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.

Rich apple with mineral and salt

What do you think I'm referring to? A nice desert? A bath salt? Or a wine?

Yep, a French white from the Irouleguy region at the very south, wester tip of France bordering Spain, in the Pyrenees. The WS wine review (88 points, $18) said as much of the Herri Mina 2004 Irouleguy:

Concentrated, rich and well-structured, with good definition to the apple and citrus flavors, which are flanked by rich spice and butter notes. The crisp finish shows mineral and sea salt. Drink now through 2015. 275 cases imported.

I've had this bottle for at least 3 years and it tastes a bit corked, but I'd describe it as slightly stale (think of the way an old sherry is) apple cider with a bit of richness in the middle and a hint of saltiness at the end. And oh, yeah, it's a wine. A bit dilute. I'm not that fond of it, but it's not your run of the mill white at all. My score: 84.

And how many 84 pointers get a whole blog post?

The world of beer, the anti-wine

The blog entry "Supermarket Nation" by James Sucking described his holiday odessy (or captivity) in Southern California and focused on the deplorable wine selection at local supermarkets. The phrase that bothered me the most was

"the wine selections are dismal. It seems that they have all the same wines, mostly agro-industrial whites and reds from California and Australia, with a few imports such as Bolla, Dubeouf and Louis Jadot"

Firstly, what's wrong with agro-industrial wines? Quite a few mass-volume wines are very good. Columbia Crest, Cht Ste Michelle, Hogue to name a few Washington wines. Many of the big Australian producers such as Rosemount, Penfolds, Yellow Tail and Jacob's Creek make very nice $8 to $11 wines. And at the one million case levels. Some of the Chilean wineries such as Concha Y Toro or Santa Ema have made mass produced wines I've loved. And most of the New Zealand wineries might be considered agro-industrial, yet they make arguably the best Sauvignon Blanc in the world. You have to be a wine snob not to like these wines.

Secondly, what is the alternative to agro-industrial wines? Most of the produce we eat is from agro-industrial corporations. How else are you going to feed a few hundred million people. And the same holds true about wines. If you want to make a wine that people can reliably buy at a reasonable price, you need to make 500,000-1M cases of it and that means it is agro-industrial.

The comments to the blog echoed the distaste for agro-industrial wines. And I figured out these snobs want the stores to carry low production "craft" wines. But if you were the store owner, would you carry unknown craft wines? Or put in another context, would you carry "craft" chicken eggs or purely organic lettuce, dandelion greens and oyster mushrooms? If I were the store, these craft wines would be a poor financial choice. They are expensive and they can sit on the shelf. After all who has heard of that small Santa Cruz winery? Are you willing to spend $32 on a winery you've never heard of?

The wines Sucking and followers (I'm omitting the obvious pun on sychophants) want are interesting wines. Namely they reflect the terrior, so you have to spend time studying the region. And small wineries want to be distinctive, so you have to study the winery itself. And then the real kicker a "true" winery will have wines that vary year to year. So you can't even find a winery you like and rely on them, as you have to know the vineyard and the year, too. In short, these people want to make wine complicated. Really complicated.

So what is the problem with these mass produced wine? They are inexpensive, have a clean fruit flavor which is refreshing and palatable to most people. And they are reliable. You know exactly what you're getting with these wines. And it hit me, this is exactly what people want with beer.

With beer, you want the same taste everytime. You aren't expecting bottle variation. You aren't expecting terroir. You aren't expecting a surprise or taste adventure with every bottle. You don't want to buy it and then have to let it sit in temperature controlled storage for years. You aren't expecting the beer to evolve as it sits on your shelf. Or as it sits in your glass. You don't want to have to let it breathe or swirl your glass. You don't want a narrow temperature range of where it tastes best. You don't care if you finish the bottle (or can). What you want is a predictable, reliable, refreshing, not overly complicated beverage. And that's what you get.

Beer the ultimate agro-industrial beverage.

My harshest critic

As a I said before, my wife likes wine a lot but only has 4 grades.

Lowest is Bad or "toss it". This doesn't happen too often, since the fact I'm writing this wine blog means I don't purchase bad wine. But occasionally I open a wine that isn't here style. Say an Italian Nebbiolo or Barbera. A few Malbecs have caused a bad reaction from her.

Next is Tolerable or "there is nothing wrong with this but not much good or I can tolerate the flaws". This is usually a cheap wine or something from France (Bordeaux or some Rhones). She's not into sweet whites much either so Riesling, Gewurtraminer and some Chenin Blancs are here.

Then we have Good or fine which means "there is nothing wrong and some good notes". This is the vast majority of the wines. Which is rather anti-climactic. Lovely wines. Award winning wines. Wonderful diverse wines representing the world of wine. And all I typically get is "it's fine". In a grading scale this is a "B". Some wines are a B- and others are a B+. Like last night, we had a Kaesler 2004 Shiraz Horse-something. Parker 93, Tanzer 91, WS 88. And it was just too tangy with blueberry notes. A B- for her (and me).

And then there is Great. The equivalent of an "A". I live for Great. But we don't find Great very often. As in once every 18 months. I usually hear something like "Oh this is gooood." The last bottle I remember was the Columbia Crest 2004 Cabernet Grand Estates and before that it was the 2001 of the same wine.

And at the high end of Great, there is the rarest of creatures. There is "I want to bathe in this". Which has happened all of twice in the the last 6 years. The Justin 2001 Cabernet Paso Robles was the first. Truly a magnificent wine; rich, smooth, just delicious. It was very expensive at the time ($24), but I bought a case. We had seven of the bottles in the next year and most were super. A classic wine I'll never forget. My score: 95. And this past week, the Schild 2006 Shiraz Barossa produced a "Oh my god, this is good. My mouth is exploding with flavors."

