HARVEST | As gentle and agreeable a growing season as we could ever hope for delivered ideally ripe fruit in mid-August. Weeks after harvest, starting around Labor Day, extreme heat descended (“heat dome” was the term we tossed around) for many days. And for this, the vintage may be judged critically, although it was entirely irrelevant to our circumstances.  Our style leans toward relatively lower alcohol levels, and making the call on harvest prior to the typical, perennial temperature spike in early September is not difficult. Early tasting suggests this wine will be the most structured of all vintages, possibly surpassing 2018. Confidence in the fruit’s integrity encouraged a long maceration averaging 44 days in the teacups. And still, berries were intact and the free-flow wine brilliant at drain-down.

Tasting Notes | Forthcoming 


HARVEST | The last in a series of drought years and somehow the vines supported a generous crop second only to 2020’s yield. It is difficult to explain this and we hope it confirms our thinking in 2020, that the roots may have found what they need deep within the sandstone below. Although it is stone, it is soft enough to break apart with a shovel and not so densely formed as to prevent absorption of water nor thwart persistent roots.  As the wine ages in barrel the bright acidity stands out in comparison to previous vintages. Unlike 2020, the acidity cannot be attributed to a premature harvest brought about by the threat of smoke damage from wild fires. In fact, the season was agreeable, gentle, and never was a compromise made.  In early 2022, the wine seems most similar to 2018 in density and feral, savory complexity.

Tasting Notes | Forthcoming 


HARVEST | Even though the winter rains were less than during the previous three years, the vines drew on their resources. The vines are 12+ years old in 2020 and, being dry-farmed, they are far from robust owing to the nearly-impenetrable sandstone underlayment here in the Santa Cruz Mountains. This year’s crop is the strongest yet, with every cluster boasting well-formed berries with two or three seeds each. Dry lightning storms in mid-August ignited fires and rushed harvest to reduce exposure to woodsmoke. With lower ripeness, the acidity is bright and alcohol modest, while the aromatic presence is similar to the 2016 vintage.

Tasting Notes | Forthcoming 

2019 537 cases, 12.8% Alc., 31 days in teacup, 17 months in barrel

HARVEST | Quite similar to 2018 but more rain and less fog. Steady ripening and a leisurely harvest with a slightly smaller crop than the year before. All the teacups were treaded (up from just half of them as in 2018). Fermentation temperature is low, and extraction is so gentle and slow in the teacups. Releasing more juice through an initial pigéage promotes more extraction. These wines don’t get their weight from elevated alcohol, and building structure is the goal. Bottled late in March 2021, the wine is, at this point, reserved aromatically but similar in body to the 2018. 

Tasting Notes | Forthcoming

2018 601 cases, 12.8% Alc., 34 days in teacup, 22 months in barrel

HARVEST | Warm and dry in the winter, until a strong rain in early March. Everything lined up after that, with reasonably good soil moisture and summer heat spikes suppressed by the marine layer. In the cellar, after an initial pigéage on half the teacups, the macerations extended to 30 days, in pursuit of structure. This was a vintage where winemakers everywhere stood back and watched as beautiful grapes turned into great wine.

Tasting Notes | Deep color, savory sandalwood, beguiling spice with cherry, pomegranate, blackberry, blood orange. Great power above all earlier vintages, and monolithic in its youth with a tannic structure rare to pinot noir. This wine is built big with extract rather than ripeness, and tells of a future decades in the making. The tannins make an impression like Nebbiolo: persistent and even, dry and broad, with a citrus-zest, espresso-like pinch on the finish.

2017 597 cases, 13.6% Alc., 32 days in teacup, 20 months in barrel

HARVEST | A cold and wet winter after several drought years, and the vines responded exuberantly to set a fair crop, which was a bit of a relief after the very light previous two vintages. Bud-break, bloom and veraison occurred on a normal schedule and all ripening proceeded apace through August. Then in early September a blast of 100-degree days and low humidity forced harvest by a few days—and although it was an abrupt end to an otherwise gentle season, the wine escaped the furnace and retained the lively character of the site. 

Tasting Notes | Pure and vivid, sweet-smelling compote, cooked apple, cherry, brown butter, and spice. This is a very generous wine and welcomes warmly with fruit aromas that integrate red and black fruits. Although there’s some of the whole-cluster savory flavor spectrum that prevails in the 2016 and 2018 vintages, its charms are more familiar. Relatively broad and full with lightly drying tannin.

2016 190 cases 12.3% Alc., 30 days in teacup, 20 months in barrel

HARVEST | This was the fifth year of drought conditions and the vines output was severely limited. A persistent summertime marine layer countered the dry soil in 2016 by wetting the leaves most nights and also dampening the tightly packed clusters, keeping the grapes plump and crisp. This in turn brought about humid conditions that Botrytis cinerea thrives in, and late season concern for moldy fruit compelled an early harvest. For the first year in barrel the wine lacked presence, but it slowly took on weight and the peppery signature of lower-ripeness came on. This vintage became a touchstone for how we understand the character of this site, and we’re emboldened to harvest less ripe fruit earlier in the season. 

