Ravenswood Old Vine Zinfandel, Vintners Blend, 2011

I haven't been a fan in general of Zinfandel, which often can be a fruit bomb. But I've always been a fan of Ravenswood, and the 2011 Old Vine Vintners Blend is a great bargain at $10.

Make no mistake, there is strong fruit in this bottle; it is juicy and jammy. But it's finely crafted to make it easy drinking with a combination of cherry and herbs and a finish the makes it a great pairing with grilled meat. Wine Spectator recently rated it as a Best Value. Plenty has been made, too, so it should be easy to find (I even found some in a Walgreens!). I hear the 2010 is really good too! And you should be able to find it in some shops (I know I did!).

Another great bargain. I score it 8.5 using my scale at the left.

Another Merlot disappointment

What is it with Merlot? And I mean New World Merlot. Why is it so uninspiring?

I been disappointed with Merlot ever since I tried my first Merlot nearly 20 years ago. It was a Chilean Merlot and I still have a vivid memory of how heavy the oak was. It was as if there were wood chips floating in the glass. And the fruit was just, meh.

Yet many of the great wines of Bordeaux are made with Merlot. Pomerol and Saint-Émilion are both noted as using Merlot as their primary grape, but the grape is widely used in many other regions of Bordeaux. These are fantastic wines.

But as soon as you cross the Atlantic, Merlot becomes mundane.

So, yes, I was a bit skeptical the other day while at Binny's and one of the staff asked me if I liked classic style Merlot.

"I like Bordeaux style Merlot," I replied.

So certain then that he had the wine for me, the salesman showed me the 2010 Markham Napa Valley Merlot, telling me it was crafted in the classic French style and was half-off for Binny card holders. I had a Binny's card. The discount turned a $28 wine into a $14 wine. I thought, what the heck. I grabbed two.

And now I have one bottle left that I wonder if I'll ever drink.

It was very fruit-forward and very oaky. That sense of wood chips floating in my glass came to mind, reminding me of that Chilean Merlot I had years ago. The finish was hardly noticeable. It wasn't awful, mind you, but certainly not worthy of even the half-price $14 I paid. It was more like a $6 bottle of wine.

Perhaps I will use the remaining bottle to cook with. But I'm not drinking it.

I rate this a 4 using my scale at the left.

A divine meal with divine wines

I don’t expect there will be many times I will be able to enjoy classic wine with friends served with a delicious meal cooked with care. Just such a time occurred when Curt, Tim, Todd, Dan and I enjoyed a stunning meal, prepared by Tim, complimented with equally stunning wines, the 1989 and 1990 vintages of Château Lynch-Bages, a Sonoma-Cutrer 2009 Chardonnay, and a 1986 Sauternes from Château Lafaurie-Peyraguey.

Both of the Lynch-Bages vintages are highly-rated, but each is distinctly different from the other. The 1989 is subtle, the flavors nuanced and delicate: there’s tobacco followed by a long finish that continued to deliver surprises. The 1990 has firmer tannin, the fruit more noticeable with cassis, blackberry. They were served with delicious beef tenderloin and roasted Brussels sprouts. Initially I thought the 1990 was pairing better with the beef, but as the wines continued to take shape, it became clear the 1989 was the star performer.

Wine Spectator’s tasting notes show that both these wines still have a lot of time left on them.

WS notes on 1989 (from 2010): Delivers so much blackberry, leather and dried fruits on the nose. Full-bodied, with ultrapolished tannins and a silky mouthfeel. The palate turns to leaves, cedar and dried berries on the finish, which goes on and on. This is still reserved for the vintage, suggesting a long life ahead. Just coming around now, but will improve many years ahead. I have always loved this Lynch.

WS notes on 1990 (from 2007): Aromas of tar, currant and berries follow through to a full-bodied palate, with silky tannins and a long, long finish. Still not completely ready, but so good anyway. Age this as long as you like.

For me, the 1989 was clearly a 10 using my scale at the left, and I would rate the 1990 with a 9.5. Both wines were classic.

The earlier course of the evening was a cocksnail, a preparation of mashed potato mixed with a bit of wasabi and white truffle piped into a martini glass upon which was a prawn poached in court bullion made with vermouth, and snails. With this we had a Sonoma-Cutrer 2009 Chardonnay that was light and crisp, showing a character very similar to a white Burgundy. Definitely very easy drinking. I rate this wine a 9 using my scale at the left.

For dessert we had a fruit galette paired with a 1986 Sauternes from Château Lafaurie-Peyraguey. We had this same wine the prior evening, served on its own with some shortbread cookies. At that time it was rich, creamy and buttery like flan. Served with the fruit pastry dessert, however, it was delightful, light, the richness still present but without the deep flan character. Delicious.

