I can't stand Champagne. I can't put my finger on exactly why, but I know that from the moment I lift it to my nose until the last drop is washed down by something, anything, that cleanses the palate, I'm disgusted.
I drink the stuff roughly twice a year. Once at New Year's, once for my Anniversary, and as a courtesy at weddings. I've had everything from mainstream bottlings of Napa stuff, to this so-called renaissance growers Champagne. Never have I liked it, not even in the slightest.
Every year at New Year's my optimism is renewed and I go out and drop a good chunk of change on a nice bottle of whatever the wine guy tells me is both good and unique. I hurry home and chill it down nice and cold. Then Midnight rolls around and I'm once again riddled with disappointment.
My only respite in the sparkling wine department is a small contingent of wines that fall under the contingent of cheap Asti. Martini & Rossi and Tosti make a sweet sparkler. They are in my opinion the only stomachable sparklers out there. However, these are not what any self respecting Champagne drinker would be caught dead with. Oh well, I guess I'll just have to endure being the butt of a few jokes.
I'm writing about this because Champagne tastings have overtaken Chicago. Every liquor store is having a Champagne tasting this month. If you love Champagne, well lucky you. It might be possible to attend a Champagne tasting every day for the next 30 days. For me though, I'm stuck waiting for january to bring a return to normal for all the wine shops in town.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Friday, November 30, 2007
California Wines Not Cutting it
I spent a couple hours last night tasting through a large selection of some of the bigger names in mainstream California wine. Several of the recognizable names were there, including Caymus (Yeah the special selection stuff), Coppola Cask Cab, Duckhorn and Montelena. I have to say that despite a few finds, the overall results were wildly disappointing.
The biggest disappointment of the evening was a trio of Bennett Lane Cabs. A winery representative was there pouring, and after he finished gushing about how great the wine was, the longer hang time, the neutral oak (are those supposed to go together?) and a "drink it near term" philosophy. I tried the trio: Raisin Puree is what came to mind. In my lowly opinion those wines were cooked.
The overall theme of the tasting was one of uniformity. I didn't taste a single wine that stood out as distinct or interesting. Every single one was just an expression of power. Now there were some good expressions of power in there. The Caymus and the Coppola Cask were very drinkable, maybe even memorable. There was a Heitz Trailside that struck me as well balanced (despite being an extremely powerful effort), and a couple of bottles in the $15 range, like the Alexander Valley, were good values.
The only real saving grace of the evening was the nice selection of whites. I've traditionally shied away from the whites of Napa Valley. It seems like more often than not California wine makers choose to make trophy Chardonnay that tastes like chewing on an oak stave. Every once in a while they get it right, and wines like Ramey, Au Bon Climat, and Silver are born. All three were stellar efforts, and Ramey is like a little island of Burgundy smack in the middle of Napa. Yay for Carneros! Another fine effort came in the form of a Duckhorn Sauvignon Blanc. Not the highly acidic version of the wine that is so common, the Duckhorn was made more like those Chardonnays I complain so vehemently about. In this case it works. The crisp acidic "grapefruit" flavor is cut by a mellowing creamy oak. I don't know how else to say it, the wine just tastes good.
I'm hoping this showing of whites is proof that California is moving away from its base and to a more elegant wine making practice. Seems like there is a long way to go in the Napa Cab department, but one can hope.
One thing I certainly learned from this tasting. I'm forming a palate preference. it used to be that when someone asked me that fateful "What kind of wine do you like?" question, I answered "every kind". Now I know better. Its still hard to find a wine I can't appreciate for its style, but now I think I have a firm handle on the profile of a wine that will get me excited.
The biggest disappointment of the evening was a trio of Bennett Lane Cabs. A winery representative was there pouring, and after he finished gushing about how great the wine was, the longer hang time, the neutral oak (are those supposed to go together?) and a "drink it near term" philosophy. I tried the trio: Raisin Puree is what came to mind. In my lowly opinion those wines were cooked.
