(photo is of Christophe, of Cayuse, presumably standing in The Rocks)
The below blog post is by a person well-acquainted with the subject matter. The lab results are startling in some ways. But we need to remember this is just one bottle tested. And everyone's palate is different. And most "flaws" are NOT subject to general agreement. Still, a large amount of what is essentially a contaminant is worth noting, even in one bottle of wine, and a pH of 4.06 does seem quite high.
What's fascinating about this post (link below) is the debate and political blowback it may induce. The elephant in the room is the proud (and sometimes fiery) Christophe Baron who may be reading the various comments with interest.
On one side you have loyal customers and the world's greatest wine critics, standing with Cayuse. On the other hand you have a brave (foolish?) wine lover who noticed something she didn't like about the wines and had them tested, and thinks she has scientific proof of her palate at hand. There are reasons why both sides may be right. (Perhaps we are seeing that certain excursions from what has been considered "normal" might not result in bad wines, but could in fact become new understandings of quality?)
I don't want to get into the shooting war, thanks, although you will see my own (hopefully moderate) comment, there in the blog comments. I am a Cayuse member. I am mostly just holding my Cayuse wines, as I find their hugeness makes them inappropriate for early drinking. If you try to drink them from barrel, they are so big and tannic that it might kill you ;) None of the Cayuse wines I've drunk have presented the flaws alleged by the wine writer. For an eyeful, just read through the comments.
http://http//winepeeps.com/2010/11/08/cayuse-unique-terroir-or-flawed-wine-lab-analysis-tells-all/
No comments:
Post a Comment