A few nights ago, I was planning to watch Bottle Shock which I'd never seen before. But, before popping in the DVD, I wanted to pop the cork on some Napa Valley Chardonnay to set the mood. I found two wines in the cellar that I thought would do the trick.

The first wine was the 2008 Napa Cellars Chardonnay Napa Valley. A recent release, the wine had been sent to me by the winery for review. The second wine I grabbed was the 2005 Robert Mondavi Winery Chardonnay Napa Valley Reserve. I had purchased that wine myself last year.

Napa Cellars is trying to deliver the type and quality of wines for which Napa Valley is famous while staying at accessible prices. The 2008 Napa Cellars Chardonnay Napa Valley sells for $24. That's clearly over today's $10 and $20 sweet spots but is quite a bit less than many Napa Valley wines.

Different publications and reviewers have different methods for rankings wines for their readers. The most popular system today is the 100-point scale. There are many reviewers that use a 20-point scale and still others 5-points. Some reviews use icons that look like stars, corks, bottles, thumbs up, etc. to communicate a wine’s overall quality. Icons are cute, I suppose, and those that are unique may be eligible for trademark protection. In the end though, icons are just place holders for numbers. Numbers appear to be extremely precise, but it’s not always clear what they communicate.

I’s not always clear where the numerical scale really starts. On the 100-point scale, it’s extremely rare to see a rating below 70. Whereas a rating in the 70’s communicates a wine that is really not very good one you wouldn’t want to buy, a rating below 70 indicates a wine so flawed that some sort of drastic corrective action is probably called for at the winery. On the 100-point scale, wines pretty much get 60 points for simply being in liquid form and having some measure of alcohol. But what about a 5-point system? Does a “1” translate to a 60 or would that be a zero? Is 4 equal to 80 or to 95? Who knows?

Another issue with the 100-point system is that it implies a level of precision that is not realistic over multiple tastings. Wines simply taste different from one day to the next. Our palates change too, even during the course of a single day. A wine that receives a 91 in a blind tasting one day might get a 92 or an 89 the next day from that same reviewer.

We provide four different levels of rating: recommended, highly recommended, very highly recommended and highest recommendation. On this scale, wines that are merely acceptable don’t make the grade. They aren’t recommended. For that matter, wines that are good and hit all the marks but don’t illicit any particular excitement on our part aren’t recommended either. I figure that if you’re going to read wine ratings on a website, you’re not looking for wines that are “pretty good.” You want wine that you’ll actively enjoy, not sip absent-minded. Those are wines that we “recommend.” For those of you who do like a 100-point scale, our recommended wines tend to be those other reviewers give 87 - 89 points. They are wines that you’ll enjoy but for which you might not want to spend a lot of money.

A wine we rate as “Highly Recommended” is one that has at least one feature worthy of special note. That may be complexity, concentration, purity, etc. These are wines that you would order a second glass of without considering the price. Something about them really captures your attention.  On a 100-point scale, they are in the 90 - 92 range.

“Very Highly Recommended” wines don’t capture your attention, they command it. Conversation ceases, except for short phrases like “Holy Cow.” This is a wine of which you’re going to want to buy more than one bottle. And you will probably be willing to spend over your normal price limit to get them. Whereas the “Highly Recommended” wine has one exceptional feature, the “Very Highly Recommended” has several. These are wines with charisma, wines that you don’t want to put down. “Very Highly Recommended” translates to about 93 - 95 points.

Our “Highest Recommendation” goes to wines that seem to correlate to 96 points or greater on the 100-point scale. These wines are so good that the phrase “cost is no object” may come into play for you. If the wine isn’t perfect, it’s pretty darn close.

Our ratings as described above do not take price into consideration. We don’t want to filter the qualitative ratings through our perception of the value of a dollar. In a world where many people won’t pay more than $20 for a bottle but restaurants offer Romanee-Conti for $3,000, there is clearly no universal standard for value. We provide a rating and the price, you can make your own decision about value.

That said, we do sometimes give different value-oriented ratings. One is “exceptional value.” Wines that we rate in that way may or may not be inexpensive and they aren’t necessarily the very best wines either. But, they are so good for the price relative to other wines in that style that our jaws drop a little bit. We say, “How can they sell this for that?” These are wines you might want to buy by the case. They are wines that make you feel a bit guilty about buying something else.

The final value rating we offer is “Best Buy.” These are wines that may not have made our “Recommended” list but are solid and at such a low price that we believe they merit your interest. These are wines to stock up on for parties and everyday drinking.

This article is original to NorCalWine.com. Copyright 2010 NorCal Wine. All rights reserved.

Follow NorCalWine on Twitter for breaking wine news, information on events and more.
Become a fan and join the NorCal Wine community on Facebook.
Also check out our comprehensive Northern California winery listings. They are very useful for planning a tasting trip or just getting in touch with a winery.

