Because of all the high octane involved the debate on alcohol levels has flared to an even higher degree than usual. Here in the US it resurfaced when Darrell Corti of Corti Brothers, a retail store specializing “in rare and unique gourmet foods and fine wines" decided that he will no longer sell wines with alcohol above 14.5%. Others have jumped onto the band wagon including Robert Parker Jr.’ biographer, Elin McCoy. Even Ric Einstein (TORB) has posted on the subject.
Now Randy Dunn, of Dunn Vineyards, has added his personal opinion in a letter to the media in the US. Comments that include “The current fad of higher and higher alcohol wines should stop. Most wine drinkers do not really appreciate wines that are 15 -16. +% alcohol.” are clear, rational arguments against high alcohol wines; and if you believe that then there is this bridge I know about……..
The argument that wine should be below 14% in alcohol shows a lack of understanding of the buying public. Most wine is consumed within days of purchase, and only a small percentage of wine drinkers cellar wine for any length of time. More importantly even fewer have the facilities to correctly store wine for years; no, a cupboard in the kitchen is not the correct place. In my experience young wines that are full flavored and ready to drink are preferred to the youthful austerity (excess tannins and acid) of wines meant for aging. Its not surprising that most wine is rich and ripe in style, and its even less surprising for those wines to have higher alcohol.
To appreciate (non-dessert) wine of different alcohol levels all you need is a little commonsense. Earlier this week I drank a 1998 Cape d’Estaing Cabernet Sauvignon (Kangaroo Island, Australia). A beautiful wine that will live for many more years. The alcohol? Below 14%. Last night I opened a 2003 Carlisle Sonoma County Zinfandel that was bursting with flavors and palate appeal but not the 15.8% alcohol.
I wonder if any of the anti-high alcohol league have put their beliefs to the test? Has Dunn taken a group of wine drinkers and let them blind taste wines below 14% and above 15% to see which wines are favored? Darrell Corti’s store claims to “specialize in rare and unique gourmet foods and fine wines”. Does Corti have a program of educating the buying public by showing how the wines he sells match with the foods he sells? The fate of high alcohol wines in such contexts would be a useful contribution, as opposed to trying to force personal preference on the wine buying public.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Friday, July 13, 2007
Help, there is alcohol in my wine
The discussion of alcohol levels in wine rages on. It would be nice if there was unimpeachable evidence that high alcohol wines fail to please the drinking public, but I don’t see substantiation of that. If anything the reverse is true. What I do see are individuals trying to impose their personal preference on others. Darrell Corti is a good example with his statement that he will no longer sell wine with more than 14.5% alcohol. But Corti has been inconsistent, and his statement that "I made the rule, I can break it." highlights that inconsistency.
Elin McCoy, the writer of Robert Parker’s biography, has now stepped into the same fold with a piece in Bloomberg. She calls her dumping of a 15% alcohol Merlot down the drain a “personal rebellion against the latest wine-fashion craze”. I’m not sure I’d call increasing alcohol levels in wine the latest wine craze; its probably been going on for at least the last few decades. McCoy quotes the numbers herself, “In the Napa Valley, the average climbed to 14.8 percent in 2001 from 12.5 percent in 1971.” And I’ve noted a similar trend in the flagship Aussie Shiraz Penfold’s Grange over its 50+ year history.
Unlike Corti, McCoy does add to the argument in a constructive way by tasting a 2005 Amador County Syrah that Clark Smith had subjected to reverse osmosis to change the alcohol content. The resulting wines had alcohol levels of 15.4 percent (“seemed hot and super- rich”), 14.2 percent wine (“jammy, with a fresher nose and brighter flavors”), and 13.75 percent (“spicier, with fruit and leather notes, more Rhone in style”). Subjecting these wines to personal sensory evaluation is a worthwhile endeavor, and it’s a pity this was not done with a larger audience in a blinded fashion. The results would have been certain to be interesting.
There are no prizes for guessing that McCoy’s favorite alcohol modified Syrah was the 13.75% wine. But was she looking for the wine that gave her the most pleasure, or one that reminded her of a Rhone? Help me a little here, as an Australian who has lived in California for 20+ years I’m confused. Amador County is in California, right? That is part of the USA, correct? I thought the Rhone Valley was in France? Should Amador County Syrah be Rhonish in style? Amador County is divided into two appellations, Shenandoah Valley and Fiddletown. Amador County is Zinfandel territory, but it has been having success with Syrah. Shouldn’t they be allowed to develop their own style of Syrah?
The alcohol argument is unlikely to go away soon. We have all tasted low alcohol wines that have survived decades beautifully. But it’s a little early to be passing judgment on the longevity of high alcohol wines. I’ve got a bunch of Shiraz/Syrah from Australia and California sitting in my cellar waiting patiently for a decade or so to pass before I see if they have fallen to pieces. And therein lies the problem, I have to let them lie there rather then drink them sooner, like tonight! After all as one of the exponents of high alcohol wines Sparky Marquis of MollyDooker (and Shirvington, Parson's Flat, Henry's Drive, Marquis-Philips) says “People are always asking me, When should I drink this wine? How long should I cellar it?" "And you know what I say to them? I'm making another one next year! When should you drink it? How long will it take you to find a corkscrew?!! Or now that we're going screwcaps, How long will it take you to get a glass?!!"
Elin McCoy, the writer of Robert Parker’s biography, has now stepped into the same fold with a piece in Bloomberg. She calls her dumping of a 15% alcohol Merlot down the drain a “personal rebellion against the latest wine-fashion craze”. I’m not sure I’d call increasing alcohol levels in wine the latest wine craze; its probably been going on for at least the last few decades. McCoy quotes the numbers herself, “In the Napa Valley, the average climbed to 14.8 percent in 2001 from 12.5 percent in 1971.” And I’ve noted a similar trend in the flagship Aussie Shiraz Penfold’s Grange over its 50+ year history.
Unlike Corti, McCoy does add to the argument in a constructive way by tasting a 2005 Amador County Syrah that Clark Smith had subjected to reverse osmosis to change the alcohol content. The resulting wines had alcohol levels of 15.4 percent (“seemed hot and super- rich”), 14.2 percent wine (“jammy, with a fresher nose and brighter flavors”), and 13.75 percent (“spicier, with fruit and leather notes, more Rhone in style”). Subjecting these wines to personal sensory evaluation is a worthwhile endeavor, and it’s a pity this was not done with a larger audience in a blinded fashion. The results would have been certain to be interesting.
There are no prizes for guessing that McCoy’s favorite alcohol modified Syrah was the 13.75% wine. But was she looking for the wine that gave her the most pleasure, or one that reminded her of a Rhone? Help me a little here, as an Australian who has lived in California for 20+ years I’m confused. Amador County is in California, right? That is part of the USA, correct? I thought the Rhone Valley was in France? Should Amador County Syrah be Rhonish in style? Amador County is divided into two appellations, Shenandoah Valley and Fiddletown. Amador County is Zinfandel territory, but it has been having success with Syrah. Shouldn’t they be allowed to develop their own style of Syrah?
The alcohol argument is unlikely to go away soon. We have all tasted low alcohol wines that have survived decades beautifully. But it’s a little early to be passing judgment on the longevity of high alcohol wines. I’ve got a bunch of Shiraz/Syrah from Australia and California sitting in my cellar waiting patiently for a decade or so to pass before I see if they have fallen to pieces. And therein lies the problem, I have to let them lie there rather then drink them sooner, like tonight! After all as one of the exponents of high alcohol wines Sparky Marquis of MollyDooker (and Shirvington, Parson's Flat, Henry's Drive, Marquis-Philips) says “People are always asking me, When should I drink this wine? How long should I cellar it?" "And you know what I say to them? I'm making another one next year! When should you drink it? How long will it take you to find a corkscrew?!! Or now that we're going screwcaps, How long will it take you to get a glass?!!"
Monday, June 25, 2007
Do You Want To Be a Supertaster?
After reading Mike Steinberger’s third article on the physiology of the oenophile. No I’m pretty sure I don’t.
Some gems from the article:-
1) By far the biggest consumers of wine criticism are male Caucasians, who according to Bartoshuk are also disproportionately represented among nontasters—35 percent of white males fall into this category. So it could be that, from a purely demographic standpoint, the ideal wine critic would be a low-sensitivity taster. (Hanni suspects that some of the more prominent wine critics are indeed low-sensitivity tasters, given their fondness for heavily extracted, high alcohol wines.)
No prizes for guessing who that is directed at!
2) If biology were determinative, I, as a PROP nontaster, would probably enjoy those sweet, soupy, high-alcohol Australian Shirazes and might not think so kindly of light, acidic red Burgundies. In fact, I generally can't stomach the former and adore the latter. Something happened in my life that dictated these preferences, and it clearly wasn't the genes I was born with.
Some might call that wine snobbery, or even bias. But then both wine styles are unlikely to appeal to supertasters.
3) Sure, there is near-universal accord about what attributes a top wine should have—appealing aromatics, ripe fruit, good structure, a sense of harmony in the mouth and a long finish. But given how enormously varied individual palates seem to be, one wouldn't think that there would be much consensus regarding individual wines. However, the critics tend to agree about wines a lot more than they disagree.
If critics are more likely to be non-tasters that would help reach consensus! More likely critics look for the same objective qualities in wine.
Some gems from the article:-
1) By far the biggest consumers of wine criticism are male Caucasians, who according to Bartoshuk are also disproportionately represented among nontasters—35 percent of white males fall into this category. So it could be that, from a purely demographic standpoint, the ideal wine critic would be a low-sensitivity taster. (Hanni suspects that some of the more prominent wine critics are indeed low-sensitivity tasters, given their fondness for heavily extracted, high alcohol wines.)
No prizes for guessing who that is directed at!
2) If biology were determinative, I, as a PROP nontaster, would probably enjoy those sweet, soupy, high-alcohol Australian Shirazes and might not think so kindly of light, acidic red Burgundies. In fact, I generally can't stomach the former and adore the latter. Something happened in my life that dictated these preferences, and it clearly wasn't the genes I was born with.
Some might call that wine snobbery, or even bias. But then both wine styles are unlikely to appeal to supertasters.
3) Sure, there is near-universal accord about what attributes a top wine should have—appealing aromatics, ripe fruit, good structure, a sense of harmony in the mouth and a long finish. But given how enormously varied individual palates seem to be, one wouldn't think that there would be much consensus regarding individual wines. However, the critics tend to agree about wines a lot more than they disagree.
If critics are more likely to be non-tasters that would help reach consensus! More likely critics look for the same objective qualities in wine.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Darrell Corti Gives Himself an Out
Mike Dunne, Food Editor for the Sacramento Bee, has written on the terrible things being said in cyberspace about Sacramento grocer Darrell Corti. However it’s the last part of the article that is the most telling.
For the most part, once table wines with more than 14.5 percent alcohol are off his shelves, they won't be replaced.
But he isn't necessarily bolting the cellar door to all table wines over 14.5 percent alcohol, even aside from traditional exceptions. He acknowledges that a table wine with more than 14.5 percent alcohol can be balanced and graceful.
"If I'm served one and I like it, I might buy it, but I won't go looking for one. I'm always open to anything," Corti says.
Isn't he being a bit contradictory? "Life is a contradiction," Corti says. "I made the rule, I can break it."
Darrell Corti seems to like having things both ways. His stance truly does have the appearance of a storm in a very, very small cup. And if he keeps contradicting himself, it will blow itself out very quickly. Could all this contradiction be explained by the voting in the poll on Dave Chambers blog that has revealed that greater than 50% of respondents don’t pay much attention to alcohol levels when they buy wine?
Mr Corti’s store claims to "specialize in rare and unique gourmet foods and fine wines", so here is a suggestion for Mr Corti. Why not begin a program of educating the buying public by showing how the wines you sell match with the foods you sell? The fate of high alcohol wines in that context would be a more useful contribution to this topic than making rules so that they can be broken.
For the most part, once table wines with more than 14.5 percent alcohol are off his shelves, they won't be replaced.
But he isn't necessarily bolting the cellar door to all table wines over 14.5 percent alcohol, even aside from traditional exceptions. He acknowledges that a table wine with more than 14.5 percent alcohol can be balanced and graceful.
"If I'm served one and I like it, I might buy it, but I won't go looking for one. I'm always open to anything," Corti says.
Isn't he being a bit contradictory? "Life is a contradiction," Corti says. "I made the rule, I can break it."
Darrell Corti seems to like having things both ways. His stance truly does have the appearance of a storm in a very, very small cup. And if he keeps contradicting himself, it will blow itself out very quickly. Could all this contradiction be explained by the voting in the poll on Dave Chambers blog that has revealed that greater than 50% of respondents don’t pay much attention to alcohol levels when they buy wine?
Mr Corti’s store claims to "specialize in rare and unique gourmet foods and fine wines", so here is a suggestion for Mr Corti. Why not begin a program of educating the buying public by showing how the wines you sell match with the foods you sell? The fate of high alcohol wines in that context would be a more useful contribution to this topic than making rules so that they can be broken.
The Physiology of a Wine Taster
At Shiraz I have posted a number of times on the difficulties that are inherent in wine tasting and on the concept of palate calibration. The physiology of taste and smell are fascinating areas of study and every wine drinker should have at least a rudimentary understanding of some of the evolving concepts.
Mike Steinberger, a contributor to Slate, has begun a set of three article on the physiology of the oenophile. First, he examines the question: Do you taste what I taste? Then he will be tested to see whether he's a "supertaster." And finally, he'll look at whether being a supertaster helps in the evaluation of wine. Those interested in the basic concepts behind taste and smell should find these articles of interest.
The first article "Do You Taste What I Taste?" makes some important points that are often overlooked (unknown?) among wine drinkers. For example
Those of us who review wines do so in the belief that our evaluations, while obviously subjective, are of some value to consumers. But a growing body of scientific evidence suggests that taste perceptions may be even more individualistic and idiosyncratic than previously imagined—and if our noses and tongues all operate on such different wavelengths, then who's to say what's good or bad?
and,
Wysocki handed me a plastic tube holding a clear liquid and asked me to take a whiff; I couldn't smell a thing. The liquid contained andostenone, a mammalian pheromone found in boar saliva. In a random sampling of 100 people, around half will detect nothing, 15 or so will smell an inoffensive musky-floral-woody aroma, and the rest will be thoroughly repulsed by a liquid that, to them, reeks of stale urine or particularly nasty body odor.
and,
It was less encouraging to discover how easily the nose can be led astray by the eyes. For his next stupid human trick, Wysocki produced two jars, one labeled "Food," the other "Body." I was told to sniff each. I actually was one of the few people not fooled by the experiment: I said both jars smelled like vomit. In fact, both jars contained the same chemical compound, butyric acid, which can be perceived as vomit but also as perspiration or Parmesan cheese. Wysocki told me he often conducts this test at seminars and that, on average, 60 percent of the people in the room will claim they enjoy the aroma in the "Food" jar, with most saying it's redolent of Parmesan cheese; but when he asks if anyone found the "Body" jar pleasant, no hands go up—the participants invariably claim that it smells of puke or body odor.
Mike Steinberger, a contributor to Slate, has begun a set of three article on the physiology of the oenophile. First, he examines the question: Do you taste what I taste? Then he will be tested to see whether he's a "supertaster." And finally, he'll look at whether being a supertaster helps in the evaluation of wine. Those interested in the basic concepts behind taste and smell should find these articles of interest.
The first article "Do You Taste What I Taste?" makes some important points that are often overlooked (unknown?) among wine drinkers. For example
Those of us who review wines do so in the belief that our evaluations, while obviously subjective, are of some value to consumers. But a growing body of scientific evidence suggests that taste perceptions may be even more individualistic and idiosyncratic than previously imagined—and if our noses and tongues all operate on such different wavelengths, then who's to say what's good or bad?
and,
Wysocki handed me a plastic tube holding a clear liquid and asked me to take a whiff; I couldn't smell a thing. The liquid contained andostenone, a mammalian pheromone found in boar saliva. In a random sampling of 100 people, around half will detect nothing, 15 or so will smell an inoffensive musky-floral-woody aroma, and the rest will be thoroughly repulsed by a liquid that, to them, reeks of stale urine or particularly nasty body odor.
and,
It was less encouraging to discover how easily the nose can be led astray by the eyes. For his next stupid human trick, Wysocki produced two jars, one labeled "Food," the other "Body." I was told to sniff each. I actually was one of the few people not fooled by the experiment: I said both jars smelled like vomit. In fact, both jars contained the same chemical compound, butyric acid, which can be perceived as vomit but also as perspiration or Parmesan cheese. Wysocki told me he often conducts this test at seminars and that, on average, 60 percent of the people in the room will claim they enjoy the aroma in the "Food" jar, with most saying it's redolent of Parmesan cheese; but when he asks if anyone found the "Body" jar pleasant, no hands go up—the participants invariably claim that it smells of puke or body odor.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
The Great Decanting Experiment – Wine #9
If a big, fruity Pinot Noir from Carneros is adversely affected by aeration I wonder what happens to a Burgundy. I’m not going to open anything special just a Premier Cru (also denoted as 1er Cru) from Mercurey in the Côte Chalonnaise. There are something like 30 vineyards that are designated Premier Cru in Mercurey. I would have preferred for it to have been a Faiveley, but we can’t have everything.