The overall theme of the tasting was one of uniformity. I didn't taste a single wine that stood out as distinct or interesting. Every single one was just an expression of power. Now there were some good expressions of power in there. The Caymus and the Coppola Cask were very drinkable, maybe even memorable. There was a Heitz Trailside that struck me as well balanced (despite being an extremely powerful effort), and a couple of bottles in the $15 range, like the Alexander Valley, were good values.
The only real saving grace of the evening was the nice selection of whites. I've traditionally shied away from the whites of Napa Valley. It seems like more often than not California wine makers choose to make trophy Chardonnay that tastes like chewing on an oak stave. Every once in a while they get it right, and wines like Ramey, Au Bon Climat, and Silver are born. All three were stellar efforts, and Ramey is like a little island of Burgundy smack in the middle of Napa. Yay for Carneros! Another fine effort came in the form of a Duckhorn Sauvignon Blanc. Not the highly acidic version of the wine that is so common, the Duckhorn was made more like those Chardonnays I complain so vehemently about. In this case it works. The crisp acidic "grapefruit" flavor is cut by a mellowing creamy oak. I don't know how else to say it, the wine just tastes good.
I'm hoping this showing of whites is proof that California is moving away from its base and to a more elegant wine making practice. Seems like there is a long way to go in the Napa Cab department, but one can hope.
One thing I certainly learned from this tasting. I'm forming a palate preference. it used to be that when someone asked me that fateful "What kind of wine do you like?" question, I answered "every kind". Now I know better. Its still hard to find a wine I can't appreciate for its style, but now I think I have a firm handle on the profile of a wine that will get me excited.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
More expensive wine?
Bigger Than Your Head is disputing Wine Enthusiast's claim that wine is getting cheaper.
Here's what he says:
I don't have a copy of the editorial, but I think I'll go get one.
Hmm...WE says quality is rising. How subjective is that? What does that mean? More bottles are scored above 90 than ever before? Its easier to get a 90pt bottle for $12 than it used to be? The argument has long been made that scores are inflated, so if the score is inflated than the price is inflated too. If yesterday's 85pt wine is today's 90pt wine, then paying $12 for a 90 pt wine 5 years ago is like paying $12 for an 85pt wine today.
The truth is more likely that the 90pt wine of 5 years ago is now a 93pt wine with a price of $20, and the 85pt'er is $12 and basking in the glow of an inflated score. I didn't get any better wine for the price, likely I got the same wine for more, and the only increase in quality was the thrill I got from drinking a "highly rated" wine.
Here's what he says:
So, the issue doesn’t seem to be that prices for wine are going down, but that better wine is available in the $10 niche (or $15 or $20). It’s true that if one bottle of wine costs $10 and another costs $50, the average price is $30, while if four bottles of wine cost $10 and one bottle costs $50, the average price is $18. Those figures add up to more cheap wine on the market on average but not decreasing prices for wine in general. Of course Strum is writing in Wine Enthusiast’s “Special Value Issue,” so he has a bit of an ax to grind, and there’s not a thing wrong with that; it’s his magazine, and many terrific inexpensive wines are reviewed in this issue. I mean, I like to discover a great little cheap wine as much as the next person does.
Anyway, I disagree that inexpensive wines are necessarily getting better; some $10 and $11 wines from Australia actually aren’t as good now as they were 10 years ago; the specter of sameness and anonymity has fallen upon them. I do agree that we need to look to Spain, southern Italy and Argentina for the best values in cheap wines.
I don't have a copy of the editorial, but I think I'll go get one.
Hmm...WE says quality is rising. How subjective is that? What does that mean? More bottles are scored above 90 than ever before? Its easier to get a 90pt bottle for $12 than it used to be? The argument has long been made that scores are inflated, so if the score is inflated than the price is inflated too. If yesterday's 85pt wine is today's 90pt wine, then paying $12 for a 90 pt wine 5 years ago is like paying $12 for an 85pt wine today.
