For our tenth wine we return to the Napa Valley and the other variety that has made this region famous, Cabernet Sauvignon. Paradigm Winery has been reputed to make one of the top 50 Cabernet based wines in Napa Valley. In the past it has been one wine that I have rated highly in blind tastings. This wine also has the distinction of having Heidi Peterson Barrett as its winemaker. Barrett has been the winemaker for Screaming Eagle, the pinnacle of cult Napa Cabernets. An impressive pedigree indeed!
Wine #10 2002 Paradigm Estate Cabernet Sauvignon, Oakville, Napa valley, California: ($24.99USD, 375ml), 14.8% alcohol.
One bottle was splash decanted and the other left unopen; both in the cellar at 56 degree F. After 2 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: Dusty earth, charred, tarry notes over evident alcohol and black olives. Very soft entry with unexpected finesse on the palate, fine tannins but lacking a persistent finish.
Glass B: More richly flavored with stewed, charred flavors over coffee and black fruits. Softer tannins but otherwise as for glass A. More flavor carry than glass C.
Glass C: As for glass A with dusty earth, charred and tarry notes over black olives. Softer than glass B, but otherwise more like glass A. Not a lot of flavor carry, almost dead in the mouth.
Note: Dusty note blows off in the glass and is not evidence of a corked wine.
My opinion: Glass B is from the bottle, glasses A and C are from the decanter.
Reality: Glass B is from the decanter, glasses A and C contain wine from the bottle.
Conclusion: Well it only took 10 wines to find one that shows improvement with decanting. OK, you could argue that its less because some of the wines tested might never benefit from decanting, but as I have said before there will be no discrimination against any wine. What was questionable about this decanting test was the lack of varietal definition in the Paradigm even with aeration. Compared to a bottle of 2003 Whitehall Lane Estate Cabernet Sauvignon (14.2% alcohol) drunk a few days later, the Paradigm showed little of the freshness and fruit flavor that you might expect from a wine still in its youth. Still it will be interesting to source a few more splits (375 ml) of Napa Cabernet to see if any more benefit from decanting. My opinion? A simple no should suffice.
Score: Wines tested 10, Decanters 1, Non-decanters 2.
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Thursday, August 02, 2007
The Alcohol Debate – Wine and Food
The current outcry against high alcohol wines has, at its center, the notion that these wines are simply not food friendly. Randy Dunn, of Dunn Vineyards, has written “Most wine drinkers do not really appreciate wines that are 15 -16 +% alcohol. They are, in fact, hot and very difficult to enjoy with a meal. About the only dish that seems to put them in their place is a good hot, spicy dish.”
Eric Asimov of The Pour has noted “Many Californians argue that nothing is wrong with high-alcohol wines so long as they are balanced. Nonsense. I like to drink wine with my meal, not sip it, and the more alcohol in the wine, the less I can drink.”.
Dan Berger of Vintage Experiences has penned “Meanwhile, I keep trying the 15% wines and can’t get a single (small) glass down. Too hot. Too heavy. Not a wine to go with food.
And since I consume food with almost all red wines, and have no real desire to make a plate of mature cheeses my main course any time soon, I am left with only one choice: wines with balance.”
Who is responsible for all these food unfriendly, unbalanced monsters? Well according to Randy Dunn (and I’m sure many others) it seems to be critics and reviewers who taste and spit and fail to remember that wine is supposed to accompany food. (Randy Dunn: "Reviewers -please at least include the labeled alcohol percentage in all your reviews, and try to remember that not everyone is spitting.") This criticism is perhaps somewhat unfair given that the most influential wine critics taste thousands of wines each year and organizing appropriate meals to go with the wines would simply be an overwhelming task. Plus food can influence the flavor-profile and taste of wine and let’s face it its hard enough sorting through several wine critics perceptions of a wine without having to figure out how the different meals they paired with the wine influenced their assessment. Plus, when was the last time you visited a cellar door and tasted your way through their range of wines to the accompaniment of separate foods for each wine?
I guess we will all just have to learn to find the food friendly wines ourselves. Either that or bend the knee to the anti-high alcohol hoards and agree that high alcohol wines have to be banned. Not bloody likely! There are always options and alternatives and smart people out there willing to create what must be created. Enter The Sydney International Wine Competition where 2,000 wines are “assessed blind beside appropriate food, by a highly qualified international panel of wine professionals who offer you their personal opinions.”
The SIWC was founded in 1982 , although the archived results for the Top 100 wines only goes back to 1999. Since 2004 the entry numbers for the SIWC has been set at 2,000 wines divided into 13 style categories including lighter, medium or fuller bodied dry white or dry red table, dessert and sparkling wine. The award winning wines have won when tasted with appropriate food in the same style categories.