Wine #9 2005 Mercurey 1er Cru, Clos des Montaigus, Domaine Patrick Size, Burgundy, France: ($13.99USD, 375ml), 13% alcohol.
One bottle was splash decanted and the other left unopen; both in the cellar at 56 degree F. After 3 hours the second bottle was opened and the two wines poured randomly into three marked opaque glasses while I was out of the room.
Glass A: Subtle but attractive notes of cherry and anise. Medium weight with very soft (velvety) entry and nice flavor carry. Finishes with a touch of astringency and slightly sour acidity.
Glass B: Very closed, almost nothing. Faint cherry, grapey notes over a trace of anise. Did open with time. Nicely balanced with nice acidity and a soft and supple presence on the palate, finishing with firm tannins.
Glass C: As for glass A with an additional herbal note. On the palate, very much like glass A with nice juicy acidity and softer astringency than glass B.
My opinion: B is from the decanter, A and C are from the bottle.
Reality: A and B are from the decanter, C is from the bottle.
Conclusion: This wine was tasted on June 6th, and I’ve been reluctant to post the assessment for several reasons. First, my success with 2003 Robert Stemmler Carneros Pinot Noir made me confident, perhaps too confident, that I was correct in identifying which glass held the decanted Burgundy. Unrewarded expectations can be a real insult to the ego! Second, and more importantly, this wine did not taste like a Pinot Noir; there was no varietal definition at all. It is not a wine that I would recommend. But then this decanting experiment is not about my ego (well not yet!) and its not about identifying wines that I would recommend. The purpose is to see if aeration influences the flavor profile and taste of wine. So here is another wine that is not affected by a good dose of exposure to air.
There is one concern. Is there a problem with glass B? To reduce the number of variables I’ve kept the same labels on the three glasses and so its possible that a problem with the glasses might be affecting the outcome of these comparisons. For 4 of the 9 wines tested glass B has revealed less aroma and bouquet than either glasses A and C. Not enough of a difference to say that glass B has some sort of fault. I’ll keep the order the same until a dozen wines have been examined, and then I’ll do reshuffle because I do have six of these glasses.
Score: Wines tested 9, Decanters 0, Non-decanters 2.
Wine #9 2005 Mercurey 1er Cru, Clos des Montaigus, Domaine Patrick Size, Burgundy, France: ($13.99USD, 375ml), 13% alcohol.
One bottle was splash decanted and the other left unopen; both in the cellar at 56 degree F. After 3 hours the second bottle was opened and the two wines poured randomly into three marked opaque glasses while I was out of the room.
Glass A: Subtle but attractive notes of cherry and anise. Medium weight with very soft (velvety) entry and nice flavor carry. Finishes with a touch of astringency and slightly sour acidity.
Glass B: Very closed, almost nothing. Faint cherry, grapey notes over a trace of anise. Did open with time. Nicely balanced with nice acidity and a soft and supple presence on the palate, finishing with firm tannins.
Glass C: As for glass A with an additional herbal note. On the palate, very much like glass A with nice juicy acidity and softer astringency than glass B.
My opinion: B is from the decanter, A and C are from the bottle.
Reality: A and B are from the decanter, C is from the bottle.
Conclusion: This wine was tasted on June 6th, and I’ve been reluctant to post the assessment for several reasons. First, my success with 2003 Robert Stemmler Carneros Pinot Noir made me confident, perhaps too confident, that I was correct in identifying which glass held the decanted Burgundy. Unrewarded expectations can be a real insult to the ego! Second, and more importantly, this wine did not taste like a Pinot Noir; there was no varietal definition at all. It is not a wine that I would recommend. But then this decanting experiment is not about my ego (well not yet!) and its not about identifying wines that I would recommend. The purpose is to see if aeration influences the flavor profile and taste of wine. So here is another wine that is not affected by a good dose of exposure to air.
There is one concern. Is there a problem with glass B? To reduce the number of variables I’ve kept the same labels on the three glasses and so its possible that a problem with the glasses might be affecting the outcome of these comparisons. For 4 of the 9 wines tested glass B has revealed less aroma and bouquet than either glasses A and C. Not enough of a difference to say that glass B has some sort of fault. I’ll keep the order the same until a dozen wines have been examined, and then I’ll do reshuffle because I do have six of these glasses.
Score: Wines tested 9, Decanters 0, Non-decanters 2.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Voting on Alcohol in Wine
I get lots of email that I just ignore, but the title of a missive from Dave Chambers of the SidewaysWineClub.com caught my attention today. “Michael, are you drinking less high-alcohol wine?” No, Dave I’m not Darrell Corti, I drink a lot of wine that is over 14.5% alcohol.
Who is Darrell Corti? He’s a retailer who has decided that he will no longer sell wines with alcohol above 14.5%. That’s table wine, not dessert wine. Oh, and not Italian Amarone either. Why? Because Amarones are made to be 16.5%. At least that’s Darrell’s excuse, and he’s sticking to it. Any other exceptions Darrell? Only if one of his best customers asks for a Carlisle Zinfandel, wines that are certainly not below 14.5%. Then his company will contact Mike Officer of Carlisle and try to buy the wine. Fortunately for Darrell Mike reminded Corti Bros that they can’t buy his Zinfandels because they are all above 14.5%.
Unfortunately Corti has no real control over what happens.
1) He can't control what alcohol is actually in the wine by what's on the label. The labeling of alcohol content allows 1% variation, over or under, on wines above 14% of alcohol content by volume, and a 1.5% variation, over or under, on wines below 14% alcohol by volume. So a 14.5% wine could be a 15.5% wine, and a 13.9% wine could be a 15.4%er. So just how is Darrell Corti going to determine what is above 14.5%? By what is on the label or in the bottle?
2) He can't control what critics will say about wines. For example Parker loves the Molly Dooker wines of Sarah and Sparky Marquis. These are not alcohol shy wines (the label says 16.5%, but Sparky admits its something like 17.2%) but their wines sold out in 21 days in the USA last year.
3) He can’t control what wine drinkers will buy, except in his own shop.
4) He’s inconsistent. His excuse for selling Amarone over 16.5% is that they are made to be like that. Well, news flash, big fruity, full flavored wines have high alcohol, even without being dried out. And, unless I’m mistaken, much of the wine buying public seems to like wines with plenty of flavor.
Darrell Corti's decision is really only likely to affect those who buy wine from Corti Bros. And as they list less than 30 wines on their web site I doubt that internet sales are a large part of their business. So for the majority of the wine world, I predict, this will be a storm in a tea cup. Changing the wine buying publics' acceptance of high alcohol wines requires more than retailers saying they won't sell them.
Want to express your opinion on what I think is a really silly retailing decision? Head off to Dave Chambers blog, and VOTE! No prizes for guessing that I voted for the last choice.
Who is Darrell Corti? He’s a retailer who has decided that he will no longer sell wines with alcohol above 14.5%. That’s table wine, not dessert wine. Oh, and not Italian Amarone either. Why? Because Amarones are made to be 16.5%. At least that’s Darrell’s excuse, and he’s sticking to it. Any other exceptions Darrell? Only if one of his best customers asks for a Carlisle Zinfandel, wines that are certainly not below 14.5%. Then his company will contact Mike Officer of Carlisle and try to buy the wine. Fortunately for Darrell Mike reminded Corti Bros that they can’t buy his Zinfandels because they are all above 14.5%.
Unfortunately Corti has no real control over what happens.
1) He can't control what alcohol is actually in the wine by what's on the label. The labeling of alcohol content allows 1% variation, over or under, on wines above 14% of alcohol content by volume, and a 1.5% variation, over or under, on wines below 14% alcohol by volume. So a 14.5% wine could be a 15.5% wine, and a 13.9% wine could be a 15.4%er. So just how is Darrell Corti going to determine what is above 14.5%? By what is on the label or in the bottle?
2) He can't control what critics will say about wines. For example Parker loves the Molly Dooker wines of Sarah and Sparky Marquis. These are not alcohol shy wines (the label says 16.5%, but Sparky admits its something like 17.2%) but their wines sold out in 21 days in the USA last year.
3) He can’t control what wine drinkers will buy, except in his own shop.
4) He’s inconsistent. His excuse for selling Amarone over 16.5% is that they are made to be like that. Well, news flash, big fruity, full flavored wines have high alcohol, even without being dried out. And, unless I’m mistaken, much of the wine buying public seems to like wines with plenty of flavor.
Darrell Corti's decision is really only likely to affect those who buy wine from Corti Bros. And as they list less than 30 wines on their web site I doubt that internet sales are a large part of their business. So for the majority of the wine world, I predict, this will be a storm in a tea cup. Changing the wine buying publics' acceptance of high alcohol wines requires more than retailers saying they won't sell them.
Want to express your opinion on what I think is a really silly retailing decision? Head off to Dave Chambers blog, and VOTE! No prizes for guessing that I voted for the last choice.
Friday, June 15, 2007
W. Blake Gray, A Chronicle Staff Writer in Need of an Education in Wine Scoring
It happens all too frequently, and I’m only too happy to point it out. Yet another journalist has written on the 100 point scoring system and given all the credit for its creation to Robert Parker, Jr. In his article titled “Are ratings pointless? The highs -- and lows -- of the 100-point scale.” W. Blake Gray, a Staff Writer for the San Francisco Chronicle, states “The 100-point rating scale, created by wine critic Robert M. Parker Jr. in the mid-1970s, was a great innovation that has done a world of good for wine lovers.”
I’m sure that Parker does wish he had created the 100 point scoring system. But, as has been noted on this blog before, all Parker did was develop his own version of a 100 point scoring system. The use of 100 points to score wines had been in use for a quarter of a century before Robert Parker, Jr. came on the scene.
When will we see an article by someone who actually knows what they are talking about?
I’m sure that Parker does wish he had created the 100 point scoring system. But, as has been noted on this blog before, all Parker did was develop his own version of a 100 point scoring system. The use of 100 points to score wines had been in use for a quarter of a century before Robert Parker, Jr. came on the scene.
When will we see an article by someone who actually knows what they are talking about?
Thursday, June 07, 2007
Sparky Marquis, the Steve Irwin of Australian Wine
In early May the Wine Press Club of NSW (Australia) gathered a panel of five speakers for a range of presentations and a forum discussion on marketing wine. The forum was moderated by Darren Jahn, President, Wine Press Club of NSW, and the speakers included: Phil Sexton (Giant Steps and Innocent Bystander Wines), Mark Kehoe (Grays Online Auctions), Bert Werden (WineStar), Sam Willard (Cellarforce) and Sparky Marquis (Molly Dooker Wines).
The edited transcript can be downloaded. The whole document is worth reading. But, with a little imagination, the stream of consciousness from Sparky Marquis is as close to wine comedy as I’ve read.
On Marquis Philips – we started Marquis Philips which went from, in its first year 2001 was 8,000 cases and by the time we sold the company in 2004 we were 120,000 so we went from 8,000 to 120,000 cases in three years. We, mind you I think we only got paid six bucks for that company. Anyway, that’s how business goes.
On drinking Mollydooker wines, while pouring it over a fellow forum member’s head - This is 2006 vintage. We bottled this on Friday right? (Sorry ‘bout that Sam). Right. OK. I just poured it all over his forehead. Sorry about that mate. What we tell people is if you’re going to drink our wine straight away, pour a little bit out, don’t pour it all over the table because you’ve wasted some then and you’re going to have to lick that up later on, right? Pour a little bit out, stick your finger in the top. Always treat our wines gently. (Shakes the bottle madly) Never rough ‘em up. Never worry about, I mean you have to very careful when you treat our wines. Pull your finger, see that? Did you see that? This here, the froth on the top, is nitrogen. If you think about – I’m trying to be careful of Sam’s notes and phone here right at the moment. Hold that Sam.
On selling Mollydooker wines - We released our website in the US the other day called ‘Buy Molly Dooker’ because the number one response after we sold out in 21 days last year was ‘Where the heck can I buy Molly Dooker’. So we bought the website called ‘Buy Molly Dooker’. We put an e-commerce business on it, exactly the same as Bert was talking about - it cost us 300 bucks. It cost us more for the SSL certificate whatever that is – just so we could put https, not just http on our website. I don’t understand what means right? And we sold $1 million worth of wine. Not pre-order. Paid for in our bank account in fourteen days. We expect to sell $5 million over the next couple of days of wine from our direct website in the US but we expect to sell $15 million through our retail friends, our restaurants, the guys that we are going to back 100% to support.
On wine show medals versus critics points - I don’t know. It’s hard to say. For us, you know, we have always been about putting our wines out there and having them judged by whoever is prepared to judge them. What we found in the wine shows is that the direction of the wine shows tends to be with, OK let’s go with finesse or lift or whatever, rather than just something you enjoy, and but in so saying, we tasted with Campbell Mattinson the other day and we showed him – I mean like, I mean you think about it, like the Molly Dooker that we’ve got up there is, I think we say 16.5 on the label but it’s something like 17.2% alcohol. And you don’t know that for the first four glasses but on the fifth glass you certainly do. And you know, I think that the wine, the show judging has gone a little bit into ‘What should we judge to be the great wines’ as opposed to ‘What do I enjoy drinking?’ and for me, everything’s been about what I enjoy drinking. Not what would I taste but what would I drink the whole bottle of …or at least give it a fair shot a drinking the whole bottle of, and then drink the rest the next morning for breakfast because I start drinking at eight o’clock every morning so it’s alright for me.
The edited transcript can be downloaded. The whole document is worth reading. But, with a little imagination, the stream of consciousness from Sparky Marquis is as close to wine comedy as I’ve read.
On Marquis Philips – we started Marquis Philips which went from, in its first year 2001 was 8,000 cases and by the time we sold the company in 2004 we were 120,000 so we went from 8,000 to 120,000 cases in three years. We, mind you I think we only got paid six bucks for that company. Anyway, that’s how business goes.
On drinking Mollydooker wines, while pouring it over a fellow forum member’s head - This is 2006 vintage. We bottled this on Friday right? (Sorry ‘bout that Sam). Right. OK. I just poured it all over his forehead. Sorry about that mate. What we tell people is if you’re going to drink our wine straight away, pour a little bit out, don’t pour it all over the table because you’ve wasted some then and you’re going to have to lick that up later on, right? Pour a little bit out, stick your finger in the top. Always treat our wines gently. (Shakes the bottle madly) Never rough ‘em up. Never worry about, I mean you have to very careful when you treat our wines. Pull your finger, see that? Did you see that? This here, the froth on the top, is nitrogen. If you think about – I’m trying to be careful of Sam’s notes and phone here right at the moment. Hold that Sam.
On selling Mollydooker wines - We released our website in the US the other day called ‘Buy Molly Dooker’ because the number one response after we sold out in 21 days last year was ‘Where the heck can I buy Molly Dooker’. So we bought the website called ‘Buy Molly Dooker’. We put an e-commerce business on it, exactly the same as Bert was talking about - it cost us 300 bucks. It cost us more for the SSL certificate whatever that is – just so we could put https, not just http on our website. I don’t understand what means right? And we sold $1 million worth of wine. Not pre-order. Paid for in our bank account in fourteen days. We expect to sell $5 million over the next couple of days of wine from our direct website in the US but we expect to sell $15 million through our retail friends, our restaurants, the guys that we are going to back 100% to support.
