I would not call the 1985 Groth Reserve a one hit wonder. They have had a string of very good wines. That wine happened to be amongst their best. I have had a number of excellent iterations of that wine.
It is no more a one hit wonder than 74 Mayacamas or Heitz Marthas or 1984 DC RRT or 1987 Calera Jensen...or 2005 Malescot for that matter. Stand out examples of generally excellent wines, IMHO.
www.winemusings.com
Posts: 202 | Location: New York, NY | Registered: Oct 17, 2008
Ron, I'm not sure what you're saying about the Paloma Merlot, but the 2001 Paloma Merlot was big news several years ago and almost perceived as cult status! Today, it just doesn't have that status! As I remember, it had one big year, then not much at all. That doesn't mean it's not still an excellent Merlot, but it sure doesn't have the notoriety, score, or price today that the 2001 Paloma possessed several years ago. I think the price had risen to about $150 for the 2001 Paloma, whereas today, you can buy a Paloma Merlot for about $50!
Ron, I'm not sure what you're saying about the Paloma Merlot, but the 2001 Paloma Merlot was big news several years ago and almost perceived as cult status! Today, it just doesn't have that status! As I remember, it had one big year, then not much at all. That doesn't mean it's not still an excellent Merlot, but it sure doesn't have the notoriety, score, or price today that the 2001 Paloma possessed several years ago. I think the price had risen to about $150 for the 2001 Paloma, whereas today, you can buy a Paloma Merlot for about $50!
Latour,
I *think* what Ron was saying is that, despite WS putting it way up on their top 100 one year, that is actually a remarkably consistent wine. I did not find the '01 to be significantly better than the '99. The '02 was nice, the '04 very nice. Looking over others' scores it appears to be a very consistent wine, actually.
"What contemptible scoundrel stole the cork from my lunch?" -- W.C. Fields
Yes, you may be correct in saying Paloma has been a consistent wine, and that may be what Ron is alleging.
Still, that 2001 Paloma took on a life of its own! The buzz and demand caused the prices to triple in the secondary marketplace, and it was talked about as a cult Merlot.... I think that 2001 was the only vintage that achieved that lofty status, and therefore, it does appear to be a "one hit wonder". Remember, no other Paloma Merlot has even come close to tripling in price right out of the gate.
Originally posted by dr.darkrichandbold: Rather than one hit wonder wine and vintage, I would say one hit wonder properties (in general...not necessarily for me personally...)
Viader
Bressler
Behrens and Hitchcock
David Arthur
Neal
These all have seen lots of press, love, and attention, only to then fall off the map and now I don't hear much about them anymore.
I don't know much about the others but I whole-heartedly disagree about Behrens. Some of their "falling off the map" might be because half (or maybe most) of the wines are coming under the Erna Schein label. The 06 vintage was given the following ratings:
Erna Schein Syrah Mendocino Homage to Ed Oliveira Alder Springs Vineyard 2006 93 $60
Erna Schein Petite Sirah Spring Mountain District 2006 91 $48
Erna Schein Cabernet Sauvignon Napa Valley The Knockout 2006 92 $75
Erna Schein Cabernet Sauvignon Napa Valley Cemetery 2006 92 $80
Erna Schein Cabernet Sauvignon Napa Valley Spare Me 2006 93 $45
Erna Schein Fat Boy Napa Valley 2006 92 $75
Erna Schein Everything But the Kitchen Sink California 2006 92 $40
I mean, huh? I emailed Mark this week with a question on their excellent 2007 Zinfandel, and he mentioned that their 2006 CS will be one of their best wines since the '01 regular bottling. I enjoy the 2004 CS a great deal as well. They certainly haven't dropped of my map.
-IB
"Wine only turns into alcohol if you let it sit."---Lindsay Bluth
Posts: 6229 | Location: Naptown | Registered: Nov 24, 2006
Originally posted by mountainman: 2004 Schild shiraz - hype then
exactly what came to my mind when i read the thread title.
