Two case worthy buys and possible wines of the year

I just bought 15 bottles of one and two cases of the other. Both are medim bodied, a bit complex with a sweet but not overly ripe or overpowering fruit. Both have wonderful balance. And both are (were) under $11. And I bought over a case of each.

First, the Columbia Crest 2007 Cabernet Horse Heaven Hills (WS 90, $11). A higher-class wine with elegant currant and purple berry. So smooth with a hint of sweet spice. I bought a case unseen and then tried it and bought another case. It tastes like a higher end cabernet. Drinkable now, despite WS saying wait until 2011. 30,000 cases. [Update: I've two more bottles and everybody who tastes this agrees this is super nice. My score: 90-92 very consistently across all bottles, which is astonishing.]

Monte Antico 2006 Toscana (WS 90, $8 at Costco, $10 list). Smooth red berry, cherry and strawberry, with spice, vanilla, a wisp of dusty earth and more on the elegant finish. Not at all earthy. Could almost be an alluring Pinot, it is that light. Goes well on its own and with food. Just lovely. 80,000 cases. [Update: I've had 4 bottles now. It varies from nice red cherry and berry (first opened) to gaining some earthy notes (after some breathing, sometimes) to having a sublime vanilla, sweet brown spice, oak note (2 of the 4 bottles). It remains medium light in body with nice balance and acidity. My score: 89-93.

Costco and the Wine Spectator 2009 Top 100

The WS published their Top 100 wines on Monday for those who have online membership. There was a pronounced emphasis on value in part due to the economic downturn, which affected pricing as well as purchasing power. As usual, I had managed to obtain a decent number wines on the list.

Today 11/17, I went to my local N Calif Costco today, and found the following wines on the Top 100 list.

• Catena 2007 Malbec Mendoza (WS 91, $17): Consistely at 90 or 91 points over the past 3 years, this is the first Catena I've ever bought.
• Neyers 2007 Chardonnay Carneros (WS 93, $23): A very ripe, heavy, smoky, oaky, on occasion bitter wine. Didn't care for one bottle and loved the other. You'll likely feel the same.
• Provenance 2008 Sauvignon Blanc Rutherford (WS 91, $15). A 91 pointer from Napa... I had to try this. Didn't know it was a Top 100.
• Juan Gil 2006 Monastrell Jumilla (WS 90, $11.89). I've liked 2 of the 3 bottles I've tried. Like a lovely ripe grenache when it works.
  
• Tohu 2007 Pinot Noir Marlborough (WS 91, $18). Intense but not heavy red cherry, with rose petals and some spice. Balanced. Some acidity. Typical of a fine New Zealand Pinot.
• Monte Antico 2006 Sangiovese blend Toscana (WS 90, $8). I bought a bottle and fortunately tried it this past weekend. Medium light bodied with red fruit with a beguilingly smooth and gently complex finish of spice, vanilla and chocolate. The second great bargain I've found in the last 2 weeks. Wow.
• Lehmann 2006 Shiraz Barossa (WS 91, $13). Decent ripe shiraz, but a bit hit or miss on the 2 bottles I've tried. (Much better than the green flavored 2005 which also strangely got a WS 91).
• Yalumba 2008 Viognier (WS 92, $13.50 sold out last week). The 2007 also made the Top 100 last year, but the year is even bigger and richer. A very nice wine.
  

I bought all of these wines except the Lehmann and the Yalumba, including more than a case of the Monte Antico, which was going fast.

A couple of other value buys with the ongoing wine coupons are

• Norton 2006 Malbec Reserve (WS 90, $12 - 2 = $10). Couldn't resist with the coupon. The Norton Malbecs have not done much for me but at $10 who can resist?
• Roederer NV Brut Anderson Valley (WS 91, $18 - $2 = $16). What a buy on a sparkling wine. The 2009 WS tasting notes are intruiging "A rich version, loaded with spicy cinnamon notes. Bold apple aromas, with a whiff of yeast, lead to complex, layered pear, crème brûlée and baked apple flavors that linger. Drink now. 80,000 cases made." With that production, it should not be hard too hard fine.
  

A couple of not so young Aussies

The first was the Lehmann's 2002 Cabernet Sauvignon Barossa (WS 90). It took a while to open up, initially smelling like pine, pinesol, mint, mineral with some black and purple berry. But after 45-60 minutes, it was a lovely with blueberry and currant in a medium light frame with some eucalyptus and mossy tree trunk. At its peak now. Very similar to the WS review. My score: 91-92.

Several nights later, I had the Pirramimma 2003 Shiraz Mclaren Vale (WS 92, $23 list). I don't remember drinking this so it was not particularly uh, what's the word... memorable.

Just this past weekend I had the Yellow Tail 2005 Shiraz Reserve (WS 90, $12 list). Yes, Yellow Tail. And double yes, 90 points. It took a while to open up with moderately complex blueberry, currant and just a hint of mineral. Very nice. My score: 90-91.

A bargain Riesling

It is not easy to find good Riesling on the cheap. The (really) good stuff is from Germany or the Alsace and it will be $14 at a minimum if you know what to look for. I did a WS search for 87+ points costing at most $10, with at least 10,000 cases imported made in 2005-2008.

There were a total of 12 matches, 8 which got 87 points and the remaining 4 scored 88 points. Three of the 88 pointers were from Washington State.

But I found the other non-Washington 88 pointer, and bought it yesterday. It has a huge production of 200,000 cases, so you can pretty much find it, if you are willing to get off your couch.

And it was under $6.

At Safeway. (Which is having a big sale. Combine it with their 10% off 6+ bottles discount, which I did.)

But the final kicker is that it is made by

Yellow Tail. That's right.

Here's the WS review: Yellow Tail 2008 Riesling South Eastern Australia, (88 points, $8 list) Light and tart, with a fresh-baked bread edge to the pear and kiwi fruit flavors. Drink now. 200,000 cases imported. --HS

Now go out and get some.

Update: I've tried it and it is a difficult wine. It is often a bit thin, meaning it has less intensity than a really good riesling, and most of the time the complexity is missing and the flavors are muted. But every once in a while it really shines. Don't serve cold and let it breathe a tiny bit. My score: 84-89 points.

Some $10 and under reds for Jez

As my wife chats with her pal Jez on Google Wave (not generally available, those lucky two) about wine, and asks for my recommendations, I thought I'd summarize what I said to her.

First, remember the cardinal rule: drink what you like and try not to pay more for it than you have to.

Jez tried two $6 Aussies: Black Swan (shiraz/merlot) and Yellowtail (shiraz/cab). She liked the Black Swan better but her favorite was an Italian, Luna di Luna (merlot/sangiovese).

Italy

The Italian blend is likely to be less fruity and more earthy, than the fruit-driven Aussies so I recommend she try the following:

1. Fontanafredda, Barbera Piemonte Briccotondo 2006, 2007, 2008. The 2006 and 2007 got 90 points from the Wine Spectator and the 2008 is equally nice. Can be tough to find once the 4 week release window has passed. (Costco carried the 2007 and then 2008 recently). It is hard to find a good Barbera (the grape varietal pretty much only from Italy) for under $25 so this is a real buy.
2. Falesco, 2006/7/8 Umbria "Vitiano" ($8-10). This is has been an up and not-so-up blend of Sangiovese, Merlot, and Cabernet over the years, with some tremendous bottlings and some others that were more average. The recent 2008 bottling got a very solid 88 from WS. It is widely available and has the earthiness of an authentic Italian Tuscan blend. These can be a bit rough initially and will taste fine for 4-6 years.
   
3. Monte Antico, 2006 Sangiovese-Merlot-Cabernet Sauvignon Toscana ($9-12). This also got 90 points from the WS and with 80,000 cases made, it should be findable with a bit of a search.

It is not easy finding pure Sangiovese for under $12, so I've gone with blends. I find Italian wines are not priced cheaply so it pays to experiment with what you can find.

Australia

Here are some Aussie wines to try. They will all be fruit driven with controlled acidity and minimal tannins.

1. Yellowtail, Shiraz ($6): Their secret is to make sure their wines, both red and white, taste a bit sweet. I liked their 2005 (?). It's the most famous of the Australian "critter" wines.
2. Rosemount, Shiraz or Shiraz/Grenache or Shiraz/Cabernet or Cabernet or Merlot. A decade ago, the $8 Rosemount was one of the best value buys of the world, regularly getting 88-90 points. Times have changed with production of this going up 3-5X, and the rest of the wine world catching up by making better wines across the board. But it's still worth trying the $6-9 "Black diamond" Rosemount Shiraz. The Shiraz/Grenache blend about 6 years ago was one of my favorite sub $5 wine at Trader Joes. The 2005's scored well at WS but they are probably hard to find now.
3. Jacob's Creek, Shiraz or Cabernet Reserve ($8-11). Get the "Reserve" level ($2-3 more than the $6-8 non-reserve). This has been consistently good over the last 5 years. The 2001 Shiraz was stunning with some age, with sweet blueberry and spice. Unfortunately these wines are unusual for a sub $12 bottle in that they will improve with some bottle age; they will likely be tannic if drunk within 18 months of purchase. If you must open a recent bottle, let it breath in the glass for 15-30 minutes, sampling it every so often to see how it changes.
4. Penfolds, anything under $10 (3-8 types). Robert Parker consistenly likes their "Koonunga Hill" label Shiraz very much; I didn't find it to be that special. But their wines are big and fruity and worth a try. I had a few wonderful bottles of the "Rawson's Retreat" label ($6-9) about 5 years back.
   
