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.