Tasting Notes | Highly aromatic with savory herbs and compelling forest, mountain strawberry, and high tones of dried herbs, juniper, carraway, and Tellicherry pepper. The wine’s appeal isn’t power; instead it compels and beguiles with complex perfume. Vivid but not obvious. Such a high degree of complexity, as if the wine were more mature, yet it is still quite young and age-worthy. A lighter structure than 2015, 2017, and 2018.  

2015 181 cases 13.3% Alc., 20 days in teacup, 21 months in barrel

HARVEST | Fourth year of the drought. Small berries and clusters reflected the tough growing conditions, and harvest came two weeks earlier than usual due to the lack of soil moisture and heat. Whole cluster fermentations, which had begun to show their distinctive contribution to the unique expression of this site in the 2013 bottles and 2014 barrels, became the standard in 2015 that carries on through all subsequent vintages. Maceration was fairly short and pigéage played no role in 2015, allowing the wine to be supple and generous early. 

Tasting Notes | Savory, dried orange peel, sage, cured meat, tarragon, cherry. Lovely silky entry with plush mouthfeel while still elegant, fresh, long. In time, iron-like minerality and wild fermentation aromas emerge and mingle with the cherry, plum, strawberry fruits. An espresso-like bitterness on the finish tightens the wine up while the overall impression is generous and broad across the palate.

2014 362 cases, 13.7% Alc., 21 days in teacup, 20 months in barrel

HARVEST |Third year of drought, but we enjoyed eight inches of rain in February—the first precipitation of the season. The dry soils in January warmed in the winter sun rapidly and let to an early budbreak and bloom. Harvest started mid-August, which was disconcerting, but meant that the fruit would not have to risk enduring the typical heat and dry conditions that often present around Labor Day. With an early pick, the fruit was crunchy and just bursting with juice. The success of the whole-cluster macerations from 2013 had begun to be evident in the aging barrels, lending confidence to expanding the whole-cluster approach in 2014, with at more than two thirds of the vintage dodging the destemmer. Also, the barrel we favored in 2013, blonde-toasted French oak with only the most delicate presence, became the exclusive barrel for 2014, and ever after. 

Tasting Notes | Mixed red and black fruits in the aroma— pomegranate, cherry, plum—with a streak of citrus (blood orange) as well as sweet barrel toast. The wine is very primary and fresh with a hint of the savory aromas that show up strong in the more recent vintages. Smooth tannins integrate seamlessly with the fruit giving the wine weight and presence without aggressive structure.

2013 369 cases, 14.0% Alc., 15 days in teacup, 20 months in barrel

HARVEST | We began the work of reorienting the winemaking to suit the site in 2013, and this led to harvesting early, late, and three increments between. Without irrigation or tilling, the five- and six-year-old vines were not robust and vigor was modest at best. Young vines can do great things, and the wine is lovely, but it has no proud signature. The vines were not ready to make great wine. We open a bottle every six months or so, and see slowly-maturing flavors and anticipate soulfulness with age—it does appear to have a long future ahead. 

Tasting Notes | Expressive red fruits—mountain strawberry and raspberry followed by salt plum and a cinnamon barrel note. Silken fine tannin. Precise, delineated, and fresh. Although the savory character that is dominant in more recent vintages is present, it is secondary to the bright fruit.

2012 147 cases, 13.9% Alc., 13 days in teacup, 18 months in barrel

HARVEST | The first vintage after replanting the vineyard began in 2006—a small crop from young vines. Good fruit character, but little of the distinctive sense of place the wines would demonstrate with 2014 and subsequent vintages. This wine was made by destemming fruit picked well along the ripeness spectrum, and macerated with daily punchdowns. A very normal approach, but not tailored to the site. 

Tasting Notes | Dark-toned, bass note-dominant torrefaction aromas of roasted meats, coffee, chocolate with black fruit compote, spice, and toasted barrel. Round, smooth, and full tannins contribute to the sense of power and size. This first vintage from young vines has a distinct character that doesn’t appear in subsequent vintages.

The “S” in Grant’s name didn’t stand for anything.

Grant’s given name was actually Hiram Ulysses Grant, and the middle initial is a vestige of Congressman Thomas Hamer’s error when he accidentally wrote the future general’s name as ‘Ulysses S. Grant.’

U. S. Grant detested wearing army uniforms.

During his study at West Point, Grant received numerous demerits for his unkempt uniforms. His distaste for military attire continued even after he assumed command of the Union Army during the Civil War.

Mark Twain published U.S. Grant’s memoirs.

Grant began compiling his memoirs in the mid-1880s, Twain offered him a deal with his own publishing company. Just days before dying of cancer, Grant finished the book. Within the year, Twain had turned it into a best seller.