vineyards in depth, etc. you're in a relatively secure position which provides the liberty to push the boundaries of wine production in search of quality as they're currently doing in Sonoma.

One other digression and then, I promise, I'll actually get to the wines/wineries. Right now I'd like to talk a little bit about water consumption. KJ has some sort of "green" initiative that its pursuing throughout its properties and several people spoke about the efforts that various wineries are making to reduce the amount of water they're using. In listening to these folks, however, I got the sense that KJ is pursuing the "green" strategy largely for its own sake rather than as a way of reducing costs. If California wants people to conserve water they should just stop subsidizing it so heavily. It's just stupid to make a resource artificially cheap and then hope that voluntary conservation efforts will prevent that resource from being overused. I'll get off my soapbox now; let's talk about the wineries and their wines.

Hartford

Mr. Hartford is an especially gregarious chap and clearly wants his guests to have a good time. So as soon as we were off the bus we were greeted with glasses of Four Hearts Chardonnay, presumably the 2006 vintage. We didn't do a structured tasting of this one on account of the fact that we were all milling around eating hors d'ouvers and chatting, but I can confidently say that it was very good. While we were enjoying the Four Hearts Mr. Hartford took us on a tour of the facilities and spoke about the Hartford approach to winemaking. They, perhaps moreso than other wineries we visited, emphasize the importance of treating the grapes and wine gently at all stages of production. Rather than receiving their grapes in two-ton containers they get them instead in forty gallon (I believe that was the measure) crates, which Mr. Hartford claims reduces mangling of the fruit and promotes a superior product. Their crushing facility is oriented towards small batch sizes, they have a manual sorting table, etc., a setup which appears to be de rigeur for serious winemaking in Sonomoa.

But they take additional steps during fermentation and aging which appear to be unique to Hartford. They make it a point to harvest the fruit at low temperatures and, rather than initiating fermentation right away, the grape skins and juice go through a "cold soak" for a few days to extract color and flavor. Fermentation temperature is tightly controlled and procedures such as breaking up the cap are all done manually. But the most interesting bit about Hartford was their aging facility. The barrels aren't packed tightly together on racks like they are in the other wineries we visited. Rather, Hartford has a multi-story structure similar to a library stack that holds a single layer of barrels on each level and has walkways between every two rows. The benefits of this arrangement, says Mr. Hartford, are that each barrel is immediately accessible, making it easy to taste the wine as it ages, and that the barrels generally only have to be moved at the beginning and end of the aging process, which is gentler on the wine.

So, does handling the wine with kid gloves result in a better product? I can truthfully say that I enjoyed the Hartford wines the most out of all the ones that we sampled, though part of this may be an artifact of the circumstances surrounding the acutal tasting of the wines. One of the problems inherent in wine tasting is that, after you've visited two or three wineries, everything starts to become a blur. So it was to Hartford's advantage that, rather than being just another whistle stop on the tour, we had a long, sit down dinner which provided an appropriate amount of time to sit and think about the wines. Apart from that, however, I do believe that the Hartford wines were the best of what we were offered during the tour.

So here's the rundown of what was on offer:

• 2007 Hartford Court, Stone Cote Chardonnay: A really good, dry Chardonnay. Light, inoffensive nose with a vaguely floral character. Color like light/diluted honey, slightly hazy because Hartford doesn't clarify their wines. Mild alcohol heat with an agreeable oak character and a crisp, quick finish.
  
• Hartford specializes in Pinot Noirs and we were offered two exceptional examples with dinner. These wines were definitely the highlight of the evening as well as the entire trip.
  
  • 2007 Hartford Court, Fod Dance Pinot Noir: A dark, opaque purple wine which smelled like berries and raisins. It was intense, almost like a port.
    
  • 2005 Hartford Court, Hailey's Block Pinot Noir: This wine is named after Mr. Hartford's daughter¹ and was the best of all the wines I tasted during my time in Sonoma. I ended up buying a bottle which, at $55, represents the most I've ever spent on a wine. It's has a ruby color, is bright and peppery, and has an unusually rich mouthfeel.
    
  Both pinot's were very good, but the Hailey's Block was definitely the winner.
  
• 2007 Hartford, Hartford Vineyard Russian River Valley Zinfandel: By this point in the evening I'd had at least six glasses of wine already, so my palette was, shall we say, "unreliable". Nevertheless, the zin was very good as well, possessing a lovely bouquet with hints of tobacco.
  