How do higher alcohol wines fair in this competition? In the 2007 Fuller Bodied Dry Red Wines category the alcohol levels range from 13 to 15%. The winning wine was the 2004 Neagles Rock One Black Dog Reserve Cabernet Shiraz. The Neagles won the trophy for its category plus trophies for “Best Red Table Wine of Competition” and “Best Wine of Competition”.Weighing in at 15% alcohol only one of the six reviewers found the wine “just a little bit hot” Others said “It showed especially well against the beef structurally”, “The palate has nice oak and fruit integration and quite a bit of finesse on the finish. Opening up further with the food.” and “A pleasure to drink. A great match. Well balanced. Delicious flavours. The beef was complemented very nicely with this wine.”
What food was paired with this style category? It was “Marinated “Beef Grand Veneur”, Herbed Crepes, Oyster Mushrooms & Green Peas Puree”, and one of the great attractions of the SIWC is that the recipes for all the meals are available on the site.
A 15.1% wine, the 2003 Bremerton Reserve Cabernet Sauvignon, did very well in the Medium Bodied Dry Red Wines category. Two of the seven judges thought it did not pair well with the matched meal of “Lamb & Eggplant Charlottes, Red Wine Reduction Sauce”, with one noting the high alcohol. But the other judges were much more complimentary “With the food, this is an excellent match.”, “A great food wine.”, “It goes very well with the food. It seems to increase its richness and persistence and the flavours go well.”, and “An excellent food match. Did everything you could ask for from a wine. A real work horse of a food wine.”
Now detractors will argue that there are not many wines above 14.5% listed as award winners in 2007, and that this is a competition for Australian wines, so what use is it? But do those concerns carry weight? What is important is that for 26 years there has been a competition that has paired wine with food that is open to all comers. But perhaps the most telling question has to be directed to those who say they have long lamented the rising levels of alcohol in wine and the loss of food friendly wines. To them I say why have you not established a competition like SIWC here in the United States? What holds you back?
Eric Asimov of The Pour has noted “Many Californians argue that nothing is wrong with high-alcohol wines so long as they are balanced. Nonsense. I like to drink wine with my meal, not sip it, and the more alcohol in the wine, the less I can drink.”.
Dan Berger of Vintage Experiences has penned “Meanwhile, I keep trying the 15% wines and can’t get a single (small) glass down. Too hot. Too heavy. Not a wine to go with food.
And since I consume food with almost all red wines, and have no real desire to make a plate of mature cheeses my main course any time soon, I am left with only one choice: wines with balance.”
Who is responsible for all these food unfriendly, unbalanced monsters? Well according to Randy Dunn (and I’m sure many others) it seems to be critics and reviewers who taste and spit and fail to remember that wine is supposed to accompany food. (Randy Dunn: "Reviewers -please at least include the labeled alcohol percentage in all your reviews, and try to remember that not everyone is spitting.") This criticism is perhaps somewhat unfair given that the most influential wine critics taste thousands of wines each year and organizing appropriate meals to go with the wines would simply be an overwhelming task. Plus food can influence the flavor-profile and taste of wine and let’s face it its hard enough sorting through several wine critics perceptions of a wine without having to figure out how the different meals they paired with the wine influenced their assessment. Plus, when was the last time you visited a cellar door and tasted your way through their range of wines to the accompaniment of separate foods for each wine?
I guess we will all just have to learn to find the food friendly wines ourselves. Either that or bend the knee to the anti-high alcohol hoards and agree that high alcohol wines have to be banned. Not bloody likely! There are always options and alternatives and smart people out there willing to create what must be created. Enter The Sydney International Wine Competition where 2,000 wines are “assessed blind beside appropriate food, by a highly qualified international panel of wine professionals who offer you their personal opinions.”
The SIWC was founded in 1982 , although the archived results for the Top 100 wines only goes back to 1999. Since 2004 the entry numbers for the SIWC has been set at 2,000 wines divided into 13 style categories including lighter, medium or fuller bodied dry white or dry red table, dessert and sparkling wine. The award winning wines have won when tasted with appropriate food in the same style categories.
How do higher alcohol wines fair in this competition? In the 2007 Fuller Bodied Dry Red Wines category the alcohol levels range from 13 to 15%. The winning wine was the 2004 Neagles Rock One Black Dog Reserve Cabernet Shiraz. The Neagles won the trophy for its category plus trophies for “Best Red Table Wine of Competition” and “Best Wine of Competition”.Weighing in at 15% alcohol only one of the six reviewers found the wine “just a little bit hot” Others said “It showed especially well against the beef structurally”, “The palate has nice oak and fruit integration and quite a bit of finesse on the finish. Opening up further with the food.” and “A pleasure to drink. A great match. Well balanced. Delicious flavours. The beef was complemented very nicely with this wine.”