On wine show medals versus critics points - I don’t know. It’s hard to say. For us, you know, we have always been about putting our wines out there and having them judged by whoever is prepared to judge them. What we found in the wine shows is that the direction of the wine shows tends to be with, OK let’s go with finesse or lift or whatever, rather than just something you enjoy, and but in so saying, we tasted with Campbell Mattinson the other day and we showed him – I mean like, I mean you think about it, like the Molly Dooker that we’ve got up there is, I think we say 16.5 on the label but it’s something like 17.2% alcohol. And you don’t know that for the first four glasses but on the fifth glass you certainly do. And you know, I think that the wine, the show judging has gone a little bit into ‘What should we judge to be the great wines’ as opposed to ‘What do I enjoy drinking?’ and for me, everything’s been about what I enjoy drinking. Not what would I taste but what would I drink the whole bottle of …or at least give it a fair shot a drinking the whole bottle of, and then drink the rest the next morning for breakfast because I start drinking at eight o’clock every morning so it’s alright for me.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
The Great Decanting Experiment – Wine #8
For the next wine let’s go back to South Australia, to McLaren Vale and d’Arenberg’s The Dead Arm Shiraz. I’ve been able to source half bottles from 2002, one of the stellar vintages in recent years. The Dead Arm is partially barrel fermented before further maturation in American and French oak for around 20-22 months. It’s a blockbuster Shiraz style that has only been in bottle for a little over three years. Surely it needs some air, or does it?
Wine #8 2002 d’Arenberg The Dead Arm Shiraz, McLaren Vale, South Australia ($30.99USD, 375ml), 14.5% alcohol.
One bottle was splash decanted and the other left unopen; both in the cellar at 56 degree F. After 2 hours and 15 minutes the second bottle was opened and the two wines poured randomly into three marked opaque glasses while I was out of the room.
Glass A: A potpourri of stewed fruits over very ripe blueberry, toffee, coffee and olives. Full bodied, with big, firm tannins. Not a lot of flavor carry but well structured.
Glass B: As for glass A, not quite as open but more of a toasted aroma. Very much like glass A on the palate, but with more evident acidity.
Glass C: Quite like glass B in not being as open as glass A and again there is the presence of a toasted aroma. Palate as for glass B.
My opinion: A is from the bottle and B and C are from the decanter.
Reality: A is from the bottle and B and C are from the decanter.
Conclusion: While I’ve tasted better wines from the 2002 vintage, The Dead Arm is still really a baby and needs its rest; at least another 5 years. But if you do open a bottle what it doesn’t need is to sit in a decanter waiting for you to drink it. But then perhaps you prefer toasted, smoky notes that detract from more attractive fruit aromas? Do you think that d'Arenberg know something when they say of The Dead Arm Serve after decanting as an older wine.
Score: Wines tested 8, Decanters 0, Non-decanters 2.
Wine #8 2002 d’Arenberg The Dead Arm Shiraz, McLaren Vale, South Australia ($30.99USD, 375ml), 14.5% alcohol.
One bottle was splash decanted and the other left unopen; both in the cellar at 56 degree F. After 2 hours and 15 minutes the second bottle was opened and the two wines poured randomly into three marked opaque glasses while I was out of the room.
Glass A: A potpourri of stewed fruits over very ripe blueberry, toffee, coffee and olives. Full bodied, with big, firm tannins. Not a lot of flavor carry but well structured.
Glass B: As for glass A, not quite as open but more of a toasted aroma. Very much like glass A on the palate, but with more evident acidity.
Glass C: Quite like glass B in not being as open as glass A and again there is the presence of a toasted aroma. Palate as for glass B.
My opinion: A is from the bottle and B and C are from the decanter.
Reality: A is from the bottle and B and C are from the decanter.
Conclusion: While I’ve tasted better wines from the 2002 vintage, The Dead Arm is still really a baby and needs its rest; at least another 5 years. But if you do open a bottle what it doesn’t need is to sit in a decanter waiting for you to drink it. But then perhaps you prefer toasted, smoky notes that detract from more attractive fruit aromas? Do you think that d'Arenberg know something when they say of The Dead Arm Serve after decanting as an older wine.
Score: Wines tested 8, Decanters 0, Non-decanters 2.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Wine Aerators
It is a well acknowledged fact that wine tastes better after proper aeration. Aeration releases the delicate aromas of wine as well as improving the flavor of the wine. Fine Wine Toys
While I may not believe that statement, there is an industry out there producing gadgets for those who do, and some of it is pretty weird stuff.
There is the deSign Wine Aerator which comes in both bottle and wine glass sizes. All you do is insert the aerator into the wine and squeeze the bulb at the top to bubble your wines with air. And voilà, you have a nice head of foam, well for a few seconds anyway. I’m tempted to buy one just to show that this is very, very unlikely to do anything to wine, apart from adding a few bubbles.
If the deSign Wine Aerator sounds fishy, its got nothing on the Sea-riffic Pewter Aerators. At $30 each the puffer fish, sea horse, and octopus are used by inserting one of them into the mouth of a decanter and then pouring the wine over the aerator. I imagine you also get a good deal of foam with this method as well.
And if you really want to pump-it-up then there is the Air au Vin Wine Breather. Its been recommended by the BBC's Food and Drink programme, so it must work!
What ever happened to giving your decanter a good swirl a few times, if you are into that type of thing!
While I may not believe that statement, there is an industry out there producing gadgets for those who do, and some of it is pretty weird stuff.
There is the deSign Wine Aerator which comes in both bottle and wine glass sizes. All you do is insert the aerator into the wine and squeeze the bulb at the top to bubble your wines with air. And voilà, you have a nice head of foam, well for a few seconds anyway. I’m tempted to buy one just to show that this is very, very unlikely to do anything to wine, apart from adding a few bubbles.
If the deSign Wine Aerator sounds fishy, its got nothing on the Sea-riffic Pewter Aerators. At $30 each the puffer fish, sea horse, and octopus are used by inserting one of them into the mouth of a decanter and then pouring the wine over the aerator. I imagine you also get a good deal of foam with this method as well.
And if you really want to pump-it-up then there is the Air au Vin Wine Breather. Its been recommended by the BBC's Food and Drink programme, so it must work!
What ever happened to giving your decanter a good swirl a few times, if you are into that type of thing!
Monday, May 21, 2007
Wine Decanting – A scientific approach?
Eric Asimov of The Pour wine blog has approached his wine decanting in an interesting way, by using Erlenmeyer and volumetric flasks from a scientific supply house.
We have a bunch of these lying around the lab, maybe I should use some because Eric states that Most people rarely think of decanting white wines, but I’ve become a big proponent of this. Almost any good young white wine will be very tight when poured directly from the bottle. Decanting will not do the job of five years of aging, but the air absorbed by the wine as it is transferred to the vessel helps to unclench flavors and aromas.
Maybe the reason why all of the white wines that I have tested so far have not benefited from aeration by decanting is because I’m using the wrong decanter glassware!
We have a bunch of these lying around the lab, maybe I should use some because Eric states that Most people rarely think of decanting white wines, but I’ve become a big proponent of this. Almost any good young white wine will be very tight when poured directly from the bottle. Decanting will not do the job of five years of aging, but the air absorbed by the wine as it is transferred to the vessel helps to unclench flavors and aromas.
Maybe the reason why all of the white wines that I have tested so far have not benefited from aeration by decanting is because I’m using the wrong decanter glassware!
Thursday, May 17, 2007
The Great Decanting Experiment – Wine #7
Its not proving easy to find wines that benefit from a few hours in a decanter. OK, so only six wines have been tested so far and there would be serious debate as to whether some of them are true contenders for the title of “A wine that benefits from decanting”. So with the next wine let’s go BIG! The dogma is that young, big wines, with plenty of tannin, need some time in a decanter to calm down their belligerent tendencies; I don’t know why but that brought to mind an image of Paris Hilton after 45 days in jail!
Let’s go back to Napa, to the Robert Biale Vineyards, and taste their 2005 Napa Ranches Zinfandel. Biale is a highly regarded Zinfandel producer, and with hardly any time at all in the bottle, and almost 16% alcohol, the Napa Ranches is young and hot - a Paris Hilton wine? It should really be confined to a cold, dark place for years but let’s see if a little air might temper it.
Wine #7 2005 Robert Biale Vineyards Napa Ranches Zinfandel ($19.99USD, 375ml), 15.9% alcohol.
One bottle was splash decanted and the other left unopen; both in the cellar at 56 degree F. After 2 hours the second bottle was opened and the two wines poured randomly into three marked opaque glasses while I was out of the room.
Glass A: Very aromatic. Smoky oak, blackberry and an aroma approaching violets. Very attractive. Entry is very soft, almost silky with good balance and carry of flavors. Finish is carried by firm tannins. The alcohol is hidden extremely well
Glass B: Less open, with burnt, tarry notes. In the mouth the wine is very similar to glass A, but has a little more astringency.
Glass C: Aromas are as for glass A. In the mouth the wine is the same as glass B
My opinion: Glass B is from the decanter and glasses A and C from the bottle.
Reality: A and B are from the decanter, and C is from the bottle.
Conclusion: Can I change my hypothesis? No, we haven’t even gone through a dozen wines. I could turn this around. After all Paris won’t be spending 45 days in jail, so anything is possible. But decanting, at least for 2 hours, has had little effect on most of the wines tested so far, and the outlook is for more of the same. The next wine is another Aussie Shiraz and I’m tempted to double decant it and then leave it for 24 hours. Why? Well that’s what one wine retailer does with Aussie Shiraz, so why not? On second thought, no. We will stick with the current format for a few more wines.
Score: Wines tested 7, Decanters 0, Non-decanters 1.
Let’s go back to Napa, to the Robert Biale Vineyards, and taste their 2005 Napa Ranches Zinfandel. Biale is a highly regarded Zinfandel producer, and with hardly any time at all in the bottle, and almost 16% alcohol, the Napa Ranches is young and hot - a Paris Hilton wine? It should really be confined to a cold, dark place for years but let’s see if a little air might temper it.
Wine #7 2005 Robert Biale Vineyards Napa Ranches Zinfandel ($19.99USD, 375ml), 15.9% alcohol.
One bottle was splash decanted and the other left unopen; both in the cellar at 56 degree F. After 2 hours the second bottle was opened and the two wines poured randomly into three marked opaque glasses while I was out of the room.
Glass A: Very aromatic. Smoky oak, blackberry and an aroma approaching violets. Very attractive. Entry is very soft, almost silky with good balance and carry of flavors. Finish is carried by firm tannins. The alcohol is hidden extremely well
Glass B: Less open, with burnt, tarry notes. In the mouth the wine is very similar to glass A, but has a little more astringency.
Glass C: Aromas are as for glass A. In the mouth the wine is the same as glass B
My opinion: Glass B is from the decanter and glasses A and C from the bottle.
Reality: A and B are from the decanter, and C is from the bottle.
Conclusion: Can I change my hypothesis? No, we haven’t even gone through a dozen wines. I could turn this around. After all Paris won’t be spending 45 days in jail, so anything is possible. But decanting, at least for 2 hours, has had little effect on most of the wines tested so far, and the outlook is for more of the same. The next wine is another Aussie Shiraz and I’m tempted to double decant it and then leave it for 24 hours. Why? Well that’s what one wine retailer does with Aussie Shiraz, so why not? On second thought, no. We will stick with the current format for a few more wines.
Score: Wines tested 7, Decanters 0, Non-decanters 1.
Saturday, May 12, 2007
The Great Decanting Experiment – Wine #6
Lets try another 2003 Chardonnay, but this tine we’ll head off to Burgundy to the village of Chassagne-Montrachet, in the south of the Côte de Beaune. Flanked on either side by the appellations of Meursault and Puligny-Montrachet, the vineyards that go to make up the Louis Latour Chassagne-Montrachet Blanc produce wines that are fat and opulent with tropical fruit aromas. The 2003 has now spent some 3 years in bottle, still a little young but it should be revealing some of its character by now.
Should you decant such wines? Well over on Waitrose.com they suggest that a “big, barrel-fermented chardonnay can benefit from some air”. The reason? To get rid of overtly oaky flavours. A problem here is that wines that have undergone malolactic fermentation, apart from having less crisp acidity and greater palate weight, have better integration of fruit and oak character. Aeration by decanting didn’t really work at all for the Talbott, did it? The Louis Latour has had “100% malolactic fermentation followed by 8 to 10 months ageing in oak casks” so there is a question as to whether it will benefit from aeration. But Waitrose.com also has this quote - "I often ask our customers whether they would like a white burgundy decanted because oxygenation improves its aromas," says Claude Douard, sommelier at London restaurant Mirabelle. So this time I’ll leave the wines at cellar temperature during the decanting period and we’ll see if differences in smell and taste are more evident as the wines warm during the tasting comparison.
Wine #6 2003 Louis Latour Chassagne-Montrachet Blanc, Burgundy, France ($14.97USD, 375ml), 13.5% alcohol.
One bottle was splash decanted and the other left unopen; both in the cellar at 56 degree F. After 2 hours the second bottle was opened and the two wines poured randomly into three marked opaque glasses while I was out of the room.
Glass A: Quite delicately flavored with nice citrus, melon, peach and anise aromas. Fat and full with an excellent softness across the palate finishing with nice acidity but not very impressive flavor carry or length.
Glass B: As for A. An oak note comes up with warming. Palate as for A.
Glass C: As for A and B. An oak note comes up with warming. A little softer and more supple than A and B.
My opinion: A is decanted wine and B and C are from the freshly opened bottle.
Reality: C is decanted, A and B from the bottle.
Conclusion: There was little to distinguish between the different glasses. No surprise there. These wines don’t do much with air over a few hours. In fact the wine was essentially the same 24 hours later after all the remaining wine was put into one of the bottles, and left in the fridge.
Score: Wines tested 6, Decanters 0, Non-decanters 1.
Should you decant such wines? Well over on Waitrose.com they suggest that a “big, barrel-fermented chardonnay can benefit from some air”. The reason? To get rid of overtly oaky flavours. A problem here is that wines that have undergone malolactic fermentation, apart from having less crisp acidity and greater palate weight, have better integration of fruit and oak character. Aeration by decanting didn’t really work at all for the Talbott, did it? The Louis Latour has had “100% malolactic fermentation followed by 8 to 10 months ageing in oak casks” so there is a question as to whether it will benefit from aeration. But Waitrose.com also has this quote - "I often ask our customers whether they would like a white burgundy decanted because oxygenation improves its aromas," says Claude Douard, sommelier at London restaurant Mirabelle. So this time I’ll leave the wines at cellar temperature during the decanting period and we’ll see if differences in smell and taste are more evident as the wines warm during the tasting comparison.
Wine #6 2003 Louis Latour Chassagne-Montrachet Blanc, Burgundy, France ($14.97USD, 375ml), 13.5% alcohol.
One bottle was splash decanted and the other left unopen; both in the cellar at 56 degree F. After 2 hours the second bottle was opened and the two wines poured randomly into three marked opaque glasses while I was out of the room.
Glass A: Quite delicately flavored with nice citrus, melon, peach and anise aromas. Fat and full with an excellent softness across the palate finishing with nice acidity but not very impressive flavor carry or length.
Glass B: As for A. An oak note comes up with warming. Palate as for A.
Glass C: As for A and B. An oak note comes up with warming. A little softer and more supple than A and B.
My opinion: A is decanted wine and B and C are from the freshly opened bottle.
Reality: C is decanted, A and B from the bottle.
Conclusion: There was little to distinguish between the different glasses. No surprise there. These wines don’t do much with air over a few hours. In fact the wine was essentially the same 24 hours later after all the remaining wine was put into one of the bottles, and left in the fridge.
Score: Wines tested 6, Decanters 0, Non-decanters 1.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
The Great Decanting Experiment – Wine #5
The next wine is the 20th vintage of a wine that Talbott Vineyards call a benchmark for California Chardonnay. From vineyards in the Santa Lucia Highlands AVA, the 33 year old vines yielded two and a half tons an acre at crush. Grapes were lightly pressed into French oak barrels (30% new, the balance being seasoned and neutral), barrel-fermented, and then barrel-aged 14 months sur lees, stirred twice a month, and bottle-aged 12 months prior to release in June of 2006.
This 2003 wine was described by Michael Apstein of Wine Review Online (August 2006) as “Now, with a 20-year track record, most everyone will agree that Talbott’s Sleepy Hollow Vineyard Chardonnay is surely one of California’s best examples of that varietal…it’s a glorious wine.” 95 points.
