Wine Video? Why not.....

When I started this blog I only wanted to review wines, no more, no less. However tonight I came across this video on hulu.com (dont worry its free and legal to watch): http://www.hulu.com/watch/79439/wine-for-the-confused.

This 45 min documentary follows John Cleese around California while he hosts a blind wine tasting, travels to different local vineyards, visits a restaurant, and finally invites wine professionals to his house, all for the sake of making wine more approachable and less 'posh.' I found it very interesting because it stared John Cleese, and because it is a documentary for basic wine appreciation, understanding and purchasing. The reason I decided to post this video on the blog was because the program made some great points that I want to stress.

1) No one should tell you what you should like. While reading reviews is a great way to find out about different wines, and read other people's opinions, I cant stress enough that reviews are just that, other people's opinions. I've heard a few good sayings that solidify this point, "Drink what you like, and all the rest is commentary" and "Trust your own palate." There are objective ways to evaluate the different aspects of wines, but those equations do not take into consideration that each person has their own palate and therefore enjoy different things. Personally I dont usually like the wines that Robert Parker (a big time wine critic) likes, typically I tend to enjoy the wines that Stephen Tanzer (another big time critic) enjoys the most. This is not always true, but its a good way for me to find new things that I may like.

2) Just because a wine is expensive doesnt mean that its good, and again the opposite is also true. Expensive doesnt always equate to quality, and inexpensive doesnt always mean its not good. Ive tried some amazing wines that were more than one months rent, but Ive also tried expensive wines that didnt really impress me. Also there have been some wines that cost less than a large pepperoni pizza that are aso impressive.

3) Try new things, and dont get stuck on trends. In the 80's and 90's merlot was a top selling grape, then a popular movie came out shunning merlot and praising pinot noir. Guess what...pinot noir sales when up and merlot went down. Personally I like merlot, some of my favorite bordeaux wines are predominately merlot.

4) Work on developing your palate, and building a vocabulary to help pull out specific features of the wines you like. The only way to do this is drink more wine.

5) Find a store that you like, and start a dialog with the employees. Dont be afraid to tell them what you like and allow them to make recommendations for new things.

So there are many other little tid-bits in this documentary as well as interviews with winery owners, grape growers, sommelier, and other wine professionals. I must admit that I wish it had more humor, but it covers some basics about wine, and is a good show for people just getting into wine. Don't worry this is not going to become a habit (reviewing anything other than wine itself), but again I thought this video made some good points and I wanted to share it with others.

Let me know what you think

Galen

Coto De Hayas rosado 2007

Producer: Coto De Hayas
Country: Spain
Region: Campo De Borja
Vintage: 2007
Style: Rose
Grapes: Mostly Garnacha, some Tempranillo, a little Syrah, Cabernet Sauvignon, Chardonnay.
Declared Alcohol (on label): 13%
Approximate Price: $6/Glass
Date Reviewed: 6/23/2009
Reviewed By: Galen Ricci

Appearance:
Clear with a medium crimson color, thin watery edge and average legs.

Nose:
Clean (no cork faults or oxidization). The aroma had a medium intensity with youthful notes of, cranberry, cranberry juice, strawberry and orange peel/zest.

Palate:
As expected the wine was dry with medium to medium + acid, medium body, medium alcohol, and no perceivable tannins. The flavors maintained a medium intensity with notes of tart cranberry, sour strawberry, red cherry, and a touch of orange zest. The finish had a medium length.

Conclusion:
This rose's quality was good. The price range fell between inexpensive and mid-priced. As for the development, the wine is ready to drink and should not be aged.

