I hate to dispel a long held rumor in the wine business. Not all wine makers have castles and caves from which we age and sample our earthly treasure. I don’t have a cave or a castle.
However, I do have industry partners, fellow winemakers, colleagues and friends throughout the wine community; far more valuable than a castle or a cave. One such gentleman is Michael Peters, Fresno State Enology and Viticulture graduate, winemaker for his own label Kasuari, and barrel representative for Toneleria Nacional, a.k.a., Mistral Barrels in Sonoma.
Michael approached me a couple months ago with a proposal; trialing a single lot sample of Mastro Scheidt’s vineyard designate hillside 2011 Dry Creek Valley Cabernet Sauvignon. I immediately said yes.
I am currently a customer of Mistral Barrels, using a variety of toasts in French and American oak. Mistral is just one cooperage I utilize when aging my wines. Each cooperage has distinctiveness, just as each vineyard has specific characteristics. Sometimes these characteristics are best left alone, while other times, are best blended.
Over the last couple of months, Michael trialed my Cabernet Sauvignon in 17 different oak treatments; French and American, Medium Minus to Heavy Toast, and within Mistral’s proprietary programme Ambrosia; characterized by Sweet, Complex, and Intense.
Walking into the warehouse yesterday to sample my wine for the first time since the trial started, I brought no bias. I had no idea what to expect. I know how my wine tastes in a seasoned, French oak barrel. But I’ve never had the opportunity to trial my wine in 17 styles of oak either; so rather than have any preconceptions, I instead had boyish curiosity.
In a tasting like this, I go with my gut, my first instincts rather than brood over a single glass. Like or dislike. If “Like”, than dig deeper. And with 17 different styles, for Heaven’s sake, take notes.
As many long-time friends and colleagues know, I don’t take notes. I never take notes. This time, I took notes; technical notes and emotional notes.
My technical notes on Trials 1, 2, 6, 12, 16 used words like “Acidic”, “Wood Tannin”, “Palate Stinger”, rather than “Hated it”. Perhaps I’m telling myself that I’m looking for balance rather than perfection, knowing that “Acidic” can be corrected and “Hated it” is a lost cause. It seems I didn’t dislike anything, I just tasted something out of balance from the original product, or at the very least, the flavors were not beneficial to the original product.
Trials 3, 4, 9, 11, 14, 15, 17 I used words like “Nice”, “Pleasant”, “Simple”, “Controlled”, sort of like a first date with no passion; no one ever wants to hear “that was nice” on the first date.
Trials 5, 7, 8, 10, 13 stood out to me as exceptional. My simplistic gut reaction is always noted first and immediately, “Winner”, “Tremendous”, “Mouthwatering”; never anything technical or scientific about my first reaction, always emotions or feelings about the taste. My second and perhaps third taste of the trials I liked, focused more on flavor aspects, sensory characteristics and integration with the original wine.
This was my first opportunity to trial my wines in such a broad sampling. It reveals to me something about my palate, my style, my outlook on wine. Being able to work with Michael as a fellow wine maker in Sonoma County is beneficial, as his palate and experience is different than mine, yet, we’re walking many of the same vineyards, trying the same wines.
Michael also has something few others can offer, he has contact with a global network of winemakers from South Africa to Chile, all using (and not using) oak in infinite variations.
Experience and friendship…much more valuable to me than castles and caves.
June 16, 2013 