Yeah, that still confuses me... 96 point Top 100 top 3 contender garners huge attention/interest... Then doesn't even make the Top 100. People are stunned...Wine Spectator remained mum about it. Then the 2005 Schild gets 93pts and quietly is put at #16 in the following Top 100. Make-up ranking??
Posts: 3183 | Location: Alexandria, VA, USA | Registered: Oct 29, 2003
I think Drab has a good point; there was big-time buzz about the Neal in 2001 & 2002, created by WS forums member, Powell Yang, who kept a running total of how many cases were purchased by Forums members. Today, there's not much buzz at all. Also, the wines are not even rated by WA, and with the exception of the 2002 vintage, most of the scores by WS are from 80--88 points. However, I've tasted the Neal Zin and thought it was a good QPR, but certainly not an outstanding Zinfandel.
On the German front, I think that the 2001 Kurt Darting Rieslaner Auslese Durkheimer Nonnengarten was a bit of a one hit wonder. Back in 2003 some board members called it their wine of the year. It was an excellent wine made in a great vintage. Other vintages of this wine before and after have not lived up to the 2001.
VM
Posts: 10135 | Location: Chicago | Registered: Oct 17, 2001
I think Drab has a good point; there was big-time buzz about the Neal in 2001 & 2002, created by WS forums member, Powell Yang, who kept a running total of how many cases were purchased by Forums members. Today, there's not much buzz at all. Also, the wines are not even rated by WA, and with the exception of the 2002 vintage, most of the scores by WS are from 80--88 points. However, I've tasted the Neal Zin and thought it was a good QPR, but certainly not an outstanding Zinfandel.
I disagree completely. Of the Neal wines that WS has scored, they average over 88pts. So, saying that they score from 80-88 is completely misleading. There was one, anomalous, 80pt wine. But, the fact that they have scored 93 pts is ignored in this post. Whether WA "even" rates them or not is irrelevant. Are you implying that Parker (or anyone else at WA) therefore thinks they're crap? Hardly a "one hit wonder," regardless.
Now, the 2001 Worthy...that's a different story
******** "But, if ye wish her grateful prayer, Gie her a haggis!" -Robert Burns
Posts: 1078 | Location: Paradise (or 2400 miles from anywhere) | Registered: Feb 28, 2004
I clearly posted that "with the exception of the 2002 vintage, most of the scores by WS are from 80--88 points"! Also, it's clear that the average score by WS has been 85.85 points, excluding the 2002 vintage, which appears to be the anomaly.
I do prefer to see Cali Cab ratings from at least two sources, and it is frustrating when a major Cali Cabernet producer doesn't receive consistent evaluation and/or attention. Even WS doesn't publish any Neal ratings after 2004, where the average score was 84.8!
You obviously enjoy Neal Cabs, and that's your opinion. I'm not misleading anyone, I just posted my opinion, backed with some interesting facts.
I clearly posted that "with the exception of the 2002 vintage, most of the scores by WS are from 80--88 points"! Also, it's clear that the average score by WS has been 85.85 points, excluding the 2002 vintage, which appears to be the anomaly.
I do prefer to see Cali Cab ratings from at least two sources, and it is frustrating when a major Cali Cabernet producer doesn't receive consistent evaluation and/or attention. Even WS doesn't publish any Neal ratings after 2004, where the average score was 84.8!
You obviously enjoy Neal Cabs, and that's your opinion. I'm not misleading anyone, I just posted my opinion, backed with some interesting facts.
L67: That's fine, but if you can dismiss the higher ratings to arrive at a lower average score, I can discount the lower scores as anomalous and arrive at an average that is even higher than the one I posted. It goes both ways. In any event, hardly a "one hit wonder."
And the fact that WA has not reviewed the wines means nothing. It is just as likely that Neal has not submitted them for review as Parker is ignoring them for some reason. Neither of us knows the answer, so better to not even go there.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: haggis,
******** "But, if ye wish her grateful prayer, Gie her a haggis!" -Robert Burns
Posts: 1078 | Location: Paradise (or 2400 miles from anywhere) | Registered: Feb 28, 2004
They were new to the scene, and great on release. My God, the '01 Second Chance Vineyard on release was one of the best young CA Cabs I've ever had, and I'm pretty certain 99% of this board who had it in the first few months was of the same opinion.
