<a href="http://myplanetavino.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/rioja-san-vicente-2003-2004.jpg" title="Rioja San Vicnet ein 2 vintages"><img align="right" src="http://myplanetavino.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/rioja-san-vicente-2003-2004.jpg" alt="Rioja San Vicnet ein 2 vintages" /></a>Rioja Vino de Autor in Two Vintages:  San Vicente 2003 and 2004

Vintage Variation in Spain is not as extreme as it is in more northern climates, but it obviously still has a very real impact.  I was fortunate to try one of my favourite Vinos de Autor in two very different vintages. 

San Vicente was one of the original Vinos de Autor in Rioja, leading the way to the modern starting in 1991.  This was the first vine de terruño or terroir…a single vineyard wine made from the “ideal” vineyard as envisioned by the winemakers, the Eguren family.  As such it has become an icon and remaisn so today, despite the multiple vinos de autor that have proliferated recently.

What I most like about it is its very accessible price, 35 euros, in a time when 60-100 euros is more the norm for these top Rioja wines. 

We were fortunate enough to find this icon in two different vintages at a Bilbao restaurant, Serrantes.  The price was quite unbelievable: 34€ in a restaurant!  Was it a mistake?  I didn’t want to ask….

San Vicente 2003: 
The color is medium garnet with palish edges.
Moderately intense nose, with cherry fruit and major smoky and toasty notes….definitely showing some evolution. The mouth is very smooth…the fruit is not as pretty as in the nose…over-ripe nose, a little rusty.  Nice structure, ok acidity, smooth tannins and moderately long finish.  A nice wine, but not impressive.

San Vicente 2004:
Deep ruby with purple notes…much more intense than the 2003.
The nose opens up with air to be quite intense, with black cherry, vanilla, and anis notes…very youthful.  The mouth is fuller-bodied, with lively acidity and serious tannins.  The complex fruit takes time to come out…black fruit and spice.  Longer than the 2003, with intense tannins that could benefit from some bottle aging. 

Conclusions:  These wines were dramatically different.  The difference in age seemed much more than the one year vintage contrast. 
The 2003 really suffered in this comparison, though the 2004, recently released, could use a little more time in bottle. The 2003 tasted quite tired…especially after the 2004.  The 2003 is easier to drink right now…but it also tastes a little faded and tired.  Can’t wait to try the 2004 again in a few months.

I’ve expressed some concerns about the 2003 vintage throughout Spain and this tasting really confirmed it.  Due to the excessive heat of the vintage….the 2003s are initially attractive, with sweet, easy fruit and smooth tannins…but I’ve already found many of them tired and they seem to be evolving far too rapidly.  Certainly, there are few of the 2003s I’d lay down for any length of time. 

The 2004s, which was a much more balanced vintage, are intense and more complex, but can often be quite closed….often they need more time or air to be as drinkable.  Eventually the fruit that comes out is much fresher and attractive.