The truth is more likely that the 90pt wine of 5 years ago is now a 93pt wine with a price of $20, and the 85pt'er is $12 and basking in the glow of an inflated score. I didn't get any better wine for the price, likely I got the same wine for more, and the only increase in quality was the thrill I got from drinking a "highly rated" wine.
Brrr...
Its cold in Chicago. I broke out the scarf today, for the first of what I'm sure will be many days of hard winter. I don't know where all these global warming crazies get it from, but I'm pretty sure Al Gore doesn't live in Chicago. ;-) I'm putting away the Sauv Blancs, the Pinots, and the unoaked Chards, and I'm pulling out the Ports, Cabs, and rustic Spanish wines. Its winter! Enjoy.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Crushpad
In the past, I've alluded to having made wine at Crushpad. I got my wine right before Thanksgiving, and I've been through a couple bottles. So here are my thoughts on the experience.
I got involved with Crushpad through Alan Baker's Cellar Rat blog. Alan started the Pinot 2.0 project, and made a general invitation to anyone who wanted to participate to buy a case of wine as futures, and help out in the process. I went back and forth on the idea, wondering if dropping a few hundred dollars on wine I'd never tasted, from a vineyard I'd never heard of, made by winemakers with no real reputation, was a good idea. In the end I decided what I would learn in the process would be well worth the price, even if the wine ended up being plonk.
Throughout the process our group, led by Alan, discussed how we wanted the wine to be made, we made decisions like what strain of yeast to use, how much oak to use, and what the name of the wine should be. We got updates on what was happening to the wine throughout the process, when it was pressed, when acid or sulfur was added, and the like. Overall it was a very eye opening experience that taught me a lot about what goes into making a bottle of wine. It was, as I had hoped, a valuable experience.
The wine came the Thursday before Thanksgiving, and I immediately opened a bottle. It is good wine. Not the best wine I've ever had, and probably not even the best $30 bottle I've ever had, but its good. Its classic pinot. I have a hard time picking individual notes from the nose, but it smells like pinot should smell: earthy, sexy and underlined by some nice fruit. In the mouth it is clearly young, and it will take time for the flavors to develop. I'm hoping this wine is dormant right now, because that would mean its only going to get more interesting.
Would I do it again? Well I have the chance to do it again, and I don't think I'm going to. I just don't know what more I could learn from it this time around. If I was in the bay area, I might consider trying it again, but then I would likely have had a very hands on experience with the wine had I been closer to Crushpad.
I got involved with Crushpad through Alan Baker's Cellar Rat blog. Alan started the Pinot 2.0 project, and made a general invitation to anyone who wanted to participate to buy a case of wine as futures, and help out in the process. I went back and forth on the idea, wondering if dropping a few hundred dollars on wine I'd never tasted, from a vineyard I'd never heard of, made by winemakers with no real reputation, was a good idea. In the end I decided what I would learn in the process would be well worth the price, even if the wine ended up being plonk.
Throughout the process our group, led by Alan, discussed how we wanted the wine to be made, we made decisions like what strain of yeast to use, how much oak to use, and what the name of the wine should be. We got updates on what was happening to the wine throughout the process, when it was pressed, when acid or sulfur was added, and the like. Overall it was a very eye opening experience that taught me a lot about what goes into making a bottle of wine. It was, as I had hoped, a valuable experience.
The wine came the Thursday before Thanksgiving, and I immediately opened a bottle. It is good wine. Not the best wine I've ever had, and probably not even the best $30 bottle I've ever had, but its good. Its classic pinot. I have a hard time picking individual notes from the nose, but it smells like pinot should smell: earthy, sexy and underlined by some nice fruit. In the mouth it is clearly young, and it will take time for the flavors to develop. I'm hoping this wine is dormant right now, because that would mean its only going to get more interesting.
Would I do it again? Well I have the chance to do it again, and I don't think I'm going to. I just don't know what more I could learn from it this time around. If I was in the bay area, I might consider trying it again, but then I would likely have had a very hands on experience with the wine had I been closer to Crushpad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
