Sauvignon Update

Just to update on the Sauvignon tasting yesterday afternoon:

Overall, we were disappointed in the quality of the wines we laid in. Even some very highly regarded wines from New Zealand, with accompanying high scores from the publications seemed 'off' in many ways. Two of the California wines were absolutely undrinkable, one from some mysterious combination of poor cooperage, unhealthy lees and possible slow fermentation, the other from residual sugar that was so high and out of balance with the acidity to make it a caracature of Sauvignon Blanc. The third was a Napa Valley sauvignon, which while flawless, was absolutely uninteresting in a 'Sauvignon blanc tries to be Chardonnay' sort of way. Overall, we were surprised at the levels of residual sugar in the wines; I am having the lab run full analysis on what is left of the wines to see where they ended up.

Here are the wines that we did like:

2004 Marlborough (New Zealand), Kim Crawford- Impression of softness in the mouth, green aromatics are not out of line, lime-zest and green fig fruit, more floral and perfumed than the other NZ examples, which were more overtly vegetal. The most "inoffensive" and "commercially acceptable" in the words of one of our panel.

2003 Pouilly Fume, "Les Champs du Cri," Marc Deschamps (Loire Valley, France)- Sulfurous nose initially, with a cooked-cabbage note. This blew off quickly, revealing more of a wet-stone, mineral, and lime character. This is a very solid, big example of Loire Sauvignon. This was not one of my favorites, but the rest of the panel liked it quite well. (I reserve the right to change my mind, if faced with a plate of perfect, fresh oysters!) At any rate, everyone else liked it so much that there is not enough left for the lab to even run a sample on!

2004 Chevery, Domaine du Salvard- I tasted this wine a few days ago, and really liked it as well. It confirmed my thoughts about this being more of a new-world weighted wine in the mouthfeel and the assertive aromatics. Surprisingly, not many of the panel liked this wine much at all, except for one of the other winemakers. (Am I just a total acidity freak?)

2004 Nelson (New Zealand), Neudorf- This was not one of the panel's favorites either. I liked everything about this wine except for the level of residual sugar. The nose was more elegant than the other NZ examples, and in the mouth the acidity was tempered by the residual sugar, making it seem more balanced to a point. But on the finish, the R.S. spun the wine wildly out of balance. (Disclaimer: My friend, Jim Esper (now Assistant Winemaker for Lemelson winery in Carlton, Oregon; great pinots, and GREAT Riesling!) did a harvest at Neudorf a couple years ago, so I really, really wanted to like this wine. They are primarily a Riesling and Pinot Gris producer, and this may influence their Sauvignon style.)

The rest of the wines failed, to one degree or the other. Even wines that have been highly rated by the press. A couple of the NZ wines under screwcap seemed as if they may be suffering from reductive problems, it would be interesting to know more about them. Others may have suffered in transit or storage.

On the bright side, our favorites of the tasting were samples of our 2005 wines, spun down in the centrifuge to clean them up from the yeast and sediment still in suspension. Despite being high in alcohol, the aromatics were absolutely correct, acidity searing in some cases, and a good, lengthy finish. I made a sample from both the standard Sauvignon block as well as the Musque clone, which is amazingly aromatic in the grape form, but always seems to become the more muddled, 'sweaty armpit' style as it ferments. The main block has very heady aromatics, but the texture of the musque, rich and animal and yeasty adds a lot of interest in a small addition to the more straightforward fruit and floral notes, (anyone know what a fejoa tastes like? That is exactly the fruit character!) So things look good for our 2005 Sauvignon if we don't muddle them too badly from here out!