Author's Notes:
I tasted this wine at a local restaurant and I was surprised because this wine looked and smelled almost exactly like fresh cranberry juice. I bet I could have fooled someone into thinking it was cranberry juice, until they took a sip. Of course this wine was served chilled, so I waited until it came closer to room temperature before taking any notes. As it warmed up the bouquet started to show a few more characteristics than just cranberry juice, but those aromas were faint, and even though I had my nose within millimeters of the wine, I was really searching for some extra descriptors. I would feel comfortable saying that the bouquet on this wine was a "one and a half" trick pony, but the jury is still out as I should really taste this wine again when Im sure its at room temp rather than guessing while sitting at the bar. Hey I was thirsty, so give me a break.

The flavors on the palate were much more defined showing red fruits (cranberry, strawberry, cherry), with a touch of citrus (orange zest), and this was well balanced with good acidity (very important in my mind). I also enjoyed the body because it had a pleasant weight that seemed to provide substance to the wine. The finish was also very nice since it lasted for a reasonable length and didnt show any signs of bitterness (sometimes I find that in large production roses because the crushing method might be a little more aggressive and the bitter oils from the seeds end up in the juice).

The palate was a more expressive than the bouquet, but there weren't layers of flavors to intrigue my taste buds for hours of enjoyment. Instead this wine was very straight forward and to the point, and that point was cranberry! Which isnt a bad thing especially at this price. While I was sitting at the bar I conducted an experiment and tasted this wine with two types of cheese. First bree, second gorgonzola. As to be expected it was delightful with the bree. The acidity of the wine cut through the creaminess of the bree, and added a little bit of pleasantly tart fruit to the rich cheese, an nice combination. As for the gorgonzola, well that was a completely different story, I wasnt expecting a good pairing, but I didnt expect a train wreck in my mouth either. What came together in my mouth was a train wreck with a truck full of cow shit. *Note to self, dont try that combo again, even if its for the science of wine pairings*

When it was all said and done I did enjoy this wine for providing me with a well priced, straight forward, all around good rose. This is a wine that doesnt require much thought because it puts everything in front of the consumer and doesnt have anything to hide. I would score this wine 87 points, since its balanced and enjoyable. If I paid 6 dollars for a glass then I bet it would be on a wine shelf at a retail store for around $9-$12, which is a stellar price. If anyone know how much this wine costs retail I would like to know.

E. Guigal Chateauneuf du Pape 2001

Domaine: E. Guigal
Country: France
Region: Chateauneuf du Pape
Vintage: 2001
Style: Red
Grapes: 80% old Grenache, 10% Syrah, 5% Mourvèdre and others.
Declared Alcohol (on label): 13.5%
Approximate Price: $49/bottle
Date Reviewed: 6/21/2009
Reviewed By: Galen

Appearance:
Clear with a deep ruby/tawny core and a medium tawny rim. The color spread to the edge completely leaving no room for a watery rim. The legs were medium sized with an average speed.

Nose:
The nose was clean without any cork faults or oxidization. The aromas had a medium to medium + intensity and were clearly on the developing side of maturity. The bouquet showed Dark Cherry, Prunes, All-Spice, Cocoa, Coffee, Caramel, and had a slight Gamy tone.

Palate:
The wine was dry, with medium to medium + acid, and medium tannins. The alcohol, body and length also fell into the medium category. The intensity of the flavors were medium to medium - and showed, Red Cherry, Prunes, Leather, Smokiness, and a Gamy quality.

Conclusion:
Overall the wine fit into the good category, and is about mid priced for this region. This wine is ready to drink now, but can age longer.

Authors Notes:
I should start by saying that I purchased this wine at a supermarket in their close out section. It was a half bottle (375ml) for, no shit, $3.50. I also picked up a half bottle of veuve clicquot nv for $14, crazy I know. So now that I explained the situation about where I bought the wine, this might set the tone for what I think about this wine. 2001 in chateauneuf-du-pape was a stellar year, erobertparker.com scored this vintage in southern rhone as 96 out of 100, and noted that most of the wines were still tannic and were slow maturing. I agree that this wine was still tight, and needs more time to mature. However, I dont trust the conditions that it was stored in for the past few years (I know that this bottle was sitting on the grocery store shelf, probably standing up, for at least 3 years, because the most current vintage of this wine is 2006). So I decided to open this wine up and enjoy my $3.50 purchase, for the sake of this blog. Now on to my personal assessment of the wine.