Wine #5 2003 Talbott Chardonnay, Sleepy Hollow Vineyard, Monterey County, USA ($14.99USD, 375ml), 14.7% alcohol.
One bottle was splash decanted and the other left unopen. After 2 hours and a half hours the second bottle was opened and the two wines poured randomly into three marked opaque glasses while I was out of the room.
Glass A: Richly flavored with notes of nectarine, toasted oak and minerality (petrichor). Underneath is a honeyed, almost marmalade aroma. A mouthfilling wine, with a soft and supple entry and fatness across the palate and an added flavor of apricot. Excellent length with persistence of flavors.
Glass B: Aromas as for glass A, with perhaps more pronounced nectarine. On the palate there is a little more minerality and crisp acidity than glass A.
Glass C: Aromas as for glasses A and B, with perhaps more pronounced nectarine. Very similar on the palate to the other glasses with a touch more crisp acidity.
My opinion: B and C are from the bottle and A is decanted
Reality: B is decanted and A and C are from the bottle.
Conclusion: Again I was pulling at straws in trying to detect any differences in the wine in the three glasses. Very much an exercise in futility that is obvious from my attempt to use crisp acidity as a differential feature of the wine. With barrel-fermentation, and barrel-aging on its lees in 70% seasoned and neutral oak, it has almost certainly undergone malo-lactic fermentation.
Score: Wines tested 5, Decanters 0, Non-decanters 1.
This 2003 wine was described by Michael Apstein of Wine Review Online (August 2006) as “Now, with a 20-year track record, most everyone will agree that Talbott’s Sleepy Hollow Vineyard Chardonnay is surely one of California’s best examples of that varietal…it’s a glorious wine.” 95 points.
Wine #5 2003 Talbott Chardonnay, Sleepy Hollow Vineyard, Monterey County, USA ($14.99USD, 375ml), 14.7% alcohol.
One bottle was splash decanted and the other left unopen. After 2 hours and a half hours the second bottle was opened and the two wines poured randomly into three marked opaque glasses while I was out of the room.
Glass A: Richly flavored with notes of nectarine, toasted oak and minerality (petrichor). Underneath is a honeyed, almost marmalade aroma. A mouthfilling wine, with a soft and supple entry and fatness across the palate and an added flavor of apricot. Excellent length with persistence of flavors.
Glass B: Aromas as for glass A, with perhaps more pronounced nectarine. On the palate there is a little more minerality and crisp acidity than glass A.
Glass C: Aromas as for glasses A and B, with perhaps more pronounced nectarine. Very similar on the palate to the other glasses with a touch more crisp acidity.
My opinion: B and C are from the bottle and A is decanted
Reality: B is decanted and A and C are from the bottle.
Conclusion: Again I was pulling at straws in trying to detect any differences in the wine in the three glasses. Very much an exercise in futility that is obvious from my attempt to use crisp acidity as a differential feature of the wine. With barrel-fermentation, and barrel-aging on its lees in 70% seasoned and neutral oak, it has almost certainly undergone malo-lactic fermentation.
Score: Wines tested 5, Decanters 0, Non-decanters 1.
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
The Great Decanting Experiment – Wine #4
This next wine is a five year young Napa Valley Cabernet Sauvignon that should be coming into its own. The 2002 Peter Franus Cabernet Sauvignon is a mix of fruit from Rancho Chimiles (south east of Napa Valley) and Hyde Vineyard (Carneros). Aged for 18 months in 100% French Oak (75% new). Even though it should be just be entering its drinking window I’m expecting it to be still tightly focused with firm tannins and obvious oak. This is the type of wine that advocates of aeration suggest will benefit from a few hours in a decanter.
Wine #4 2002 Peter Franus Cabernet Sauvignon, Napa, USA ($19.99USD, 375ml), 14.5% alcohol.
One bottle was splash decanted and the other left unopen. After 2 hours the second bottle was opened and the two wines poured randomly into three marked opaque glasses while I was out of the room.
Glass A: Rich and ripe with blueberry, blackberry, banana skin, toasted oak and cedar. Full bodied with firm, drying tannins, nice acidity and good length to the finish. More carry of flavors onto the palate than glass B.
Glass B: Subdued with anise and smoky notes. Not as open as glasses A and C. Full bodied with considerable astringency but lacking depth on the mid-palate. Notes of smoke and oak evident on the palate.
Glass C: Blueberry, smoky oak, banana skin, anise and cedar. On the palate big, drying tannins with nice juicy acidity. Not overly complex. Similar flavor carry onto the palate as glass A.
My opinion: Decanted wine is glass B. Non-decanted wine is glasses A and C.
Reality: A and B are decanted. C is from the freshly open bottle.
Conclusion: Although the notes above may not show it, I really struggled to identify differences between the wine in the three glasses. My notes are really amplifications of what I was smelling and tasting and do not truly represent the fact that the wine was essentially identical in all three glasses. Decanting for 2 hours really did not affect the perception of astringency at all. Some may argue that this is not a classic Napa Cabernet and that other wines would perform differently. And that a longer decant will show differences. Well call me a halfwit, I guess its time to source some other Cabs!
Score: Wines tested 4, Decanters 0, Non-decanters 1.
Wine #4 2002 Peter Franus Cabernet Sauvignon, Napa, USA ($19.99USD, 375ml), 14.5% alcohol.
One bottle was splash decanted and the other left unopen. After 2 hours the second bottle was opened and the two wines poured randomly into three marked opaque glasses while I was out of the room.
Glass A: Rich and ripe with blueberry, blackberry, banana skin, toasted oak and cedar. Full bodied with firm, drying tannins, nice acidity and good length to the finish. More carry of flavors onto the palate than glass B.
Glass B: Subdued with anise and smoky notes. Not as open as glasses A and C. Full bodied with considerable astringency but lacking depth on the mid-palate. Notes of smoke and oak evident on the palate.
Glass C: Blueberry, smoky oak, banana skin, anise and cedar. On the palate big, drying tannins with nice juicy acidity. Not overly complex. Similar flavor carry onto the palate as glass A.
My opinion: Decanted wine is glass B. Non-decanted wine is glasses A and C.
Reality: A and B are decanted. C is from the freshly open bottle.
Conclusion: Although the notes above may not show it, I really struggled to identify differences between the wine in the three glasses. My notes are really amplifications of what I was smelling and tasting and do not truly represent the fact that the wine was essentially identical in all three glasses. Decanting for 2 hours really did not affect the perception of astringency at all. Some may argue that this is not a classic Napa Cabernet and that other wines would perform differently. And that a longer decant will show differences. Well call me a halfwit, I guess its time to source some other Cabs!
Score: Wines tested 4, Decanters 0, Non-decanters 1.
Monday, April 30, 2007
A New and Potentially Embarrassing Fact
From To Breathe or Not to Breathe. That is the Question! And the answer might surprise you. By Denman Moody
In May 1977, my friend Alexis Bespaloff published an article entitled “A Corking New Wine Theory” in New York Magazine… Although the article had nothing to do with corks, it nonetheless presented a radical new approach in regard to letting wines breathe.
In blind tastings with Kevin Zraly, cellarmaster at Windows on the World, John Sheldon, wine consultant at Tavern-on-the-Green, and other notables, including Robert Mondavi, Paul Draper of Ridge, and Alexis Lichine of Chateau Prieure – Lichine, a new, and potentially embarrassing, fact was uncovered by Bespaloff.
For Draper, the wine used was his 1974 Geyserville Zinfandel. For Mondavi, his 1973 Cabernet Sauvignon and for Lichine, his 1967 Chateau Prieure – Lichine.
In each case, for each taster, one of his bottles was decanted one hour before serving, one was simply uncorked an hour before serving, a third was decanted and served minutes before the tasting and the fourth was just uncorked and served minutes before the tasting… (Mondavi and Lichine also tasted each other’s wines.)
Don’t shoot the messenger, but: In every case, including a 1973 Chateau Pichon-Lalande with Zraly and Sheldon, the bottle that was just uncorked and served - at the time of the tasting - was preferred!
In May 1977, my friend Alexis Bespaloff published an article entitled “A Corking New Wine Theory” in New York Magazine… Although the article had nothing to do with corks, it nonetheless presented a radical new approach in regard to letting wines breathe.
In blind tastings with Kevin Zraly, cellarmaster at Windows on the World, John Sheldon, wine consultant at Tavern-on-the-Green, and other notables, including Robert Mondavi, Paul Draper of Ridge, and Alexis Lichine of Chateau Prieure – Lichine, a new, and potentially embarrassing, fact was uncovered by Bespaloff.
For Draper, the wine used was his 1974 Geyserville Zinfandel. For Mondavi, his 1973 Cabernet Sauvignon and for Lichine, his 1967 Chateau Prieure – Lichine.
In each case, for each taster, one of his bottles was decanted one hour before serving, one was simply uncorked an hour before serving, a third was decanted and served minutes before the tasting and the fourth was just uncorked and served minutes before the tasting… (Mondavi and Lichine also tasted each other’s wines.)
Don’t shoot the messenger, but: In every case, including a 1973 Chateau Pichon-Lalande with Zraly and Sheldon, the bottle that was just uncorked and served - at the time of the tasting - was preferred!
Friday, April 27, 2007
Decanting - Another Opinion
Here is a decanting experiment that just caught my attention while Googling. OK, so its only one wine and it appears that the decanted and undecanted wines were not given to each individual at the same time; so direct comparisons could not be made. The conclusions do suggest that individual palates may respond to decanted wine differently. Although the effect of aeration on the perception of tannins is interesting! (I have bolded some sections that I find of interest. Click on the link at the bottom of the post to link to the original article.)
I admit that I had envisioned a specific result: that the decanted wines would generally lack pizzazz and that the undecanted wine would emerge as the victor. Not only was my assumption wrong, I was totally unprepared for what transpired.
Throughout the tasting, people kept saying that that they couldn't believe they were tasting the same wine. Clearly, decanting and aeration have a substantial effect. There was no clear-cut winner, though. One taster liked the undecanted wine (that was me!) and one taster liked the wine that had sat out for 24 hours. Nobody liked the wine that was aerated for one hour. And the remaining samples were fairly evenly distributed, although there was a slight skew toward the two-hour aeration period.
My own perceptions may have been clouded by my admitted prejudice and the fact that I knew which sample was which. I like fresh wines with lots of nose. Only the undecanted wine could be characterized this way. I was also very surprised by the reaction of the tannins. Folk wisdom says that aeration softens the tannins, yet in all of the aerated wines the tannins seemed harsher than in the unmanipulated wine, and the panel agreed.
In general, I found that the longer the wine had sat out, the more reserved (i.e. "dead") the nose. Here, too, the panel mostly agreed and their tasting notes supported this. THE FRUGAL OENOPHILE
I admit that I had envisioned a specific result: that the decanted wines would generally lack pizzazz and that the undecanted wine would emerge as the victor. Not only was my assumption wrong, I was totally unprepared for what transpired.
Throughout the tasting, people kept saying that that they couldn't believe they were tasting the same wine. Clearly, decanting and aeration have a substantial effect. There was no clear-cut winner, though. One taster liked the undecanted wine (that was me!) and one taster liked the wine that had sat out for 24 hours. Nobody liked the wine that was aerated for one hour. And the remaining samples were fairly evenly distributed, although there was a slight skew toward the two-hour aeration period.
My own perceptions may have been clouded by my admitted prejudice and the fact that I knew which sample was which. I like fresh wines with lots of nose. Only the undecanted wine could be characterized this way. I was also very surprised by the reaction of the tannins. Folk wisdom says that aeration softens the tannins, yet in all of the aerated wines the tannins seemed harsher than in the unmanipulated wine, and the panel agreed.
In general, I found that the longer the wine had sat out, the more reserved (i.e. "dead") the nose. Here, too, the panel mostly agreed and their tasting notes supported this. THE FRUGAL OENOPHILE
Decanting – Some Other Opinions
Before posting on the fourth wine to be subjected to The Great Decanting Experiment, I thought it might be interesting to select a few other opinions that have made their way onto the internet; to read the full article click on the link at the end of each quotation. I post them without any comments from me. To see what I have posted on decanting just click on the word decanting in the Labels line at the end of this post.
Wine geeks love to sit around for hours and debate the pros and cons of this procedure, but I'm confident -- based on my experience of opening, decanting and tasting hundreds of thousands of bottles of wine -- that careful decanting can improve most any wine. Sommelier Joseph Nase
Decanting an hour or two before serving can also help more youthful wines offer complex aromas, enhanced fruit flavors, and more supple texture. This is especially true of big, fruity New World red wines with firm tannins. Decanting allows oxygen to interact with the wine's tannins and flavor compounds at a molecular basis, to soften the mouth, feel and release more aromas. The wine becomes more pleasurable when poured from the decanter. Dave DeSimone, Pittsburgh Tribune Review
What can help better quality reds, and even some whites, is to decant them. This aerates the wine more effectively, softening any harsh tannins, and enabling the flavours to develop. This can be particularly helpful with young, full-bodied reds made from grape varieties such as Cabernet Sauvignon, Shiraz or Syrah, Pinotage and Zinfandel, which have been aged in new oak barrels and haven't quite 'settled down' (that is, the oak aromas and flavours haven't yet fully integrated with the fruit). Even 30 minutes in a decanter can get rid of overtly oaky flavours and you could happily leave them for three or four hours. Fiona Beckett, Waitrose.com
The process used for decanting older wines can more or less be discarded with young wines. Not too many young wines suffer from the presence of sediment so the goal is to speed up the oxygenation process as much as possible to tame the tannins, help the wine open and strut its best stuff. Towards this end the goal is to "splash" as much of the wine again the inside of the decanter while pouring, agitating the wine as much as possible without spilling it outside the decanter. With young wines Hanes has experienced positive effects with wines decanted 24 hours before consuming. One also sees a wine being poured repeatedly between two decanters to speed up the process. Hanes has even on occasion witnessed violent shaking of the decanter to get the puppy moving in the right direction. Anything for the best effect! Marc Hanes, The Hanes Wine Review
If you thought decanting was a ritual reserved for venerable bottles of Bordeaux or expensive Cabernet Sauvignons from the Napa Valley, you're wrong. The simple act of pouring it out of the bottle and into a glass container for serving can flesh out almost any wine. Less expensive, younger wines may actually benefit the most. Corie Brown, Los Angeles Times
This is a controversial subject, especially when it comes to Pinot Noir. Decanting is the simple process of carefully pouring a wine from its bottle into a glass decanter in order to both separate it from the sediment in the bottom of the bottle and to aerate the wine. In a wine with abundant sediment, it is almost impossible to drink the last 6-8 ounces in the bottle if it has not been decanted. Where decanting becomes controversial is that unlike Cabernet Sauvignon, Syrah, or Nebbiolo-based wines, which improve significantly with aeration, Pinot Noir has such a highly nuanced, delicate perfume that these fragile aromas can dissipate/deteriorate quickly because of excessive exposure to aeration. Beaux Frères, Oregon (Partners include wine critic Robert Parker, Jr.)
