An Immense Wine
Tuesday, June 17, 2008 at 11:08AM Pinot Noir Sonoma Coast Marcassin Vineyard 2003
95 points | $120 | 450 cases made | Red
"An immense wine that’s rich and concentrated, with taut, supple, firmly structured blueberry, wild berry, and blackberry fruit that coats the palate. No shortage of tannins either yet it’s very deep and persistent, ending with smoky oak touches. Drink now through 2013. From California."—J.L.
Tasting notes like this always confuse me. Is pinot noir supposed to be an immense wine? If it's not (and I don't believe it is), why do you give it 95 points? If you tasted a syrah and noted it was light you would give it a lower score. Should not that standard apply to pinot noir, which is famous for its elegance and complexity not it's girth. Immense to me should be a criticism, not a compliment for great pinot noir. I offer no criticism for the wine here, which I have not tasted. However, these notes just don't seem to be describing pinot noir to me.
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (7)
Love your posts on the darker side of pinot. In this case though I have a different view. I think it's simply a question of what you like, and the limits of what can be made in a particular region, not a question of varietal typicity.
What I would agree with, and lament mightily, is if wines from producers and vineyards that once were elegant suddenly were described like the Marcassin reviewed above.
What I don't have a problem with however, is a wine from a producer that has always been about big and bold, that has stretched the boundaries of what can be considered a balanced and tasty wine from the pinot grape, getting such a review.
Immense is a word that should never describe traditional red Burgundy, especially from the premiere and grand cru vineyards. But as the French are quick to point out, California (and Oregon) aren't Burgundy.
There are many styles of Chard. Cab can be elegant and green, or big and ripe. Even Zin can swing both ways. Why not pinot?
Tradition says pinot is light. But, again, this isn't France.
Great post for thought.
While there is always a broad range of style and character in each variety they cannot totally change their skin. You can't make a Beaujolais Village out of a California zinfandel and you can't make Hermitage out of pinot noir. You may be able to come close, but the resulting wine will always be forced in character and will never have a natural balance.
I am fine with big California pinot, but there is a limit to how far you can go before it is no longer a balanced wine that still shows some sort of varietal character. For me "immense" is over that line.
What I wrote yesterday, but it's been lost in the ether, is that if I spent that kind of money on a Pinot Noir and then got the wine described here, I would be supremely ticked off.
One of the reasons US drinkers are so confused and overwhelmed is because varieties mean nothing. So they buy wines based on fuzzy animals because, hey, it's as reliable as knowing it's Pinot inside!
I'm already mad at Mr. Laube for his remarks about Dry Creek Valley (which, interestingly enough, had a hidden subtext that the wines made there weren't "rich" and "opulent" enough), but this is just more proof to me that some of the critics at WS need to go back to variety school. This wine sounds great--for a syrah, or even a zin. It does not sound like a 95 point Pinot to me. Craig, pour me a glass of that Oregon stuff, please.
Sad to say too many Oregon producers have gone the way of big pinot too as it's the only way to get points.