by William K » Fri Aug 31, 2007 2:32 pm
Quality key: 0 = not flawed, but awful anyway; 1 = OK; 2 = good; 3 = very good; 4 = excellent; 5 = staggering.
Value key: NR = No repeat (at the listed price), N = Neutral, R = Repeat, DR = Definitely Repeat.
2005 Seghesio Ancient Vines. $26. A disappointment, as this used to be a nice bottling, but is now a blast of alcohol and sour, under-toasted American oak. It's saved to some extent because it's clear that the grapes underneath are pretty good, but this is a clumsily made wine and way overpriced for the quality. 1.5, NR
2001 Schutz-Oles. $18. Very earthy / bretty...pushing the limit of flawed. But because the rest of the wine is so big (and because I have a very high bret tolerance), I think it adds a unique character to the wine - "earthy" isn't something you'd normally associate with Zin and it works for me. Certainly not everyone's cup of tea; some tasters found it undrinkably flawed. Caveat emptor. 2, R
2003 Welsh-Stewart Sonoma County. $24. An interesting wine - shows good balance yet is a freakish 17% alcohol. Absolutely gigantic in every way: big oak, big fruit, big nose, big hangover. Not just an oaky fruit bomb...a thermonuclear oaky fruit bomb. And I mean that as a compliment. Subtle nuance isn't it's long suit, but it seems pretty clear that wasn't the intent so I don't ding it much on that count. This wine is like your loud, drunk friend who's good natured and funny - maybe not the most intellectually stimulating company, but a good time when you're in the mood for that. Good value for price. Extremely limited production, essentially not available outside the SF Bay Area. 2.5, R
2005 Ridge Lytton Springs. $33. This is classic Ridge zinfandel: relatively light and restrained, dialed back to show some subtlety and complexity; Zinfandel made by someone who's winemaking ideal is Bordeaux. It's one of the rare zinfandels that is a reasonable accompaniment for food - while I love the complexity and depth of huge, old-vine zins they are for the most part more appropriate as a cocktail than as a table wine. That's not the case here. Very good indeed, and while fairly priced I'd say it's only average value. 3.5, R
2001 Biale Monte Rosso Vineyard. $46. A classic example of top-notch California zinfandel - shows the kind of complexity that is distinctive of very old vines, yet does so without giving up any depth or power. Nuance, but not restraint. The only quibble I have is that caramel oak flavors dominate the nose and palate relatively quickly as the wine breathes; it's great as a pop-and-go but two hours after opening it's a completely different wine...not insurmountable, but at $46 that kind of behavior is a bit disappointing. Limited production (400 cases). 3.5, R
2002 Chase Zinfandel Hayne Vineyard. $45. Clearly on a tier by itself in this tasting. An outstanding blend of force and finesse, showing great varietal character and the unmistakable complexity of >100 year old vines. This is first-class zinfandel, certainly a top tier example of the grape. The quality discussion is less about how good a zinfandel it is, and more about how good is it possible for zinfandel to be? I don't think it quite reaches the stratosphere of the world's great wines, but at $45 it more than holds it's own on the value front against similarly priced offerings from Burgundy and Bordeaux. 4, DR