I should also mention that the dinner was exceptional as well, far better than I've generally come to expect from a catered function. After dinner Mr. Hartford brought the chef out to talk about the process of creating a dish around a particular wine. The chef was rhapsodic about the entire thing, going on at length about the qualities of the wine and how they were matched to specific ingredients. While I was listening to his spiel I couldn't help but wonder how much of what he was saying was performance and how much he actually believed. Regardless, the audience was sucking it up with a straw; he could have said just about anything and the people listening would have nodded and felt like they were ingesting fundamental truths. It kind of makes you wonder, when we spend so much time discussing food and wine and the mystical interplay between the two, whether we're just engaging in a kind of mutual or mass delusion? When the chef says that he picked out the scallops to highlight the "oyster-shell minerality" of the Chardonnay is he just making shit up or is he actually describing the process that he follows? And does it really matter?

Benziger

Benziger is notable for being the only winery in Sonoma certified as "biodynamic" by Demeter. They use an intensive, whole-ecosystem approach in the care of their vineyards which seems similar in many respects to the holistic farming methodology made popular by Polyface Farms. There's definitely something to the idea of treating a vineyard in this manner; Benziger doesn't use herbicides or pesticides, but even a layman could tell that their vines are ridiculously healthy. Every once in awhile, however, one of the staff would say something about biodynamic farming that seemed... ummm... less than empiric. Consider this blurb from the tasting notes for the 2005 Oonapais:

The four Aristotelian elements: earth, water, air and fire believe by ancient civilizations (and supported by today's science [Ed. note: O'rly?]) to make up all objects in the universe are the icons and benchmarks of this wine. We believe that every place on earth has a different combination of earch (soil), water (bonds a plant to its environment), air (light) and fire (warmth). When these elements are united in ideal ratios, the fifth element (spirit) appears - the ultimate expressions of our connection to the land.

In isolation this might be dismissed as marketing mumbo-jumbo, but then there's things like the "biodynamic pyramid" which make me think that the Benziger folks may be drinking deeply of the kool-aid. When I saw that I told my co-conspirator that human sacrifice was the next logical step for Benziger to consider as a way to further improve its vineyards.

Moving on... Benziger presented two wines for us to taste, the Signaterra San Jacomo Chardonnay (a new release, doesn't look like they have a link on the website for it yet) and the 2005 Oonapais. The Chardonnay was pretty good: pale yellow with the slightest greenish tinge, a subtle aroma of tropical fruit and melon, and a citrus-y taste without a whole lot of oak character. But the Oonapais was somewhat disappointing. It had a great color, a very deep red, with a nose like raisins and green bell pepper with maybe a hint of flint. But it didn't taste like much of anything; it was all alcohol heat and tannins. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt on this one; I suspect it might have benefitted from decanting. But they definintely weren't putting their best foot forward; after the formal tasting we went to their wine shop and had a couple of really good pinots. I expect that Benziger wanted to show off the Oonapais because its Demeter-certified as a biodynamic wine, but honestly I don't care about that if the wine's no good.

Stonestreet

There's something about Stonestreet which appeals to the scientist in me. These guys have spared no expense in their efforts to squeeze every last bit of ethereal goodness out of their vineyards; their stated goal is to produce the best wine in the world. Each row in every vineyard has a bar code which allows them to track that row's fruit through the entire production process. Based on some things that the tour guide said it sounds like they test each individual cluster of fruit before its harvested. Either that, or they're doing a tremendous number of spot checks throughout the harvesting processs. The OCD really comes to the surface in their barrel room. Apparently most coopers make 3 or 4 different barrel profiles, but Stonestreet has worked with World Cooperage to produce forty (yup, 40) different barrel profiles to best complement each of its wines. What you're dealing with here is a frighteningly rigorous application of the scientific method.

So does this approach make better wine? I can't say. On one hand you've got people willing to pay $100 a bottle for Christopher's Cabernet Sauvignon but, on the other hand, the wines that we tasted at Stonestree were frankly mediocre. We were presented with three wines over lunch, the 2007 Alexander Valley Chardonnay, the 2006 Alexander Mountain Estate Fifth Ridge, and the 2005 Alexander Mountain Estate Cabernet Sauvignon, none of which were all that distinguished². Between that tasting and my experience at Benziger I spent the first half of the day thinking that I'd just screwed up my palette due to overindulgence the night before. Talking with other people on the tour afterwards it became clear that they'd had the same reaction; the wines really just weren't that good.