Wine geeks love to sit around for hours and debate the pros and cons of this procedure, but I'm confident -- based on my experience of opening, decanting and tasting hundreds of thousands of bottles of wine -- that careful decanting can improve most any wine. Sommelier Joseph Nase
Decanting an hour or two before serving can also help more youthful wines offer complex aromas, enhanced fruit flavors, and more supple texture. This is especially true of big, fruity New World red wines with firm tannins. Decanting allows oxygen to interact with the wine's tannins and flavor compounds at a molecular basis, to soften the mouth, feel and release more aromas. The wine becomes more pleasurable when poured from the decanter. Dave DeSimone, Pittsburgh Tribune Review
What can help better quality reds, and even some whites, is to decant them. This aerates the wine more effectively, softening any harsh tannins, and enabling the flavours to develop. This can be particularly helpful with young, full-bodied reds made from grape varieties such as Cabernet Sauvignon, Shiraz or Syrah, Pinotage and Zinfandel, which have been aged in new oak barrels and haven't quite 'settled down' (that is, the oak aromas and flavours haven't yet fully integrated with the fruit). Even 30 minutes in a decanter can get rid of overtly oaky flavours and you could happily leave them for three or four hours. Fiona Beckett, Waitrose.com
The process used for decanting older wines can more or less be discarded with young wines. Not too many young wines suffer from the presence of sediment so the goal is to speed up the oxygenation process as much as possible to tame the tannins, help the wine open and strut its best stuff. Towards this end the goal is to "splash" as much of the wine again the inside of the decanter while pouring, agitating the wine as much as possible without spilling it outside the decanter. With young wines Hanes has experienced positive effects with wines decanted 24 hours before consuming. One also sees a wine being poured repeatedly between two decanters to speed up the process. Hanes has even on occasion witnessed violent shaking of the decanter to get the puppy moving in the right direction. Anything for the best effect! Marc Hanes, The Hanes Wine Review
If you thought decanting was a ritual reserved for venerable bottles of Bordeaux or expensive Cabernet Sauvignons from the Napa Valley, you're wrong. The simple act of pouring it out of the bottle and into a glass container for serving can flesh out almost any wine. Less expensive, younger wines may actually benefit the most. Corie Brown, Los Angeles Times
This is a controversial subject, especially when it comes to Pinot Noir. Decanting is the simple process of carefully pouring a wine from its bottle into a glass decanter in order to both separate it from the sediment in the bottom of the bottle and to aerate the wine. In a wine with abundant sediment, it is almost impossible to drink the last 6-8 ounces in the bottle if it has not been decanted. Where decanting becomes controversial is that unlike Cabernet Sauvignon, Syrah, or Nebbiolo-based wines, which improve significantly with aeration, Pinot Noir has such a highly nuanced, delicate perfume that these fragile aromas can dissipate/deteriorate quickly because of excessive exposure to aeration. Beaux Frères, Oregon (Partners include wine critic Robert Parker, Jr.)
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
The Great Decanting Experiment – Wine #3
The third wine in The Great Decanting Experiment is one that I have not tasted before. It’s a Pinot Noir from Carneros. Produced by the Robert Stemmler Winery, the wine is a blend of grapes from six different sites separately fermented in small open-top tanks, hand plunged and aged in 40% new French oak.
Wine #3 2003 Robert Stemmler Carneros Pinot Noir, Estate Grown, Napa, USA ($11.99USD, 375ml), 14.5% alcohol.
One bottle was splash decanted and the other left unopen. After 2 hours the second bottle was opened and the two wines poured randomly into three marked opaque glasses while I was out of the room.
Glass A: Very distinctive note of molasses, almost rancio. Underlying aromas of ripe plums and licorice. A big, ripe Pinot. No subtly here. Full bodied with nice carry of flavors onto the palate. Soft tannins and very bright acidity. Nice length but ends with a slight bitter note.
Glass B: Closed, almost nothing coming from the glass. Faintest Pinot Noir spice, forest floor and a trace of rich toffee. Full bodied, a little more astringent than glass A. Nice juicy acidity but little flavor carry.
Glass C: As for glass B, very closed. Perhaps a hint of forest floor. On the palate this is the same as glass B.
My Opinion: Glass A is the wine from the bottle and glasses B and C are from the decanter.
Reality: Glass A is the wine from the bottle. The other two are from the decanter.
Conclusion: Well I had to get one right eventually! The difference between glass A and the other two was quite obvious, the only question was is glass A decanted or undecanted? Remember my bias? I do not believe that decanting affects wine in a positive way. So the decision was easy, and in this case (at least) the hypothesis holds up.
One point about this wine is that the initial tasting showed it was not endowed with overt Pinot Noir character. But as I swirled and sniffed from the three glasses there was a tendency for some of the spiciness that I associate with Pinot Noir to rise up and assert itself. Perhaps this is a wine that might benefit from an extended decant? Well I did splash decant it. And during its two hours in the decanter I did swirl it several times. Still if I can source a few more bottles I will try a longer decant, perhaps four hours? This may not be a bet to put too much on because as I type I am drinking some of the remaining wine and after almost 24 hours it has developed the caramel character of an oxidized wine. Rancio was a good descriptor after all!
Score: Wines tested 3, Decanters 0, Non-decanters 1.
Wine #3 2003 Robert Stemmler Carneros Pinot Noir, Estate Grown, Napa, USA ($11.99USD, 375ml), 14.5% alcohol.
One bottle was splash decanted and the other left unopen. After 2 hours the second bottle was opened and the two wines poured randomly into three marked opaque glasses while I was out of the room.
Glass A: Very distinctive note of molasses, almost rancio. Underlying aromas of ripe plums and licorice. A big, ripe Pinot. No subtly here. Full bodied with nice carry of flavors onto the palate. Soft tannins and very bright acidity. Nice length but ends with a slight bitter note.
Glass B: Closed, almost nothing coming from the glass. Faintest Pinot Noir spice, forest floor and a trace of rich toffee. Full bodied, a little more astringent than glass A. Nice juicy acidity but little flavor carry.
Glass C: As for glass B, very closed. Perhaps a hint of forest floor. On the palate this is the same as glass B.
My Opinion: Glass A is the wine from the bottle and glasses B and C are from the decanter.
Reality: Glass A is the wine from the bottle. The other two are from the decanter.
Conclusion: Well I had to get one right eventually! The difference between glass A and the other two was quite obvious, the only question was is glass A decanted or undecanted? Remember my bias? I do not believe that decanting affects wine in a positive way. So the decision was easy, and in this case (at least) the hypothesis holds up.
One point about this wine is that the initial tasting showed it was not endowed with overt Pinot Noir character. But as I swirled and sniffed from the three glasses there was a tendency for some of the spiciness that I associate with Pinot Noir to rise up and assert itself. Perhaps this is a wine that might benefit from an extended decant? Well I did splash decant it. And during its two hours in the decanter I did swirl it several times. Still if I can source a few more bottles I will try a longer decant, perhaps four hours? This may not be a bet to put too much on because as I type I am drinking some of the remaining wine and after almost 24 hours it has developed the caramel character of an oxidized wine. Rancio was a good descriptor after all!
Score: Wines tested 3, Decanters 0, Non-decanters 1.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
The Great Decanting Experiment – Wine #2
The second wine to be subjected to The Great Decanting Experiment is one that some will argue is inappropriate for decanting. But as I build up the numbers of wines tested for their ability to respond to decanting I am not going to discriminate. After all who knows what wines are improved by decanting? Oh I’m sure many have an opinion, but is it based on actual comparison between decanted and undecanted wine, or just anecdote?
Wine #2: 2002 Trevor Jones Virgin Chardonnay, South Australia ($10.99USD, 375ml), 13.5% alcohol.
As before one bottle was decanted and the other left unopen. After 2 hours and 15 minutes the second bottle was opened and the two wines poured randomly into three marked opaque glasses while I was out of the room.
Glass A: Very aromatic with aromas of lime, peach, pineapple and anise. Mouthfilling with a soft and supple entry. A solid backbone of appealing acidity. Nice wine!
Glass B: Less open than glass A with peach, anise and pineapple and a hint of dustiness. Very similar to glass A on the palate.
Glass C: A little dusty (but not corked). Lemon, peach and anise. On the palate very similar to A and B, perhaps not as fat as glass A.
My opinion: A is the decanted wine.
Reality: Glass C contains the decanted wine, A and B had undecanted wine.
Conclusion: It was very difficult to distinguish between the three glasses of wine. And in the final assessment I was forced to conclude that the decanted wine was in glass A simply because that glass provided more aromatic complexity. Well that’s what the supporters of decanting argue, right? The dusty character detected in glasses B and C was not TCA as the remaining wine tasted on the next evening was sound and without any evidence of being corked.
Score: Wines tested 2, Decanters 0, Non-decanters 0
Wine #2: 2002 Trevor Jones Virgin Chardonnay, South Australia ($10.99USD, 375ml), 13.5% alcohol.
As before one bottle was decanted and the other left unopen. After 2 hours and 15 minutes the second bottle was opened and the two wines poured randomly into three marked opaque glasses while I was out of the room.
Glass A: Very aromatic with aromas of lime, peach, pineapple and anise. Mouthfilling with a soft and supple entry. A solid backbone of appealing acidity. Nice wine!
Glass B: Less open than glass A with peach, anise and pineapple and a hint of dustiness. Very similar to glass A on the palate.
Glass C: A little dusty (but not corked). Lemon, peach and anise. On the palate very similar to A and B, perhaps not as fat as glass A.
My opinion: A is the decanted wine.
Reality: Glass C contains the decanted wine, A and B had undecanted wine.
Conclusion: It was very difficult to distinguish between the three glasses of wine. And in the final assessment I was forced to conclude that the decanted wine was in glass A simply because that glass provided more aromatic complexity. Well that’s what the supporters of decanting argue, right? The dusty character detected in glasses B and C was not TCA as the remaining wine tasted on the next evening was sound and without any evidence of being corked.
Score: Wines tested 2, Decanters 0, Non-decanters 0
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Decanting wine, what does it do?
Gary Vaynerchuk over at Wine Library TV did a decanting experiment with the 2004 Amon Ra Shiraz (Barossa Valley, Australia).
In response to one of the comments on this episode of Wine Library TV Vaynerchuk wrote I have decanted over 30 wines under $12 in the last few weeks getting ready for this video and I have to tell you everyone did better after 2 hrs +….EVERYONE. I know it may sound strange and I didn’t think so myself but I disagree I think all wines get value from air!
Seeing as how Gary did his tasting non-blinded I don't place any great faith in his view, but its presented here for those who do believe in decanting. However it must be noted that Vaynerchuk's statement that decanting "breaks up the tannins" is simply wrong. As I noted in a previous post on decanting an article by Janet Fletcher in the San Francisco Chronicle quotes the following:- According to UC Davis Enology Professor Roger Boulton, there is absolutely no evidence that decanting produces any change in wine tannins, at least over a matter of days. Tasters may perceive that the tannins have softened, but laboratory tests show otherwise.
In response to one of the comments on this episode of Wine Library TV Vaynerchuk wrote I have decanted over 30 wines under $12 in the last few weeks getting ready for this video and I have to tell you everyone did better after 2 hrs +….EVERYONE. I know it may sound strange and I didn’t think so myself but I disagree I think all wines get value from air!
Seeing as how Gary did his tasting non-blinded I don't place any great faith in his view, but its presented here for those who do believe in decanting. However it must be noted that Vaynerchuk's statement that decanting "breaks up the tannins" is simply wrong. As I noted in a previous post on decanting an article by Janet Fletcher in the San Francisco Chronicle quotes the following:- According to UC Davis Enology Professor Roger Boulton, there is absolutely no evidence that decanting produces any change in wine tannins, at least over a matter of days. Tasters may perceive that the tannins have softened, but laboratory tests show otherwise.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
The Great Decanting Experiment
I’ve posted previously on decanting wines in order to enhance their appeal, so called aeration. Its something I do not do as I don’t believe that it has a positive effect on very many wines. Others, of course, disagree but when comparisons have been made between decanted and undecanted wines its usually the undecanted that have proven fresher and more attractive. The noted French oenologist Emil Peynaud describes a comparison between a decanted and freshly poured 1962 Médoc Cru in his The Taste of Wine: The Art and Science of Wine Appreciation. The decanted wine had lost “finesse and elegance” even though decanting had made it seem fuller, while “the undecanted wine was livelier, fresher, less thick but also less fleshy”.
Decanting, in order to allow a wine to reveal more of its character following exposure to air, is different from allowing the wine to reveal itself in the glass by swirling to expose the wine to air. Decanted wine is usually left to sit for a period of time so that a large surface area of the wine is exposed to the ambient environment. Decanted wine may or may not be sampled during this time to see if aeration is having the desired effect. Pouring wine into a wine glass has one aim, that of consuming the wine in an appropriate container and so the wine, if free from fault, is usually sampled until the glass is empty. Wine tasted over time from a glass, especially if its well
made, may change its aroma/bouquet. In fact lingering over a glass of wine is done in the expectation that it will reveal more of its complexity. My concern with decanting, especially for hours, is that the chance to appreciate the evolution of the wine in a glass may be lost. This assumes that a wine will change over time, many do not.
Testing whether decanting has a positive or negative effect on the appeal of a wine is not a straightforward procedure as there is no standard protocol for such an experiment. After having given it considerable thought I’ve arrived at the following approach as the most practical (for me) to test the hypothesis that decanting wine does not improve its aroma/bouquet and/or taste. Two bottles of wine are used; in most of the tests to be done these will be half-bottles
(375 ml) simply to reduce expense. One bottle is opened and poured into a decanter (Reidel) and the other is left unopened. After a period of time the second bottle is opened and the decanted and freshly opened wines poured into opaque (black) tasting glasses. I’ve chosen opaque glasses as its possible that the period the decanted wine will be left to sit may be as long as 24 hours, and its my impression that many wines darken with such lengthy exposure to air. The opaque glasses will hinder the influence of color change on the assessment of the wine.
Seeing as I am the taster in these tests and because I have a stated bias, (I do not believe that decanting affects wine in a positive manner), three glasses (labeled A, B and C) of wine will be poured. The pouring will be done by my able assistant Miranda (my wife) and she will pour the wine while I am out of the room. She can pour the wine in any combination she chooses as long as one glass has decanted wine and another undecanted wine; the third can be either decanted or undecanted wine. Miranda must record which glasses received which wine before I am allowed to taste the wine to see if I can determine which glass contains which wine. I decided on using three glasses because it means that if there is a difference I have to be able to detect it in two of the three glasses. I have to declare what wine I believe is in each glass before the order is made known to me.
Wine #1 2003 Turkey Flat Shiraz ($17.99USD, 375ml), 14.5% alcohol.
The first wine to be subjected to the great decanting experiment is the 2003 Turkey Flat Shiraz from the Barossa Valley of South Australia. The wine was decanted for 2 and half hours.
Glass A: A little subdued with rich blackberry, licorice and smoky oak notes. On the palate, this is a very astringent wine with nice juicy acidity but little carry of flavor.
Glass B: Similar to glass A but with added presence of stewed prune, tar and plum aromas. Palate very similar to glass A but there is more carry of flavor onto the palate.
Glass C: Aromas are very similar to glass B with more blackberry. Palate the same as glass B.
My opinion: A is undecanted and B and C are decanted.
Reality: B is the undecanted wine.
Conclusion: Although the differences were not pronounced I was quite confident that I had correctly differentiated between the decanted and undecanted wine. However it seems that you can decant this wine for a few hours without ill effect, or you can simply pop and pour!
Score: Decanters 0, Non-decanters 0
Decanting, in order to allow a wine to reveal more of its character following exposure to air, is different from allowing the wine to reveal itself in the glass by swirling to expose the wine to air. Decanted wine is usually left to sit for a period of time so that a large surface area of the wine is exposed to the ambient environment. Decanted wine may or may not be sampled during this time to see if aeration is having the desired effect. Pouring wine into a wine glass has one aim, that of consuming the wine in an appropriate container and so the wine, if free from fault, is usually sampled until the glass is empty. Wine tasted over time from a glass, especially if its well
made, may change its aroma/bouquet. In fact lingering over a glass of wine is done in the expectation that it will reveal more of its complexity. My concern with decanting, especially for hours, is that the chance to appreciate the evolution of the wine in a glass may be lost. This assumes that a wine will change over time, many do not.Testing whether decanting has a positive or negative effect on the appeal of a wine is not a straightforward procedure as there is no standard protocol for such an experiment. After having given it considerable thought I’ve arrived at the following approach as the most practical (for me) to test the hypothesis that decanting wine does not improve its aroma/bouquet and/or taste. Two bottles of wine are used; in most of the tests to be done these will be half-bottles
(375 ml) simply to reduce expense. One bottle is opened and poured into a decanter (Reidel) and the other is left unopened. After a period of time the second bottle is opened and the decanted and freshly opened wines poured into opaque (black) tasting glasses. I’ve chosen opaque glasses as its possible that the period the decanted wine will be left to sit may be as long as 24 hours, and its my impression that many wines darken with such lengthy exposure to air. The opaque glasses will hinder the influence of color change on the assessment of the wine.Seeing as I am the taster in these tests and because I have a stated bias, (I do not believe that decanting affects wine in a positive manner), three glasses (labeled A, B and C) of wine will be poured. The pouring will be done by my able assistant Miranda (my wife) and she will pour the wine while I am out of the room. She can pour the wine in any combination she chooses as long as one glass has decanted wine and another undecanted wine; the third can be either decanted or undecanted wine. Miranda must record which glasses received which wine before I am allowed to taste the wine to see if I can determine which glass contains which wine. I decided on using three glasses because it means that if there is a difference I have to be able to detect it in two of the three glasses. I have to declare what wine I believe is in each glass before the order is made known to me.
