The most obvious character was the odor, and I suppose given how I thought that was distinct, that was probably my primary basis, but also used supporting traits. There were others in better shape that I didn’t pull out, but they all smelled like that, and were a similar deep purple with blackened center. I may have additional pictures. Not sure atm. There is an obvious pinkish blush to the stipe in several fruitbodies and that is shown here. Additionally, the gills were not white, from creamy whitish yellow to golden yellow brown. It didn’t seem acrid to me but I didn’t swallow it. One reason I used this as the picture was because I remembered this picture was referring to the observation described here; there may or may not be a couple images where I am not totally sure which observation they went with if that makes sense. I believe all I had written on here was about the odor, so I am confused about what you were saying in regards to notes. While I had felt comfortable with the ID, I certainly am open to the opinions of others and want to learn. What did you find to be inconsistent with members of the xerampelina group?
Unless I am mixed up, the “could be” suggestion is a sp in this complex that is known to be deep purple like this, rather common in CA and grow with Monterey Pine, but again I am not saying that is for sure the type that it is. I realize that I could not claim that it is for sure graveolens without a type specimen, but I merely suggested that it could be from the progression above, which seemed logical to me. Perhaps in this case I should have studied graveolens better before suggesting that it could be, but in general, if something fits and appears to be a logical choice, I don’t see what is wrong with proposing that it could be, even though it cannot be proven.

The photo shows mushrooms in very poor shape and your notes confirm this…