We had the same problem here that we had at Benziger; for whatever reason they weren't putting their best product on display. That strikes me as a failure on the part of both Benziger and Stonestreet. I can understand not wanting to waste the "good stuff" on the hoi polloi, but some of the people on this trip were money. I saw them drop hundreds of dollars at Hartford without even blinking, and they certainly would have done the same at Stonestreet and Benziger given the opportunity. Meh... sales fail, not my problem.

---

1 Who, incidentally, was present at the dinner, and should be commended for her decorum and demeanor in the face of a bunch of strangers who wanted to talk to her.
2 One of the other people on the trip went so far as to call them "mediocre".

Columbia Gorge Passport Weekend

Well... between getting a new job, going to school and... oh yeah... having a kid... my co-conspirator and I have had essentially no time for serious wining. The sad consequence, as you can see, is that I've posted absolutely nothing for far too long. That makes me a sad panda.

But never fear, we're going to fix that. My co-conspirator and I recently went to Columbia Gorge Wine Region for their Passport Weekend. It was a nice deal; $15 got you a "passport" good for special tastings, discounts, and free food at a bunch of different wineries. The discounts alone are worth the price of the passport, but it's a useful exercise even if you set aside all of the shiny extras. It's a special event throughout the entire region, so the tasting rooms are all on their best behavior. They generally have a full selection of wines available to sample and instead of the vinter's daughter's boyfriend conducting the tasting you get the vintner emself. That's probably the most important factor of all; having knowledgeable, engaged staff at a tasting makes all the difference in the world. So yeah, two thumbs up for the concept as a whole... now on to the specifics.

Naked Winery/Cascade Cliffs Vineyard and Winery

Our first stop was the Naked Winery tasting room in downtown Hood River which, in addition to wine from Naked Winery, also has wine from Cascade Cliffs available for tasting. For Passport Weekend they were offering a vertical tasting of Naked Winery's Merlots which, frankly, left me a little underwhelmed. We sampled the '02 - '05 vintages, all of which were largely unremarkable. Of the four I found the '03 to be the most interesting (or the least uninteresting) on account of relatively high tannin content; my co-conspirator like the '04.

It's really a shame that they chose to focus on the offerings from Naked Winery; the few Cascade Cliffs selections that I tried were far superior. The '07 Nebbiolo was fantastic, one of my favorites of the whole weekend. It's a bright wine with balanced fruit and tannins, really quite a joy to drink. There was also an '07 Barbera which seemed very well put together, though a little on the sweet/heavy side for my taste. Sadly for us both were on the pricey side: $40 for the Nebbiolo and $40 for the Barbera, prices which are probably justified but too rich for us.

Quenett Winery

The next stop for us was the Quenett Winery tasting room, also located in downtown Hood River. There's not a whole lot to say about Quenett; most of the wines failed to leave any sort of impression at all. Looking at my tasting notes it looks like I had good things to say about the '05 Zinfandel at the time ("deep", "complex", "pretty tanic"). I seem to recall thinking it was a decent wine, but not worth the $29 that they were asking. They were also pushing a Cabernet Franc rose which seemed a little off to me but which L liked and would have purchased had I been into it. Eventually we ended up purchasing a bottle of the Viognier on the grounds that it was a well-execute white that we both enjoyed.

The Pines 1852

After Quenett we hit The Pines 1852, also with a tasting room conveniently located in downtown Hood River. This ended up being the highlight of the trip, but before I get into details I want to offer a bit of context: I didn't find out about the backstory on The Pines until after I tasted their wares, so I believe that the assessment I offer below is as objective as any wine tasting can be expected to be.

So, for Passport Weekend, The Pines was offering a vertical tasting of their Zinfandel ('01 - '03 vintages) for the low, low price of only $15. Normally I would have looked at the price and scoffed ("Pay that much for the privilege of tasting? Never!"), but I was on vacation and didn't really pay attention to the price until after the fact anyway. No matter, it was worth it; their Zin was some of the best wine I've ever had in my life. Here's the rundown:

• '01: Absolutely delicious. Subtle and smooth with a creamy mouth-feel akin to consomme. I wrote "I want to guzzle it" on my tasting sheet; it was that good. L described it as having a "bouquet of dust", which is fairly accurate, but shouldn't be interpreted negatively.


