All we hear is Radio ga ga - Radio goo goo - Radio ga ga
All we hear is Radio ga ga - Radio blah blah
What it actually means is this:
Radio-Coteau (rā’ dē ō - kō tō’) adj. A colloquial expression suggesting ‘word of mouth.’ Region: Northern Rhone. Literal Translation: broadcasting from the hillside.
Eric first heard the expression radio coteau from a friend while living and working in Burgundy. He worked at the renowned estate Comte Armand and previous to that did a spell at Chateau Mouton Rothschild.
According to the blurb:
“Radio-Coteau works closely with select cool-climate coastal vineyard sites in Western Sonoma County and Anderson Valley emphasizing sustainable viticulture in conjunction with a natural, non-interventionist approach in the cellar to more accurately reflect the unique character of each site and season.”
According to Robert Parker:
“Proprietor Eric Sussman seems to go from strength to strength at this small boutique winery. One of the buzz words in the wine world is - natural- winemaking, which has no real definition and is often shamelessly used to promote a certain style of wine. Yet Radio-Coteau is a great example of 'natural winemaking' native indigenous fermentations, incredibly low usage of SO2 and biodynamically farmed vineyards.
We tried the 2005 and 2006 Savoy Chardonnays and did a vertical of the Savoy Pinot Noir from 2002 to 2007. The current releases, which we didn’t try, are the 2009s, which sell for $48 a bottle – well into burgundy territory, so we lined up a few burgs to provide a reference point.
Chardonnay Savoy 2005, 2006 (14.4% ABV)
The chardonnays had a clear bright, light, color with a muted nose with hints of pears, white peaches and minerals. They had a thick viscous texture and cool, languid, cocooned feel to them, as if they had recently been bottled. You could be lured into thinking that you are really drinking something special (like an Aubert) here, but when you analyze them, the wines lacked neither sufficient balancing acidity nor tannic spine. Neither are they particularly complex; just somewhat one dimensional, anodyne and lacking in zest and verve. A bit soporific. Don’t get me wrong these are not bad wines – and I would happily drink them if served them - but at the price point you would wish for a more a bit more poise and pizzazz. You don’t get the sense that these wines will improve; they just seem to be on a slow boat to China.
For reference we opened up a Marc Morey Batard-Montrachet 1990 – perhaps a little unfair, but as well as a lot more age, it had a lot more nuanced complexity, terroir and dimensions to its personality. Though fat and buttery it was much better balanced than the Radios, much more interesting and ultimately much more enjoyable.
Pinot Noir Savoy 2002-07
We tried six vintages starting with 2002 and working our way up. The wines had an alluring spicey cherry fruit attack, but the more mature wines also suffered from a deficit of balancing acidity and grip. A little bit stewed. As we worked our way up the wines got better and the 2007 had a nice tannic grip and a bit more backbone than the others. I enjoyed it the most. But similar conclusions applied to pinots as to the chardonnays. For the price these are somewhat bland and one dimensional wines. Footnote: However I like them more than Oregon St-Innocent 2008 pinot noir (Momtazi Vineyard) I am sipping on now.
We tried a couple of red burgundies which brought these deficiencies into clearer focus. A Marquis D’Angerville Volnays Champans 2007 was bright and snappy (antithesis of ‘soporific’) and had a lot more mineral complexity, terroir and finesse. Drinking really well I must say, but it had more verve and vim, more ‘je ne sais quoi?’ Then John served a Ramphet Clos De La Roche 2006, which was delicious, complex, nuanced, perfectly poised and improved over the night. It was the star red wine of the night.
Conclusions
I did enjoy tasting the Radio Coteau wines and they are a lot better than the majority of Californian chardonnays and pinots I have tried but they fall below the benchmark set by good burgundy. The key missing ingredients are (1) balance/ poise (balancing acidity), (2) finesse and complexity (3) elegance and refinement which he tries for but gets blandness instead (i.e., falls between two stools) (4) zest and verve and (4) an expression of ‘terroir.’
I have little doubt that Eric Sussman is going to be highly successful in this venture because he has hardly put a foot wrong. Laid back, softly spoken and personable, he has employed slick marketing – check out the website – and has cultivated an image as ‘hands off’ winemaker, nevertheless producing ‘handcrafted’ wines with minimal interference with nature’s course. Given the very low output and the snappy name and in vogue marketing, this estate easily lends itself to evolving into a cult winery where everyone wants to be on the mailing list. Perhaps most importantly he has received glowing accolades from Robert Parker – after all his opinion matters most – (and other lesser critics), though as yet only scores in the low 90s from HWSRN. The cynic in me would be wary of the herd mentality often associated with allegedly cult wines, or ‘boutique” wineries, but my impression is that these wines are getting better with each vintage. I am not a buyer at the current price point. I might be interested below $30, but I would like to circle back and look at Eric’s progress in five years.
No comments:
Post a Comment