WS rated this in 1989 with score of 86, and remarkably noted that it was, “Drinkable now or in the next three to five years.” Clearly this wine had much more life to it than was thought back in 1989, and I would rate it much higher with a 9.5 using my scale at the left.

Thanksgiving holdovers

I guess I kind of dropped the ball with my posts about all the wine we drank for Thanksgiving. I managed to get the post written about the Gruet sparkler we had, but there was a lot of wine that day that I have written about.

Two wines we had were both quite good, although perhaps we drank them in the wrong order.

The first of the two was a Santa Lucia Highlands Pinot Noir, the 2007 Estancia Reserve. A very nice drink; full-bodied with a hint of spice that often comes with good Pinot Noir. Definite dried cherry, and my brother-in-law Jack added he thought there was a bit of tobacco too. All in all I nice wine that probably would have done well paired with the turkey.

What we did have with the turkey was a Moulin-à-Vent, the 2009 Domaine Diochon, a nice Beaujolais with good mineral and a light, racy flavor. Perhaps too light, however, to go with the turkey. Jack suggested we probably should have drank the Beaujolais first and followed up with the Pinot Noir with the turkey.

Either way, they were both good wines. The Beaujolais had a rating of 90, while the Estancia was scored an 88. I give both of them an 8.5 using the rating scale at the left.

A red Burgundy like Mary

Similar to what I said in a previous post about white Burgundy, red Burgundy can also be very pricey and not always worth that cost. And even when the region has an outstanding year as it did in 2005, you can still find yourself paying a premium for a disappointment. Nonetheless, 2005 was a grand year for red Burgundy, with wines produced from that vintage showing superb class and finesse virtually across the board. And it’s quite possible that my previous “dud” was more related to how I was storing it rather than the wine itself. After all, my wine cellar is a closet.

Pinot Noir is the primary grape for red Burgundy, hence its ephemeral nature. It takes great skill to craft a wine from this delicate grape, and Bouchard Père & Fils does it again with the 2005 Gevrey-Chambertin, which I was able to find for just under $40. It’s been “cellaring” for a little more than 2 years in my closet, and last night became its moment.

My guests – Curt, Steven and Nathan – and I all agreed that while this wine was truly splendid, we didn’t want to mire ourselves with the same old tired descriptors. And as we discussed this wine’s subtle beauty, we gradually arrived at this wine’s character.

“This wine reminds me of Mary in ‘Gosford Park,’ in that the character Mary was very restrained, she was very reserved, but she was very astute, she knew what was going on,” I explained to my guests. “And this wine has a reserved character of intensity as well as, what? Tell me!”

Well, the discussion degenerated a bit into a puerile comparison, but alas we were saved by Curt.

“Think of a Scottish banker,” Curt said to our confused silences. “It just means she keeps it all to herself, that she is very reserved and conservative. She doesn’t share much with anybody, but when she does, she’s really generous. And that describes this wine.”

That was beginning to capture the experience, because despite the restraint, you could taste the bursting fruit and mineral tones while enjoying a delicate and beguiling boquete.

“The bouquet says she’s a coy little whore,” Stephen suggests. “She’s not going to tell you a whole lot about her trade, but you know what’s going on.”

“I don’t think that’s so,” Curt counters. “I think she’s an ingénue.”

“OK, so this is not Marilyn Monroe,” I say, running with the analogy, “this is Bridgette Bardot?”

“No, that’s all flash in the pan, and that’s not what this is about,” Curt retorts. This was beauty, he said, but an enduring and wholesome beauty, much like Mary in “Gosford Park,” Curt continued to say.

And then Nathan put it all into place: “It’s not trying hard to be what it is, because what it is is amazing.”

This beauty of a wine was served with an herb roasted chicken seasoned with fresh thyme, Rosemary, and lavender buds; beet greens prepared with bacon, onion, garlic, carrot, some sugar and apple cider vinegar; roasted potatoes; and a new beet preparation with sliced onion and a vinaigrette prepared with horseradish and champagne vinegar. When roasting the chicken, I basted using equal parts chicken broth and an inexpensive Pinot Noir from Smoking Loon.

It was an exceptional meal with a delicious wine that I shall rate with a 10 using my scale at the left.

Dry Chenin Blanc with Coho salmon

What goes with a really well-prepared Coho salmon fillet? A really inexpensive dry Chenin Blanc, that’s what, and the 2009 Clarksburg vintage of Dry Creek Vineyard’s Wilson Ranch Dry Chenin Blanc is a great match and value at just $10 a bottle.