I loved the color of this wine, I get really excited about older red wines because I really enjoy the transition from fruity to savory flavors that wines take on as they age. Red wines start to get a little lighter in color and the watery rim starts to disappear, which was the case with this wine. I thought the nose on this wine was wonderful, many layers of developed fruits, tied in with spices, kernel (coffee, chocolate), and animal (leather, gamy). Had I been sitting around with other people smelling this wine we could have found 20 plus different descriptors for the nose, all built off of a well made, mature wine.

The palate was a bit more challenging though, since I use the pop and pour technique (this wine should be aerated before consumption), the palate was not as interesting as the nose. The fruit, spice, kernel, animal aspects really ran together and didnt show themselves individually. In contrast, the alcohol was very well integrated into the wine, and didnt provide any excessive 'heat,' which was very pleasant. The tannins were not nearly as robust as I had expected, they were nice and velvety, but for this vintage and this region I was expecting a little more grip. Also I expected a little more weight in the body, but then I did some research and discovered that this vintage from Guigal was mostly grenache (producers in chateauneuf-du-pape are allowed to blend up to 13 different varietal), which in southern rhone produces wines that are typically low in tannin and color. As the wine had time to breath the flavors started to open up more and show more depth, but still I expected a lot more from this producer and vintage. I cant recall if Ive had a 2001 chateauneuf-du-pape, but I do recall enjoying a variety of wines from this region from various vintages, and most of them were younger and had a lot more character. The length on this wine was medium (average), and I was hoping for a lot more, even though it had a front, middle and finish, it still didnt last on my palate as I would have expected it to. If this was a smaller producer I might give them a more of a break, but Guigal is a large producer with land all over rhone, basically I expect a lot more from this wine. Am I disappointed? not a chance since I paid $3.50 for the bottle. I might have been disappointed if I spent $49 per bottle on this wine.

In the end it came down to the fact that the flavors on the palate were not as interesting or as intense as the aroma on the nose, add to that the length was too short for my expectation of this region. From my experience I would suggest that readers find other Chateauneuf du pape's within this price range. I score this wine 89+ points, there are much better examples of this region out there. Not to mention there are $15 spanish grenacha's with longer finish than this wine.

Egervin Bulls blood 2003

Domaine: Egervin
Country: Hungary
Region: Eger
Vintage: 2003
Style: Red
Grapes: Kadarka, Kékfrankos, Blauer and possibly others
Declared Alcohol (on label): 12%
Approximate Price: $9/bottle
Date Reviewed: 6/20/2009
Reviewed By: Galen Ricci


Appearance:
Clear medium ruby core withe a light ruby/tawny rim. An ever so slight watery edge, and average moving, slightly colored legs.

Nose:
Clean without any cork flaws (TCA/TCB) or oxidization, and smells developed with a medium intensity aroma. Characteristics of Red Cherry, Red Raspberry, a little leather, and a sort of baked fruit smell, behind caramel (possibly from oak aging).

Palate:
Dry with medium acidity, medium - tannins, medium - alcohol, medium - body, medium flavor intensity and medium - length. Characteristics of Red apple, sour cherry, tart raspberry, plum and a little leather.

Conclusion:
The wine falls into the good category, it is ready to drink now, and is mid-priced for this style of wine.