Wine #1 2003 Turkey Flat Shiraz ($17.99USD, 375ml), 14.5% alcohol.
The first wine to be subjected to the great decanting experiment is the 2003 Turkey Flat Shiraz from the Barossa Valley of South Australia. The wine was decanted for 2 and half hours.
Glass A: A little subdued with rich blackberry, licorice and smoky oak notes. On the palate, this is a very astringent wine with nice juicy acidity but little carry of flavor.
Glass B: Similar to glass A but with added presence of stewed prune, tar and plum aromas. Palate very similar to glass A but there is more carry of flavor onto the palate.
Glass C: Aromas are very similar to glass B with more blackberry. Palate the same as glass B.
My opinion: A is undecanted and B and C are decanted.
Reality: B is the undecanted wine.
Conclusion: Although the differences were not pronounced I was quite confident that I had correctly differentiated between the decanted and undecanted wine. However it seems that you can decant this wine for a few hours without ill effect, or you can simply pop and pour!
Score: Decanters 0, Non-decanters 0
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Aussie cities among world's best, but...
......Auckland is better! Just about fell off my seat when I read this. The human resources consultancy firm Mercer has conducted a survey on over 270 cities worldwide. Link.
39 key quality of living determinants were used , grouped in the following categories:
Political and social environment (political stability, crime, law enforcement, etc)
Economic environment (currency exchange regulations, banking services, etc)
Socio-cultural environment ( censorship, limitations on personal freedom, etc)
Health and sanitation (medical supplies and services, infectious diseases, sewage, waste disposal, air pollution, etc)
Schools and education (standard and availability of international schools, etc)
Public services and transportation (electricity, water, public transport, traffic congestion, etc)
Recreation (restaurants, theatres, cinemas, sports and leisure, etc)
Consumer goods (availability of food/daily consumption items, cars, etc)
Housing (housing, household appliances, furniture, maintenance services, etc)
Natural environment (climate, record of natural disasters)
Auckland came in as the fifth best city in the world, behind Zurich, Geneva, Vancouver and Vienna. Sydney ranks ninth on the list, ahead of Melbourne at 17, Perth at 21, Brisbane at 31 and Adelaide at 32.
At least in terms of a tourist visit Miranda and I would not rank Auckland so highly - only city where we have been subject to crime in the last 8 years - car break-in. The city itself falls down in terms of architecture and planning - the harbor area is not the equal of Sydney. And its not a cheap palce to live. And the display in the Museum on volcanoes wiped out Auckland multiple time each hour! Seemed almost as bad as earthquakes in California. (Link to Age article.)
39 key quality of living determinants were used , grouped in the following categories:
Political and social environment (political stability, crime, law enforcement, etc)
Economic environment (currency exchange regulations, banking services, etc)
Socio-cultural environment ( censorship, limitations on personal freedom, etc)
Health and sanitation (medical supplies and services, infectious diseases, sewage, waste disposal, air pollution, etc)
Schools and education (standard and availability of international schools, etc)
Public services and transportation (electricity, water, public transport, traffic congestion, etc)
Recreation (restaurants, theatres, cinemas, sports and leisure, etc)
Consumer goods (availability of food/daily consumption items, cars, etc)
Housing (housing, household appliances, furniture, maintenance services, etc)
Natural environment (climate, record of natural disasters)
Auckland came in as the fifth best city in the world, behind Zurich, Geneva, Vancouver and Vienna. Sydney ranks ninth on the list, ahead of Melbourne at 17, Perth at 21, Brisbane at 31 and Adelaide at 32.
At least in terms of a tourist visit Miranda and I would not rank Auckland so highly - only city where we have been subject to crime in the last 8 years - car break-in. The city itself falls down in terms of architecture and planning - the harbor area is not the equal of Sydney. And its not a cheap palce to live. And the display in the Museum on volcanoes wiped out Auckland multiple time each hour! Seemed almost as bad as earthquakes in California. (Link to Age article.)
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Not Again. Oh, Yawn.
I’ve posted before that Robert Parker did not invent, introduce, or in any way originate the use of 100 points in the scoring of wine. He simply made popular something that existed at least a quarter of a century before he began the Wine Advocate.
But recently there have been two more people who seem to think that Parker has to be credited with the 100 point system. First is PaulGregutt.com who wrote “The man credited with having invented the 100 point scale is Robert Parker,”
And now over at Slate, Mike Steinberger writes “as the critic who conceived the 100-point system, Parker has a special obligation”
Wouldn’t it nice if there were some wine writers out there in cyberspace who actually knew what they are writing about when it comes to the origins of the use of 100 points in the scoring of wine?
But recently there have been two more people who seem to think that Parker has to be credited with the 100 point system. First is PaulGregutt.com who wrote “The man credited with having invented the 100 point scale is Robert Parker,”
And now over at Slate, Mike Steinberger writes “as the critic who conceived the 100-point system, Parker has a special obligation”
Wouldn’t it nice if there were some wine writers out there in cyberspace who actually knew what they are writing about when it comes to the origins of the use of 100 points in the scoring of wine?
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Parkerizing New Zealand. Yeah Right!
New Zealand is not a producer of quality wine, well at least according to Robert Parker, Jr. It’s a bold statement, even if it does come from one considered to be the dominant exponent of wine swirling, sniffing, slurping, spitting and scoring. But what is Parker’s assertion based upon? What is his experience with New Zealand wine? Only one way to really find out and that is to surf across to eRobertParker.com and explore his wine data base to see what New Zealand wines he has tasted.
Of the 20 countries listed in the database New Zealand ranks 12th, ahead of Greece (58 wines), Japan (48 wines), Ukraine (7 wines), Algeria (2 wines), Morocco (2 wines), Hungary (1 wine), Israel (1 wine), and Lebanon (1 wine). There are 191 wine reviews listed for New Zealand, but that number is deceptive because it represents the number of wines recommended; there may well have been several fold more than 191 tasted. What is a recommended wine? Usually it scores 85 or above on the 100 point scale. In the case of the 191 wines this is correct as 34 were rated between 90-95 and 155 between 80-89. However none of the wines had scores below 85; there were 2 wines where the score was not recorded.
Thirty-four wines scored 90-95 points, or outstanding. What Robert Parker, Jr describes as a “wine of exceptional complexity and character.” But no wines were rated as extraordinary, that is scored greater than 95 points. These are wines of “profound and complex character displaying all the attributes expected of a classic wine of its variety.” Does that say anything about the overall quality of New Zealand wine as assessed by The Wine Advocate? Its difficult to judge given that there is no indication of the total number of wines tasted. Parker usually recommends around 30% of Australian wines, and if that was the case for New Zealand then he may have tasted as many as 636 wines. But as he seems not to favor New Zealand wine all that much the percentage of recommended wines may be lower, let’s say its 10%. That would put the quantity of tasted wines closer to 1200. Seems like quite a sizeable number! How does it compare with the total number of wines produced in New Zealand? Michael Cooper, in his 2007 Buyer’s Guide to New Zealand Wines, notes that there are some 550 wineries producing a total of 3,000 wines, and he tasted and rated 2,740 for his annual review. But Parker’s reviews are not from a single year, nor are they from just a few vintages, they span 1990 to 2004. The greatest number of wines recommended was for the 1999 vintage with 40 wines, followed by 2002 (38 wines), 2001 (23 wines), 1998 (20 wines), 2003 (19 wines), 2000 (11 wines), 2004 (10 wines), 1991 (6 wines), 1996 (5 wines), 1997 (4 wines), 1990 (2 wines) and one wine for each vintage between 1992-1995. Do they represent an adequate sampling of the wines of New Zealand? Well, a decade ago there were 200 wineries and 1,000 wines. So finding less than 10 wines to recommend from any vintage in the early to mid-mid-1990s suggests that a small number of wines were tasted or that Parker was finding very little to recommend! Lets look at two of the years where he scored the most wines and see if there has been improvement in the scores with time. In 1999 he recommended 40 wines, 36 of which were in the 80-89 point range. In 2002 he recommended 38 wines and 26 were in the 80-89 point group. Over that short period more wines have made it into the Outstanding group and more red wines have been recommended than in 1999; 15 as opposed to 6. But these are small numbers and without knowing the actual number of wines tasted its hard to draw any firm conclusions.
Let’s look at the 191 wines a few other ways. Where have they come from? Has Parker at least found wines to recommend in the major wine growing regions? Marlborough is the big winner with 106 wines recommended, followed by Hawkes Bay (24 wines), Wairarapa (16 wines), Otago (7 wines), Nelson (6 wines), South Island (1 wine), Waiheke Island (1 wine), and then Unclassified (30 wines). These numbers are not all that inconsistent with wine production if you consider the regions in terms of the most recent percentage of national production; Marlborough (47.7%), Hawke’s Bay (20.0%), Gisborne (8.3%), Otago (5.5%), Canterbury (4.1%), Wairarapa (3.4%), Nelson, (3.2%), Auckland (incl. Waiheke Isl) (2.4%), Waikato/Bay of Plenty (0.6%). Perhaps Gisborne has missed out, but then one might argue that if you don’t make the list that may be a good thing!
What about varieties? Clearly Sauvignon Blanc, with 79 wines, is the favorite but most wineries have at least one and sometimes multiple SBs. Next comes Pinot Noir (30 wines), followed by Chardonnay (27 wines). Nothing too unexpected there, but it is interesting to note that Parker’s critique of New Zealand wine scolds these three varietals, the three that he has recommended the most. I find that just a little odd.
Next came Riesling (25 wines), over half (14 wines) coming from Marlborough. Then came Proprietary Blends (17 wines) of which three were white (Selaks Ice Wine). The other red varietals, apart from Pinot Noir, were Cabernet Sauvignon (4 wines), Syrah (3 wines), Cabernet Franc (2 wines), and Merlot (2 wines). Single examples of Pinot Gris and Viognier also made the list.
It just does not seem all that impressive an experience, does it? The numbers just don’t support an extensive experience of New Zealand wine at The Wine Advocate. And its difficult to argue otherwise because if that is the case then the last time that Ata Rangi made decent Pinot was 1995-6, Felton Road 1997, and Martinborough Vineyard and Villa Maria only got it right in 2000. And Cloudy Bay only ever made Sauvignon Blanc worth recommending in 1990? No, Parker’s recommendations hint at a lack of exposure to the wines of New Zealand.
What about other reviewers? How does the Wine Spectator see New Zealand wine? In 2006 they rated 184 wines. None of the wines received scores between 95-100, 20% scored between 90-94, 56%, between 85-89, 18% between 80-84, and 6% found their way into the 50-79 point group. By comparison 862 Australian wines were rated with 1% in the 95-100 point group and 26% received 90-94 points, 61%, between 85-89, 10% between 80-84, and 2% found their way into the 50-79 point group. Those percentages seen very similar and certainly a lot better than Argentina with 18% in the 50-79 point group.
Now somewhere at the back of the room I can hear a murmur complaining “All this is just about Parker and points. Who cares?” Well the take home message is quite simple. When you think of New Zealand wine, what comes to mind?
“Not Robert Parker!”
“Sauvignon Blanc.”
“Yes, and Pinot Noir.”
Correct, and isn’t it interesting that New Zealand wine has established an international standing, particularly for Sauvignon Blanc, without the help of the lawyer from Maryland! If they can be left alone long enough maybe we’ll get other wines that speak of New Zealand - Pinot Noir and Syrah and Riesling, and…….
Of the 20 countries listed in the database New Zealand ranks 12th, ahead of Greece (58 wines), Japan (48 wines), Ukraine (7 wines), Algeria (2 wines), Morocco (2 wines), Hungary (1 wine), Israel (1 wine), and Lebanon (1 wine). There are 191 wine reviews listed for New Zealand, but that number is deceptive because it represents the number of wines recommended; there may well have been several fold more than 191 tasted. What is a recommended wine? Usually it scores 85 or above on the 100 point scale. In the case of the 191 wines this is correct as 34 were rated between 90-95 and 155 between 80-89. However none of the wines had scores below 85; there were 2 wines where the score was not recorded.
Thirty-four wines scored 90-95 points, or outstanding. What Robert Parker, Jr describes as a “wine of exceptional complexity and character.” But no wines were rated as extraordinary, that is scored greater than 95 points. These are wines of “profound and complex character displaying all the attributes expected of a classic wine of its variety.” Does that say anything about the overall quality of New Zealand wine as assessed by The Wine Advocate? Its difficult to judge given that there is no indication of the total number of wines tasted. Parker usually recommends around 30% of Australian wines, and if that was the case for New Zealand then he may have tasted as many as 636 wines. But as he seems not to favor New Zealand wine all that much the percentage of recommended wines may be lower, let’s say its 10%. That would put the quantity of tasted wines closer to 1200. Seems like quite a sizeable number! How does it compare with the total number of wines produced in New Zealand? Michael Cooper, in his 2007 Buyer’s Guide to New Zealand Wines, notes that there are some 550 wineries producing a total of 3,000 wines, and he tasted and rated 2,740 for his annual review. But Parker’s reviews are not from a single year, nor are they from just a few vintages, they span 1990 to 2004. The greatest number of wines recommended was for the 1999 vintage with 40 wines, followed by 2002 (38 wines), 2001 (23 wines), 1998 (20 wines), 2003 (19 wines), 2000 (11 wines), 2004 (10 wines), 1991 (6 wines), 1996 (5 wines), 1997 (4 wines), 1990 (2 wines) and one wine for each vintage between 1992-1995. Do they represent an adequate sampling of the wines of New Zealand? Well, a decade ago there were 200 wineries and 1,000 wines. So finding less than 10 wines to recommend from any vintage in the early to mid-mid-1990s suggests that a small number of wines were tasted or that Parker was finding very little to recommend! Lets look at two of the years where he scored the most wines and see if there has been improvement in the scores with time. In 1999 he recommended 40 wines, 36 of which were in the 80-89 point range. In 2002 he recommended 38 wines and 26 were in the 80-89 point group. Over that short period more wines have made it into the Outstanding group and more red wines have been recommended than in 1999; 15 as opposed to 6. But these are small numbers and without knowing the actual number of wines tasted its hard to draw any firm conclusions.
Let’s look at the 191 wines a few other ways. Where have they come from? Has Parker at least found wines to recommend in the major wine growing regions? Marlborough is the big winner with 106 wines recommended, followed by Hawkes Bay (24 wines), Wairarapa (16 wines), Otago (7 wines), Nelson (6 wines), South Island (1 wine), Waiheke Island (1 wine), and then Unclassified (30 wines). These numbers are not all that inconsistent with wine production if you consider the regions in terms of the most recent percentage of national production; Marlborough (47.7%), Hawke’s Bay (20.0%), Gisborne (8.3%), Otago (5.5%), Canterbury (4.1%), Wairarapa (3.4%), Nelson, (3.2%), Auckland (incl. Waiheke Isl) (2.4%), Waikato/Bay of Plenty (0.6%). Perhaps Gisborne has missed out, but then one might argue that if you don’t make the list that may be a good thing!
What about varieties? Clearly Sauvignon Blanc, with 79 wines, is the favorite but most wineries have at least one and sometimes multiple SBs. Next comes Pinot Noir (30 wines), followed by Chardonnay (27 wines). Nothing too unexpected there, but it is interesting to note that Parker’s critique of New Zealand wine scolds these three varietals, the three that he has recommended the most. I find that just a little odd.
Next came Riesling (25 wines), over half (14 wines) coming from Marlborough. Then came Proprietary Blends (17 wines) of which three were white (Selaks Ice Wine). The other red varietals, apart from Pinot Noir, were Cabernet Sauvignon (4 wines), Syrah (3 wines), Cabernet Franc (2 wines), and Merlot (2 wines). Single examples of Pinot Gris and Viognier also made the list.
It just does not seem all that impressive an experience, does it? The numbers just don’t support an extensive experience of New Zealand wine at The Wine Advocate. And its difficult to argue otherwise because if that is the case then the last time that Ata Rangi made decent Pinot was 1995-6, Felton Road 1997, and Martinborough Vineyard and Villa Maria only got it right in 2000. And Cloudy Bay only ever made Sauvignon Blanc worth recommending in 1990? No, Parker’s recommendations hint at a lack of exposure to the wines of New Zealand.