5. Lindemans, anything for under $10. A very consistent never great, never bad, red wine. Worth a try. Think of it like a very well run chain restaurant... consistent.

France

These are all from the Cote du Rhone region (this link takes some zooming out to get the context) near the France-Italy border at the southern end of the Rhone river valley. These wines are very different from other French regions, so these wines do NOT represent all French wines. Each region (Bordeaux, Burgundy, Loire, Rhone, and more) has its fans; I'm especially partial to the Rhone, which more often than not makes a diverse variety of blends from the Grenache, Syrah, Mourvedre and Cinsault grapes. The wines are fruity, but lean, and are balanced by acidity and/or some minerality.

1. Le Vieille Ferme (with a hen on the label), any of their $6-$10 wines including white, rose and their red "Ventoux". Good clean fruit with nice acidity giving the wines a nice crispness. A great buy was a 1.5L (double bottle) at Costco for $9.50 of the red. These are a perfect example of an authetic local Cote du Rhone that people might drink with many a meal.
2. Perrin et Fils, Cote du Rhone Reserve ($8-11). Similar to the Le Vieille, a wonderful widely available, esp at Trader Joe's, cote du Rhone.
3. Any Cote du Rhone wine for under $8 or $10. If possible find a few wines based on the Grenache grape. I've bought these blind with relatively good luck.
   

Top wines of late

Let's review some wines I've had lately that stick in my memory in no particular order. Also, while it is easy to be blase about the scores, it has taken the recent economic meltdown and the continued improvements in wine making to allow this. Prior to 2005, I could count the number of 93+ pointers I had tried on my fingers.

1. Rosenblum 2005 Syrah Kick Ranch (WS 94, $23 list $45). This is what I'm drinking now. I've been saving this, but we needed a wine to open and I finally decided it was time. And it is good. My wife gives it an "A" (aka 93-95 points) which is pretty darn rare. I've decided she agrees with James Laube of the WS when it comes to Cali Syrah. It's a classic complex, meaty, leathery, California Syrah that is thick, intense and has dusty fruit flavors and a hint of tannins backing it all. This has opened up nicely over the last hour. It had the Rosenblum drying tannnins at first but now I'm impressed. I can see how it got 94 points (which is huge), but it's not that much my style. My score: 92-93 (this is going up as I write this and find more flavors...yum).
2. Landmark 2006 Syrah Steele Plow (WS 94, $30). While we are on the topic of Cali Syrah's here is another one. I brought this to the Artisan restaurant in Paso Robles recently and while I didn't drink too much of it, it was very smooth, rich and had those hints of beef and dusty fruit. Everyone else really liked it. My score: 91-92.
3. Paraiso 2007 Pinot Santa Lucia Highlands (WS 92, $16). Every so often a Pinot blows me away. This was almost one of them. A big pinot that was rich, smooth, and balanced. Fruit, some spice. It just went down really nicely. This was also brought to the Artisan dinner. My score: 92.
4. Montes 2006 Syrah Alpha (WS 91, $16). This will likely be my wine of 2009. Consistenly very good to excellent, and this last bottle was just that. The most complex nose of any wine in 2009 at its best. This last bottle did not quite have that, but still just a lovely wine. I think I bought over case. The last bottle, my score: 90.
5. Seghesio 2007 (?) Pinot Noir ($28?). Had this at a restaurant Poc Chuc with no corkage. A bunch of shared this and it was very fruity, but not as big as I expected with more red raspberry and purple fruit than black. Smooth, but not too complex. My score: 90.
6. Sebastiani 2004 Cabernet Alexander Valley (WS 88, $23). This is the wine that reminded me via a gentle slap, that I need to drink more Cabernet. Elegant with that high-end California unmistakable cabernet taste. Smooth, with some complexity. Lovely. My score; 91-92.
7. Columbia Crest 2004 Cabernet Sauvignon Grand Estates ($8, WS 88). My wine of the year for 2008. This was probably my last bottle. After having the Sebastiani a few days before ... it had that same classic cabernet taste. The oak had died down and it was a lovely, somewhat one-dimensional wine that was just starting to fade. My score: 90.
   

Back to basic, lessons from the last year

It is time to come back home. I have traveled the world and sampled its bounty of terriors and varietals. I'll admit I cheated in my travels since I mostly went to local wine shops and headed to the foreign aisles. The main insight was European wines are largely miss with a few hits. I can stop buying these randomly, eager to discover how a wonderful famous region or varietal tastes.

1. France. It maybe the wine capital of the world, but except for the Rhones and Languedocs, I don't need to buy these. I'll admit, the Loire is still an open case. But, are you listening Bordeaux and Borgounone (Burgundy)? And most of my wine heathen peers feel even less generous toward French wines, not caring for them much at all.
2. Italy. I've tried numerous fine Sangioveses and sadly found I don't care for it. There are some Italian Cab or Merlot blends which are fine but Italian wines are not bargains, so I will stop actively looking. Too many Italian wines taste dusty or barnyard/leathery to me. The wines of Piedmont (barolo, barbera, nebbiolo) are too expensive for me and I'm not that fond of them to boot. The one good exception has been Primitivo (zinfandel) which is less ripe and more floral than the California counterpart.
   
3. Spain. Unpredictably hit or miss. Sometimes corked, sometimes too funky and sometimes amazing. Spain is the real conundrum, since even knowing the varietal I cannot predict if I'm likely to like the wine. I've had lovely Monastrell and Garnache; and some I didn't care for at all. Some of my favorite producers are Juan Gil, Luzon and Can Blau. Albarino is a white I've liked, but it is hard to find for under $10.
4. Portugal. Despite what everybody says about great red bargains coming from here, I have not tasted it, over 5 or 6 inexpensive reds, including a few 90+ pointers.
5. Isreal and maybe Lebanon. This was a surprise as the few reds (cabs, merlot) I've tried have been good. A bottle of the Golan Heights ($16?) I bought was quite good.
   
6. Greece, Turkey, other small countries. Nothing sticks out.
7. Argentina. This is mostly a miss. Perhaps 1 in 6 bottles is great. I still don't know what Malbec is supposed to taste like, since it seems to taste different everytime. Torrontes is the one find I like.
8. Chile. This was my next great white hope. Actually red hope, since the whites are not that special. For a bit, I had found some wonderful reds (an $8 Carmenere, the $16 Santa Rita Cabernet Reserva, some Santa Ema Merlots and Cabs, Montes Alpha Syrah). I even proclaimed Chile as perhaps my favorite new wine region. And as I am want to do, I bought them. By the partial case. And I've been drinking them. There not bad, but they just don't thrill me too often, as I had hoped. With the Montes Alpha Syrah 05, 06 and 07 as exceptions. Perhaps my expectations are too high. But I'm cutting back. A little bit. And it is not the savior I had perhaps thought it would be.
   

So what is a gal, who is actually a guy, to do? Back to the basics. Back to the fruit-forward new-world wines of old. (Notice how I worked in "back", "forward", "old" and "new"?) Back to Washington state, Australia, not-too-pricey California and some Oregon.

My wife loves this style, too, particularly Washington and Australian. These days, when I try to find an inexpensive bottle to open, I struggle a bit as all I have is higher-end stuff she'll like, and European wines she won't necessarly like. So embarrasing. I expect to load up on tried and true sub-$13 favorites including Columbia Crest, Jacobs Creek, Lehmanns, Jim Barry, Marquis Philips, Leasingham, Penfolds, Razor's Edge, and maybe even some Rosemount.

They say your wine tastes evolve toward more elegant old-world wines as you get older. Mine are; just not that fast.

What you can't get in a $10 wine

I espouse inexpensive wines. I claim you can get great wines for under $20. And you can.

But there are certain "rides" that where $10 just won't cut it.

Let's call this ride "intensity" or "focus" or "concentration", since naming something defines it.

Case in point: the Denner 2008 Viognier from Paso Robles, which I visited a few weekends back. Denner owns a huge amount of acres of vineyards and grows 18 varietals of which they've sold many of their grapes in the past, but are starting to make more wines from their own grapes. I liked their wines quite a bit, but they are a mid-high end producer and so my strict pricing rules got in the way. But their $30 viognier was a bit of a revelation. Bananas, pineapple and other rich tropical fruit. The deal was buy two bottles and they waived their tasting fee. Sold!

