DeLoach Vineyard Designate Pinot Noir 2-Pack
$78.99 (Normally $120.00) 34% off List Price
2007 Sonoma Stage Pinot Noir
2008 Sonoma Stage Pinot Noir
CT links above

Winery website

how does this compare to the OFS Pinot?

Wow I think the Deloach 15$~ pinot's are great. These must be pretty amazing

I'm a big DeLoach drinker, and a member of their club. About 4-5 years ago, the list price on Sonoma Stage was $85, it has fallen down to $60 in recent years. It is a wonderful wine, their best. I think the economy just couldn't stomach an $85 (or even $60) California pinot. California Pinots really cap out at $50, beyond that and the market moves to French Bourgogne.

Anyways, at $78, this is a standout deal.

To the person who asked about OFS, well I love OFS, especially for the value. It is about $10-15 cheaper than their vineyard designates and almost half the price of Sonoma Stage designate. They are different wines, but Sonoma Stage is definitely the special occasion wine whereas OFS is great for frequent enjoyment. However, at $78 for 2x Sonoma Stage, it's a reasonable deal for sure.

I will attest that I don't think I've tried either of these vintages, although I've had 2004-2006 before.

I'm on the fence on this deal, but my gut says I wouldn't be disappointed with these at $40 a pop.

Cheers,
Brian

Alright, I went in for one.

Can somebody explain what the term "Designate" means here?

Good morning from CA everyone! Mike from DeLoach here, happy to answer your questions.

tapermule and jjfahey - BrianV had it right, compared to the OFS Pinot this is a single vineyard, which is also why we call it a "Vineyard Designate." The OFS is a blend from a few different vineyards around the Russian River. The OFS is a little more value oriented as well. The Sonoma Stage really shines for a special occasion (especially with Thanksgiving around the corner).

BrianV - Thank you for the kind words! So glad to hear that you are a big fan and have enjoyed the club.

jjfahey wrote:Can somebody explain what the term "Designate" means here?

Vineyard Designate Series


The Vineyard Designate Series is comprised of limited-production wines from some of the region’s most acclaimed vineyards. Each wine is crafted to reflect the unique characteristics of a specific terroir and highlights the beauty and elegance of the grapes from that location.

loveladyelectric wrote:Vineyard Designate Series


The Vineyard Designate Series is comprised of limited-production wines from some of the region’s most acclaimed vineyards...

Couldn't have said it any better! Thank you loveladyelectric =)

Is it the AVA or varietal that commands such a premium? Looking at the website, it's a bunch of 90 pt rated wines that hover around $45-65. That seems high. I pay that for Paso Robles vineyards I'm a member of, but they also deliver 94+ pt wines on a regular basis.

To the winemaker: How does this compare to the 2010 RRV and 2010 Estate PNs? I assume they're more ready to drink. What do you think it would pair well with?

I bit anyway
Last Wooter to Woot:loveladyelectric

loveladyelectric wrote:Is it the AVA or varietal that commands such a premium? Looking at the website, it's a bunch of 90 pt rated wines that hover around $45-65. That seems high. I pay that for Paso Robles vineyards I'm a member of, but they also deliver 94+ pt wines on a regular basis.

To the winemaker: How does this compare to the 2010 RRV and 2010 Estate PNs? I assume they're more ready to drink. What do you think it would pair well with?

It is a combination of both. The AVA is a big part of it, and Pinot Noir from the Russian River in general is in high-demand.

The 2010 RRV Pinot is our "everyday" style Pinot Noir, I am a big fan pairing it with anything from lighter, red-sauce pastas and risottos to grilled fish (salmon is my favorite).

The 2010 Estate Pinot is a richer style of Pinot Noir that comes from our organic and Biodynamic vineyards. At its young age can pair well with some dished that might be a little bolder or richer such as duck or even glazed ribs.