• '02: After L's comment about the '01 I paid more attention to the nose on this one. It smelled like old books left out in the sun, with maybe a hint of raisin. I know that sounds like a negative, but it shouldn't be taken that way; it was strongly evocative, but not unpleasant. As far as taste it was a little sweeter than the '01, heavy on the dried fruit. I didn't like it quite as much, but it was still a fantastic wine.


• '03: The '03 was a lot like the '01. A little smokey, but with the same overall character and mouth feel.

All three were absolutely phenomenal and, unfortunately for us, rather expensive. The '01 was $55/bottle, the '02 was $60, and the '03 was $45. Prior to this tasting I couldn't see myself spending so much on wine on the grounds that I wouldn't be able to appreciate it, but these wines clearly merit the asking price.

Nevertheless, we decided to forgo purchasing any of them on the the grounds of "too rich for my blood". Instead we ended up taking home a bottle of the ice Gris, which was plenty interesting in its own right. It was neither as sharp, nor as sweet, as a typically ice wine, and compared favorably with products I've sampled from the Niagara region.

Now, the backstory: if I understand things correctly The Pines has the oldest vines in the entire region. The vines themselves were planted in 1987 and are, in turn, clones of some much older vines. So mayhap there is something to be said for old growth Zin after all.

Syncline and Cor Cellars

After the experience at The Pines the rest of the trip was fun, but largely anti-climactic. We paused to have lunch, then headed over to the Washington side of the gorge and visited two wineries, Syncline and Cor Cellars.

Syncline was OK, but not great. As part of the festivities they'd put out an array of different types of chocolate, that was definitely a plus, but I came away with the feeling that Syncline takes itself a little too serious. Their big problem is that their wines aren't stellar, but they're pricing them as if they are. The '07 Pinot Noir, for example, is pretty good, but they're smoking crack if they think its worth $28/bottle. Likewise with the '07 Syrah; it's has a beautiful, stunning color, and doesn't taste bad either, but watching people forking over $24 just had me shaking my head.

People on the West Coast seem far too eager to overpay for good red wine. I think, perhaps, that I've been spoiled to some extent because I spent my formative wine years in the Finger Lakes region. Out there it's easy to find wines for under $20 that would have no problem standing up to Syncline's wares. Lakewood Vineyards makes an excellent Pinot Noir in that price range, a wine that serves as my personal yardstick for Pinot Noir value, and there are many other wineries in the area turning out similar wines. But I digress...

Our last stop of the day was Cor Cellars; when we arrived their tiny tasting room was already full, and it was absolutely packed to the gills by the time we left. The two gentlemen in charge did their best to give a little bit of attention to everyone in the room despite the crowd, and for that I tip my hat to them. The crush of people made the baby freak out, so we only got a chance to taste the whites they were offering, but that was enough. The '07 Sauvingon Blanc was light and nicely acidic, but the real find was the '08 Alba Cor, a Gewurztraminer/Pinot Gris blend was unusual and intriguing. We ended up buying one of each; thanks to the 25% Passport Weekend discount (you guys insane?) we came out with two bottles of good white wine for $24, definitely the best value of the trip.

That's it for now. I hope that life provides me with more opportunities to post in the near future.

Don't Pee On Me And Tell Me That It's $60 Cab-Sav

Walla Walla, WA, doesn't live up to the hype.

Awhile ago I read an article about Walla Walla, probably in the NYT, singing the praises of its wines: good soil, French expats, etc. So my co-conspirator and I, decided to pay the area a visit this weekend. We were in the neighborhood anyway for oh-so-much-fun Thanksgiving family togetherness and felt that wine tasting would be a good way to decompress from the craziness. The tactic didn't work; the entire experience made me vaguely cranky.

I was originally going to title this post "Graceful Monotony" because it seemed that everywhere we went we were drinking the same wine. During the course of the visit we sampled the products of the following wineries:

• Beresan
• Isenhower Cellars
• Northstar
• Saviah Cellars
• Tertulia Cellars

Everywhere it was the same thing: nice Cabs, well put together Merlots, assertive Bordeaux blends. After the first couple of wineries everything started to blend together; there was very little to separate one winery's products from the next. There were a couple of standouts: the 2005 Malbec at Beresan was interesting, as was the 2005 Wild Thyme at Isenhower. But as a whole the wines, while certainly well-crafted, weren't all that distinctive.