I opened a bottle last night and the concentration and intensity were obvious. This level of ripeness and flavor costs money. At $30, I consider it a bargain.

I need to drink this wine cool, not cold right out of the fridge to really appreciate the full range of flavors. It's thick, rich, sweet and intense. My score: 93.

The best rose I've ever had.... and you'll probably hate it

I went wine tasting a few weekends back in the Paso Robles area. One place we stopped at on the east side of 101 was Barrel 27 as they had some very nicely rated Syrahs by the WS at nice prices. I liked their wines alot, but the wine that caught my attention was their 2005 (!) Syrah Rose. It is a very big rose in that it has an edge of tar, smoke... and if pressed, I'll admit the slightest hint of burnt rubber along with slightly darker fruit flavors than I've found in any other rose.

I was tasting with friends and two of them had to spit this wine out, they disliked it so much. And this was the only wine they spit during the entire trip. My wife doesn't care for this much either. And the funny thing was this wine was $13 but if you bought a case, it was only $7 / bottle. So I thought about it long and hard for 2 minutes and prudently only bought 12 bottles.... aka a case. Talking to the servers at another winery ("where have you been?" "Barrel 27.. an this rose!"), they knew of this and thought it might have brett. Well that really sunk my boat as I had already bought the case. But you know what?

I am so glad I bought a case. Pretty much everyone on the tasting trip hated it, except for D who thought it was interesting. But I love this crazy wine. My score is 93 points. Some nights I wonder what to drink and this is at the top of my list. Warmed up a bit, it has notes of tobacco, tar, smoke, a bit of mineral and a wisp of steel all in a somewhat big rose body. I mean how can you like this? Yet I do. Holy crap.

A great buy a bit over a year ago.

Like everything in life, you can only a great buy when you take some risk.

It was the Leasingham 2007 Riesling Magnus that got a WS 91. And made the WS Top 100 list. The Wine Club offered it for $9.99 a bottle but if I bought a case, it was $6.99 a bottle. Heck, that's barely $84 for a whole case I thought. That's like 5 $17 bottles. So I bought a case.

It's an Aussie riesling so it has a bit more vibrancy (acidity and citrus) and less floral than a German riesling. It has a pure beam of lime once it breathes and warmes up a bit. Some minerality and it tastes like a riesling should. In short, it's superb. My scores over the 4 bottles I've had are 89-93 points.

If only I had bought 2 cases. :)

A lost case

A few months back, I packed up a case of wine as a gift but in storing it at work in an obscure location in the basement, somebody stole it. I think I lost 11 bottles. The dollar values was not too bad, since you know my price range. It was probably $160-$180. More galling was the wines I lost. Based on recollection they were:

1. Souverain 2007 Chardonnay (WS 90, $10 CC) - I have two cases, so not a big deal.
2. Yalumba 2007 Viognier (WS 91, $12 CC) - A WS Top 100 wine of the year, but I have 4-5 more bottles.
3. MacMurray Ranch 2007 (?) Pinot Noir (WS 89, $14 CC) - there's pretty good production so I can get more. I also have 2-4 more.
4. Janasse 2006 (?) some Merlot based Cote du Rhone - only bottle I had.
5. Devil's Lair 2006 Chardonnay (WS 92, $26) - this may have been the "best" bottle that was stolen. I have 4 more but this one pisses me off.
6. Fitou 2006 - ($8 WC) one of my favorite everyday French wines with a lovely purity and minerality.
7. ... well that's all I remember for now ...

An ideal pairing with a Malbec Rose

This summer Costco had a Crios 2008 Malbec Rose for $9. Parker gave it 90 points, so I tried it, liked it and bought a few bottles. It was a typical nice rose. Refreshing with nice acidity and some sweetness among the light strawberry and watermelon notes. It's now Sept and we've had some hot days. So my wife opened the rose.

And I've just found the pairing to make this rose sing. I get aromas of caramel, lightly roasted coffee, and sweet tar notes from this rose. It really smells like a red. And it tastes almost like a red in the finish. Very interesting. What is this magical catalyst for the rose?

A Spanish granache.

The Montgo 2006 Garnacha Calatayud Flor del Montgó Old Vines (WS 87, $10 WC) which has the taste I like. Namely it resembles a Cote du Rhone in a style I like with purple fruit, a bit of acidty and a hint of minerality.

And what the granache giveth, the malbec taketh. After having the rose, the Spanish granache tastes a bit flabby. But it's a worthwhile sacrifice, as a rose has never tasted better and has a complexity I've never had in a rose before.

And now I'm sipping one wine, just to make another wine taste better. That's a first.

Blind tasting scotches any ideas of reputation

I love drinking wine.

And I love buying wine.

I don't love drinking scotch.

But I still love buying scotch for my scotchy wife.

And so it came to a blind tasting. Motivated by Costco's $10+ coupons back in the late 2008 for Johnny Walker (JW) Green and Gold we got some bottles as gifts. And it is perfectly fine to gift to yourself! [JW product roundup: they sell blended scotch whiskeys. Moving up the chain, they make Red ($10-15), Black 12 yr ($20-$30), Green 15 yr ($40-$50), Gold 18 yr ($50-70) and Blue ($$$). I think of Black as comparable to Chivas and Glenlivet 12 or Glenfiddich, as they are all fine $20 bottles in the late 90's]. And then a week ago at the San Luis Obispo store, they had the Green for $32. No way I'm passing that up.

And so it was JW Green versus JW Gold versus Grants, a bargain blended whiskey from Trader Joes for roughly $10.

The tasters: my wife, her brother Paul and his wife Lynn.

The pourer was me.

I gave them each scotch A and then scotch B in their own glasses. Then finally scotch C.

The consensus was scotch A was a bit harsh, B was the smoothest and C was somewhere in between.

The bottom line:

• Best scotch was (B). The Grants for $9... well actually $12 for a 1L bottle.
  
• The Gold (A) and the Green (A) were second and third.
• Price was not at all correlated with preference.
  

PS I said I love buying wine... as witnessed by the 2 more cases I just got today. (My wife will be "Fitou" to be tied... since I got 6 bottles of this briny $11 French beauty (see a previous post))

Arranmore 2005 Shiraz Last Row

Unlike many wine reviewers, I try not to post about wines that you cannot purchase because

• the winery is sooo small you have to visit it to get wines
• the production is soo small ... it is not clear if there is any left after the wine maker gets his/her allocation there is any left
  
• the vintages is long past so nobody, not even the winery has it any more

And yet, this is one of those wines. We got it on our trip to Australia on a wine tasting tour. It's a small operation run by an "old guy" who makes wine in his garage in the Clare Valley. He let me press some of the grapes and I felt obliged to buy a wine of his... the 2005 Shiraz Last Row, which was the best tasting wine he had of his four or five available for tasting.

It's been 2+ years, since I bought it, and it was time to open it. My wife said she wasn't in the mood to "scale such a monumental red". Ironic, as I thought it was a rather small wine, almost reminiscent of a Pinot (Noir) on first opening.

The wine was very interesting. It was flavorful and had a richness in a light body... much like the best Burgundies (or so I'm told).

As the evening wore on, the wine got bigger. More subdued rich dark fruit with some earthy spice in a small frame, with a richness nonetheless. Not tannic but a touch of acidity. The combo made a nice food wine and also a nice solo wine. Quite nice. My score: 90.

Just don't try to find a bottle.

A Beringer tasting

I was able to taste some high end Beringer wines and this reaffirmed what I already knew. Namely, (i) price is not related to what you like and (ii) what you like is not necessarily related to what others, esp critics or wine makers, like. Based on memory here is what I tasted with rough notes

1. 2007 Chardonnay Reserve ($35 ish): this is my style - big, oaky, ripe and .... the initial nose and first sip lived up to its reputation, on subsequent tastings it lost much of it's flavor.... Perhaps this is a great "scoring" wine but not an enduring wine over the course of a bottle. My score: 92 initially and 87 subsequently.
   
2. 2003 and 2005 Cabernet Sauvignon Reserve ($120 ish): This is one of their top end wines and they tasted smooth and silky and arguably "elegant" and ... not much else. It was hard to get anything on the nose or palate. Perhaps this is what "high-end" Napa wines taste like but I'll pass. My score: 87-88.
   
3. 2005 Merlot Bancroft Ranch ($75): the wine of the tasting by far for me. The first half glass was very nice with rich chocolate and fruit (90), but I got a glass of this "to go" and every small sip was velvety chocolate and dark fruit in a big rich, non tannic non acidic body. Perhaps it was savoring this last small glass but it was impressive. Final pour score: 92-93.
4. 2005 Cabernet Quarry and another single vineyard Cab ($90 ish). Better in that one had some tannic and acidic backbone, but still not something I would seek out. My score: 88-90.

The bottom line was I liked one of the least touted and least expensive high-end wines by a country mile. Trust your own preferences.

