I would love to hear the impression of people from California about Oregon Pinot Noir. I think Oregonians have a more provincial view than their California counterparts. Maybe provincial is the wrong work, maybe “protective” is a better phrase. But most of the time Oregonians express a certain disdain at thought of California Pinot Noir.

Perhaps we just get used to our own style. I always perceive California on one side of the ripeness spectrum and Burgundy on the other with Oregon somewhere in the middle. It is an over generalization, but a starting point for understanding the differences. I always enjoy learning something about those differences so in early February I put together a blind tasting of 7 high end California Pinot Noirs from the touted 2009 vintage. Of coarse I had to put in one Oregon wine as a ringer, the 2009 Lenné Estate.

Wine Spectators number 1 wine of 2011

There were 16 people who attended the tasting, mostly wine club members and two friends from the Bay Area. What did we learn? Well I think the consensus was that these were some pretty nice wines. They are certainly opulent, extracted wines with flashy aromatics. Structurally it is hard to imagine any of them being around for longer than 6 to 8 years, but they may surprise me.  I think it would be interesting to compare 4 09 California Pinot Noirs with 4 2006 Oregon Pinot Noirs; I think the similarities wouldn’t be surprising.

The tasting also reinforced two other facts for me. First, The Wine Spectator got it right in the review of the 2009 Kosta Browne Sonoma Coast Pinot Noir. I would like to sit with a bottle and see how I feel after a couple of glasses, but it certainly showed well a blind tasting format.

The other thing I got out of the tasting was something I already knew: my vineyard produces a lot of mid palate texture. Lenné wines do sink in on the mid palate, that and the mocha aromatics are really the signature of a Lenné wine. While the Lenné didn’t have the most body or color, it certainly had the most mid palate in my opinion.

Here are the results and there were no dogs in the bunch, the difference between first and last wasn’t startling. In fact, the last place wine might be the most age-able of the bunch.

Most consumers simpley don’t like young Burgundy! Neither do I. At least not Burgundy under $100.  That sounds sacreligious coming from a Pinot Noir producer, but it is true. I suppose I should be more specific and say American-no Oregon consumers-don’t like young Burgundy. I suspect the results would be different in France. The ph of young Burgundys is low and the acidity high and most of these wines will need years in the bottle to gain suppleness. I suspect the fruit may dry up before they ever get there. I like suppleness, not flabby, low acid wines, but wines that sink into your mid palate with a velvet like richness. It is just hard to get that with Burgundy’s in the $50 to
$60 price range.

I remember richness, power and depth when I was lucky enough to taste Romanee Conti, La Tache and Richbourg multiple times some 20 years ago. I never went away with the impression that I couldn’t take a bottle home and enjoy it that night even though they were young vintages. But with the young Burgundies I taste today, I rarely get the impression that I could enjoy them anytime soon.

Each year I do a series of blind tastings in January with consumers and one of the tastings is Burgundy. Some years it has been vintage specific, some years it hasn’t but one thing has always been a constant, my wine has always come in first except once. Two years ago it came in second, to Domaine Dujac’s 2007 Morey St. Denis($125). It was still close.

So is Burgundy still the benchmark for Pinot Noir? Still yes, but you will have to pay for it.