And they were fairly expensive too; the cheapest bottle we found was, I believe, $15. Most of the offerings were in the $20 - $30 range, which didn't seem justified to me. We're not terribly price-sensitive, and probably spend a lot more on wine than the average person, but for $30/btl I expect a wine that gives me reason to take notice.

On top of the prices being a little off there were a couple of other oddities that stuck out at me as well. A lot of the wineries listed their cooperage, sometimes per wine. While somewhat interesting to the wine geek in me its not something I've encountered on marketing materials before. The scores that the wines had received from the various magazines were often prominently displayed, which led me to remark that a "92 from Wine Spectator isn't all that; they gave my mom a 92". And the grounds... a lot of the wineries still have that "new winery" smell about them. There's big, expensive buildings which still need to be paid off, which might be contributing to the high prices.

The overall impression I received is that the region is trying to establish itself as "serious". This is backed up by a conversation that I had with the associate behind the bar at Tertulia. She said that the region is only about 30 years old and that the region's winemakers are still dividing up vineyards and trying to determine what works best in the various microclimes.

I was OK with that; these things take time. If they'd asked my opinion I'd have told them to stop trying quite so hard and maybe drop their prices by $5-$7 a bottle. But then, at the last two wineries we visited, I was so unbelievably annoyed by their pretension that I had to change the title of this post.

The penultimate stop on our tour was Northstar. I was OK with the $5 tasting fee; it was a little steep, and we hadn't had to pay tasting fees at the other wineries, but not totally out of line. But I felt like their wine list was an insult to my intelligence. They wanted $40 for one of their Merlots and $60 for another, neither of which was all that exciting. And they had out some marketing dreck about how the $40 bottle had beat out a $600 French wine in a blind tasting. Like I care... all that tells me is that people pay way too fucking much for French wine. Do I look stupid? Do they really expect me to pay $60 when I can go up the road to Tertulia and get a nearly identical product for half that price?

I left Northstar in a state in extreme annoyance, which set me up nicely for Pepper Bridge. They had a sign out front that said there was a $8 tasting fee per-person. OK folks, that's unconscionable. There's absolutely no justification for charging $8 for a tasting. Remember, tasting is a marketing mechanism; you let me taste so that I'll buy your wine. That's doubly true when you're charging $50-fricking-dollars for a bottle of Cab-Sav. It seems like Pepper Bridge is trying to turn the tables; there's a sense that I should pay for the privilege of tasting their wines. Screw that.

Visit Walla Walla if you want bragging rights, or if you're interested in experiencing a "young" wine region. Don't go there if you just want to taste the wine; give them another 5 years or so to get over being full of themselves.

Olympic Peninsula Wineries

My co-conspirator and I visited some wineries on the Olympic Peninsula last weekend. As usual there was a mix of good, bad, and bloody awful. Details follow:

Olympic Cellars

The first stop on our list was Olympic Cellars, which was mediocre across the board. The people behind the counter were more interested in talking to each other than in telling us about the wines; someone should tell them that even bad wine is made better by conversation. Given the quality of their wines this is a lesson which they should take to heart.

The wine on offer at Olympic Cellars was universally disappointing. Their "Handyman Red", one of the blends from their Working Girl label, was just bad. It didn't feel balanced, didn't feel put together, didn't have much character. The wine from their premium line, La Dolce Vida, wasn't much better, but I can at least be more specific about its failings. The 2003 Syrah and the 2004 Cabernet Franc were aggressively tannic. I'm a big fan of tannic wines, but the first thing that went through my mind after tasting the Cabernet Franc was "wow, its like drinking a glass of stem".

But I may have spoken prematurely when I said that the wine was "universally" disappointing. The 2004 Merlot was decent; not great, not exceptional, but not bad either. I suspect that it might get better if you were to put a bottle away for a few years.

I'll probably not be going back; one unexceptional wine isn't enough to merit the trip.

Harbinger Winery

The next stop on the tour was Harbinger Winery, which was my favorite of the lot. Cake was playing in the background when we arrived, always a plus, and the Winemaker, Sara Gagnon, was tending the bar. She was happy to talk at length about her wines, and even came around from behind the bar and showed us some tubs where she'd been "punching down" the must earlier in the day.

In contrast with Olympic, the wines here were pretty good across the board. Here's some specifics:

• 2006 White Burgundy: This wine is aged on lees, giving it a yeasty character that I typically associate with Belgian ales. Definitely unusual, but not at all unpleasant.


