Mon 22 Mar 2010
Good news: Not only does the Morgan Cotes du Crow’s 2008, Monterey County, continue in the robust tradition of its 
predecessors, but it’s cheaper than it was in the last few vintages. Byron writes of “all that’s best of dark and bright” — he’s speaking of a woman, of course — and certainly this Rhone-inspired blend of 55 percent syrah and 45 percent grenache balances a clarity and brightness of fresh, ripe black cherries, black currants and plums with the smoky darkness of briers, new leather and mossy earthiness etched with gravel-like minerality. This is an appealing, spunky wine, robust, as I said, but not rustic; there are no rough edges here. A few minutes in the glass bring up notes of dried cherry, potpourri, lavender and licorice with an undercurrent of bitter chocolate; then rose petals, dried thyme and a scent and taste of black olive. Cotes du Crow’s 2008 aged 10 months in French oak, only 18 percent of the barrels new, so the influence of wood gently shapes and spices the wine, spreading its aura amongst ample yet deftly managed tannins. A twinge of austerity on the finish reminds us that these are serious grapes. 3,600 cases produced. Perfectly appropriate with grilled and braised meats, hearty soups and pasta dishes. Excellent. About $16.
A review sample.
March 23rd, 2010 at 7:31 am
Question I have been meaning to ask. When I see a wine that gets a good review (like this one) I look for confirmation from another trusted source (which genrally means the various reviewers of the Wine Advocate). I checked out the Morgan Cotes Du Crow’s for 2007 (since they haven’t reviewed the 2008 yet) and they gave it a good review with an 87 rating (Parker himself reviewed this one). You rate both the 2007 and 2008 excellent. That seems to happen more often than not–your excellent is an 87 or 88 by WA. So my questions are (1) have you thought what the equivalent numerical ratings of your various word ratings would be? I would have guessed that an excellent rating by you would correspond to an 90-92 by WA. (2) after you rate a wine do you compare your rating against WA or anyone else? and a tricky (3) what other wine reviewer most closely matches your opinions?
Bruce Beaudin
Hendersonville, NC
March 23rd, 2010 at 7:51 am
Fredric,
I’m awaiting two things:
1. The French Minister of Appellation Names to attack Morgan for using that name–every time I see the label I’m taken to that other place where they make wine
2. Your answers to Bruce’s questions.
March 23rd, 2010 at 12:10 pm
Thomas, always the provocateur!
so, here goes, Bruce (and Thomas):
1. Since I have never used a numerical scale of rating wines, and since I consider the numerical system to be specious, it follows that I have never tried to ascertain the numerical equivalent to my written ratings such as Very Good, Very Good+, Excellent and so on. Those comparisons would be meaningless. And, basically, I don’t care what WA or WS has to say about wines that I review and rate, so, to answer question # 2, no, why would I do such a thing? If I rate a wine excellent and WA gives the same wine an 88, or if I rate a wine Very Good and WS gives it a 91, makes no difference to me. In fact, I rarely look at WA or WS. As for “tricky” # 3, I have no idea what other reviewer most closely matches my opinion and I don’t care. I have been writing about wine and reviewing wine for almost 26 years; I do what I do, I try to be thorough, informative, honest and fair, and my readers trust me. That’s all I’m concerned about.
March 23rd, 2010 at 2:52 pm
Miscreant.