here is a suspicion - no, call it an anxiety - that Napa is Napa, and that the wines of the 14 sub-appellations of the Napa Valley AVA are generally indistinguishable. At the same time, many think it was a mistake to sub-divide a good thing. That’s not just in the Napa Valley; it’s a common sentiment everywhere across the continent that “separatism” within the AVA system has allegedly diluted the marketing image - and often challenged the regional organization authority - of the parent appellation.

The anti-separatists point the finger of blame at either the terroir-ist pride of those winegrower/producers who pushed for the diverse AVA certifications; or the mega-corporations who stand to gain by elaboration of a whole mosaic of stratified appellations as a long-term Burgundy-style marketing strategy enabling them to flog pretty much the same wine under “bigger” and “lessor” appellation designations to fill different niches and move more inventory.

But there is an even deeper, generally unspoken, anxiety that despite all the self-evident terroir differences in the dramatically diverse Napa Valley AVAs, winemaking technologies, driven by oenological expediency or market-oriented fashion, have trumped terroir so thoroughly in America’s most famous wine mega-region that there are no real significant differences between the appellations – at least at the bottle end of the business. This may or may not be true, but the fact is that “circling the wagons” around the Napa parent designation, as representing a wine style that works in the marketplace, has become a self-fulfilling prophesy of homogenization to some extent.

Well, from what we saw and tasted in San Francisco at the “Napa Valley with Altitude Tasting”, the movement to define-cum-distinguish the sub-appellations, in both image and taste dimensions, continues to build steam. And the “mountain folk” are clearly in the vanguard. The three mountain appellations (Mount Veeder, Spring Mountain District, and Diamond Mountain District) of the Mayacamas Range, which defines Napa’s western border, have allied to put on this particular event, based on some obvious commonalities, not least being their pretty underdeveloped place-brand recognition in the marketplace. Significantly, however, the mountaineers were positioned by appellation in three different rooms for the pour, clearly suggesting that there were differences to be explored and appreciated.

The commonalities are pretty obvious: terroirs marked by elevation; difficult terrain necessitating markedly different agro-practices, exploiting a diverse patchwork of microclimates; and, perhaps most important, a small-is-better ownership demographic that drives the positive energy of terroir-ism in every great winegrowing region around the globe.

Along with their mountain brethren across the way on Howell Mountain and Atlas Peak, altitude is as much a passionate attitude as it is a geologic given. What these appellations are begins with what they are not - that is, “The Valley”. This event gave the wines right across the elevated appellations an opportunity to bring that point home strong and clear. Mountain fruit quite simply is not grown on ground anything like that on the flatter, more fertile Valley floor. The rugged and rocky nature of the terrain reflects clearly in the wines, which are typically more angular with less flesh to conceal their boney structure.

Eighty percent of the 100+ wines poured at this event surely deserve recommendation for their individual quality. Frankly, we can’t recall any tasting on this scale where the quality quotient ran so high, nor was that our experience in the several Discovery Tastings APPELLATION AMERICA has conducted with sub-appellation Napa winemakers.

We are only able here to single out a few wines that perhaps will help to delineate the regional progress and the trends in defining the character of Napa mountain wines, generally, and these sub-appellations in particular. Indeed, there were without question, themes of commonality running through the wines of each room (appellation) at this event.

---

Here are some highlights from my notes, combined with those of Managing Editor, Adam Dial and Deputy Managing Editor, Michael Lasky:

Mount Veeder: Wines of classic structure.

Whites with the kind of bracing acidity and minerality not easily achieved in their valley floor counterparts. And the reds – a scattering of Syrah, Merlot, Zinfandel, but mostly Cabernet Sauvignon – were a model of impeccable balance and harmony between elegant fruit, firm tannins, and focused acidity.

Brandlin Vineyard – The 2004 Cabernet shows perhaps more independent flavor stylizing than any other wine at the tasting, but the mountain fruit from one of the oldest vineyards in the highlands is clearly enabling.

The Hess Collection – 2005 19 Block Cuvee – elegance and power combined into a wine that you can taste and talk about for decades.

Robert Craig Winery – Two vintages of the venerable winemaker’s Mt. Veeder Cab bottling – 2004 and 2005. Both solid examples of how Robert Craig continues to craft wines that are uninfluenced by the latest trends. Classic style and balance.

Lagier-Meredith – Mountain Syrah specialist of the first order – of the two wines being poured (04 and 05) the 2004 seemed to be more sharp and focused at this juncture, but the 2005 should catch up with a bit of time.

Mayacamas Vineyards – When you’ve been doing it as long as these guys, you are sure to get it right. The important thing here is that Mayacamas has been doing it the same outstanding way since inception in the 1960s. Young and older versions of both Cab and Chard were offered to demonstrate the hallmark of the house – longevity. 2002 and 2005 Chard, 1995 and 2003 Cab. All outstanding wines with an emphasis on elegance and grace (you can take the 12.5 percent and 13.75 percent alcohol of the ’95 and ’03 Cabs respectively as evidence of this).