The first word I tapped into my iPhone notes about this wine was “Wow!” I’m going to be buying some more of this, that’s for sure! This crisp, dry, bright wine has a mineral quality and bright acidity that really buoys the citrus fruit and juicy green apple. The finish is clean and fresh. Just really grand for a $10 wine.

The Coho served with this wine was simply prepared. I sprinkled some fennel seed onto the fish and pan fried both sides in a bit of olive oil. I then added some sake and lemon juice for a final steam before serving. The Chenin Blanc was excellent with the preparation, the licorice-like flavor of the fennel playing really nicely with the fresh citrus of the wine.

I score this wine a 9 using my scale at the left. It’s worth repeating, I will be getting some more of this while it lasts in the stores!

A Flipflop flop

Sometimes you can find an extraordinary wine for $5, like with this one I wrote about in the past. But sometimes a $5 wine is just a $5 wine.

The Flipflop 2009 California Cabernet Sauvignon is one that falls into the latter category. It has a definite cabernet nose full of oak barrels with a hint of cedar and not a lot of fruit, which was a pleasant surprise. The taste brought out cassis and cherry that was a bit fruity, but not quite a full-blown fruit bomb. It was slightly dry with tannin very subtle. The finish? Nothing.

It was well suited for the hamburgers we had, but I don’t think I’ll be picking up any of this wine in the future. I’ll rate it with a 4.5 using my scale at the left.

Cupcake Red Velvet 2009

This was a complex wine, but I don’t necessarily mean that in a good way. I had this at a party recently; I was intrigued because I had heard about it – I thought. Turns out that it wasn’t the Red Velvet that I had heard about, but the 2008 Marlborough Sauvignon Blanc, which Wine Spectator rates with a 90.

I don’t think WS will rate this one with a 90.

First of all, the name should have been a hint as to what I was about to taste. The nose was dense and lush with a blast of jammy fruit. The taste was very fruit-forward, almost sickeningly sweet, but there was something else there that was both intriguing and beguiling. It was odd. There was licorice and definitely chocolate, both on the palate and the nose.

The wine smoothed out a bit and became almost tolerable. It did have a velvety texture and the chocolate was intense. And then it hit me – this wine tasted just like a slice of red velvet cake with all its decadent richness and almost bloating body. The fruit was so intense: blueberry and blackberry jam on buttery biscuits. There’s enough intrigue to keep you drinking, but at the end of the day, the cloying sweetness was too much and the wine becomes intolerable.

This is a California blended wine of Zinfandel, Merlot and Cabernet Sauvignon. It retails for about $12. I was surprised by some of the generous reviews that it received from others. As for me, I will only give this wine a 3.5 using my scale at the left. It’s drinkable, but I would never buy a bottle nor recommend it.

A wine bar weekend

On Saturday a new friend of mine and I went to a wine bar in Lincoln Park and sampled two of their flights, one white and the other red. My friend, Andrew, wanted to learn more about wine and the wine bar was a perfect solution.

D.O.C. Wine Bar has many locations throughout Chicagoland, and like many wine bars, offers you the opportunity to sample flights of similar wines so you can get an idea of what a region offers or what a varietal offers. It’s a great way for neophytes to learn about varietals and regions, as well as learn the techniques to discern flavor differences and test your pallet. For more experienced wine drinkers, these wine bars can present opportunities with their various flights to sample new wines you may be unaware of, as well as give you opportunities to sample varietals that you might normally not purchase.

The abbreviation D.O.C. in Italian is for Denominazione di Origine Controllata, and is the equivalent to France’s Appelation D’Origine Contrôlee. It reflects a wine region’s denomination designation, and for the DOC, this is defined by the geographic area of production and specifies the varietals that may be used for wine making in order to earn that designation. This board also controls the minimum alcohol content in the wine, the maximum allowable yield with the grapes, and specifications for aging.

For our tastings, Andrew and I started off with three wines in the “Euro trash” flight, a curiously named trio of varietals that I am aware of, but haven’t much experience drinking. I tapped my notes into my iPhone as we drank, and below is what I chronicled.

Strele 2009 Soave, Vento, Italy: Light nose, orchard fruit, apple, peach, a very light flavor, not too sweet, very fresh and crisp, juicy.

Reventos 2009 Muscat/Macabeo, Penedes, Spain: Nose more rustic, longer finish, more herbal, fruit gradually exposed, a curious, almost medicinal flavor, not unpleasant.

Chateau Moncontour 2009, Chenin Blanc, Vouvray, Loire Valley, France: Light, fresh nose, juicy, spicy apple, light finish, best of the three.