The Sonoma Stage Pinots definitely have some power to them so I would suggest almost the same pairings as the Estate Pinot Noir.

loveladyelectric wrote:Is it the AVA or varietal that commands such a premium? Looking at the website, it's a bunch of 90 pt rated wines that hover around $45-65. That seems high. I pay that for Paso Robles vineyards I'm a member of, but they also deliver 94+ pt wines on a regular basis.

To the winemaker: How does this compare to the 2010 RRV and 2010 Estate PNs? I assume they're more ready to drink. What do you think it would pair well with?

I bit anyway
Last Wooter to Woot:loveladyelectric

Points are stupid.

kylemittskus wrote:Points are stupid.

I really thought you would tee off on the BioDynamics, not the points.

DeLoach Rep, please estimate cellaring potential (& in the interests of clarity, use year #s such as "2014," not "7 years"), how these vintages compare to each other & '05 & '06, and how the flavor profiles will likely evolve as time advances.

I have found very little info regarding the Sonoma Stage Designate & invite anything more you can volunteer. Thanks!

takethefarmandrun wrote:DeLoach Rep, please estimate cellaring potential (& in the interests of clarity, use year #s such as "2014," not "7 years"), how these vintages compare to each other & '05 & '06, and how the flavor profiles will likely evolve as time advances.

I have found very little info regarding the Sonoma Stage Designate & invite anything more you can volunteer. Thanks!

Can do! Great questions by the way.

Personally I am a big fan of the '07 as it is tasting right now, it has a great acidity for the backbone and the red fruit is still shining through. A great caramel flavor is there too. It bridges that gap of being able to sip it on its own and working well with a food pairing. If you like that fruit to tone down a bit more wait till 2015.

The '08 is a pretty fruit driven wine, big red fruits and even hints of plum. Extremely similar to the '07 but a little bit richer. Depending on how prominent you like the fruit to be I could see this going to at least 2015 if not 2017 (depending on your personal tastes).

As these age you will see the fruit subside slowly, bringing about more earthy and spice tones.

The '05 and '06 saw much more new oak, up to 50%. So the fruit there is not quite as prominent as it was in more recent vintages. The '07 and '08 saw about 35% new oak so you still get some nice oak characteristics but not quite as heavy as previous vintages, allowing the fruit to shine a bit more.

All French Oak was used by the way.

North316 wrote:I really thought you would tee off on the BioDynamics, not the points.

Wait, these guys practice voodoododoo?!

Winery: serious questions (the fact they sound absurd isn't my fault):

Do you bury crystals in the dirt? Harvest on full moons? Spray your vines with various animal carcasses/other plants? Dance naked in a barrel of eels?

kylemittskus wrote:Wait, these guys practice voodoododoo?!

Winery: serious questions (the fact they sound absurd isn't my fault):

Do you bury crystals in the dirt? Harvest on full moons? Spray your vines with various animal carcasses/other plants? Dance naked in a barrel of eels?

Haha not to worry, I'll try to dispel it as much as I can.

We do a little bit of it all, probably more of the dancing naked part but that is not done in a barrel (waaaay to constricting and the splinters are awful).

Definitely kidding!

We do pay attention to the lunar calendar to help us figure out when the best times are to fertilize, prune, pick the vines and do our best to adhere to it. Try to think of it this way, the tides ebb and flow based on lunar movement. So does the water content of the vines, just on a much smaller scale, which effects the optimal time to carry out certain vineyard management practices (minus the dancing).

The burying crystals in dirt, along with cow horns (and even some other parts such as bovine intestines stuffed with camomile) and what not help us create a super concentrated, natural fertilizer that can be diluted and the sprayed through the vineyard to help stimulate vine and soil health. That is just one of many preparations that we can use.

Basically we are looking treat the vineyard as an ecosystem.

PemberDucky wrote:shoot. i've been using jellyfish.

Ahh yes, common mistake. No worries =)

mikefromdeloach wrote:Haha not to worry, I'll try to dispel it as much as I can.

