Tag Archives: Stephan Asseo

Background

My personal history with L’Aventure goes back to the first winery visit in 2007, when my wife and I were blown away by the amazing balance and elegance Stephen Asseo (winemaker) was able to achieve with these crazy big Southern Rhone style wines. At over 16% (sometimes 17%) alcohol fruit bombs, he was somehow able to get just the right balanced mix of fruit, structure and alcohol to make it all work… and they were fabulous. The Estate Cuvee is the winery’s flagship wine and almost always a mix of the best estate Syrah, Cabernet Sauvignon and Petit Verdot in varying percentages, depending on vintage. Asseo was one of the first few in Paso to experiment with eliminating filtering/fining and the wines almost always have that opulent mouth-filling feel. This label is aged in 100% new french oak, integrating better in some vintages than others.

Scoring and Tasting Method

I am done with the attempt to achieve a fair systematic scoring method. So, I will continue to follow the WSET/UC Davis process, but I am done with both the 100 AND 20 point systems. Moving forward, I will only be rating (not scoring) wines with a simple five tier description: Poor, Barely Drinkable, Drinkable, Superior and Excellent. The basis of these ratings will be: balance, fruit character, acid/tannin and sugar/alcohol levels. I will always comment when appropriate on specific characteristics, such as harvest timing, winemaking style, cellaring potential, etc.

2013 – 2017 Vintages

I opened these bottles for a group of friends two hours in advance of the tasting, decanted and returned them to the bottle prior to serving. I poured a personal tasting to write my notes prior to the group arriving. I also opened a 2014 L’Aventure Cote-a-Cote as a comparison. All of the Estate Cuvee wines were generally similar in flavors, so I will not get too detailed with the notes. All of the wines generally tasted of blackberry and black currant fruit and had both high tannin and acid (surprising after the years of bottle age). The differences were primarily in character and balance. After developing first impressions, it became clear, these wines were NOT meant for cellaring. On release, I had thought there was plenty of structure to lay these wines down in my cellar, but I was mistaken and I will tell you why after I provide the tasting notes.

2013 Vintage

Rating: Superior

This wine had a very weak nose, with no fruit apparent. On the palate, it was slightly fruit-forward. The mid-palate was complex with savory leather, black tea and dark chocolate. The finish was medium+ in length. The alcohol was a big piece of the profile, but not completely overwhelming. The oak was well-integrated. After nine years in the bottle, the tannin and acid were still both high.

2014 Vintage

Rating: Drinkable

Aromatic fruity blackberry nose. On the palate, it was slightly fruit-forward. The mid-palate was a bit simpler than the 2013, but similar. The finish was medium+ in length. The alcohol was big. The oak showed a bit too much, but was reasonably integrated. The wine filled the mouth more than the 2013.

2015 Vintage

Rating: Poor

Medium fruity blackberry nose. On the palate, it was slightly fruit-forward. The mid-palate was the simpler leather and dark chocolate profile. The finish was long in length. The alcohol was overwhelming. The oak dominated the wine with very strong vanilla and brown butter flavors. The wine texture was very mouth-filling. The oak did not integrate at all in this vintage and this wine was enjoyed the least by us and our guests.

2016 Vintage

Rating: Drinkable

This wine had a weak nose. On the palate, it was slightly fruit-forward. The mid-palate was the simpler leather and dark chocolate profile. The finish was long in length. The alcohol was big. The oak showed a bit too much, but was reasonably integrated. The big mouthfeel was here too.

2017 Vintage

Rating: Superior

The nose was all alcohol, overwhelming any other character. On the palate, it was fruit-forward with blackberry, black currant and black plum. The mid-palate was all savory with leather, black tea and dark chocolate. The finish was very long. The alcohol was a big piece of the profile, but not completely overwhelming. The oak showed a bit too much, with nice sweet vanilla and was reasonably integrated.

2014 L’Aventure Cote-a-Cote

Rating: Excellent

This is L’Aventure’s Grenache dominated Southern Rhone blend (GSM), with: Grenache, Mourvedre and Syrah – percentages usually in that order. By the time we reached this wine, the group was a couple hours into the tasting and this wine was very welcome. It was very aromatic on the nose and the palate was fruit-forward, layered and balanced. The oak was very well integrated. The mouthfeel was wonderful: elegant and silky. This label handled the 8 years of bottle age extremely well. A very enjoyable and impressive bottling.

Impressions

When we tasted these wines on release, they all seemed to have enough structure (tannin/acid) to age well, but the balance presenting on release did not last well. The big fruit flavors when bottled dissipated too quickly, changing many of these Estate Cuvee wines into a disjointed jumble after five years. The other challenging element seemed to be integrating all that new oak. In some vintages showing well, in others not so much. I would not suggest holding the Estate Cuvee wines more than five years and would guess, three years would be better. Finally, it is clear the Cote-a-Cote and Optimus bottlings respond better to bottle aging and the one we tasted on this night was excellent!