What food was paired with this style category? It was “Marinated “Beef Grand Veneur”, Herbed Crepes, Oyster Mushrooms & Green Peas Puree”, and one of the great attractions of the SIWC is that the recipes for all the meals are available on the site.
A 15.1% wine, the 2003 Bremerton Reserve Cabernet Sauvignon, did very well in the Medium Bodied Dry Red Wines category. Two of the seven judges thought it did not pair well with the matched meal of “Lamb & Eggplant Charlottes, Red Wine Reduction Sauce”, with one noting the high alcohol. But the other judges were much more complimentary “With the food, this is an excellent match.”, “A great food wine.”, “It goes very well with the food. It seems to increase its richness and persistence and the flavours go well.”, and “An excellent food match. Did everything you could ask for from a wine. A real work horse of a food wine.”
Now detractors will argue that there are not many wines above 14.5% listed as award winners in 2007, and that this is a competition for Australian wines, so what use is it? But do those concerns carry weight? What is important is that for 26 years there has been a competition that has paired wine with food that is open to all comers. But perhaps the most telling question has to be directed to those who say they have long lamented the rising levels of alcohol in wine and the loss of food friendly wines. To them I say why have you not established a competition like SIWC here in the United States? What holds you back?
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
Lower Alcohol Wines – A Better Approach
Alcohol levels in wine have been increasing for at least several decades, and there is good reason to believe that this has been driven by the consumer’s desire for fuller flavored wine. Put simply, to achieve riper flavors grapes have to be harvested later in the growing season and fermentation of the riper grapes with their increased sugar levels often leads to increased alcohol levels. The higher alcohol does not seem to have swayed the consumer against these wines, evidence the popularity of one of the major proponents of the style Australian Shiraz. Australian wines are, as Oz Clark said, “sunshine in a bottle” because many of the wine growing regions in Australia have local climatic conditions that have long, hot growing seasons that are conducive to ripening all manner of fruits.
Recently there has been considerable discontent over the increasing amount of alcohol in wine. As I have noted in previous posts I am not a fan of the attempts by individuals like Darrell Corti and Randell Dunn to foist their dislike of high alcohol (14.5% or greater) wines on the drinking public. I am however not adverse to wine makers or retailers giving the consumer the option of lower alcohol wines, or indeed of trying to educate the consumer on the virtues of such wine. Unfortunately, here in the USA the chest beating against higher alcohol wines appears to have no other purpose than to stop the production of high alcohol wines; Randy Dunn, of Dunn Vineyards, made this more than obvious in his letter to the US media.
There is a better way! And its being led by the major supermarket chains in the UK, Tesco, Sainsbury’s and Marks & Spencer. All three have introduced low alcohol wines in recent months. Last year Sainsbury introduced Early Harvest, a 9.5% alcohol white wine from sun drenched Australia. Early Harvest wine made news last year when introduced as wines that would appeal to women because of the reduced number of calories; the implied sexism created its own little furor. The Early Harvest wines, a Semillon/Sauvignon Blanc blend and a Chardonnay, are both 9.5% alcohol and have 12 grams/L of sugar. This level of sugar equates to halbtrocken or medium dry in style and the sweetness would be hard to detect and even with that level of sugar the calories would be less than a bone dry Shiraz with higher alcohol.
But why are these wines being introduced? Is it because of a desire for food friendliness in wine, a facet that is argued to be lacking in high alcohol wines? No, in the UK its not food friendly wine that is being sought. The real goal is to reduce alcohol consumption and the introduction of low alcohol wine is seen as a socially responsible move on the part of the big supermarket chains.
Between 1991 and 2005 the number of alcohol related death has doubled in the UK. And a report by the government on alcohol misuse notes “two major, and largely distinct, problems: of crime and anti-social behaviour in town and city centres, and on the other harm to health as a result of binge- and chronic drinking.” The report also lists numerous additional problems that arise from excess consumption of alcohol.
I certainly have no complaints with consumers wishing to reduce their alcohol consumption and lead healthier lifestyles. And I applaud retailers in the UK for responding to this demand by offering their customers the option of wines with lower alcohol. It’s a far more reasoned approach than the shrill voices in the USA that call for the end of high alcohol wines simply because they don’t appreciate them.
Recently there has been considerable discontent over the increasing amount of alcohol in wine. As I have noted in previous posts I am not a fan of the attempts by individuals like Darrell Corti and Randell Dunn to foist their dislike of high alcohol (14.5% or greater) wines on the drinking public. I am however not adverse to wine makers or retailers giving the consumer the option of lower alcohol wines, or indeed of trying to educate the consumer on the virtues of such wine. Unfortunately, here in the USA the chest beating against higher alcohol wines appears to have no other purpose than to stop the production of high alcohol wines; Randy Dunn, of Dunn Vineyards, made this more than obvious in his letter to the US media.