We do a little bit of it all, probably more of the dancing naked part but that is not done in a barrel (waaaay to constricting and the splinters are awful).

Definitely kidding!

We do pay attention to the lunar calendar to help us figure out when the best times are to fertilize, prune, pick the vines and do our best to adhere to it. Try to think of it this way, the tides ebb and flow based on lunar movement. So does the water content of the vines, just on a much smaller scale, which effects the optimal time to carry out certain vineyard management practices (minus the dancing).

The burying crystals in dirt, along with cow horns (and even some other parts such as bovine intestines stuffed with camomile) and what not help us create a super concentrated, natural fertilizer that can be diluted and the sprayed through the vineyard to help stimulate vine and soil health. That is just one of many preparations that we can use.

Basically we are looking treat the vineyard as an ecosystem.

Except crystals don't do anything to soil. Neither do cow horns. And the lunar cycle affects the oceanic tides because of the gravitational difference between the moon and the earth, caused by the size of both. A grape is not affected by any lunar gravity. My problem with the entire BD movement is that there is ZERO scientific logic, let alone evidence, behind any of the practices that are required to be "certified."

Your vineyards are an ecosystem. But crystals don't affect an ecosystem. Plant life, animal life, and climate do.

I'm going to come out with my own wine and say that having naked women dance in front of the barrels makes my wine more concentrated because the naked women affect the way the oak and the wine interact. That doesn't sound insane does it? I mean, naked attractive women, of course!

kylemittskus wrote:Except crystals don't do anything to soil. Neither do cow horns. And the lunar cycle affects the oceanic tides because of the gravitational difference between the moon and the earth, caused by the size of both. A grape is not affected by any lunar gravity. My problem with the entire BD movement is that there is ZERO scientific logic, let alone evidence, behind any of the practices that are required to be "certified."

Your vineyards are an ecosystem. But crystals don't affect an ecosystem. Plant life, animal life, and climate do.

I'm going to come out with my own wine and say that having naked women dance in front of the barrels makes my wine more concentrated because the naked women affect the way the oak and the wine interact. That doesn't sound insane does it? I mean, naked attractive women, of course!

I won't argue that some of it looks/feels like "voodoo." It is a weird concept no doubt about it. The certification process is what it is, as it is monitored by the Demeter Association(Biodynamic's governing body if you will).

On their own crystals and cow horns do nothing, I'll agree with you there. I'll also accept the statement that lunar movements won't affect one grape, per se, but I will buy the whole vine and entire vineyard as a result.

That aside, the key for us is looking at the sum of all the parts and the end product. After seeing a couple vineyards, and even some home gardens, switch from traditional farming methods to Organic/Biodynamic the plants and produce look healthier and taste better. I can't argue with that, even if there is no scientific logic to back it up. That is just my personal experience.

Totally enjoy your thoughts and understand your hesitation. I knew that dancing naked trend would catch on ;)

The issue I havel, Neil, is two-fold. First of all, I can't support something that so clearly defies logic. This is my character flaw. I'm aware of it and it ain't changin'. My second issue is the increased cost due to such things. In the same vein as the "organic" food movement, the cost of these "better" products increases, even though they're actually not better. The pseudo-religion/magic masquerading as science costs money. (How much does the certification cost?) And I don't want to pay for it if it doesn't do anything (which it doesn't). I'll pay more money for good wine because that wine is better. I won't pay more money for wine that I'm told is better because someone buried a cowhorn in a crystal on the full moon after spraying rat skins on the vines while chanting (only of one these things was a joke).

neilfindswine wrote:...ah the Bio-D debate... always a good one here on the Woot boards...

I'll restate my position.. if the wine is good, I'm buying, I don't care if crystals, cowhorns or naked women were used in the process.

This has come up twice in recent memory, today with DeLoach and prior with Ethan/Qupe, and I don't think either are practicing these farming techniques for any other reason than because they want to make good juice- in my book, both are excellent producers making great wines.