• Dynamo Red: This had good flavor and nice complexity of character without being overpowering.


• 2005 Syrah: Sara said this was something of a "big brother" to the Dynamo Red. It was definitely a bolder, more powerful version of the Dynamo, but still well balanced in its assertiveness.


• 2005 Rapture: This is made using Cabernet Franc grapes from Sagemoor Farms. I'm a big fan of Cabernet Franc; if someone asked me to pick my favorite varietals it would probably top the list. The 2005 Rapture was much less peppery than what I've become accustomed to drinking primarily NY Cabernet Francs, which might be the first time I've actually been able to successfully detect regional variation on my own.


• 2005 Evolution: This Bordeaux blend was a little "corky", but was otherwise a fine wine.
  

My one criticism would be the 2006 Viognier, but I'm not much of a Viognier fan to begin with so you should take that into account. I thought it was a fine wine, but seemed a little steep at $27/bottle.

I'll definitely be going back to Harbinger in the future.

Black Diamond Winery

After Harbinger we visited Black Diamond Winery, which definitely had a little bit of a Deliverance vibe to it. It's off the beaten path, and the people tending the tasting room were vaguely creepy in an "I tan racoon hides for fun" sort of way. There's not a whole lot to say about the place; they do a bunch of fruit wines and some obscure, unassuming German whites, most of which are neither bad nor good. Their cranberry wine had a nice, tart bite and wasn't syrupy; we ended up taking a bottle of that home.

But then there's the estate grown Pinot Noir... it was bloody awful. So awful, in fact, that I was surprised that they were even selling it. It had that overcooked carrot smell that I associate with succotash, and didn't taste much better. Just to show you that wine is in the eye of the beholder, my co-conspirator thought that the Pinot Noir was pretty good. She's clearly smoking crack, so I offer her statement not for the truth contained therein, but merely for the fact that it was said.

I might go back again, but I'd make it quick and keep the car running.

Lost Mountain Winery

The last stop for the day was Lost Mountain Winery, whose big claim to fame is that they don't use sulfites in the production of their wines. The presence of sulfites (or lack thereof) doesn't really seem to have much effect on the quality of the wine, but the guy behind the bar said that wine without sulfites is less likely to induce headaches.

The wines here were mostly nice, well structured reds. None of them really jumped out at me, but they were definitely better quality than the crap we got at Olympic cellars. Their one "interesting" wine, and I use the term loosely, is their "Cellar Rat Red". Based on what I could elicit from the owner it appears that they make Cellar Rat by taking whats left over after the bottling of the other wines and pouring it into a big barrel. There doesn't seem to be any sort of quality control, they just dump everything in, resulting in a wine which can honestly be described as "chaotic". You really do feel like you're drinking 2 or 3 wines simultaneously; it makes you appreciate the time it takes to put together a good blend.

Thurston Wolfe Winery

In my previous post I wrote that Washington wineries were more serious/less friendly than their counterparts in New York. I'm going to provisionally retract that opinion on the grounds that my n may have been too low.

I recently had the opportunity to visit Thurston Wolfe Winery, which turned out to be much more like what I'm used to. I and my co-conspirator had a chance to chat with one of the proprietors, Becky Yeaman, who was knowledgeable, eager to talk about their wines, and not above dishing dirt on some of their competitors. Even better she didn't charge us a tasting fee, much less $5 a head.

But let's talk about their wines. I think overall that their selection was pretty high quality, but with one caveat that I'll get to shortly. In particular there's a few I'd like to highlight:

• 2005 Dr. Wolfe's Family Red: In NY almost all of the Finger Lakes wineries have one (or more) blended red table wines, often with cute names and/or labels, that can be had for about $9 a bottle. Some of them are good, but none of them are great, which primed us to be a little skeptical about the $15/btl asking price for the Family Red. I was pleasantly surprised with the quality of this product; its been blended with care and has a nice complexity that I don't typically associate with a table wine.


• 2005 Zephyr Ridge Petite Sirah: This is a big, meaty, tannic red. Quite nice, not sure it's quite worth $20/btl, but tasty none-the-less.


• 2005 JTW Port: This, I think, was the most interesting of their offerings. I've tried quite a few ports and many of them, especially the ones typically found in supermarkets, seem to loose quite a bit of character during the fortification process. On the other hand, this particular port manages to avoid that pitfall. It has 10% r.s., but you don't really notice because you're busy actually tasting the grapes.