White wine of 2009?

I've mentioned this wine in a few previous posts, but my likely white of the year is the Souverain 2007 Chardonnay Alexander Valley. This $17 retail wine had this 90 point review from WS:

Complex aromas of citrus, pear, apple and honeysuckle, with touches of toasty oak. Full-bodied, rich and elegant, with a long, lingering finish. Drink now through 2011. 35,000 cases made.

I found it to have lots of sweet fruit with pear and apple with some spice and oak in a long lean finish. Wow, 92-93 points. As I mentioned, I inhaled the 2 bottles I got from the San Luis Obispo Costco for $10 a few months ago. I've been looking for it with little luck. I found it for $15 at the Wine Club and even more at Beltramos, but it wasn't at any local Costco or Trader Joes.

With bated breath I revisited the SLO Costco and thank goodness they still had it in stock (as well as the Jim Barry 2005 Shiraz Lodge Hill, another top 10 deal of the year). I had a few bottles with family and friends down in the SLO region, but it wasn't until I got back home that I was able to drink it in the quiet of home and put it through its paces.

Verdict: still amazingly good, with more toasty oak than I remember. I bought 20 more bottles and I'll likely buy more this coming weekend when I'm down there again at $10 a pop. A whole new style of Chardonnay to love. The first Chard to rival the landmark 2002/4/6 Columbia Crests. A few months back, I had gone to a higher end Chardonnay tasting of well regarded $30-60 wines and I'd take the Souverain over all of those (Landmark, Ridge, Neyers, Far Niente, the WS 93 Rodney Strong, and more) irrespective of price.

My vow to spend $13 on average per bottle is holding up pretty well and without compromise.

Great wines of late for less money than ever

Here's some nice wines I've found in the last 3 months in no particular order.

• Souverain 2007 Alexander (?) Chardonnay (WS 90, $10 CC, $15 elsewhere). The best chardonnay I've had in the last 4 months, and it's not especially oaky. A great, complex sweet fruit taste. Inhaled 2 bottles. My score: 92. I hope I can find more of this at my $10 price point (Costco San Luis Obispo).
• Sterling 2008 Chardonnay ($8 Costco, $6 with coupon). The 2007 was a WS 88 pointer but this was not available, so I took a chance and picked up 3 bottles of the 2008 and it is quite nice. Lemon and some oak. Flavorful, slightly rich in a medium body and medium intensity. At $6 I could drink this all day. My score: 89.
• Montes 2006 Syrah Alpha ($16 Costco, WS 91). This is/was my wine of the year 2008 and I had two bottles recently. One was very good and one was great. One of the most complex noses of any red and a complex palate of ripe sweet berry, hint of tobacco and spice. Smooth and rich but not too heavy. My score: 93-94 at its best.
• Fitou 2005 (?) South France Red ($8?, WC). I'm not sure of the region, but it is likely the Languedoc (south France coast, west of the Rhone). This tasted like a salty Rhone made with fresh dark-red fruit. Very refreshing. My score: 90-91.
• Zaca Mesa 2005 Syrah Santa Ynez Valley ($17 Costco Alhambra or SLO, WS 92). There is a new style of Syrah from Central California: big with notes of beef and/or a dusty ripe berry. It's a profile WS reviewer James Laube really likes, but I'm not that fond of it. My wife quite liked it. Here's the WS review:
  "Tight and beefy, with focused blueberry and wild berry flavors that are spicy and complex. Full-bodied, with a hint of stewed plum and wild berry peaking through on the finish"
  
• Can Blau 2007 ($15, RP 91). Needs some time, as the bottles I tried months ago weren't as nice but recently a solid red berry with acidity and some spice. Syrah and Grenache. Not minerally at all. My score: 89.
  
• Jim Barry 2005 Shiraz Lodge Hill ($13 Costco SLO, WS 90). Consistently one of the purest expressions of tart red raspberry with some sweet black berry. Some spice and oak, but it is the berry that knocks me over. Nice acidity in a medium body. My score: 91.
  

Resetting your price points

The old price points which went something like

• $5: basic wine, when you just want something called wine, can sometimes find good wines
  
• $10: might be able to get something good, but not likely. If you hunt, can find something very good.
  
• $20: if you know what to look for you can get something pretty nice and rarely something very good to excellent.
  
• $50: lots of very good wines and lots of not so very good wines are available, outstanding wines if you obsess and hunt for them
  
• $100: if you spend some effort, very good to outstanding wines.
• $100+: why the heck are you reading this blog anyways?

But two factors have conspired to lower these price points. One at least temporarily and the other somewhat profoundly.

First, we are in world wide economic slump, aka recession. And high-end wine being is a luxury item, takes a big hit. People who used to spend $15-35 are now spending half that. The market knows this and so prices have fallen. Apparently wines over $20 are in a no-man's land and don't really sell, unless there is well-established brand behind it. And during the boom, may insta-millionaires opted to open wineries and plant grapes and now they have to sell their product.

Second, the entire level of wine making has been raised with all these new energetic wine makers entering the market and all these new energetic countries entering the market. If the standard $10 wine is say an 84 points, and you are a new country with new wine makers and cheap land and labor, why you make a $10 wine that is 86 points. Let this news spread and pretty soon the whole world is making better wine. From 2002 to 2008, the tolerance for poorly made wine has pretty much disappeared from $10+ wines. All the big wine making operations are turning out clean wines without any obvious flaws, besides being somewhat "boring".

Say what you want, but all the low end Chilean and Australian wines are cleanly made. Even "Two Buck Chuck" is cleanly made, though not terribly interesting to my tastes. Granted these wines may not excite you, but a $3 wine today is much better on average than a $5 wine from ten years ago.

So what does this all mean? As a Wine Spectator score monger, I've noticed that if you know where and when to look, I'm seeing better than ever wines for lower price points. Such as numerous 92-93 points wines for under $25 and many wines hitting 94 or even 95 points for under $50. This was pretty much a rarity 4 years ago.

Case in point, I bought the 95 point Two Hands 2005 Bella's Garden for $60 at Costco a few years ago as this was one of the lowest priced wines at this score. Now I can find several 95 point Aussies at this same price. Second case in point, I'm seeing many 93-94 point California Syrahs and Chardonnays for under $40. This would have been unheard of 5 years ago.

And for the bargain shopper, $15 gets you some pretty decent wine these days. I've also gotten more into Chardonnay of late and the wonderful 2007 Calif vintage is producing some very nice ones at high production levels.

To summarize, the new price points go something like

• $5: basic wine, when you just want something called wine, can sometimes find good wines
  
• $10: can get something decent if it is the right varietal or the right country might be able to get something good, but not likely. If you hunt, can find something very good.
  
• $20: if you know what to look for you can get something pretty nice and rarely something numerous oppurtunities abound to get very good to excellent wines
  
• $50: lots of very good wines and lots of not so very good wines are available, outstanding wines if you obsess and hunt for them
  
• $100: if you spend some effort, very good to outstanding wines.
• $100+: why the heck are you reading this blog anyways?

One great glass

That's about all you get, even from an outstanding bottle of wine. Worse still, it is all you can expect.

Much like a tremendous dish, say ripe tomatoes with fresh mozzarella or a smokey bacon cheeseburger, you get a few initial great bites and the rest is all down hill. A very enjoyable slowly sloping downhill mind you. With food, the first tastes are the best, as the palate fatigues and the hunger subsides.

In contrast, wine is a crapshoot on when the best glass will be. The wine evolves and your palate and nose chase these fleeting nuances to tire of them before they are gone. I have sampled the gamut of great tastes of the first glass to draining the last glass of its finally great drops.

I tried a bottle that F recommended as "the taste of Napa Cab I am looking for (in a sub $40 bottle)". The Fisticuffs 2006 Cabernet Sauvignon Napa (the 2005 was WS 91, $26, Beltramos), opened slowly. But I had one great glass, with classic Napa fruit (cassis?), that root beer note I've decided many Napa cabs have and I like, with sweet spice and oak. Medium rich with low acidity and tannins with nice balance. Very nice. My score: 91-92.

It was the third small glass that was great. The previous glass was good and getting better. The much anticipated next glass was pedestrian. Ah well, at least I got my one great taste.

How wines should be reviewed

In reading wine reviews from the major reviewers, it seems like the goal is to pull out at least 6 unique "flavors" (or notes) with bonus points for hyper-specificity. Compare "red fruit and mineral" with the much more definitive and regal "sweet rainer cherry with ticonderoga #2 graphite and lime and chalk mineral, blah blah.... 91 points". Yes, I made some of this up, but you get the point.

Other reviewers go to the opposite end and just describe broad impressions but don't give points but give summaries like "bright red fruit in a light frame". The problem with not giving points is I (in the role of a reader, not the writer of this blog) can't tell the bottom line. Do you love it or just like it? So give me the points!