Paras Vineyards – A quad of 05 reds (Cab, Syrah, Merlot, Nebbiolo) all with major tannin components, but packed with fruit and lively acid.

Godspeed Vineyards – An interesting vertical of Chardonnays (02, 03, 05) that, despite vintage (and some winemaking) variations, showed consistent mineral and lemon characteristics.

Spring Mountain: Generally riper and more fruit driven...

...than the other two appellations, but still strutting their elevated origin in an angular austerity that counters the notion that sweet, round and jammy is what defines Napa Cab today.

Barnett Vineyards – a 2005 Cabernet with broad appeal – styled with enough fruit and power for the lovers of blockbuster wines, but with enough finesse to impress those more traditionally inclined.

Cain Vineyard & Winery – 2004 Cain Five. The model of Bordeaux winemaking style on Spring Mountain. Restrained, elegant, and long lived.

Fife Vineyards – Three vintages of Cabernet (99, 03, and 04) showcased a well defined house style that emphasizes sleek but well defined muscle like a distance runner – and the way the 1999 is holding up drives home the point of that analogy.

Keenan Winery – A pair of 2004 Cabs (regular Napa bottling, and the Reserve) demonstrate that this is a Napa Cab producer to reckon with. Loads of fruit, tannin and acid, but far from overblown. Layers upon layers of complexity that deserved more time than is allowed in this type of tasting.

Marston Family Vineyard – The 2004 Cab is one of the riper, more concentrated of all the Spring Mountain wines tasted, which is sure to please certain critics, but we also liked it for its surprising finesse considering its muscle. A sampling of the 1998 vintage, which tasted like an ’05, proves that this style does have longevity.

Newton Vineyard – 2004 ‘The Puzzle’, the flagship bottling from this long time darling of the critics, is no puzzle to those of us who were privileged to taste this impeccably balanced and complex wine. A winner on anybody’s scorecard.

Peacock Family Vineyards – 2004 Cabernet – Refer to the description of Spring Mountain above, and you have this wine to some extent. Solid winemaking + sensible discretion = depth and balance.

Spring Mountain Vineyard – A wide range of wines being poured here (including a rare Pinot), but the highlights were definitely the red Bordeaux – a 2004 Cab that is as tightly knit as they get, silky enough to consider now, but perhaps better with a few more years in the bottle; and the 2003 Elivette Bordeaux blend which was a standout, not only for its distinctive style (hints of Old World), but for its layers of complexity which spanned fresh dark fruit, earth and moss, and funky barnyard characteristics.

Terra Valentine – 2005 Wurtle Cabernet – one of the more powerfully tannic and closed up wines of the Spring Mountain collection, but certainly enough stuffing to warrant long term consideration. Built to give the most pleasure in 3-5 years and the ensuing decade.

Diamond Mountain: By far the most rigid and tightly knit wines...

...of the three appellations, with full throttle tannins backed up by a powerhouse of flavour that spans the realms of dark berry fruit, earth and minerality, herbal essences, and spice. In my opinion, Diamond Mountain wines, as a general rule, remain the best built of all Napa for the long term cellar.

Reverie – Four wines tasted, and each were spot on with the character of the appellation. Of note was the 2005 Cab Franc (yes, Franc, not Sauvignon), which had all the bright red fruit clarity and perfume that is typical of the variety, but so often missing in Napa incarnations. The varietal purity of the CF was only heightened by the textbook character of the Cabs (2005 Cab, and 2004 and 2005 Special Reserve Cabs) – all displayed intense cassis and cedar with Bordeaux-like pencil shaving aromas, massive tannins and pronounced acidity. The Special Reserve bottlings are exactly that – “Special”.

Von Strasser Winery– From the guy who brought AVA designation to this legendary winegrowing place, why would you expect anything except perfect regional and varietal character? The sole wine being poured, 2005 Cabernet, serves as a model of the regional signature – big, bold, austere, grippy, and ageless.

Coho Wines – The Cabernet domination of Diamond Mountain is totally understandable, but Coho’s 2005 Headwaters (Merlot driven) blend is a stunning wine for its powerful complexity, so markedly different from the palate expectations in the CabCulture of the Mayacamas Range.

Coho’s, somewhat anomalous Headwaters production also provides me with a good segue to finish this piece on a note of long personal perspective about these Mayacamas appellations.

It was at the end of the long trek up to Mayacamas Vineyards (then near the end of the Taylor’s tenure in the 1960s) when I bought my first case of wine…ever! It was a box of 24 splits of amazing Zinfandel Rose and it was an epiphany that pushed my doctoral dissertation off by a couple years. That experience sealed the relationship in my mind between geography/geology and interesting wine. The fact that it was interesting Zinfandel growing up on those hard hewn terraces back then, reminds me that there are still patches of wonderful Riesling…and a few other tasty “Pre-Cabernetian” varieties tucked away up there. It just goes to show that, while good terroir can’t make every wine great, it defines the best in any wine it is allowed to touch.