Tag Archives: Ian Elton-Wall

Mayacamas – Old Skool Californian

Yesterday I was lucky enough to be invited to a vertical tasting of Mayacamas.

I jumped on the invitation: ‘Old Skool’ styled Californian wines are of considerable interest to me. For example I am a huge fan of the likes of Calera and Diamond Creek – whose classically styled wines command a fraction of the prices for which the newer generation of ‘cult classics’ (?) are traded. A tasting of wines from a name to conjure with in the history of Californian winemaking – not least in the context of “the Judgement of Paris” tasting – therefore struck me as an event I must attend.

Mayacamas, I learned, was bought from the long standing owner, Bob Travers, in 2013 by Charlie Banks a former/reformed venture capitalist, who also owns Screaming Eagle – ironically perhaps the ‘most cult’ of the ‘cult’ Californian ‘cult classics’. However Banks and his team – as I discovered at the tasting – are not setting out to make (cult ?) “Screaming Mayacamas” – indeed the winemaking looks set to remain comparatively ‘old fashioned’….

The tasting featured Chardonnays from the 00s and 10s, and Cabernets from the 80s, 90s and 00s. Many thanks to my gracious hosts for the invitation and to Jimmy Hayes, the Estate Director for sharing his expertise on these wines.

2008 Chardonnay, Mount Veeder, Mayacamas

Bottle one was a touch oxidised (Premox due to closure ?) – the second, which is considerably paler in colour (lemon/gold) shows savoury earthy notes, together with waxy, floral elements. On the palate it is muscular, briskly acidic, and concentrated. Judgement reserved – I didn’t have a big enough sample of the better bottle to get a proper feel for this wine.

2012 Chardonnay, Mount Veeder, Mayacamas

Paler lemon gold. Ok – so the earthy, floral aspect of what I did taste of the 08 appears to be characteristic – this also shows slightly mentholated notes along with the wax. Full bodied, chunky, firmly acidic, structured and (very) concentracted. One wouldn’t pick this as Californian Chardonnay. But the finish note is quite hard and peppery / bitter, perhaps reflective of the wine only having seen 20% malolactic fermentation.

2013 Chardonnay, Mount Veeder, Mayacamas

Pale colour. The most overt scent of the three Chardonnays, this has a touch of buttered popcorn – over the top of what I started to associate as being key notes from these Chardonnays: menthol, mint, violet, nut, apricot, wax, wet wool. My mind now takes me to some Cote de Nuits Blancs I’ve had. Once again, thick textured, concentrated, dense, firmly acidic. Like a (hypothetical) Cote de Nuits Blanc – made by Raveneau (?).

1986 Cabernet Sauvignon, Mount Veeder, Mayacamas

Bright garnet-mahogany hue; quite pale at the rim. In 1986 this apparently had the addition of some Rutherford fruit. Interesting scent – tarry, plummy and herbal with singed leaf notes steadily becoming more charred and smokey. Really good flavours and vibrancy on the attack; then very tannic and austere on the finish. This was widely liked around the room, other tasters enjoying the firm structure and significant acidity more than I did. Interestingly Jimmy likened the structure of Mayacamas to that of a Nebbiolo or Sangiovese which on tasting this wine I understood immediately. If only we’d had a steak to go with it.

1993 Cabernet Sauvignon, Mount Veeder, Mayacamas

Also contained some Rutherford fruit. Apparently from a considerably less successful vintage than 1986: 1993 was wet, apparently. However I preferred the 1993 precisely because of the relative absence of acid and tannin that others enjoyed in the 1986. Softer, liquoricey, savoury. Also has the singed leaf aspect, but has less austerity on the finish. More Cabernet Sauvignon ~ and less Barolo-like for me.

2003 Cabernet Sauvignon, Mount Veeder, Maycamas

Definitely has familial likeness to the 1986 and 1993 but this retains plusher mid-palate fruit. A happier point in it’s evolution than the older wines (from my perspective). Dark fruit, floral notes, some fennel and a hint of Coonawarra-esque mint / eucalyptus. Firm and masculine – but with a bit more richness to balance the structure.

