WTN: 2003 Blue Mountain Stripe Label

[Jenise]

This was one of the loveliest, purest pinot noirs on release, and I was very lucky to get eight bottles. They drank very well for the first two years, and the aromatics were amazing. Then one day about eighteen months ago I opened one and found that it had lost all it's primary fruit flavors and turned from deep purple-red to a pale orangey red--nicely so, the wine tasted good, but for that to happen at just four years old was odd. And this (the stripe label) is their reserve bottling! About the same time, David Bueker commented that the bottle I'd sent him had maturing Rhonish flavors.

A bottle less than a year later had lost all its fruit and turned vegetal. And a bottle we opened last night--thankfully, the last one--same thing but worse. The wine's dead. Rather surprising, as this is one of the cultiest, hardest to get wines made in the Okanagan--it sells out by email list in less than an afternoon. Why would anyone fall all over themselves to get a wine that performs like this?

[David M. Bueker]

2003 was a weird year in the Okanagan. I would cut it some slack.

Blue Mountain? Bob McDonald would be interested in this note, he is a big fan.

[Jenise]

2003 was a weird year in the Okanagan. I would cut it some slack.

Well, from what I understand, a hot year. But only just a little more than 02. And the 03 whites are still drinking okay, even the cream (non reserve) label. As for slack, well I just resent the wasted money and bottles. As a consumer, I'm entitled to that, and I think it's fair to document that a wine expected to have a certain lifespan died an unusually short and violent death.

[David M. Bueker]

Oh I understand the irritation, but I wonder if the 2003 heat (and there were times that it was really hot) threw them a curve ball in the dirt that they couldn't catch.

2003 was a weird year in the Okanagan. I would cut it some slack.

David, I am not trying to stir up Controversy, But I have a problem when a winery (from anywhere) releases a wine, much less a reserve designated wine, with that added cost, that should likely have been clear was going to die in three years or less. I understand the winery needs to make $$$ but I do not need to spend my $$$ on wines that are not going to perform. I simply seems to me that the winemaker there should have said this is crap wine and declassified it, or sold it off in bulk and ate the loss.

[David M. Bueker]

Bob,

Why would it be clear? I'm not saying they knew it might die an early death, but rather that the weather dealt them a hand they were not experienced with, and thus didn't know it might drop off quickly.

Bob,

Why would it be clear? I'm not saying they knew it might die an early death, but rather that the weather dealt them a hand they were not experienced with, and thus didn't know it might drop off quickly.

David,
I am of course not a wine maker, and maybe one or more here who are, will chime in on the subject. But in most consumer products, there is a guarantee of merchantability, and in the case of a producers "Reserve" it should (again) IMO be for more than 3 years. It is my neophyte opinion, that the winemaker should have the expertise to ascertain the life expectancy of a "top of the list" wine better than that. If I buy a car that turns out to be a lemon, there are laws to protect me, and I am sure that wine makers can determine lemons better than automobile manufacturers.

[David M. Bueker]

The Okanagan is not some old, established region. I'm sure there's lots of wineries and wine makers who are learning a thing or two as they go.

but I wonder if the 2003 heat (and there were times that it was really hot)

Speaking of hot, wasn't '03 the summer the Okanagan had all those fires?

[David M. Bueker]

Yes it was.

Even though there is the danger of confusion, I'll add another "Bob" into this thread.

Jenise:

I too have largely been disappointed in the 2003 striped label pinot noir but until your post would not have been able to point out that vintage as being the particular "culprit". I remembered that there was one year that my reaction was largely "meh"!

Bob Parsons alerted me to your post because generally speaking I regualarly buy their pinot noir and pinot gris although I have to confess I passed on the recent release of both of their relatively recent striped label release. It was a case of spending the $ on some wine or being able to afford a new golden ... my wife and I love our wines but our goldens even more [grin].

Last nite I barbequed up some veal chops and went to down to the bsmt and checked the few bottles I have remaining of my "supply" of Blue Mountain. There was 1 bottle of the 2003 and when I opened it I realized that this is the vintage that I had not enjoyed.

Quite a light colour, more strawberry than the red/purple you orginally mentioned with a taste that was fairly soft but with a bitter...perhaps vegetal...finish. Was ok to drink with dinner but would not have been impressed nor influenced to buy more had I sampled it before drinking.

Perhaps as David has pointed out, 2003 was a tough year for the winemaker as I have not been disappointed in the others I have acquired.

[David M. Bueker]

Hi Bob! Good to see you around.

The lighter than normal fruit plus the bitter edge seems like the vines could have shut down in the heat.

[Jenise]

Even though there is the danger of confusion, I'll add another "Bob" into this thread.

Jenise:

I too have largely been disappointed in the 2003 striped label pinot noir but until your post would not have been able to point out that vintage as being the particular "culprit". I remembered that there was one year that my reaction was largely "meh"!

Bob Parsons alerted me to your post because generally speaking I regualarly buy their pinot noir and pinot gris although I have to confess I passed on the recent release of both of their relatively recent striped label release. It was a case of spending the $ on some wine or being able to afford a new golden ... my wife and I love our wines but our goldens even more [grin].

Last nite I barbequed up some veal chops and went to down to the bsmt and checked the few bottles I have remaining of my "supply" of Blue Mountain. There was 1 bottle of the 2003 and when I opened it I realized that this is the vintage that I had not enjoyed.

Quite a light colour, more strawberry than the red/purple you orginally mentioned with a taste that was fairly soft but with a bitter...perhaps vegetal...finish. Was ok to drink with dinner but would not have been impressed nor influenced to buy more had I sampled it before drinking.

Perhaps as David has pointed out, 2003 was a tough year for the winemaker as I have not been disappointed in the others I have acquired.

Bob, it's good to hear from you again-- you should drop by more often. But thanks for the validation. Lousy as this one's turned out (and way too soon), they were quite good early on. Fortunately for me, because they're a novelty down here I opened quite a few of them when they were showing well to serve geek friends and visitors who would never have such a wine otherwise. Wish I'd realized then that it was because of an advanced aging curve. I'm relieved that David B. drank the one I sent him shortly after receiving it. I encouraged Robin, to whom I also sent a bottle, to do the same, but he's never said a word so I fear he didn't.

Glad you bought the dog.

I haven't bought their wines recently either--this is the last vintage I've owned. Somehow I dropped off their email list, and never got myself put back on.

Isn`t it great to see Bob McD here again!!
Have to say when I think Blue Mtn, I think Pinot Gris. Aggh well, only memories these days.