In drinking a delightful Bastide Saint Dominique 2005 Chateauneuf des Papes (CdP) which I will rate below as a running examle, I realized (not for the first time) that the dimensions of describing a wine could (or should) be something like:

1. flavor notes. (Sweet red fruit with obvious mineral) Very subjective, as different reviewers come up with different descriptions... it is almost amusing to compare different reviews of the same wine.
   
2. intensity or concentration (3 out of 4, 4=very intense) A broad generalization: old world = low scores, new world = higher scores.
   
3. acidity or crispness or "racy" or "juicy" (3 out of 4, 4=very acidic) Whites tend to be more acidic than reds, which is why they pair well with more foods (not the same foods though) than reds. Some wines should be acidic (sauvignon blanc, riesling) and others should not (cab sauvignon, zinfandel).
   
4. tannnins (2 out of 4, 4=too tannic to drink) Very subjective, as there are many types of tannins and sensitivities vary dramatically to different kinds.
5. body or richness (2 out of 4, 4=super rich)
6. finish or length (3 out of 4, 4=can taste it for a long time afterwards)
7. complexity (3 out of 4) this is a catch all coverting intangibles about the nose and palate
8. balance (3 out of 4, 4=everything feels impeccably right) Even a 2 here can be fine, depending on the wine.
9. score (91 out of 100). This is crucial as it summarizes how much you liked the wine.
   

I decided a 4 point scale (1-4) was better than a 5 point scale (1-5) as too often the middle value would be used in the latter, whereas in the 4 point scale, the reviewer is forced to choose between above or below the average in every case.

Here's the WS review of the La Bastide Saint-Dominque 2005 CdP (90 point $30 wine):

Bright and racy, with lots of red and black cherry fruit, graphite, licorice and sweet spice flavors. The long, lingering finish shows sweet fruit and mineral notes. Best from 2008 through 2022. 2,800 cases made.

I agree with this writeup quite well. But more importantly this wine hits the right notes for me. This wine is better than other wines from the same region with a similar style reviewed by the same reviewer that got higher scores (Domaine Mourchon I'm looking at you). The flavors are vivid and the balance work wonderfully for me, and while there is a slight tannic pucker at the very end, I almost like this type of juicy tannin. I'm looking forward pairing this wine with the steak, mushrooms and carmelized onions I'm about to cook up. My score: 91, perhaps 92.

BevMo

In wine circles, there is little mention of BevMo! or Beverages and More as they used to be known. This chain has 100 stores in Calif and Ariz, each of which is around 10,000 sq feet (guess who visited the "About Us" page). The NorCal stores I've been to have solid selection with perhaps 500-1500 different wines to choose from. In this competitve wine market, their regular prices are non-compelling for a major wine distributor, but their sales can be very good, but you have to be on your toes to catch these.

So why isn't BevMo! a serious wine contender? Let me count thy flaws.

Prices are high, considering there is Costco, Trader Joes, and many wine specialists including The Wine Club, K & L Wines, Beltramos, to name some of the major ones, all with better prices. Their sales prices can be very good, but there is game playing sometimes. BevMo has a 2 for 1 sale periodically (technically get the second bottle for $0.05), but they jack up the price of the first bottle by a bit.

Wilfred Wong or WW. He is their resident wine rater, and his scores seem dubious. There is no mention of how he rates the wines, namely does he taste blind. His scores are regularly 2-5 points higher than the Wine Spectator and worse still he rates some mediocre wines qute highly. E.g. the Snoqualmie 2007 Riesling Columbia is WW 91 and WS 88. The Zolo 2008 Torrontes is WW 92 and WS 84 (I'm not 100% sure these are the exact same bottlings).

They lie. They list "retail prices" and then their discount price. But the retail price can be made up. Case in point, the Palo Alto 2007 Red Blend Muale Valley is listed at $20 retail and $13 at BevMo. But $13 is the suggested retail price. BTW, WS's Matt Kramer and others liked this wine quite a bit.

Wilfred Wong's rating scale is completely whacked. Here is how the latest postal mailing explains his 100 point scale:

• 93-100: Ageworthy, with the potential to improve over 20 years
• 90-92: Exemplifies precise varietal character, tremendous concentration and superior balance
• 87-89: Shows excellent varietal character
• 85-86: Shows very good varietal character
• 80-84: Shows very good varietal character, but lacks some concentration

First, age worthiness is conflated with quality. This scale makes the moronic assumption, that anything ageworthy is better than anything not. But really, which is better a 93 point ageworthy bottle or a 90 pointer, by this scale? Or if there is a tough, tannic wine that will get better over 5 years to become mediocre, then this gets 93+ points, right?

And what's with this varietal character bit on everything. If there is a rich plush pinot noir as some of the top cult pinot's are, then it gets an 85 or less, because it doesn't express classic pinot varietal character.

The bottom line is his scale does not represent the bottom line quality of the wine. A higher score in the below 92 point range just means more "varietal character", whatever that means. I'm not sure how complexity, spiciness, earthiness, acidity or tannins would fold in.

Because BevMo is a big chain, they don't carry many lower volume wines, with say less than 3,000 cases. So it's hard to find those interesting wines.

The emphasis is on US wines with a pretty decent domestic wine selection. The sections on French, Italian and Australian is poor with only big volume names. The Spanish and South American sections are as good as the competition.

Chateau Souverain 2007 Chardonnay Alexander Valley

Picked up a couple of bottles of this WS 90 pointer for $10 at Costco in San Luis Obispo.
I'm normally skeptical of James Laube's high chardonnay scores as he likes a very ripe chardonnay with a smoky touch, which often has a sour acidity (like honey does) I don't care for.

But this is a lovely wine with ripe sweetness and striking citrus and apple in a flavorful, yet medium-thin body. Noticable oak with a touch of vanilla. A bit of acidity. Delicious. My score: 91-92.

Gordon Brothers 2005 Merlot Columbia Valley

Brought this to dinner at an Italian restaurant, Celestino, as corkage was $10. This bottle was in the cellar for a few years, and then went on a somewhat hot car ride from N Cal to S Cal, where we used of the A/C off and on. It was lugged up to the hotel room and then lugged to the restaurant a day later.

Wow. Rich, lucious blueberry and ripe blackberry from the first sip to the end of the bottle. Hints of coffee and toffee and a touch of earthiness that went away after 15 minutes. Minimal acidity and tannins. WS gave this $15 bottle a 91, but I disagree. My score: 93.

One of the nicest bottles I've had lately.

A $12 Merlot from Washington that needs 6 years of cellaring

It's extremely rare for a US made wine under $16 to require bottle aging beyond 3 years of the vintage date. But I have noticed one winery whose early 2000 reds were consistently hard or closed even afer release. And some of them were dumped at Trader Joes for one third their list price. So here I am with a $6 wine from the 2002 vintage that finally tastes drinkable.

It is the Hogue 2002 Merlot Genesis (WS 90, $15). Even WS whose editors who largely enjoy their wines young, said this needed until 2007. And other bottles of the Hogue Genesis line were pretty closed. How is it right after opening? Only OK... muddy tart blueberry and purple berry in a medium body with minimal acidity and mouth coating citrusy tannins. My score: 85.

Most people into fine wines think putting down a bottle or cellaring it is good. But modern wines are largely made in a style that is ready to drink sooner, so few wines require more than a year of aging after release. Winemakers largely recognize that only serious oenophiles have the patience and resources to actually store wine. So I'm trying to dig through my wines and start drinking some that I thought needed aging. Because the only thing than worse than drinking a wine too early is drinking it too late.

Reference wines

At a dinner recently, I had to play pin-the-wine-on-the-dinner blindfolded. I wasn't sure what was being served and I wasn't sure what wines would already be there. I knew another guest F was bringing two of her much vaunted wines, the Quilceda Creek 2002 Cabernet (WS 93, WA 100) and Ridge 2005 Chardonnay Santa Cruz Mountains (WS 95, #2 in top 100).

What to bring? My standard Aussie shiraz's seemed so pedestrian. Sure I could have dug something really nice out, but it would still be just shiraz. And what if the food was chicken or fish? A white was out of the question. I can't afford to tarnish my reputation so badly at this point.

And so it was a return to the classics. A Pinot. Nobody can really complain about a good pinot. As I dug through the collection, which are more like the stacks, as in a messy library, it came down to what I could find. An Oregon (Cardwell Hill) or a Carneros Creek pinot? Both were new to me and I felt both could use a bit more bottle time, at the 12 year drinking window on both had just opened. As I pondered this.... I had a bolt of insight. I would bring one of my much un-vaunted Columbia Crest Merlots. The Grand Estates line that I love. Only this was from 1997. A twelve year old bottle, which is likely older than half my readers. Probably best drunk by 2002. Seven years past its prime. Fortunately, I had two of these babies, so I could afford to waste, I mean, share one bottle with friends as a surprise wine.

Back to the Pinot decision. A last minute closet search turned up the Nautilus 2006 Pinot (WS 91, $19) from New Zealand. Perfect. I've wanted to try this as the few NZ pinots I've tried can be very nice.