2009 Cabernet Sauvignon, Mount Veeder, Maycamas

Very different at this stage, to the point that I don’t see the family resemblance, although Jimmy assures me that this will develop along the lines of the older wines. Has rather lovely chalky, clean, almost mineral cherry and wine gum fruit. {Pommegrante and red Cherry according to Jimmy}. The most attractive nose, and palate (for me) – the primary fruit is appealing and undeniably pure. A medium weight, crisp wine, but a concentrated one. Has élan. Just a touch austere ?

An extremely interesting tasting. I couldn’t help feeling that actually (despite apparent furore and angst that Mayacamas would be transformed beyond recognition by the ‘new guard’) – that perhaps the wines could do with just a bit more generosity and sweetness from better selected fruit; that vinification techniques might benefit from being a little cleaner (dare I say it, modern ?) and that just a smidgeon less tannin might make for a rather better glass of Vino – without sacrificing the character of Mount Veeder fruit ? Personally, I actively look forward to tasting Mayacamas made by the new generation.

Ian Elton-Wall

The Perfect Friday Lunch

Leave a reply

The perfect Friday lunch is an elusive thing. Clearly it cannot take place at one’s desk; but it’s better unadulterated by guilt, so getting a decent number of hours work under one’s belt before departing salves the conscience. I do like a late lunch, I confess. Thereafter, it comes down to venue selection. On which subject there has been a long standing debate between my colleague Gen and I as to whether London’s best steaks are to be found at Hawksmoor – or Goodmans. Unsurprisingly I believe I hold the high ground on this subject – her boyfriend has (previously) exhibited vegetarian tendencies – and to this day is uninclined toward the glories of the cow (except living peacefully in a field perhaps) – which surely must taint her credentials as judge and jury on matters of the flesh ?

But I digress – (as long as her beloved is not in attendance), I believe Gen and I could find agreement in the belief that the key ingredient of a perfect Friday lunch is steak. There are other components naturally: highly agreeable company is clearly a box that needs ticking – as is the skinny fry – why-oh-why do both Hawksmoor and Goodmans assume a fish and chip shop chip is more desirable than a beautifully slim stick of melting-crunchy perfection ? Yes: in this matter both Goodmans and Hawksmoor fall woefully short – and no, I don’t care about your triple cooking – or your truffled aromatics. To misquote la Moss, “Nothing tastes as good as skinny”. Bang on Kate. Only your chosen subject should have been the potato.

So – it was to one of these temples of beefy excellence to which I was fortunate to adjourn for a late lunch on Friday. And (after a somewhat long-winded preamble), the final feature of the perfect Friday lunch, obviously – is the perfect botte of red wine to go with the perfect steak. On Friday I had such a bottle, preceded by an excellent bottle of white – which provided the final flourish of perfection. Furthermore, gilding the lily, the perfect red was a wine that neither I nor my lunch companion had ever drunk before so the lunch had both steak and the frisson of lost virginity. It was my perfect Friday lunch. But for the chips.

Arthur (and later Anita) thanks for the highly agreeable company !

2010 Chablis 1er Cru Forets, Raveneau (93+/100)

Pale lemon coloured. Intensely aromatic scent – pristine Raveneau aromatics, rachetted up several notches, doubtless courtesy of the excellence of the 2010 vintage. Direct, punchy floral mineral aromatics with tinges of saffron, spice and wood smoke – and just that hint of wax. Intitially equally overt and vibrant from the glass, this tightened noticeably as we drank it, becoming more steely and saline. Very long and racy, with lovely weight and pristine fruit. This may just get better still, as lovely as it is right now.

2007 Domaine de la Grange des Peres (95/100 / Perfection with a Rib-eye).

A recommendation from Clay at Hedonism – I only wish I’d listened to him sooner as this wasn’t the first time he’d suggested it. Full dark ruby. Wild, intense perfume – with cassis and black cherry jam overlaid by lavender, incense, charcoal and garrigue. Full bodied, opulent and unctuous but with a rare freshness that it makes more vibrant than you could possibly expect from a wine of this weight and dimension. Dense, with rocky minerality, pure cherry and cassis fruit, finishing smokey and meaty. Liquorice, mint and violet on the finish. Chave Hermitage meets Sassicaia ?