Now on to the bad news. There's something wrong with their Orange Muscat grapes. I tried two Orange Muscat wines, the 2006 Orange Muscat and the 2005 Sweet Rebecca, both of which had an unpleasant finishing note evocative of rubbing alcohol/cheap vodka. This taste was prominent in the Orange Muscat but masked somewhat by the sweetness of the Sweet Rebecca. I went back and tried them a second time, just to make sure I wasn't imagining things, but its definitely there in both wines.

Contrast Between New York and Washington Wine Country

L and I have recently relocated to Tacoma from Rochester, NY. Back in Rochester we spent a lot of time in the Finger Lakes wine region, doing tastings at the various wineries which line the shores of the Finger Lakes. Since moving to Tacoma we've have the opportunity to visit a couple of the Washington wine regions (Yakima and Puget Sound), and I have to say that there are some pretty stark contrasts between the NY and Washington wine experiences. If I were asked to boil the differences down to a single sentence I'd say that Washington wineries are much more serious, the results of which are a mixed bag as far as I can tell.

On the upside I have to say that the average quality of the wines I've sampled is much improved. Most of the wineries in the Finger Lakes have a substantial selection of "easy drinking" wines, table reds and whites with cute labels and (often) fairly high residual sugar. Some of them (Bully Hill comes to mind) really don't have much in the way of serious wine at all. This doesn't seem to be the case with the Washington wineries we've visited so far. Maybe our choices have been fortuitous, but it looks to me like the wine makers are, even in their low-end lines, trying to produce products with merit. So that's a plus.

On the downside there seems to be less levity; the atmosphere at the Washington wineries is more restrained in comparison to NY. I was at Novelty Hills this afternoon and saw people swishing and spitting. I don't think I've ever seen that before, not in NY and not in Missouri where I lived before NY. In Washington wine seems to be a serious business which must be approached with the due amount of respect. Even (perhaps especially) the most serious wineries in the Finger Lakes (Dr. Frank's, Silver Springs) embrace wines and wine-making with an obvious gusto and joie de vivre which doesn't mesh well with the swish-and-spit school of wine tasting.

Another contrast, and I have no idea whether this can be chalked up to the "serious factor" or if its just the way things are done in Washington, is that tasting costs a whole lot more. Most of the wineries in the Finger Lakes ask that you chip in a buck or two, whereas tastings in Washington seem to start at $5 a head. Going out and visiting some wineries on a lazy Sunday quickly becomes an expensive proposition.

I'm glad that I'm being exposed to better wine, though that's a daunting proposition in its own right. I'd thought that I'd long outgrown being intimidated by wineries and wine culture, but I feel that, in some respects, I'm starting at the bottom rung of the ladder again. It's going to take an awful lot of tasting (poor me) before I can talk knowledgeably about Washington wines in the same way that I'm able to talk about NY wines. The culture is going to take some getting used to as well.

Novelty Hill Winery

So, we happened to be up in Woodinville today for the Seattle Street of Dreams. Quite disappointing (though, that is another story.) We thought we might drown our sorrows (or sip them away) by visiting our first Puget Sound area winery.

So, we picked Novelty Hill based on curb appeal. What a tremendous amount of appeal it was, though. It may be the most beautiful winery I have every been in -- I am, however, a sucker for bare concrete with good design. Which, come to think of it, may be a good analogy for the wine. But, I am getting ahead of myself.

Pricing: The (cheap) tasting was $5 for four tastes, seven bottles to choose from (priced $18-30). There were other tastings available, but the wines seemed to top out around $40. Fifteen dollars for what equates to a glass of wine from a $30 bottle wine seems to be a great idea for the winery, but we passed on that.

Behind the Bar: The servers were polite and perfunctory. There was absolutely no chatter about wine, the winery or anything else. There was just an embarrassed look away when I asked for the "Seh-mill-on," ("or is it Seh-mill-yun?" I said. Forgive me, I was underage last time I lived in these parts. Later, when asking what kind of grape was in their late harvest (since they were pouring the wine without telling me) I learned that "Se-mee-yon" makes you sound like you know what you're doing.

In the Glass: Great bouquet on the reds. Beautiful color on the white. Lackluster performance in the glass. Maybe in 5 years, but I am not ready to be $18 on it.

Glee factor: 2 (out of 5) Glees. And that is really just because of the building. Ah... bare concrete and snake grass as landscaping.