The appetizers were chicken and lamb and pickled veggies. The attendent wines were a GS (as in GSM) rose (aka blush wine) from Paso Robles and a sparkling rose. The hosts also opened up a German reisling, name forgotten. It was quite aromatic but not especially flavorful on the palate. Others said it wasn't very sweet, but I detect a hint of sugar against the rich texture. (My score: 88).

Near the end of the appetizers, we opened the 1997 Merlot. Wow. Everbody recoiled a bit upon smelling it. Very rough, a bit like a kitchen cleaner, hiding the fruit. F would not even get near this. But the host M tried it and said it was like a Pinot. And he liked it. Hmm.. I had to agree a bit. Over the hill, so it was smooth and dilute with dried cherry fruit and had flavors of an old non-earthy wine. And an unmistakable strong note of pine oil or pine resin (like retsina). And the smell of wet paper did start to come about. Some liked it, some despised it. But it was a nice wine to try and learn from. My score: 87 or a 65.

The main course for the evening was salmon wrapped in filo dough so it almost looked like a burrito. The hostess, K, would brush lemon butter between the sheets and on the raw chunk of salmon. Throw some vegetables before wrapping, bake and that was it. There was a simple salad on the side. And by the way, the salmon dish was magnificent. The fish was perfectly cooked, the lemon and butter flavors persisted beautifully and the filo dough was lucious. I want this recipe. Wow.

K and F had a last minute wine change, as the recipe specifically recommended the Sea Smoke 2005 Pinot Noir Southing (WS 92, $40) which F had. So no Ridge. And now we had two pinots. Both of which were excellent. (And I discovered at dinner that C who is normally quite reserved, "just hates pinot!".. so much for nobody can complain about good Pinot).

The Nautilus was pinkish in color and not especially big, with cherry, a hint of rose and gentle spiciness. A bit tart in a nice way, esp compare to the Sea Smoke. But it was the texture that won me over. Rich and tongue coating, despite the only moderate flavor. Interesting. This probably is what is meant by the silky texture of Pinot. A lovely wine. My score: 91 or 92.

The Sea Smoke was a dark beauty. Complex, with a sense of gently smoked or roasted spices (anise, five spice, perhaps ginger) backed by moderate black berry. Nice round, rich smooth texture. Wow. This seemed to be 2 or 3 points better than the Nautilus. I had no idea any wine, let alone a pinot could taste like this. Definitely another reference point in my mind. My score: 93-94.

And what about the 100 point Quilceda Creek? Disappointing and no one was more vocal than F about this. She even bemoaned how highly rated wines were always so disappointing lately. (My message is secretly spreading.) This wine had moderate flavor with refined purple berry and gentle spice and oak. Smooth, easy to drink. It tasted high end but was just too restrained to be great. My score: 89-90.

Should you join a wine club?

Someone at work asked "Should I join a wine club (where they ship you wine every month...), but as I've never been a member of one ... any particular favorites you could recommend."

Being the wine person I am, of course I suggest trying to buy/find/explore the wines yourself.

- if you drink a fair bit of wine, you can determine what you like and joining a club or two of favorites should come naturally. I don't think this is you.
- if you are drinking not much more than 2-4 bottles every two months then a club will keep you supplied but you'll be drinking only the club wine... which is extremely limiting.

As you mentioned, getting wine in the mail can get complicated:
- you have to have a reliable delivery routine.
- during the hot months, I never have wine shipped as even 6 hours at 90+F is pretty hard on wine, especially nicer wine. Personally, I never have wine shipped.
- it is somewhat costly, at least at the price points I normally pay per bottle.

A wine club from a good wine shop (K&L, Wine Club, Beltramo or specialty retailers like Kermit Lynch or Vin Vino Wine) is better as you get a broad variety of wines. But I find them expensive, especially if they are sending you random selections. It's one thing to find out you don't care for Sangiovese; it's another to spend $50 ($40 + tax + shipping) to discover this.

But if you have a bit of time and energy I suggest getting a good wine book that simplifies wine and do your own shopping. For example, the book
Great Wine Made Simple: Straight Talk from a Master Sommelier by Andrea Immer is excellent (it's the book I wished I could have written but better) as it covers wine from a learn by tasting now perspective with specific broad recommendations. And you don't have to pay a whole lot to discover the varietals/regions/style you like or dislike.

Buy your own from a decent store (K & L, Wine Club, Beltramos, ....), if possible and if asking for recommendations don't be at all afraid to keep to your budget, since they will always have a wine that is 30% more but even better. If these stores are too inconvenient try Whole Foods, Cost Plus or BevMo (though it's hard to find good wine unless you know what you are looking for at BM and to some WF).

My personal favorite is Costco, which has unbeatable prices and consistenly high quality wines. I really don't know how they get some of their limited production wines given their volume. Often times Costco is the only place I'll find a specific wine I'm interested in. If you were to blindly sample their wines you'd get an excellent of idea of what you like and dislike.

Tahoe tasting

A bunch of us had a bunch of wines between bunches of snow. How were they?

• Kaiken 2005 Malbec Ultra (WS 88) I'd been saving this as the previous bottle took a long time to open up and this was worth the wait. One of the first wines I had, so my palatte wasn't fatigued, it was birg, rich, fruity and smooth. Ripe red and black berry. My score: 92
• Terradora Dipaolo 2006 Greco Di Tufo (WS 90?) JB only wanted white so it was a good I had brought along 2 whites. Very nice with some stone fruit and citrus with a nice acidity. My score: 90.
• Antiori 2004 Chianti Classico Peppoli (WS 90, $19). A smaller wine than the others we had with it so it suffered by comparison. Quite smooth with none of the funky Sangiovese flavors I don't care for. I wish I'd had this bottle on its own to appreciate the elegance. My score: 88-89.
• Fairview 2006 Goat Roti. An interesting wine with some barnyard and dirt with the fruit in this flavorful wine. I don't remember loving it but there was nothing wrong and a lot to like. My score: 88
• Seghesio 2001 Zinfandel Sonoma (WS 88, $18)
  
• Seghesio 2007 Zinfandel Sonoma (WS 93, $19) - - I had though the 2001 was a 90-91 pointer from memory but it was the '02 that got the 92 points. This was the big blind tasting, as M loves all things Zin, especially Seghesio. The 2001 might be nearing the end of its drinking window. D did the pouring, and threatened that he might not even pour us the same wine first. Anyways the first wine had nice richness with balance. The second wine was just a bit rougher and a bit more rustic. Both were fruity and quite nice. I "cheated" and notice the second wine was much lighter in color so it was the 2001. M who always get these things wrong, did not dissappoint. My score: 91 (2007) and 90 (2001).
• Cristom 2006 Pinot Noir Jefferson Cuvee (WS 86, $22) - The first bottle a month ago was thin and tasted overly ripe with sweet jammy notes (say an 84), but the second bottle was a solid ripe pinot (88-89) with rose and red cherry. This was not quite as good but nice. My score: 87-88.
  
• Rosenblum 2004 Petite Syrah Rockpile Ridge (WS 89, $22) - At this point, I had had a good bit of wine. I like this big fruity Rosy, but it didn't really stand out. My score: 87-89.
• Neyers 2007 Chardonnay Carneros (WS 93, $22 CC) - Past bottles have had too much overly smoked oak with a sharp acidity I didn't care for. But this bottle was richer and the oak was more subdued. JB loved this and I largely agreed. My score: 90-91.
• Pezzi King 2007 (?) Zinfandel Riley's Red - this was opened very late in the game. Nice fruity zin, but I didn't really take mental note. Somewhere between 86-90.

But the surprise of the evening was a bottle of red (meritage) that B had aged for 2 years. In the trunk of his car. Which during the summer would routinely break 90F. Ouch. I faced this with trepidation but it was much better than I expected, which was beyond ruined. I could almost see someone liking this... and in fact B did... in fact he drank it and said he preferred it to the Peppoli.