I'm a sucker for a good pinot (which these are), and I've recently started getting into Burgundy. And what I'm finding, is that some of the top producers over there are farming Bio-D. And while I don't understand it, to a degree, I have to shrug my shoulders and say, "Ok, this tastes good... I'm in..."

A great point neilfindswine. It is just what we prefer to do and you are right, as long as it is good wine that you would like to drink that is all that matters.

Thank you for the kind words!

mikefromdeloach wrote:That aside, the key for us is looking at the sum of all the parts and the end product. After seeing a couple vineyards, and even some home gardens, switch from traditional farming methods to Organic/Biodynamic the plants and produce look healthier and taste better. I can't argue with that, even if there is no scientific logic to back it up. That is just my personal experience.

When something can be empirically proven wrong, you can argue with it. And I don't doubt that the plants may be looking/doing better with BD practices. But I'd argue that it's because they are being given more attention and not because they are being given magic potion. It's either that or it's placebo and your convincing yourself of something that isn't actually there.

No shipping to Louisiana.....boo!! Glad I checked before I ordered

kylemittskus wrote: But I'd argue that it's because they are being given more attention and not because they are being given magic potion.

This.

While I am not as outspoken about it as Kyle, I generally agree with him on this topic because of the cost issue. I don't buy organic because the added cost does not outweigh the added "benefit" to me. I am an accountant and therefore think like one in my personal life as well.

I have seen other wineries defend the cost argument by saying it doesn't really cost much to be in compliance with certification process and that may or may not be true. I would argue that the true cost is additional man-hours necessary to pay closer attention to the vines and the overall health of the vineyard; things that can be done without all of the ridiculous gimmicky bs that goes with BioDynamics. If paying better attention to your crops to produce a better product costs more, than I am fine with that. But explain it that way, and don't hide behind the gimmicky certification.

Don't get me wrong, I also still agree with Neil in the fact that if a wine is good, and I like it, I will buy it, unless of course I perceive the cost as too high. I guess my real issue is when a winery tries to drive sales BECAUSE they are Organic or BD Certified (which you did not do at all, you just mentioned it off-handedly). I am all for letting the wine speak for itself, and when you do put a lot of effort into tending your crop and take pride in it as a result, feel free to express that, but the BD part doesn't mean much in these parts.

I love these conversations by the way. Always fun. And Mike, certainly do not take offense to any of the discussion, we are just passionate people when it comes to wine and like know as much as possible about the products we buy. This is our "tasting room" and our only available palate is words.

kylemittskus wrote:Points are stupid.

Please elaborate?

After some reading, I do agree that biodynamics is, to some degree, a kind of "cargo cult science" except that some of the hoops that need to be jumped through (extra attention, as has been noted) do produce results.

North316 wrote:This.

While I am not as outspoken about it as Kyle, I generally agree with him on this topic because of the cost issue. I don't buy organic because the added cost does not outweigh the added "benefit" to me. I am an accountant and therefore think like one in my personal life as well.

I have seen other wineries defend the cost argument by saying it doesn't really cost much to be in compliance with certification process and that may or may not be true. I would argue that the true cost is additional man-hours necessary to pay closer attention to the vines and the overall health of the vineyard; things that can be done without all of the ridiculous gimmicky bs that goes with BioDynamics. If paying better attention to your crops to produce a better product costs more, than I am fine with that. But explain it that way, and don't hide behind the gimmicky certification.

Don't get me wrong, I also still agree with Neil in the fact that if a wine is good, and I like it, I will buy it, unless of course I perceive the cost as too high. I guess my real issue is when a winery tries to drive sales BECAUSE they are Organic or BD Certified (which you did not do at all, you just mentioned it off-handedly). I am all for letting the wine speak for itself, and when you do put a lot of effort into tending your crop and take pride in it as a result, feel free to express that, but the BD part doesn't mean much in these parts.

