Comments or questions about Wrotham Pinot?
We'd love to hear from you... Please sign
our guestbook.
2001 Vintage Sparkling Wine
The best way to evaluate the 2001 vintage Richard Grant Wrotham Pinot is probably
by comparing it directly with the outstanding 2000. My own tastings of the Richard
Grant Sparkling vintages rank them fairly close together, the main difference
being the additional year of bottle-age shown by the 2000. Both wines are classically
delicate and easy to enjoy, with or without food. The 2001 seems slightly fruitier,
with more varietal grapiness and less of the obvious Champagne yeast characteristics
found in the aftertaste of the 2000.
Connoisseurs of fine Champagnes may tend to prefer the 2000 because of its well-aged yeast flavor. It’s a year older, which accentuates the “gout de Champagne” character provided by long time yeast contact en tirage. The 2000 has slightly fuller body, which is to be expected since the 2000 remained on the yeast en tirage more than four full years. The 2001, being openly fruitier from the beginning was allowed to remain on the yeast only three years to keep optimum balance between fruit and aged character. Both vintages will develop beautifully with additional bottle aging.
Time on the yeast in fine Sparkling wines and Champagnes is a winemaking decision and it is a judgment call on the part of the winemaker. The idea is to allow enough contact time on the yeast to extract the level of flavor components that will exactly harmonize with the natural grape varietal flavor and body of the wine. During winemaking, it seemed to my taste that three years was about right for the 2001 while the 2000 required a full four years. Both still seem correct to my taste now but I would enjoy receiving tasting comments from consumers as you enjoy and evaluate both over time.
 |
amazingly
happy grapes grow in the Richard Grant Wrotham Pinot vineyard.
|
Wine writers ranked Napa Valley Red Table
Wines from vintage 2000 relatively high, but have written even more glowing reports
about the 2001 than 2000. In fact, 2001 was initially regarded as a possible “year
of the century candidate.” As the wines continue to age, those initial glowing
reports have lessened a little and most now give the 2000 vintage similar rankings
to the 2001. Most writers write about Table Wine vintages and not Sparkling Wines
at all. For some of the reasons, see Non-vintage Champagne in the Glossary on
this web site. It’s an interesting discussion.
A Special Note about Vintage Pricing
The
Wrotham clone of Pinot Noir was a little more productive in year 2001 than it
was in 2000, and we have about a hundred more cases of 2001 than we had in 2000.
Not a big increase, to be sure, but my average cost per bottle was actually down,
which is great news.
Passing along those savings to the consumer, the retail price for the 2001 vintage is $50 per 750 ml. I expect the 2001 to improve in bottle for several years and shipping is free for a full case purchase. I have fewer than 5 cases left of 2000 vintage at $75 per 750 bottle. Sales of these remaining bottles will continue as long as supply lasts. Sorry, no case discounts on the 2000.
The
wine itself is aging beautifully and is certain to live in bottle for another
four or five years and probably much longer. Part of the fun of experimenting
with a new variety is seeing how it ages over time. Wrotham is unusual in that
it is quite delicate to sip and enjoy, yet tough in its ability to hold up under
varied conditions of storage.
Please do not assume that a lower price for vintage 2001 means that the quality is less than the 2000. Price is solely a result of my production cost. The quality of our product is as great as we can make it every year and I take no shortcuts.
Differences between vintages are certainly present, but I’m willing to bet that as many consumers will choose the 2001 over the 2000 as the other way around. Only the style is slightly different and those differences are part of the “vintage experience” we enjoy in fine wines.