What I'm drinking part III

You're not reading this for meaningless chatter so let's get down to the reviews

• Castoro Cellars 2006 Cabernet Paso Robles (WA 90, $9 CC). My wife liked this a few months but I wasn't that fond of it, but it was a cheap bottle I could open for her. After 30 minutes, this opened up. Big obvious good cassis flavor and lots of brute oak. It tasted chunky as the flavors weren't well integrated... with fruit and then oak. Reminds me of a very good low-cost chilean wine. By the end, once my expectations were set, I liked it. My score: 88.
• Thorn Clarke 2006 Shiraz Shotfire Barossa (WS 91, $20). The 2004 and 2005 got even higher scores, but have been erratic for me. Very dark berry, some oak with a less fruity style, more earthy style than I expected. Some acidity not much tannins. Not as rich as I had hoped. My score: 88.
• Razor's Edge 2006 Shiraz Viognier (WS 91, $10 CC). One of the cheapest 91 pointers out there ... was still at the Sunnyvale Costco as of Jan 2009. Quite reliable. Dark and some red berry in a medium lean style with acidity and a wiff of minerality on the finish. A bit like a fruity Cote du Rhone. Too lean to get the really big score, but hard not to like. My score: 89-90.
• Jim Barry 2005 Shiraz Lodge Hill (WS 90, $13 CC). One of my top wines for 2008. Intense red cherry and raspberry in a pure style. Medium bodied with some wood and just a wiff of spice. Good acidity and no tannins in this fresh wine. My score: 90-91.
• Norton 2004 Malbec Lujan de Cuyo Reserva (WS 91, $16 CC). The WS review said "very creamy" which is an odd flavor for wine. But a previous bottle (my score: 87) was indeed "creamy", but lacked intensity. This bottle suffers too. Not much on the nose or the palate. Redoubling my tasting effort (aka closing my eyes), gives dark red berry, dried cherry with hints of tea and yes, cream. Smooth. Grading it as an elegant wine, my score: 89.
  

Wine scores: a score whore's view

When I excitedly tell my wife, my friends, my co-workers and even my co-workers who are not my friends the score of a given bottle, they nod politely and then turn away and resume their conversation with the person who is not me. I can tolerate this injustice most of the time. But there is a limit, and the worst is when I exclaim, "WS gave this 93 points", and the "listener" blithely resumes their life a fraction of a second later.

Why is this so exasperating? Because you don't understand how hard it is to get 93 points.

Ninety three points is high enough that if you don't know wines reviews, but still enjoy wine occasionally, you might never drink a wine that scores this high your entire life.

Ninety three points would have been the highest rated wine I would own in my first 6 years of collecting. Granted I wasn't spending much, but you just can't get a 93 pointer when you only spend $20. Even in 1990 dollars. (Well this wasn't quite true. In the 2005 vintage, there were a grand total of 5 wines scoring 93 costing less than $20 in WS. Three were obscure German Rieslings; the other two were Sauvignon Blancs).

Ninety three points is higher than ninety two points, which is my current threshold for really, really well reviewed wines. At 92 points, the reviewer loves the wine. Anything higher is just frosting, usually due to enduring length, crazy complexity or super intensity.

Ninety three points is so high that if you averaged drinking wine this good every time, you might be the person drinking the best wine in the world. On average. But in the whole world.

Ninety three points is high enough that if you walk into a decent sized grocery store with 500+ different bottles, it's possible no wine will score that high. (Here in Northern Calif, the large super market chains have half to a full store-length aisle devoted to wine, which is my reference.)

Ninety three points is high enough that in a non-stellar vintage, an entire region might not have a single wine score this highly.

Still not getting this? Here's a different tact. Math.

It's a simplification, but think of each additional point as reducing the playing field to a third, once you get above 89, which is good wine indeed to start with. So if 91 points is rare, then 93 points is about one in ten of those.

Now perhaps all this ... still hasn't convinced you. Then let's get down to business. Price.

From 85-89 points, it doesn't make sense to talk about price because wines of all price ranges can fall into this bucket. $6 wines. $16 wines. And even $56 bottles. And the thing to realize is that at 88 to 89 points, the wine can be absolutely the perfect wine for many occasions. As in just what you wanted. (Reading WS reviewers blog about what they drank in real life situations makes this clear).

Once you hit 90 and above, prices start to settle out a bit more with the minimum prices starting to become a bit more predictable. (Keep in mind price and wine aren't really strongly related.) To get 90 points, you typically need to spend $16, even if know what you're doing. And with patience, you can find it for $12 or even $10. So let's say that 90 points a $10/16 low end limit.

And now for the tricky part. I think each 2 points is a doubling of prices. So that means for 92 points, expect to spend $32 given that you are aware of wine scores and you will be hard pressed to find a 92 pointer for less than $20. Of course there are exceptions but you have to be lucky to break $20.

At 93 points, we're now talking $44 a bottle as a reasonable lower limit on the price, assuming you follow the reviews and know what to look for. The "average" price of a 93 pointer is probably a lot higher, say $100-120. And in a restaurant this means a 93 pointer is going to put a dent in your wallet. So I hope you have a bit of respect for 93 pointers.

But if you really really want to annoy me, turn away after I say, "Now, this got 94 points".

What am I drinking II

Just a dump of things I had, with yet another bordeaux-ish wine from Washington. All from memory over the last few weeks.

• Jim Barry 2006 Cabernet Cover Drive (WS 88, $15). Something I've liked and occasionally loved. This bottle was a bit thinner and simpler than I had hoped. Of course, the very last glass finally had a chance to breathe, and nice cherry flavors backed by some wood came out for ... my score of 88.
• Sebastiani 2005 Cabernet Sonoma County (WS 87, $13 CC). Oh, Sebastiani Sonoma County labelling, how you've abandoned me of late. You used to be a wonderful $14 bottle, but then the last two years, you were AWOL. Sigh. The 2001 was magnificent on occasion. My expectations were lowered and this wine met them. That wonderful unique Cali cabernet flavor in a bold, slightly simple, but rough body. But as I continued to drink this and got to the last half glass, I realized I was going to miss having more. My score: 88-89.
• Thorn Clarke 2005 Cabernet Terra-Barossa Importer's Reserve (WS 90, $15 WC). Decent fruit with a slight green peppery note. Not as rich as I remember or had hoped, so this is starting to age a bit. My score: 86
• Columbia Crest 2001 Merlot Grand Estates (WS 90, $7). This was one of the first wines I bought 18+ bottles of. At its best upon release, a glorious wine. But since 2005, good bottles from the cellar have been hard to encounter. This had picked up an herbal and almost tobacco ish note to go along with the red berry. Similar to the Columbia 1999 Cabernet Otis Valley I tried recently, it had a medium thin body with aging tannins but still a touch of acidity. Not my cup of tea but I still had 2 glasses. My score: 86-87.
• Robert Oatley 2007 Chardonnay Mudgee (WS 90, $14). Crisp and clean with a touch of oak along with the standard chardonnay "yellow" flavors (apple, pear, whatever). Well balanced. My score: 88.
• Domaine de Durban 2004 Beaumes-de-Venise (WS 89, $16). A case of this Cote du Rhone was a gift (thanks A and S). It's 70% Grenache with 25% Syrah, and the Grenache is very clean. Almost like a big Pinot, with smooth red cherry, not tangy, and just a hint of mineral. Super drinkable. My wife who isn't a CdR fan at all, likes this alot too. My score: 89-90.

What is your favorite wine?

I have new twist to this question. If I offered to give you an unlimited amount of one wine label for the next 15 years free of charge (with the current vintage on the market being given out), what wine would you choose?

And of course, the wine has to be for your own consumption. No selling or trading it. And at the end of 15 years, whatever you have left, you give back. And you can't build up more than a case. So this is truly your favorite wine to drink with a small capacity to age some. And OK, if your choice takes another 6 years to be ready to drink, I'll split the difference and give you the vintage that hit the market 3 (that's 6 over 2) years ago. If the label you choose is no longer made, that's too bad.

As an example, a Zin lover could choose the Seghesio Zinfandel Sonoma Valley.

Would you choose a first growth Bordeaux? Or a highly regarded Burgundy? Would you make your wine something you could drink with some regularity?

My own choice was easier than I expected. And long time readers shouldn't be too surprised. It's not too expensive and it's widely available. And it is what I drink more of than another other single wine.

My second choice would be the Montes Alpha Syrah ($20). The 2003 was very good and the 2005 and 2006 were some of my hands down favorites.

But the winner is the Columbia Crest Chardonnay Grand Estates, under $10 pretty much everywhere. And a white, no less.

What am I drinking?

For years I've wanted to know what the big-name official wine critics drink on their own with their own money. It's one thing to talk about wines at a fancy tasting run and paid for by someone else, but it is another to know when push comes to shove what these people actually choose to spend their money on.

And lo and behond, WS (Wine Spectator) has quietly (since they didn't tell me) introduced a new features called what we're drinking now that is (almost) exactly what I wanted. All the senior editors (reviewers) have short write ups on a wine they had recently, every few days. The main problem is that most of the writeups are from restaurants where the author was having to choose from a limited wine list. Still it's interesting to see the choices and to read about how a wine fit the expectation perfectly with acidity and fruit and went with the food and it was all of .... 87 non-blind. Which really means the right "87" can be a very enjoyable wine. Which is what the WS says about 85-89 as "very good wines" and it is really good to know most of the reviewers feel that way, too.

OK, now it's my turn. Here's some of the wines I've had in the last week.

• Concha Y Toro 2003 Merlot (WS 90, $17). This was almost port. To pruney for me, but my wife liked it just fine. Were there storage problems? My score: 83.
• Hayman Hill 2006 Pinot Noir Lucia ($11). I've enjoyed this as one of the best budget Pinots in the past, but this bottle was off. Tasted stale and a bit oxidized. I had a partial glass and that's it. My score: not good.
  