There is a better way! And its being led by the major supermarket chains in the UK, Tesco, Sainsbury’s and Marks & Spencer. All three have introduced low alcohol wines in recent months. Last year Sainsbury introduced Early Harvest, a 9.5% alcohol white wine from sun drenched Australia. Early Harvest wine made news last year when introduced as wines that would appeal to women because of the reduced number of calories; the implied sexism created its own little furor. The Early Harvest wines, a Semillon/Sauvignon Blanc blend and a Chardonnay, are both 9.5% alcohol and have 12 grams/L of sugar. This level of sugar equates to halbtrocken or medium dry in style and the sweetness would be hard to detect and even with that level of sugar the calories would be less than a bone dry Shiraz with higher alcohol.
But why are these wines being introduced? Is it because of a desire for food friendliness in wine, a facet that is argued to be lacking in high alcohol wines? No, in the UK its not food friendly wine that is being sought. The real goal is to reduce alcohol consumption and the introduction of low alcohol wine is seen as a socially responsible move on the part of the big supermarket chains.
Between 1991 and 2005 the number of alcohol related death has doubled in the UK. And a report by the government on alcohol misuse notes “two major, and largely distinct, problems: of crime and anti-social behaviour in town and city centres, and on the other harm to health as a result of binge- and chronic drinking.” The report also lists numerous additional problems that arise from excess consumption of alcohol.
I certainly have no complaints with consumers wishing to reduce their alcohol consumption and lead healthier lifestyles. And I applaud retailers in the UK for responding to this demand by offering their customers the option of wines with lower alcohol. It’s a far more reasoned approach than the shrill voices in the USA that call for the end of high alcohol wines simply because they don’t appreciate them.
Friday, July 27, 2007
Do Wine Drinkers Prefer Lower Alcohol wines?
It would be much more convincing if folks like Randy Dunn and Darrell Corti et al could provide firm evidence that high alcohol wines are not what the consumer wants. I’ve tried to find evidence that consumers do purchase based on alcohol content. There does not seem to be much data out there, although I did find the following from the WSTA.
Over 1 in 3 women (35%) and 1 in 4 men (27%) believe that lower alcohol wines are becoming more fashionable according to the May Consumer Intelligence report issued today by the Wine & Spirit Trade Association (WSTA) and Wine Intelligence. (Comment: Which implies that 65% of women and 73% of men believe that lower alcohol wines are not fashionable.)
WSTA also noted that:-
59% of all UK regular wine drinkers claim to read the alcohol content of a bottle of wine before purchasing, but only half of those say it is important when deciding what wine to buy. (Comment: If that means half of 59% then less than 30% of these consumers consider alcohol important in their buying decision.) They consider seven other factors more important when choosing a wine including grape variety, promotional offer, brand, country of origin, recommendation by friend or family and region of origin. (Comment: I don’t see the wine press listed there. And that’s strange because Randy Dunn points the finger directly at the wine press: “Influential members of the wine press have led the score chasing winemakers/owners up the alcohol curve……”)
Consumers also link higher alcohol levels with better quality and better value for money.
I don’t see any of the information from the WSTA as evidence that that lower alcohol wines are preferred - and let's face it in the UK they have access to a LOT of cheap (supposedly lower alcohol) European wines.
Does anyone know of similar surveys of US wine consumers?
Over 1 in 3 women (35%) and 1 in 4 men (27%) believe that lower alcohol wines are becoming more fashionable according to the May Consumer Intelligence report issued today by the Wine & Spirit Trade Association (WSTA) and Wine Intelligence. (Comment: Which implies that 65% of women and 73% of men believe that lower alcohol wines are not fashionable.)
WSTA also noted that:-
59% of all UK regular wine drinkers claim to read the alcohol content of a bottle of wine before purchasing, but only half of those say it is important when deciding what wine to buy. (Comment: If that means half of 59% then less than 30% of these consumers consider alcohol important in their buying decision.) They consider seven other factors more important when choosing a wine including grape variety, promotional offer, brand, country of origin, recommendation by friend or family and region of origin. (Comment: I don’t see the wine press listed there. And that’s strange because Randy Dunn points the finger directly at the wine press: “Influential members of the wine press have led the score chasing winemakers/owners up the alcohol curve……”)
Consumers also link higher alcohol levels with better quality and better value for money.
I don’t see any of the information from the WSTA as evidence that that lower alcohol wines are preferred - and let's face it in the UK they have access to a LOT of cheap (supposedly lower alcohol) European wines.
Does anyone know of similar surveys of US wine consumers?
Thursday, July 26, 2007
The High Alcohol Debate -continues
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)