It's the rarity of Great that makes it all the more satisfying.

Langmeil versus Schild

The way to appreciate this title is as a variant on a classic showdown. Akin to "Alien vs. Predator." Or "Godzilla vs. Mothra." Perhaps "Ali vs. Frazier." Or Bud versus Miller.

We have to go way back to 2006 when I ran across two astonishing deals in Australian Shiraz.
Because these were two of my best buys that year, and they were both Barossa shirazes I tend to conflate them a bit, only adding to my anticipation and intrigue.

In corner one is the Langmeil 2004 Shiraz Barosssa Valley Floor. 94 points WS. For under $18. This was pretty much unheard of. I consider gettting a 92 pointer for $18 a very good deal. And each additional point is expensive, perhaps a 1.412 X increase in price (this is the square root of two, if you didn't recognize it). So, every two point jump is a doubling in price by my math. And the choices under $18 are limited. So I jumped at this and got a case. Unfortunately, the reviewer said to wait until 2008 to try it, and so it sat.

In corner two, was the deal of the year, if you trust the ratings. The Schild 2004 Shiraz Barossa. 96 points. Under $25. Come on. That's like finding a 92 point ine for $7. Or a 90 pointer for $4. I was foolish and only bought 6 bottles. And like the Langmeil, it would be best after 2008.
Since then, the 2005 Schild came out and I also bought 6 bottles, thought it scored a "measly" 93 points. And the 2006 Schild came out and I got 4 bottles and to my chagrin it fall from grace getting 88 points.

The WS reviewer for Australian wines is Harvey Steiman and like most of the other WS reviewers, he doesn't blindly believe wines get better with age. Yes, they change with age but it doesn't mean they are better, just different. So when he says wait 2-3 years, and then the wine will drink well for 8-12 years, I tend to trust him, since he also appreciates youthful fruity wines.

Under full disclosure, I had tried the Langmeil in 2008. And it was a style I expected which is a flavorful plum, berry and spice with good acidity. You won't get 93+ points from the WS without some acidity and complexity. The Tait 2005 Ballbuster is a good example of a powerful Barossa Shiraz without the acidity; Parker loves it but Harvey not so much.

But back to the present. A friend in need (of wine) was over and we were opening some nice bottles. I started with a Finca Luzon 2005 Altos de Luzon. A previous bottle was a 93 but this was a bit more muted. It eventually opened up with fruit and spice in a medium body with a smooth texture. I'd say a 90.

Next was the Schild. Enough waiting. We screwed the cap open and found an intense ripe sweet berries and plum with spice and oak in a long smooth finish. It didn't have the acidity I had expected. I'd give it a 92.

And then my wife tried it. BOOM! My wife loved it. And she said so at a high volume. This is the woman who likes wine a lot but only has 4 grades. Bad. Tolerable. Good or "fine". And Great. We don't find "great" very often. As in once every 15 months. At the high end of "great" there is "I want to bathe in this". And this is where we were. How many cases would I have needed to buy to fill that bathtub? I'll cover this topic more in a future post.

Eventually I opened the Langmeil. It was how I had remembered it. And in side by side tasting, it was clear the Schild was a much sweeter and slightly richer style of fruit. The Langmeil had a bit of a classic build, tasting a bit more sour (like a tangy plum) and more acidity. I'd give it a 91. Both were equally complex. But overall the Schild was the winner.

But the kicker is this was the 2006 Schild. The 88 pointer. Wow. I can hardly wait to try thte 2004.

PS I gave away the surprise to the wine geeks, since they would know the 2004 uses cork but the 2006 uses a screw cap.

The problem with beer

As a wine lover, people sometimes ask me "do you like also like beer?" , as if there is something not quite right drinking wine almost all the time. On rare occasions, the conversation leads to "why don't you drink more beer?"

Which got me thinking about "the problem with beer" several months ago and which I am only sharing now. Let me list the ways.

1. Beer is a problem because it is relatively cheap compared to wine. You can reliably get very good beer for $12 a six-pack which is less than the average bottle I drink. And you get more to drink by a long shot: 6 bottles = 72 oz, while a bottle of wine is around 25 oz.
2. Beer is reliable. You do get an occasional bad batch (metallic or flat tasting) but by enlarge, you can rely on beer. Especially the cheaper stuff, which rarely disappoints. I mean how can it, at $0.33 a can?
3. Beer is refreshing in a way wine can only hope to be. Which means it goes well when you're hot and tired, say after a great workout. There are times when only a beer will do.
   
4. Beer goes well with all food. So it goes great with spicy foods (Asian, Indian, BBQ, etc) that can be difficult to pair wine with.
5. A good beer is good indeed. I find trappist Belgium beers to be as nice as many fine wines. And because it is less alcoholic I get to drink more. And it's cheaper.

And so you see the problem with beer. I don't know why don't I drink more of it?

Fortunately, beer does have some problems.

1. I don't like a lot of beers. Wheat beer? Not good. Hoppy, bitter beer (Sierra Nevada, Anchor Steam)? I shy away.
   
2. I especially don't like the more "interesting" beers that beer connosiers like. I avoid craft beers since they rarely float my boat.
3. I largely like boring beers. Two of my favorite lagers are relatively clean: Spaten Premium and Becks. This is like saying you like Pinot Grigio since it's not so strong.
4. I like Bud. Which automatically disqualifies me from any conversation with a beeer lover.
   
5. About the only respected beers I like are Trappist Ales and some more fruity, thick beers (some bitters, some double bocks). How can I consider myself a beer person in this case.
   

But the bottom line is when I ask myself what I want, it is wine not beer.