The Bevan Cellar Smackdown.
Dramatis personae: One ITB, two very seasoned amateurs and one semi-rank amateur
Locale: A local Steakhouse
Scene: I recently posted a nice, but hardly effusive review of the first vintage of Bevan Cellars Cab 2005. I got an email from Russell Bevan saying that I was in a decided minority concerning the review. He proposed that I open another bottle this past weekend and he would be happy to replace it. He wanted to see if there is bottle variation that is unexpected, or my taster if just off (my interpretation of this challenge.). Of note, I have mostly Cab-based wines in my cellar, fairly equally divided between Bordeaux and Cal-mostly. So I thought that what better excuse to gather a few friends and do a blinded tasting of three similar wines and let the chips fall where they may. (I knew what the three wines were, but I absolutely kept their identification secret.) They did know that one of the three was the Bevan. As per Russell’s instructions, I decanted all three for 1 hour prior to putting them back in their bottles and hid all three with aluminum foil.
Right off the bat, upon opening, I noted 2-3 red streaks up the side of the Bevan Cellars cork and slight staining of wine on the top of the cork. Some may argue that this would potentially skew the results. The wine was delivered to All Ways Cool and shipped 2 day air in cool Spring. The wine has been kept in my active cellar at 57 degrees. (This stain was not noted on my first bottle.) I decided to go ahead with the tasting, as this is a very young wine, and even if heat damaged- (I really don’t see how.) –wouldn’t show up significantly this early in a tasting. So off I went.
The tasting results.
1- All three were very deep garnet. Number 1 has a reticent nose that took 15+ minutes to open. Initially it was licorice cab smells. Then it smoothed out with a hint of oak. Nice rich cab nose that stayed full and even opened with more air. The mouth was a rich young cab with moderate young tannins. There was a touch of hotness on the finish. Went best with the steaks and unanimous WOTN.
2- Pride oaky nose (this was Not Pride) but in a blinded tasting I would swear it was a reserve Cab based on nose alone. Tannins and more tannins initially in the mouth. There was also a very subtle VA on the nose that blew off. Nose of coffee, black fruits. Taste opened over time, tannins mellowed out and the cab primary flavors came through. WAAY too young, but good with the food. Second place tonight. Of note, one of the experienced tasters suggested this was the Bevan as the impression is of a new vineyard where the winemakers tried to go right to the edge, and then with further vintages will learn to pull it back a hair as they get comfortable with the vineyard’s abilities. (Very astute comment, IMO.)
3- The nose was full of tar, and “squealed tires” Perhaps over charred barrels, but time will tell. An initial smell that reminded of a good Pauillac quickly changed to the tar. Then to some cab, then tar. Back and forth like a tennis match. Tannins galore in the mouth. I couldn’t help but note a touch of thinness in the midpalate. Only after two hours did I get a hint of sweetness. Third out of three tonight. (on a side note, this went best with the chocolate gelato with chocolate sauce.)
The ranking of all 4 tasters were the same, 1 was first; 2 was second and 3 was third. Also of note all three were the most recent releases of their various vineyards and all three were from Oakville.
The winner tonight-#1 was the 2004 Matriarch Scored 94-93
Second place was 2005 Futo. (see the comment made under the review, even though technically it is the second vintage.) Scored 92-89
Third was the 2005 Bevan Cellar. Scored 90-87
(the ranges were from the various tasters.)
So, concluding, perhaps the Bevan variation is the cork. But, so far, my tastings have been consistent.