• Small Gully 2002 Shiraz Robert's Block (WS 89, $17). I've held this for a good while as WS said after 2008, and that's now. Decent Shiraz flavor in a tangy fruit style with some vegetal and earthy notes. Not as ripe as I'd have liked. My wife didn't care for this much. My score: 86.
• Marquis Philips 2006 Cabernet Sauvignon ($13). Ripe fruit but it is not clear it's a Cab or a Shiraz or ... ? My wife liked his of course (as I opened this for her). My score: 87.
• Hess 2004 Cabernet Sauvignon Allomi (WS 88, $20). Very disappointing as I had one truly great glass of this (at a Ruth Chris in Charlotte, NC) and several less than stellar bottles. This has the cab flavors but was still too tannic and acidic with no smoothness. My score: 86.
• Devil's Lair 2006 Chardonnay Margaret River (WS 92, $22). More smoky oak than I'm used too in this perenially highly rated wine. I also loved the 2005. I drank this too cold so the flavors were muted much of the time. Good fruit with balance and acidity in the last half glass that finally warmed to near room temp. A tad more sour than optimal. I drank this over several days and it held up well in the refrigerator. Ironically, this is a white that might need a bit of time. My score: 86-90.
• Columbia Crest 2006 Chardonnay Grand Estates (WS 90, $8). The latest vintage of this wine that never disappoints. (The 2002 and 2004 were the previous) Rich with a nice butter, oak and acidity with the ripe fruit. My score: 89-91.

Like all bloggers, I hope this will turn into a regular column, but like all bloggers I'll be lucky if this lasts more than 4 entries in the next 3 months. Time will tell.

Disillusionment with high scores yet again

After our previous get together with F, where she discovered the much loved Schild Barossa Shiraz I served was not the much vaulted 96 point 2004 but the lowly 2006, she demanded that I "make it up to her". She also was curious about the recent 94-point Neyers 2007 Shiraz Old Lakeville Road $33, as was I.

And that seemed like a perfectly good reason to try these two "giants of WS points" over dinner.

I was at Costco that afternoon to pick up broccoli to go along with the takeout Italian food F would bring, but I got fairly excited at the food choices surrounding me. And I realized I had some yummy spaghetti sauce made a few days back... it seemed a shame not to use that up and while at it, not to cook up the whole darn meal. A quick phone to F to call to cancel the takeout and I was in my happy place, all set to make dinner of my choosing and standing in the middle of Costco.

I picked up some more of the Martha Stewart meatballs with lemon grass and habanero, in their bright green package with orange trim. They are quite good and super easy to warm up. They will stay in the refrigerator for several weeks and if you do freeze them, they thaw quickly. Also I got lots of produce. I was glad to see this Costco has brussel sprouts, finally. And I ended up buying some wine at Costco, but not as much as you might have expected. This is detailed in my previous blog, about Italian wines.

There were six of us for dinner, which consisted of home-made fettuccine with two different meatball tomato sauces. The vegetables were blanced broccoli with a soy sauce vinaigrette. For wine, I figured three bottles possibly going to four. Especially if one bottle was bad. And so the disappointment began.

The first was a bottle from Costco. The Fontanafredda 2007 Briccotondo (WS 90, $10). It was pretty much as I remembered it. Fruity for a Barbera with tangy plum and red berry. A perfect cooking wine too, as I used some in the sauce. But nobody loved it. And a few put it at the bottom of their list. Sigh. My score: 89. (See another review of this wine)

Next, Neyers 2007 Shiraz Old Lakeville Road (WS 94, $30), tasted thick and flat. It had the characteristics I've come to expect from James Laube's 92+ pointers, which is a rich wine with purple berry, some unusual notes and a medium finish with not a whole lot of acidity or tannins. After a bit this wine opened up and I got some interesting flavors of beef stock and a beam of soy sauce. Interesting yes, but not especially appealing. Nobody else really seemed to like this either. My score: 85.

Then, one of the highest scoring wines I've had the pleasure to try, the Schild 2004 Barossa Shiraz (WS 96, $22). And it was a good but not great wine. Not nearly as rich or thick as the 2006 (WS 88), the 2004 was medium bodied with some richness, and it had more unusual flavors than the 2006, but again they were not flavors wow'ed me. I can see a 91, but that's about it. Most people liked this. My score: 88.

Finally, F screamed that I wasn't even going to open a Cabernet, so I relented. This was a bottle the Wine Club had recommended when I was looking for a good $15 cab about 4 months ago. Of course this was closer to $22, but I've learned wine people all have a hard time hearing price limits. It was the Waterstone 2005 Cabernet Sauvignon Napa Valley (WS 82, $22). I hadn't seen the review until just now (as I'm typing this) and it was exactly what the WC said it would be. A nice Napa Cab. Not especially big, but sweet and smooth with refined fruit, spice and vanilla. The favorite of most people. My score: 89 to 90.

Finally, a few days later, I cracked open another highly rated wine that I have been saving for 4+ years. The Columbia Winery 1999 Cabernet Sauvignon Yakima Valley Otis Vineyard Signature (WS 92, $22, #55 in the top 100 of 2004). I'd tried this bottle before and always found it thin and herbal, like green tomatoes. And this bottle was no different. Thin and dilute with a green tobacco and green pepper notes along with purple berry. Touch of tannins and acidity in an elegant body. Almost Pinot Noir like in feel. Or like a fine European Bordeaux in body. Well this is my last bottle so I won't be wondering if will get any better. It won't, though my like for it varies on my mood. (While I never loved this, it lasted a couple of days after opening, showing it was not a fruit bomb. And it had light elegance I could see someone else falling in love with). My score: 84 to 88.

Smooth and polished, an elegant red with depth of flavor that sneaks up on you. Currant, blackberry, smoky spice and dried tomato flavors compete for attention, building in intensity as the fine tannins subside on the long finish. Best from 2006 through 2015. 2,380 cases made.

I realize I'm probably having my wine period where nothing tastes great, but I think I'm finally realizing deep down, at a core level, that the super high scores, say those above 92, have little to no correlation with how much I will enjoy a wine. So, except for the prestige factor to yammer about buying or anticipating or trying wine X, why am I trying to get these wines again?

These days I'm now most excited when I see a new world wine getting 88 or 89 pointer for $11 with wide availability. That's something you can yammer on about and drink tonight.

Vindicated on a Montepulciano d'Abruzzo

This is an Italian varietal and region that produces fresh, delicious, slightly juicy reds of medium body. If you want to get sense of the appeal, think of Cote du'Rhone but without the earthy minerally Rhone-ness that isn't appealing.

In a previous blog I mentioned the Cantina Zaccagnini 2004 Montelpulciano d'Abruzzo "dal tralcetto" a $14 bottle I had found that I loved in NY. There was a purity of red berry, ripe cherry and even a cranberry-ish freshness. Nothing too complicated but just hard to put down... my score was a 91. And now Kim Marcus of the WS agrees giving this same wine a 90 (non-blind).

The only problem is locating this wine or even this varietal.

Coming to grips with Italian Sangiovese and a great find

At Costco the other day, I checked out the wine section of course and despite my desire to not buy any more wine, they had a remarkable find, the Fontanafredda 2007 Briccotondo (WS 90, $10). Good authentic Italian wine is not cheap. And wine from the Piedmont is especially hard to get cheaply (think Barolo which routinely breaks $50). But I find this Barbera to be quite good and at $10 is a steal. So I bought 4 more bottles. And that was the only wine I bought.

I've discovered I don't care for Italian Sangiovese much which is a shame as it is the basis for Chianti Classico and for the "king" of Italian wines, Brunello di Montepulciano. The Sangiovese is too tangy with more earthiness and acidity than I prefer and the fruit profile is not one of ripe berry or cassis, but more tangy plum. Altogether it is just not my cup of tea. I learned this the hard way having had several bottles of very good Chianti Classico, including

• the Castello di Monsanto 2004 Chianti Classico Riserva (WS 91, $20), my score: 85
• the Frescobaldi 2004 Chianti Rufina Castello di Nipozzano Riserva (WS 91, $20), my score: 86.
• the Rocca delle Macie 2004 Chianti Classico Riserva (WS 90, $20), don't really remember being that thrilled with it.

In contrast, the Piedmont varietals of Nebbiolo and Barbera, if done nicely sit at the cross roads of Italian Sangiovese with less tangy approacability. The Fontanafredda is a perfect example. It has that Italian terrior to it but is also very fruity. My score: 89-90.

The kicker is that nobody else seems that fond of this wine. My wife? Nope. The other 4 at a dinner party the other night? Nope. Some co workers who tried it 2 months ago.. nobody else was loving this as much as I did.

But if you want to try an authentic Italian wine for a song, you know what to get. Supplies should last about 3 weeks at the Mountain View Costco.