I love these conversations by the way. Always fun. And Mike, certainly do not take offense to any of the discussion, we are just passionate people when it comes to wine and like know as much as possible about the products we buy. This is our "tasting room" and our only available palate is words.

WS columnist Matt Kramer had a column recently where he basically said, "look, a lot of it may be hokum, but all I know is that a lot of the most exciting wines I'm drinking now carry the biodynamic label."
For me, just a guy who likes to drink wine, I LOVE to see the biodynamic symbol on a bottle, because for better or worse it's increasingly a (overly) reductive shorthand for: this wine came from vines that were carefully tended, probably not blasted with any synthetic fertilizers/herbicides, and probably not aged in a ton of new oak. And more often than not my palate agrees with what's in the bottle.
Sure, the point about the vineyards being healthier because so much attention is being paid to them is almost certainly right, but to my thinking a biodynamic label is one of the best ways to ensure that level of care.
It intrigues me more than say, 90 points from Parker.
Is it way more costly? I have no idea. I do know, however, that my local wine shop has a great many good biodynamic bottles in the sub $15 range.
As to this particular PN offer, it looks great, but I need to get significant other sign off before dropping the cash. Fingers crossed!

North316 wrote:This.

While I am not as outspoken about it as Kyle, I generally agree with him on this topic because of the cost issue...

If paying better attention to your crops to produce a better product costs more, than I am fine with that. But explain it that way, and don't hide behind the gimmicky certification...

I love these conversations by the way. Always fun. And Mike, certainly do not take offense to any of the discussion, we are just passionate people when it comes to wine and like know as much as possible about the products we buy. This is our "tasting room" and our only available palate is words.

No worries! By no means do I take offense, this discussion is great, I enjoy the passion behind it.

We completely agree with you point. Getting certified Organic/Biodynamic can be purely a marketing technique because it is very trendy right now. The reason we do it is because we feel that it is better for the land, for the vines and ultimately for the wine. That is just our style and how we want to manage our Estate Vineyards.

I totally hear you, a wine needs to be good and I need to like it in order for it to be worth buying, to neilfindswine's point. By no means do we want to drive sales with some trendy marketing tactic, we are more than happy to let the wine do the talking. We are just passionate and proud about what we do and how we maintain the ecosystem that is our vineyard. =)

Thanks again North316!

I agree with Neil, and Kyle. While I think BioD is complete rubbish, I am ok if it tastes good and hits the price point. But it would be naive to think it doesn't affect costs.

I also have a hard time believing any winery is doing it solely for the health of the vineyard. If so, they wouldn't worry about getting the certification. The real motivation is most likely for them to be able to put it on their label to pull in more money and "standout" compared to other producers. This is not much different from the wave of "certified organic".

Their are many wineries I really like that are certified organic, but the cert is not important to me.

dah7m wrote:And more often than not my palate agrees with what's in the bottle...

As to this particular PN offer, it looks great, but I need to get significant other sign off before dropping the cash. Fingers crossed!

A great thing to remember: the only thing that really matters is that you enjoy what you are drinking.

With the significant other, let them know you are willing to share. Good luck! ;)

trifecta wrote:Their are many wineries I really like that are certified organic, but the cert is not important to me.

To that point as well as dah7m's above about the Biodynamic symbol, it depends on your priorities. There is no wrong answer, just personal preference.

kylemittskus wrote:The issue I havel, Neil, is two-fold. First of all, I can't support something that so clearly defies logic.

Okay, Mr. Spock. Relax and enjoy the wine.

I don't care if magical fairies come and tend the vines at night, as long as the wine's good.

I'm with Kyle.. you lost me at "bio-dynamic"

Kyle, North and other anti Biodynamic peeps: there are many things in our world that cannot be explained by Science. I assume you believe in Darwanism or the Big Bang Theory, correct? Which is ok BUT do not knock on what cannot be proven. There are many mysteries out there that we will never be able to prove. I am a believer in the moon and how it affects pur moods, food, etc.