What about other reviewers? How does the Wine Spectator see New Zealand wine? In 2006 they rated 184 wines. None of the wines received scores between 95-100, 20% scored between 90-94, 56%, between 85-89, 18% between 80-84, and 6% found their way into the 50-79 point group. By comparison 862 Australian wines were rated with 1% in the 95-100 point group and 26% received 90-94 points, 61%, between 85-89, 10% between 80-84, and 2% found their way into the 50-79 point group. Those percentages seen very similar and certainly a lot better than Argentina with 18% in the 50-79 point group.
Now somewhere at the back of the room I can hear a murmur complaining “All this is just about Parker and points. Who cares?” Well the take home message is quite simple. When you think of New Zealand wine, what comes to mind?
“Not Robert Parker!”
“Sauvignon Blanc.”
“Yes, and Pinot Noir.”
Correct, and isn’t it interesting that New Zealand wine has established an international standing, particularly for Sauvignon Blanc, without the help of the lawyer from Maryland! If they can be left alone long enough maybe we’ll get other wines that speak of New Zealand - Pinot Noir and Syrah and Riesling, and…….
Thursday, March 01, 2007
How to Win Friends and Influence People
Come on New Zealand own up, just what did you do to Robert Parker, Jr.? It must have been something out of the ordinary to deserve this.
New Zealand
The cool-climate wines of New Zealand have long been popular with wine critics. But to me, the pinot noirs are often too vegetal and green, the sauvignon blancs reminiscent of cat pee, and the chardonnays grotesquely over-oaked. This is a country of young wine producers where everything remains a work in progress, but for now the prices of these wines do not translate to quality in the bottle. Robert parker, Business Week online, February 7th, 2007.
Let me see if I can picture it. Ah yes, the images are forming readily in my mind as I write. Parker, on his way from his last encounter with big bruising Barossa Shiraz decides to stop off in New Zealand for a little R&R. The international port of call would have to be Auckland, and someone (we are never likely to know whom) decides to take the all seeing, all knowing master critic of Bordeaux to Waiheke Island to taste New Zealand Bordeaux. That, of course, would be the first mistake. But then, with Parker’s penchant for paying his own way, insult is heaped upon insult as he finds himself paying outrageous sums of money (OK, so its only NZ $s) just for a taste of what seems to be barely above vin ordinaire. Two wrongs don’t make a right, and as our critic wings his way eastward, back to the safety of fortress America, his fingers flash across the keyboard of his laptop. “The cool climate wines of New Zealand………..
New Zealand
The cool-climate wines of New Zealand have long been popular with wine critics. But to me, the pinot noirs are often too vegetal and green, the sauvignon blancs reminiscent of cat pee, and the chardonnays grotesquely over-oaked. This is a country of young wine producers where everything remains a work in progress, but for now the prices of these wines do not translate to quality in the bottle. Robert parker, Business Week online, February 7th, 2007.
Let me see if I can picture it. Ah yes, the images are forming readily in my mind as I write. Parker, on his way from his last encounter with big bruising Barossa Shiraz decides to stop off in New Zealand for a little R&R. The international port of call would have to be Auckland, and someone (we are never likely to know whom) decides to take the all seeing, all knowing master critic of Bordeaux to Waiheke Island to taste New Zealand Bordeaux. That, of course, would be the first mistake. But then, with Parker’s penchant for paying his own way, insult is heaped upon insult as he finds himself paying outrageous sums of money (OK, so its only NZ $s) just for a taste of what seems to be barely above vin ordinaire. Two wrongs don’t make a right, and as our critic wings his way eastward, back to the safety of fortress America, his fingers flash across the keyboard of his laptop. “The cool climate wines of New Zealand………..
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Nelson Interlude
The Nelson wine region, located on the western side of the northern end of the South Island of New Zealand, is home to some twenty-three boutique wineries which occupy two major geographical regions. The Waimea plains are made up of alluvial loams; Waimea means “river gardens” in Maori. The plains are bounded by rolling valleys and hills so that a V-shape is formed as the plains broaden toward the ocean. To the west of Nelson, the Moutere Hills are more clay and gravel in composition.
This is a cool climate wine region, protected from rain by mountains to the west. Rich in horticulture, seafood and artists, the region was first home to winemaking when German winemakers arrived in 1843. By 1845 they had left for the more appealing hills of South Australia. It was not until the 1970s that vineyards again began to make their presence felt.
We arrived into the region by car from Blenheim, the heart of Marlborough wine country, after a short flight from Auckland. It did seem a little like a retreat to be driving away from the flat vineyards of Marlborough through Renwick to Havelock, the Green Shell Mussel Capital of the World, and then through the Rai Valley and on into Nelson. But we were on a mission. We had planned to meet up with Max Marroitt, an expatriate Aussie, who was working over the summer at Neudorf. Max planned to meet us at Greenhough Vineyard at midday to taste through some of their wines before moving on to Neudorf to sample their wares.
Greenhough (green-hoff) Vineyard and Winery
Both vineyard and winery are located on an elevated south-easterly corner of the Waimea Plains, a broad plateau known as Burke's Bank. When we arrived at Greenhough Max was already inside talking with Andrew Greenhough. A Master’s degree in Art History seems an unlikely start to viticulture but that is how Andrew began his wine adventure. Quietly spoken, he let’s the wines do all the talking.
Sauvignon Blanc 2006 (screwcap) (13.5% alcohol)
Light straw in color with muted notes of citrus and tropical fruits. A riper style, lacking herbaceousness. Very crisp acidity is the center piece of this well balanced, very well made wine. Should drink well till 2008. 2, 2, 3.8, 9.8 = 17.6/20, 88/100.
Hope Vineyard Chardonnay 2004 (screwcap) (14.0% alcohol)
A wine made using French oak (13% new) and malolactic fermentation it has an excellent nutty character with just a hint of oak. Medium weight on the palate, this is a vibrant wine with excellent mouthfeel and carry of flavors and a lengthy finish. Drink 2006-10 2, 2, 4.0, 10.0 = 18.0/20, 90/100.
Hope Vineyard Chardonnay 2005 (screwcap) (13.5% alcohol)
Made with more new oak (25%) this wine shows its youth and is revealing very little at present, just some citrus, and lime flavors. Tightly wound, it will need time to open, but the balance and structure are there, and the acidity adds appealing crispness. Drink 2006-12. 2, 2, 3.8, 9.8 = 17.6/20, 88/100.
Hope Vineyard Pinot Noir 2004 (screwcap) (14.0% alcohol)
Matured in 35% new French oak this wine is light cherry in color, and with very typical spicy notes of Pinot Noir together with flavors of red fruits and ripe lychees. There is almost a touch of sweetness on the palate, and the flavors carry extremely well providing great length to this delightfully balanced wine. Drink 2006-2010. 2, 2, 4.1, 10.3 = 18.4/20, 92/100.
Hope Vineyard Pinot Noir 2005 (screwcap) (14.0% alcohol)
The yields were considerably lower, and the flavors more concentrated in 2005 and it shows in this wine. It lacks the overt spicy notes of the 2004. Instead there are deeply seated fruit and savory flavors with a touch of pepper rising just above the surface of this densely packaged, classy wine. The mouthfeel is soft and silky with prominent, vibrant acidity that carries across the palate and will need time to integrate. But thus is an excellently structured wine that will reward patience. Drink 2008-2015. 2, 2, 4.3, 10.4 = 18.7/20, 94/100.
As we were leaving we purchased a bottle of the Gewürztraminer that Miranda and I had with dinner at the Plaza Indian in Blenhiem later in the week.
Gewürztraminer 2006 (screwcap) (13.5% alcohol)
Light straw yellow in color this is a wine that is full of flavor with muted spices flooded by aromas of apricot, nectarine and white peach. The flavors carry well onto a rich palate and are enhanced by crisp acidity. There is a little lingering sweetness to the finish, but it is not cloying. A very well balanced and palate pleasing wine. Drink 2006-2010. 2, 2, 3.9, 10.0 = 17.9/20, 89/100.
Neudorf
The Neudorf Vineyards are among the oldest in the Nelson region with planting having begun in 1978. The vineyards constitute either those on the north-facing slope overlooking a branch of the Moutere Valley, or on the Waimea plains south of Nelson.
Nelson Chardonnay 2005 (screwcap) (14.0% alcohol)
Light straw in color with aromas of smoky oak, citrus and peach, barrel fermented (25% new oak) with indigenous yeasts this Chardonnay is less complex than the Greenhough, but still nicely structured. It needs a little time for the oak to settle but it has the acidity to carry aging. Drink 2008-2014. 2, 2, 3.7, 9.8 = 17.5/20, 87/100.
Moutere Pinot Noir 2004 (screwcap) (14.5% alcohol)
Indigenous yeast fermented and matured in French Oak barrels (40% new) for eleven months, this is a richly aromatic, riper style of Pinot Noir with a stalky character. Soft and silky in texture with a beautiful carry of flavors onto the palate, nice balance and good supporting acidity. Drink 2006-2011. 2, 2, 3.9, 9.7 = 17.6/20, 88/100.
Nelson Pinot Noir 2004 (screwcap) (13.5% alcohol)
Also fermented with indigenous yeasts and then matured for eight months in French barriques (25% new), this is an unusually scented wine, giving little spiciness but instead the smell of yeasty dough. More mouthfilling that the Moutere, it opens on the palate to reveal spice flavors more typical of Pinot Noir. However the acidity is a little harsh and not well integrated at present. Needs time. Drink 2008-2011. 2, 2, 3.3, 9.4 = 16.7/20, 84/100.
Later in the evening, courtesy of the excellent hospitality of Max, we sampled even more wines including a few more New Zealanders. One, the 2004 Felton Road Pinot Noir left the examples tasted earlier in the day in its wake. But we would taste even better Pinot in the days to come.
The next evening we opened a bottle of Neudorf Moutere Riesling. It was a wine some liked and others were less enamored by. The fact that the bottle remained unfinished after two days seemed to indicate the verdict of the jury.
Moutere Riesling 2005 (screwcap) (11.0% alcohol) $28NZD)
Light straw yellow in color the initial aromas were of sweet, ripe grapes, followed by honey, with a hint of apricot and peach, and a touch of petrichor (minerality). Mouthfilling, the initial sweetness was cut short by pronounced green apple acidity that overwhelmed the palate, and did not allow the fruit flavors to show off their highlights. Otherwise a well made wine with excellent persistence to its finish. Drink 2007-2013. 2, 2, 3.7, 9.5 = 17.2/20, 86/100.
This is a cool climate wine region, protected from rain by mountains to the west. Rich in horticulture, seafood and artists, the region was first home to winemaking when German winemakers arrived in 1843. By 1845 they had left for the more appealing hills of South Australia. It was not until the 1970s that vineyards again began to make their presence felt.
We arrived into the region by car from Blenheim, the heart of Marlborough wine country, after a short flight from Auckland. It did seem a little like a retreat to be driving away from the flat vineyards of Marlborough through Renwick to Havelock, the Green Shell Mussel Capital of the World, and then through the Rai Valley and on into Nelson. But we were on a mission. We had planned to meet up with Max Marroitt, an expatriate Aussie, who was working over the summer at Neudorf. Max planned to meet us at Greenhough Vineyard at midday to taste through some of their wines before moving on to Neudorf to sample their wares.
Greenhough (green-hoff) Vineyard and Winery
Both vineyard and winery are located on an elevated south-easterly corner of the Waimea Plains, a broad plateau known as Burke's Bank. When we arrived at Greenhough Max was already inside talking with Andrew Greenhough. A Master’s degree in Art History seems an unlikely start to viticulture but that is how Andrew began his wine adventure. Quietly spoken, he let’s the wines do all the talking.
Sauvignon Blanc 2006 (screwcap) (13.5% alcohol)
Light straw in color with muted notes of citrus and tropical fruits. A riper style, lacking herbaceousness. Very crisp acidity is the center piece of this well balanced, very well made wine. Should drink well till 2008. 2, 2, 3.8, 9.8 = 17.6/20, 88/100.
Hope Vineyard Chardonnay 2004 (screwcap) (14.0% alcohol)
A wine made using French oak (13% new) and malolactic fermentation it has an excellent nutty character with just a hint of oak. Medium weight on the palate, this is a vibrant wine with excellent mouthfeel and carry of flavors and a lengthy finish. Drink 2006-10 2, 2, 4.0, 10.0 = 18.0/20, 90/100.
Hope Vineyard Chardonnay 2005 (screwcap) (13.5% alcohol)
Made with more new oak (25%) this wine shows its youth and is revealing very little at present, just some citrus, and lime flavors. Tightly wound, it will need time to open, but the balance and structure are there, and the acidity adds appealing crispness. Drink 2006-12. 2, 2, 3.8, 9.8 = 17.6/20, 88/100.
Hope Vineyard Pinot Noir 2004 (screwcap) (14.0% alcohol)
Matured in 35% new French oak this wine is light cherry in color, and with very typical spicy notes of Pinot Noir together with flavors of red fruits and ripe lychees. There is almost a touch of sweetness on the palate, and the flavors carry extremely well providing great length to this delightfully balanced wine. Drink 2006-2010. 2, 2, 4.1, 10.3 = 18.4/20, 92/100.
Hope Vineyard Pinot Noir 2005 (screwcap) (14.0% alcohol)
The yields were considerably lower, and the flavors more concentrated in 2005 and it shows in this wine. It lacks the overt spicy notes of the 2004. Instead there are deeply seated fruit and savory flavors with a touch of pepper rising just above the surface of this densely packaged, classy wine. The mouthfeel is soft and silky with prominent, vibrant acidity that carries across the palate and will need time to integrate. But thus is an excellently structured wine that will reward patience. Drink 2008-2015. 2, 2, 4.3, 10.4 = 18.7/20, 94/100.
As we were leaving we purchased a bottle of the Gewürztraminer that Miranda and I had with dinner at the Plaza Indian in Blenhiem later in the week.
Gewürztraminer 2006 (screwcap) (13.5% alcohol)
Light straw yellow in color this is a wine that is full of flavor with muted spices flooded by aromas of apricot, nectarine and white peach. The flavors carry well onto a rich palate and are enhanced by crisp acidity. There is a little lingering sweetness to the finish, but it is not cloying. A very well balanced and palate pleasing wine. Drink 2006-2010. 2, 2, 3.9, 10.0 = 17.9/20, 89/100.
Neudorf
The Neudorf Vineyards are among the oldest in the Nelson region with planting having begun in 1978. The vineyards constitute either those on the north-facing slope overlooking a branch of the Moutere Valley, or on the Waimea plains south of Nelson.
Nelson Chardonnay 2005 (screwcap) (14.0% alcohol)
Light straw in color with aromas of smoky oak, citrus and peach, barrel fermented (25% new oak) with indigenous yeasts this Chardonnay is less complex than the Greenhough, but still nicely structured. It needs a little time for the oak to settle but it has the acidity to carry aging. Drink 2008-2014. 2, 2, 3.7, 9.8 = 17.5/20, 87/100.
Moutere Pinot Noir 2004 (screwcap) (14.5% alcohol)
Indigenous yeast fermented and matured in French Oak barrels (40% new) for eleven months, this is a richly aromatic, riper style of Pinot Noir with a stalky character. Soft and silky in texture with a beautiful carry of flavors onto the palate, nice balance and good supporting acidity. Drink 2006-2011. 2, 2, 3.9, 9.7 = 17.6/20, 88/100.
Nelson Pinot Noir 2004 (screwcap) (13.5% alcohol)
Also fermented with indigenous yeasts and then matured for eight months in French barriques (25% new), this is an unusually scented wine, giving little spiciness but instead the smell of yeasty dough. More mouthfilling that the Moutere, it opens on the palate to reveal spice flavors more typical of Pinot Noir. However the acidity is a little harsh and not well integrated at present. Needs time. Drink 2008-2011. 2, 2, 3.3, 9.4 = 16.7/20, 84/100.
Later in the evening, courtesy of the excellent hospitality of Max, we sampled even more wines including a few more New Zealanders. One, the 2004 Felton Road Pinot Noir left the examples tasted earlier in the day in its wake. But we would taste even better Pinot in the days to come.
The next evening we opened a bottle of Neudorf Moutere Riesling. It was a wine some liked and others were less enamored by. The fact that the bottle remained unfinished after two days seemed to indicate the verdict of the jury.