I had the good fortune to taste four aged wines from the Mount Eden Vineyards library at the Pioneers of California Pinot Noir tasting last year during the Pinot Days SF festival. The featured winemakers that evening were Merry Edwards (Mount Eden & Merry Edwards), Richard Sanford (Sanford Winery then, since 2005, Alma Rosa Winery), Francis Mahoney (Carneros Creek &  now Mahoney Vineyards) and Jeffrey Patterson of Mount Eden. While the 1976 Carneros Creek wine stole the show, the 1975 Mount Eden by Merry Edwards was quite fine and showing well. The Jeffrey Patterson-produced Mount Edens from 1996, 1998, and 2000 were very good too. With such a spread in years between the ’75 and the ’96, I wondered what the vintages in the middle might be like from this Santa Cruz Mountains winery.

So it was that I quickly snapped up a 1984 when I saw it in Bob Collins’ stash at Old Vine Imports a few months ago. (He’s got a fascinating collection of aged and well-stored wines, mostly European. He also buys selectively and well.)

Since then, the wine has been been staring at me from it’s perch in my cellar while I waited for the “right occasion” to open it. I’m not really sure what kind of occasion that would be, so I took Matt Kramer’s Wall Street Journal article about Mount Eden Vineyards as a sign and popped the cork.

This 1984 Pinot Noir got positive, though not excited, reviews when young. I’ve seen a range from 86 to 90 points. Most of the accompanying tasting notes said the wine was somewhat tannic or had a particularly astringent finish. They also projected that the wine had enough viscosity to handle five years of aging and that such bottle age would round out the mouthfeel.

I didn’t have the opportunity to taste the wine 1989, so I can’t say how it would have been at the “recommended drinking age.” Nor had I read these tasting notes prior to buying the wine or tasting it the other night.

My bottle did turn out to have been well-stored. The fill level was mid-way between capsule and shoulder, not bad given the age. The cork was sound, though a bit moist throughout. In fact, one small portion of cork insisted on diving into the bottle rather than leaving nicely with the rest. So I gently decanted the wine. This also gave me a chance to assess the amount of sediment (scant and very fine in texture).

In my glass, the wine was red to garnet in color with hints of orange at the rim. The core was surprisingly saturated for a Pinot, especially one of this age. I couldn’t see, let alone read, text on a white page through the core. Aside from a bit of “25-years in a bottle aroma” that quickly blew off, the wine smelled clean.

At first sip, the wine definitely exhibited it’s age. The primary aromas were earth, dried leaves and pencil lead with some stewed cherry and orange zest. The flavors were in complete alignment with the aroma except for the addition of cedar.

Perhaps more importantly, the wine was definitely more tannic than I would have expected and it’s finish was clipped off by astringency. Remember, I hadn’t read those reviews prior to tasting the wine. Clearly though, the main negative mentioned in those reviews at the wine’s initial release was still not only present but prominent. And, if those characteristics had disappeared after five years, they were certainly back after twenty-five.

Now for the good news, given some time to open up (about an hour with this particular bottle), the tannins integrated completely and the astringency disappeared. Not only was the finish longer and much more pleasant, the mouthfeel was much richer all the way through. And, even better, more fruit emerged. It was fresh and lovely. There was cranberry but also juicier red fruit and some blackberry too.

The voluptuous and fruity phase lasted about half-an-hour. After that, the wine reverted to it’s original profile but with even more astringency and less fruit. I was very pleased to have gotten through most of the wine during the wine’s most luscious period.

I’ve seen recent CellarTracker reviews on this wine. Most of them seem a bit generous to me, some rating it at 92 points or higher. There’s always a bit of enthusiasm when a wine this old turns out to have been stored well and shows signs of life. I don’t think that’s reason to give it “extra credit” though. And, while I would normally want to taste another bottle before docking points for excess tannins and astringency, the wine's age makes that impossible and the original reviews suggest that my bottle was not completely out of character for the wine.

I don’t generally score wines on a 100-point scale. However, since I’ve made reference to other such scores for the wine here, I’ll rate in kind. I think we’re looking at about 88 points overall. It was better during it’s half-hour peak but worse before and after.

If you have some of this wine at home, I’d encourage you to drink it now. It can age further, but won’t improve at all with time. To get maximum enjoyment, pour the wine into your glass, then take a quick sniff and sip to see what it’s like. Continue tasting periodically. When the wine feels rich in your mouth and is lively with fruit, spring on it like a hungry lion.

This article is original to NorCalWine.com. Copyright 2010 NorCal Wine. All rights reserved.

Follow NorCalWine on Twitter for breaking wine news, information on events and more.
Become a fan and join the NorCal Wine community on Facebook.
Also check out our comprehensive Northern California winery listings. They are very useful for planning a tasting trip or just getting in touch with a winery.

Many respected wine writers are saying that the 2007 vintage for California Pinot Noir is one of the best in some time. I agree with them. But, aside from the general message that now is a good time to buy a bunch of Pinot, what does “best” really mean. To me it means exceptional complexity and a really good balance of tannins, acidity and alcohol.

In a lot of wine regions, especially very cool climate locations such as Burgundy, an exceptional year might simply be one during which the weather was good enough to allow the grapes to fully ripen. However, insufficient ripeness is rarely a problem for Pinot Noir in California. Too much ripeness is more typical. This leads us toward what I think made the 2007 vintage great here.