But (the very sweet) Gove took over the winemaking duties from Tony in 2002, the wines began to shut down unexpectedly, Powell left the board, and other personality things came into play. I happen to think that the basic 2004 Neal Cabernet is an excellent wine for the price. Of course, I had it on release so I'm not sure what it would be like now.
It is hard for me to call Neal a "one hit wonder" but I agree with DRAB that it is one of those wineries that just seesm to have fallen off the map.
"What contemptible scoundrel stole the cork from my lunch?" -- W.C. Fields
I still have my 2001 Second Chance, together with the other 5 SDV's, and all of the 2002's! I'll be opening them very soon.
Also, the 2002 Neal vintage was the best, and WS rated them 90-93, but that was the only year they had such strong ratings, although I think the 2001's would've been close had they been rated!
As I mentioned above, the 2004's averaged a rating of 84.8 by WS!
I checked my 2001 Neal and found I only have Second Chance and Howell Mountain, and only two of each! Perhaps they didn't make 6 different SVD's for the 2001 vintage!
From my 2002 Neal SVD's, I still have the following: Howell Mountain, Wykoff, Second Chance, Fifteen Forty, One Lane Bridge, and Chafen.
I didn't buy more of the SVD's after tasting the 2003 Neal Cabernet, which was a rather difficult vintage for everyone, including Insignia. I sold the rest of my 2003 Neal Cab at auction and lost about 40%.
Ron, I'm not sure what you're saying about the Paloma Merlot, but the 2001 Paloma Merlot was big news several years ago and almost perceived as cult status! Today, it just doesn't have that status! As I remember, it had one big year, then not much at all. That doesn't mean it's not still an excellent Merlot, but it sure doesn't have the notoriety, score, or price today that the 2001 Paloma possessed several years ago. I think the price had risen to about $150 for the 2001 Paloma, whereas today, you can buy a Paloma Merlot for about $50!
latour,
What I am saying about Paloma's merlot is based upon personal experience, which includes a couple of bottles of '95, plenty of '96 and '97 a few bottles of '99 and plenty again of '01--most of which was purchased prior to their WOTY announcement. Further, I define "one hit wonder" as one good, or off the charts year, and then back to obscurity (i.e. my recommendation for the '97 Paoletti cabernet as a 1-hit wonder). The fact that this wine caused such a buzz when it won WOTY is a common thread with almost every wine, as point and ranking whores come out of the woodwork to scramble for a bottle of ego--I agree that this was exacerbated to what you refer to as "cult status" with Palomoa due to its extremely small production relative to other WOTY winners.
Given MY experience with this wine, it has been remarkably good (I still have 1 @ '96 and 2 @ '97 in my cellar and my last '01 finished earlier this year was its typical outstanding drink) for each of the vintages I mentioned. If you can find ANY of these vintages that have been stored well their whole life, you are getting a STEAL at $50, and only if you can beat me to it!!! Please tell me where I can get these for $50, plus tax and shipping.
BTW, I was prepared to place an order for '02s vintage. Because of the hype, of course, other friends had beat me to it, and I was able to try the wine twice before opting to pass. I was stunned at how I didn't care for the '02, which was to me, was a vintage that overwhelmingly had lush fruit forward characteristics that I was looking forward to tasting with them. Nada...watery, thin, and no order.
I will agree that they dropped off MY radar after that vintage (I didn't care for the '03?? either so I stopped trying), and you might be able to find these later vintages at $50, but IMHO, the '01 was one of five fantastic vintages produced during a seven year span, so this is no 1-hit wonder at all. Anyone who had heard of and tried Paloma prior to the '01 vintage is bound to agree with me.
Posts: 304 | Location: LALALA, CA | Registered: May 23, 2003
correction!