Moutere Riesling 2005 (screwcap) (11.0% alcohol) $28NZD)
Light straw yellow in color the initial aromas were of sweet, ripe grapes, followed by honey, with a hint of apricot and peach, and a touch of petrichor (minerality). Mouthfilling, the initial sweetness was cut short by pronounced green apple acidity that overwhelmed the palate, and did not allow the fruit flavors to show off their highlights. Otherwise a well made wine with excellent persistence to its finish. Drink 2007-2013. 2, 2, 3.7, 9.5 = 17.2/20, 86/100.
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Syrah, Pinot Noir, and Aromatics
I’ve been waiting on Steve Smith MW to reply to an email I sent asking about the age of the oldest vines in New Zealand. And then I realized that he’s probably up to his armpits in Pinot Noir2007. It’s a four-day event being held in Wellington, New Zealand between January 29th and February 1st 2007.Pinot Noir2007 will be preceded by a Syrah Symposium to be held on Friday 26th and Saturday 27th of January in Hawke’s Bay. The symposium is being organized and hosted by Hawke’s Bay Winegrowers as part of an extended program of Pinot Noir 2007.
And after these two symposiums if you find that you have had trouble identifying the aromas of Pinot and Syrah then maybe you can get help at the inaugural Nelson Aromatic Symposium in Upper Moutere, Nelson, on Saturday February 3rd. The one day symposium is strictly limited to 150 places (SOLD OUT).
I guess I’ll be waiting quite awhile for a reply to my email!
Saturday, January 06, 2007
Waiheke: Island of Wine. Yeah Right
I’m not sure if there has been a Tui billboard that argues against the pundits when it comes to Waiheke Island wines. And having tasted less than a dozen perhaps I shouldn’t cast doubts either, but judging from the lack of criticism of my stance from others in different wine regions of New Zealand I think there is support for the construct. Sour grapes? Perhaps, but that depends if you think the grapes are being used to make wine or in the mouths of others.
Vineyards on Waiheke Island have a very short history, going back only as far as 1978 when vines were planted at Goldwater Estate. Today there are some 26 individual vineyards, many with cellar doors. However if you want to taste wine on Waiheke go on a weekend, go later in the summer than we did, and call ahead for an appointment; see the web site for details. Only 10 vineyards/cellar doors were open when we visited and a number of them closed by 4pm. So don’t linger in the villages or over the scenery, as we did, because it will severely cut down on your time with wine.
Waiheke Island is best reached by ferry from The Ferry Building in Auckland (a Link stop on Customs St will get you close). The trip takes about 35 minutes and if you are feeling lucky you can leave the organization of island transport until you the reach the ferry terminal on the island. I had emailed both hire car companies the night before about the possibility of reservations and they were ready for us as walked up to their booths. Pity I didn’t have my California Drivers’ License with me. Fortunately Ngaire, my cousin, and her husband Chris had flown in from Australia at 1 am that morning. Chris looked awake enough to sign up as our chauffer.
The first order of business was to find the Waiheke Wine Centre. Touted as having all available Waiheke wines, as well as tastings of wines and local olive oils, it seemed like the ideal first port of call. Wine centers with official sounding names are big in New Zealand. We had visited the New Zealand Winemakers Centre in Auckland thinking that it was something put together by New Zealand winemakers. But it was just a privately run wine shop. It was the same with the Waiheke Wine Centre. Just a simple bottle shop, but with an impressive selection of wines. We spent a good half an hour just looking before we decided to ask what was on the tasting bench. The line-up was of Waiheke Island wines, 3 wines for $15NZD. That seemed a little steep, even if it did come with local olive oils and dukkah. There was the Passage Rock 2006 Rose and 2006 Viognier, and the Obsidian Weeping Sands 2005 Merlot/Cabernet. We were allowed to sit out the back of the shop, on a very, very small balcony with an ocean view, while we tasted our wines. I didn’t make any notes because, well I was simply not moved to do so. The wines were ordinary at best. The others kept asking me what I thought, did the wines seem to be lacking in flavor, and did I think that there was enough there in terms of structure? At least the olive oils seemed attractive. Maybe we should go and have lunch?
Miranda had figured out where she wanted to go, Te Whau. But we didn’t have a reservation for what has been described as "One of the Best Restaurants in the World for Wine Lovers" by the Wine Spectator. If we couldn’t get in we could at least get a few pictures of the magnificent views back towards Auckland. As soon as we walked in the door we were asked if we had a reservation. No? Well, sorry but we are fully booked. All we can give you is the next hour. No problem, we can eat lunch in an hour. And we did. The food was impressive, the service attentive and the views the best I have had from any vineyard restaurant. I had the Lemon Pepper Roasted Rump of Lamb with fennel and capsicum pickle, and lemongrass puree and a glass of the 2004 Te Whau The Point. The other wine tasted (by Chris) was the 2005 Te Whau Chardonnay. Both wines were clear improvements over our earlier tasting and as we snapped a few final pictures outside the restaurant I held high hopes for the next winery on the list, Stonyridge.
Stonyridge makes the flagship wine of Waiheke. Its a Bordeaux blend called Larose that is sold largely en primeur. A cult wine, among a stable of expensive wines, none of which is less that $55NZD/bottle. Is this reputation deserved? A PDF on the web site notes that the 1994 and 1996 Larose produced record sales at auction in New Zealand in February 2003, “which makes this one of the best investments anyone can make!” An interesting claim to make on a web site!
The Larose was not on the tasting list but many of the stable were, and we could pick any three for the princely sum of $30NZD! We chose the 2004 Row 10 Chardonnay ($65NZD), 2004 Luna Negra – Hill Side Malbec ($75NZD) and the 2004 Pilgrim, a Syrah, Grenache, Mouvedre blend ($90NZD). A second label, Fallen Angel, made from grapes sourced off Waiheke was also available for tasting at a more reasonable $10NZD for three wines. Here we picked the 2006 Marlborough Sauvignon Blanc ($26NZD), 2005 Central Otago Pinot Noir ($59NZD) and the 2004 Gisbourne Semillon/Gewurztraminer dessert wine ($36NZD). It may have been the almost gale force winds that forced us to fiercely protect our glasses (how do they keep leaves, let alone berries on the vines here?), or the entertaining conversations with another table about the wind, New Zealand beating Australia at rugby, and anyone beating England at cricket, but I was again unmoved by the wines. No, that is not quite true. The Sauvignon Blanc was quite a passable example and the Semillon/Gewurztraminer blend a pleasant little sticky. The Stonyridge wines, although presenting some attractive flavors, attacked the palate from all angles. Balance and structure seemed to have been carried off by the wind. The rest of our time on the island was spent exploring the scenery and trying to get lost on the narrow, sometimes poorly marked, roads.
That evening, back in Auckland we opened a bottle of Penninsula Estate Zeno Syrah 2002 ($35.95NZD) that I had purchased from Accent on Wine in Parnell. Initially muted with white pepper over a little mint and spice it developed mocha, earthy, and dusty oak notes. Almost medium weight on the palate, it presented the mouth with inky, earthy, lengthy flavors mixed with graphite and surrounded by firm astringency and overt acidity. Again, there was that angularity and lack of balance. With time things may come together. (2, 2, 3.5, 9.0 = 16.5/20, 83/100. 13.3% alcohol). The one interesting observation was that the aromas of the Zeno did evolve over several hours; trying, perhaps in vain, to become more Old than New World. A similar event occurred the following evening where a bottle of the 2004 Passage Rock Syrah ($80NZD at Accent on Wine) faced off against the 2004 Lagier Meredith Syrah (Mt Veeder, California). The Passage Rock, although suffering the fate of sinking to the bottom or near the bottom among a group of eight wines, did evolve some interesting flavors over several hours. (Note: Link - Scroll down to see tasting notes by Max Marriott on the wines from the evening.)
Am I being too hard on Waiheke Island wines? Given our New Zealand wine experiences, especially those of the following days? No. The Waiheke Island wines that we tried simply do not warrant consideration at the prices being asked. Limited production and the idea of Bordeaux style wine is not a recipe that will lead to success in the wine world of the 21st century. There may be wineries on Waiheke that let the wine speak of the vineyards, I hope there are.
Vineyards on Waiheke Island have a very short history, going back only as far as 1978 when vines were planted at Goldwater Estate. Today there are some 26 individual vineyards, many with cellar doors. However if you want to taste wine on Waiheke go on a weekend, go later in the summer than we did, and call ahead for an appointment; see the web site for details. Only 10 vineyards/cellar doors were open when we visited and a number of them closed by 4pm. So don’t linger in the villages or over the scenery, as we did, because it will severely cut down on your time with wine.
Waiheke Island is best reached by ferry from The Ferry Building in Auckland (a Link stop on Customs St will get you close). The trip takes about 35 minutes and if you are feeling lucky you can leave the organization of island transport until you the reach the ferry terminal on the island. I had emailed both hire car companies the night before about the possibility of reservations and they were ready for us as walked up to their booths. Pity I didn’t have my California Drivers’ License with me. Fortunately Ngaire, my cousin, and her husband Chris had flown in from Australia at 1 am that morning. Chris looked awake enough to sign up as our chauffer.
The first order of business was to find the Waiheke Wine Centre. Touted as having all available Waiheke wines, as well as tastings of wines and local olive oils, it seemed like the ideal first port of call. Wine centers with official sounding names are big in New Zealand. We had visited the New Zealand Winemakers Centre in Auckland thinking that it was something put together by New Zealand winemakers. But it was just a privately run wine shop. It was the same with the Waiheke Wine Centre. Just a simple bottle shop, but with an impressive selection of wines. We spent a good half an hour just looking before we decided to ask what was on the tasting bench. The line-up was of Waiheke Island wines, 3 wines for $15NZD. That seemed a little steep, even if it did come with local olive oils and dukkah. There was the Passage Rock 2006 Rose and 2006 Viognier, and the Obsidian Weeping Sands 2005 Merlot/Cabernet. We were allowed to sit out the back of the shop, on a very, very small balcony with an ocean view, while we tasted our wines. I didn’t make any notes because, well I was simply not moved to do so. The wines were ordinary at best. The others kept asking me what I thought, did the wines seem to be lacking in flavor, and did I think that there was enough there in terms of structure? At least the olive oils seemed attractive. Maybe we should go and have lunch?
Miranda had figured out where she wanted to go, Te Whau. But we didn’t have a reservation for what has been described as "One of the Best Restaurants in the World for Wine Lovers" by the Wine Spectator. If we couldn’t get in we could at least get a few pictures of the magnificent views back towards Auckland. As soon as we walked in the door we were asked if we had a reservation. No? Well, sorry but we are fully booked. All we can give you is the next hour. No problem, we can eat lunch in an hour. And we did. The food was impressive, the service attentive and the views the best I have had from any vineyard restaurant. I had the Lemon Pepper Roasted Rump of Lamb with fennel and capsicum pickle, and lemongrass puree and a glass of the 2004 Te Whau The Point. The other wine tasted (by Chris) was the 2005 Te Whau Chardonnay. Both wines were clear improvements over our earlier tasting and as we snapped a few final pictures outside the restaurant I held high hopes for the next winery on the list, Stonyridge.
Stonyridge makes the flagship wine of Waiheke. Its a Bordeaux blend called Larose that is sold largely en primeur. A cult wine, among a stable of expensive wines, none of which is less that $55NZD/bottle. Is this reputation deserved? A PDF on the web site notes that the 1994 and 1996 Larose produced record sales at auction in New Zealand in February 2003, “which makes this one of the best investments anyone can make!” An interesting claim to make on a web site!
The Larose was not on the tasting list but many of the stable were, and we could pick any three for the princely sum of $30NZD! We chose the 2004 Row 10 Chardonnay ($65NZD), 2004 Luna Negra – Hill Side Malbec ($75NZD) and the 2004 Pilgrim, a Syrah, Grenache, Mouvedre blend ($90NZD). A second label, Fallen Angel, made from grapes sourced off Waiheke was also available for tasting at a more reasonable $10NZD for three wines. Here we picked the 2006 Marlborough Sauvignon Blanc ($26NZD), 2005 Central Otago Pinot Noir ($59NZD) and the 2004 Gisbourne Semillon/Gewurztraminer dessert wine ($36NZD). It may have been the almost gale force winds that forced us to fiercely protect our glasses (how do they keep leaves, let alone berries on the vines here?), or the entertaining conversations with another table about the wind, New Zealand beating Australia at rugby, and anyone beating England at cricket, but I was again unmoved by the wines. No, that is not quite true. The Sauvignon Blanc was quite a passable example and the Semillon/Gewurztraminer blend a pleasant little sticky. The Stonyridge wines, although presenting some attractive flavors, attacked the palate from all angles. Balance and structure seemed to have been carried off by the wind. The rest of our time on the island was spent exploring the scenery and trying to get lost on the narrow, sometimes poorly marked, roads.
That evening, back in Auckland we opened a bottle of Penninsula Estate Zeno Syrah 2002 ($35.95NZD) that I had purchased from Accent on Wine in Parnell. Initially muted with white pepper over a little mint and spice it developed mocha, earthy, and dusty oak notes. Almost medium weight on the palate, it presented the mouth with inky, earthy, lengthy flavors mixed with graphite and surrounded by firm astringency and overt acidity. Again, there was that angularity and lack of balance. With time things may come together. (2, 2, 3.5, 9.0 = 16.5/20, 83/100. 13.3% alcohol). The one interesting observation was that the aromas of the Zeno did evolve over several hours; trying, perhaps in vain, to become more Old than New World. A similar event occurred the following evening where a bottle of the 2004 Passage Rock Syrah ($80NZD at Accent on Wine) faced off against the 2004 Lagier Meredith Syrah (Mt Veeder, California). The Passage Rock, although suffering the fate of sinking to the bottom or near the bottom among a group of eight wines, did evolve some interesting flavors over several hours. (Note: Link - Scroll down to see tasting notes by Max Marriott on the wines from the evening.)
Am I being too hard on Waiheke Island wines? Given our New Zealand wine experiences, especially those of the following days? No. The Waiheke Island wines that we tried simply do not warrant consideration at the prices being asked. Limited production and the idea of Bordeaux style wine is not a recipe that will lead to success in the wine world of the 21st century. There may be wineries on Waiheke that let the wine speak of the vineyards, I hope there are.
Thursday, January 04, 2007
Mattinson and the Madcap World of Mollydooker
There is simply no doubt about it, Campbell Mattinson is the most creative and informative wine writer on the planet. I’ve just finished reading his article on Sarah and Sparky Marquis of Mollydooker wines, and if you think you know about Sarah and Sparky, their high octane wines, and Robert Parker Jr’s love affair with them. Well, think again. Campbell uncovers the real reason why wines made by the Marquis’s, including Shirvington, Parson's Flat, Henry's Drive, Marquis-Philips, and Mollydooker, have such intensity. Its not because they try to make wines with rich flavors of blackcurrant or even the subtly of rose petals, its not a desire for complexity, or elegance, or to be different, or even interesting; although I’m not too sure about the last two. Its……., well you have to read the article to find out. (Yes, you need to subscribe. So you’ll miss out on two bottles of wine this year. They will have been corked anyway.)
There is one paragraph of the article that I do want to quote, and I hope Campbell will forgive me, but its mostly a quote from Sparky. It concerns the longevity of Mollydooker wines.
"People are always asking me, When should I drink this wine? How long should I cellar it?" he says. And I don't doubt him for a second - his wines are blisteringly fruity and whacky with alcohol, and a lot of people are bound to wonder whether time will mellow the fruit, leaving only ... "And you know what I say to them? I'm making another one next year! When should you drink it? How long will it take you to find a corkscrew?!! Or now that we're going screwcaps, How long will it take you to get a glass?!!"
I don’t know about you, but that seems like a pretty good explanation as to why someone would make wines the way that Sarah and Sparky Marquis do, year after year.
There is one paragraph of the article that I do want to quote, and I hope Campbell will forgive me, but its mostly a quote from Sparky. It concerns the longevity of Mollydooker wines.
"People are always asking me, When should I drink this wine? How long should I cellar it?" he says. And I don't doubt him for a second - his wines are blisteringly fruity and whacky with alcohol, and a lot of people are bound to wonder whether time will mellow the fruit, leaving only ... "And you know what I say to them? I'm making another one next year! When should you drink it? How long will it take you to find a corkscrew?!! Or now that we're going screwcaps, How long will it take you to get a glass?!!"
I don’t know about you, but that seems like a pretty good explanation as to why someone would make wines the way that Sarah and Sparky Marquis do, year after year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)