Andrew and I both agreed we thought it interesting how the three wines were ordered. The Soave presented juicy and delicious orchard fruit followed next by the Muscat, which was decidedly more herbal and even a bit suppressed. Andrew didn’t care much for it, but I thought it good, though very different from the first. And then the Chablis placed itself right in the middle, having both the light juiciness of the orchard fruit, but still presenting complexity and mineral qualities.

We thought, then, that the ordering was deliberate, so when we ordered a Pinot Noir flight next, we anticipated a similar progression. Before tasting, I explained to Andrew why Pinot Noir can be so beguiling, how difficult it is to grow and how delicate it is to craft into good wine. Nebbiolo is also like this, which is why red Burgundy and Barolos can be such huge disappointments at times: both tend to be expensive, and both varietals are very similar in character. So when Burgundy or Barolo is made well, these wines are extraordinary. But when made poorly, they can be enormous duds.

Nieto 2010 Pinot Noir, Mendoza, Argentina: Can’t peg the nose, the smell is familiar, but can’t name it. A very young wine, thin, watery, no finish. Color a beautiful transparent ruby.

Block Nine 2009, Pinot Noir, California: Light berry nose, bit of spice, tannin noticeable, longer finish, a hint of cinnamon. Tasty, but nothing special.

Vincent Sauvestre 2008, Pinot Noir, Burgundy, France: Nothing on the nose, literally sans smell, bright fruit, but again diluted.

With this flight, we experienced the ephemeral quality that is Pinot Noir. All three wines were generally disappointments in my book, although I must say it was curious to see a Pinot Noir from the Mendoza region of Argentina. If I hadn’t of done this, I wouldn’t have known about the fact there are growers dabbling with Pinot Noir in Argentina.

Repeat visits to wine bars like this are a good idea because the tasting flights do change periodically, so there will be something of interest. And the bottle selection can be relatively deep, although rather expensive, particularly for the higher end wines. For example, D.O.C. has a Chassagne-Montrachet that goes for $116 a bottle, and a Chateuneuf-du-Pape that goes for more than $300.

All in all a delightful experience and one that shall be repeated.

Are there similar wine bars in your area? Tell me about them and your experiences by leaving a comment. What new wine have you discovered through similar tasting flights?

What, no grass?

What flavors and aromas come to mind when thinking about Sauvignon Blanc? For me, the best ones have a fresh citrus quality with a definite grassy flavor coupled with hints of herb. But I’ve enjoyed many that had a distinct bell pepper flavor sustained with juicy grapefruit.

So imagine my dismay when I tasted the 2009 vintage of Groth Napa Valley Sauvignon Blanc. When I opened the bottle, there was none of that grassy scent, no grapefruit. And the taste? The citrus was very mild, hardly there at all. In fact, I tasted pear, maybe even some apricot. Instead of tasting like a Sauvignon Blanc, I was tasting a Chardonnay it seemed, and not such a good one at that.

I drank about half of the bottle with my dinner, some Coca-Cola chicken (I know it must sound awful to you but it’s really quite delicious and there’s a video on how to prepare). I put the remainder in the refrigerator overnight.

The next day I tasted again. This time some herbal elements and bit of grass were starting to come forward, but by and large, this was still turning out to be a disappointment. It wasn’t awful, but at $22 a bottle (thank gosh I didn’t buy it, but was gifted to me), you won’t see me recommending this to anyone.

I later looked up past vintages of this producer in Wine Spectator. They hadn’t reviewed the Sauvignon Blanc since 2004, and that vintage scored a 87 and was estimated to retail for $16. The tasting notes had everything I would expect: “Concentrated, with a core of intense grapefruit, lemon and grass tones that unfold through a vibrant, lingering finish.”

What a letdown. I score this with a 5 using my scale at the left.

When a famous name means nothing

A wine’s name – particularly when that name is a person’s or family’s – can carry great weight and be a moniker for consistency. But increasingly, a celebrity’s name attached to a wine is more of a marketing gimmick and less so a sign of quality. Case in point: the 2006 Napa Valley Cabernet Sauvignon by the Andretti Winery. Knowing a great deal about car racing hasn’t helped Mario Andretti much when it comes to wine.

It’s not that this wine was lousy. But at a retail price of $45, a wine ought to speak something special. This one did not. Thankfully, neither I nor my friend Curt bought this wine ourselves. Rather, it was a gift to Curt from someone else.

We both agreed that this was a perfectly acceptable wine with our bison strip steaks, had it cost about $10. But at $45, this would have been a rip-off.

Using my wine rating scale at the left, I give this a 5.