Ian Elton-Wall

1999 Grands-Echezeaux, DRC. Overwhelmingly DRC

Leave a reply

I’ve had wines from the Domaine de la Romanee-Conti that have disappointed. The 1983s. The 1994s. The 1986s (yuk). Even you 1988s: ‘don’t get me wrong – yeah I think you’re all right – but you don’t keep me warm in the middle of the night’ (or any other part of the evening for that matter). These are wines that have aromatic interest, but which are all acid and structure – and little in the way of flesh or charm; which could, taken in isolation, could give some tiny measure of credence to criticisms of under-ripeness – as made by the likes of Helen Turley & John Wetlaufer

But I don’t think there have been too many of those in recent times. Everything I have drunk from the DRC from 1995 onward has been pretty special. ‘DRC’ genuinely is a by-word for bottles that are at the least, really, really, good. Drunk in isolation: delicious. And when tasted in a line-up of ‘top Domaine Burgundies”: top. Or thereabouts.

But amidst all these very good and very-very good bottles there are wines that are just, well, ‘beyond good’. And in one specific recent vintage ~ or at least ‘relatively recent’ vintage the DRC made wines that are particularly ‘beyond good’ ! I read somewhere that Aubert de Villaine described the 1999s as the ‘legacy and testament’ of his stewardship at the DRC. I don’t know whether he has changed his mind since; surely vintages like 2009 and 2010 have afforded the Domaine the opportunity to make great wines? But I do remember that when asked, at the Domaine in 2006, if he thought the infant 2005s might measure up to the 1999s – his answer was an almost dismissive shake of the head.

Of course, the 1999 DRCs, from Duvault-Blochet upward, are expensive. Very expensive. But (arguably) not excessively so given the price of other vintages in which the DRC made wines which are just very-very good. If you can afford them, you will not be disappointed.

I have a friend, a great collector and wine lover who I think is quite pleased with Renaissance Vintners’ efforts to sell some of the surplus of two decades of collecting for him. Obviously selling those wines on his behalf has been good business for us – but he also knows that some of the wines have been difficult to shift – in a not very easy market for those wines. So he very generously offered to share a bottle of 99 DRC over dinner last night. For fun (and why the hell not !) but also, I think, as an additional ‘thank you’ for our efforts. I’ve seldom been happier to have done a good job!

I didn’t try to compete with the centrepiece of the evening: how could I? So instead I bought a completely unrelated bottle from a grower that I suspected (correctly) he wouldn’t have tasted (Rhys). It was very good. We liked it. And the 99 DRC was….well….predictably ‘beyond good’.

2010 Rhys Alpine Vineyard Chardonnay (93/100)

Fullish buttercup yellow hue, just very slightly hazy. A hint of reduction lends freshness and interest to a lovely scent of lemon curd, tangerine and butter. A lovely bottle, which I guess to be at it’s apogee – it has a great balance of freshness and richness, of citrus and apricottey flesh. The only thing that prevents me from giving an even bigger score is that I don’t quite find the X-factor which so often is provided by minerality in great Burgundian Chardonnay. (Although a bottle of Rhys Horseshoe Chardonnay drunk recently also had that missing element – is that a fractionally better vineyard than Alpine ?) Notwithstanding that, this is very delicious.

1999 Grands Echezeaux, DRC (96/100)

Med ruby colour with very little in the way of bricking at the rim. Looks younger than it is, 17 years on. Immediately after decanting the scent was youthful and quintessentially DRC, with hawthorn, smoke and spice. A few moments later the wine was showing a new face: curry leaf and a riot of Asian spices. Then, momentarily, a murky clay and liquorice note, before it reached equilibrium and began to pump out richly spiced berry fruit. Likewise the palate evolved in the glass, the wine seeming to put on weight and dimension as we drank it. From medium plus bodied – to really very full. One curious note was that at one point we both simultaneously felt it tasted rather like great Bordeaux – ‘Margaux’ – but with more precision and verve. My score maybe a bit parsimonious – I think I am consciously marking this wine based on the assumption that the Romanee-Conti, La Tache, Richebourg and Romanee St Vivant are even better. A great bottle, and overwhelmingly, DRC.