Authors Notes:
This is the first bulls blood wine I have ever had. One of my wine classes covered Hungary, Austria, Romania, and Greece, so naturally we drank tokaji, zwegelt, pinot noir, and agiorgitiko from the respective regions. We did talk about bulls blood, but didnt taste one in class, so one day I saw it on a shelf for 10.99 and decided to give it a shot. So in all fairness I can evaluate the wine's attributes, but I have no other experience to compare it to. I kinda like it and for the price I feel as though this has been a good experience, I would buy another bulls blood again, but I would seek out another producer so I can see how this one compares. I like the body, and the 12% alcohol, the acidity is balanced. I would have like a little more aroma intensity, but the flavors make up for the lean bouquet. I really like the sour cherry and tart raspberry. Its should pair well with the bolognese sauce that I'm having for dinner, similar to a sangiovese from italy, except less tannins and lighter body. Which is not a bad thing. Most people would probably not like this wine because its lean, and a bit thin, but those who enjoy the experience of something unique and can appreciate lean wines might enjoy it more. Especially at this price, which believe it or not is about mid-priced for bulls blood. Im not going to score this wine, because I dont have another bulls blood to compare it to.

After some time I came back to this wine and Im starting to think that its slightly 'corked'. Its barely perceivable (if at all) on the nose, but on the mid-palate theres a little bit of a cardboard/musty flavor, however its only detectable for a brief moment before the sour/tart fruit takes charge again. In someways this doesnt surprise me because its not like bulls blood is flying off of retailers shelves, not to mention this is a 2003, so it could have been sitting around for a long time. I am not very familiar with bulls blood, and I can imagine this wine isnt really intended for prolonged bottle aging. Anyone else ever tried bulls blood?

Heres the wiki on bulls blood:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egri_Bikav%C3%A9r

Chateau Le Calvaire 2003

Domaine: Chateau le Calvaire
Country: France
Region: Bordeaux Superieur
Vintage: 2003
Style: Red
Grapes: Cabernet Sauvignon, Merlot
Declared Alcohol (on label): 13%
Approximate Price: $17/bottle
Date Reviewed: 6/19/2009
Reviewed By: Galen Ricci

Appearance:
This red wine was clear with a deep ruby core moving to a medium ruby rim. Almost no watery edge, which would indicate some age on the wine. The legs were average size, with average movement

Nose:
The nose was clean with no traces of corkage, or oxidization. The aromas had a medium intensity, with a developing profile. The characteristics were: Bell pepper, spicy pepper (jalapeno, green chilies), Dusty, and a touch of oak (possibly older oak)

Palate:
The wine was dry, had medium to medium - acid, medium tannins, medium alcohol, medium body, and medium flavor intensity. The flavors were: Dusty, green pepper, pencil shavings, and slight dark fruits (but so slight it was hard to discern the exact fruits). The wine maintained a solid medium - length.

Conclusion:
The overall quality of the wine was acceptable. Since its a left bank Bordeaux Superieur the cost is mid-priced. This wine is at its peak and should be consumed soon.


Authors Notes:
This wine was kinda boring, although it was balanced and nothing was wrong with it, it lacked any sort of fruit and excitement. In fact there was almost no fruit, the tannins were focused on the front of the palate, and the length was too short for a 2003 left bank bordeaux. Although it might still have some life left, I dont think its going to hang on much longer in the bottle. I would be confident in saying this wine was one dimensional and didnt really have much to say for itself. I could see this wine as basic bordeaux glass pour for around $7/glass at a restaurant, but again thats because there was nothing really wrong with the wine. It just doesnt stand up to other bordeauxs in the same price range. If this wine was in the 12-15 dollar range I might get a little more excited about it, but it really doesnt have a lot going for it, where many other wines from that region, and in the same price range, have a lot more going on. I would rate this wine 86+ points.

Commanderie de Peyrassol Rose 2008

Domaine: Commanderie de Peyrassol
Country: France
Region: Cotes de Provence
Vintage: 2008
Style: Rose
Grapes: Syrah, Grenache, Cinsault, Mourvedre
Declared Alcohol (on label): 12.5%
Approximate Price: $20/bottle
Date Reviewed: 6/19/2009
Reviewed By: Galen Ricci

Appearance:
Clear with a medium intensity. The wine had a very salmon color with orange highlights. The rim had a slight watery edge, but the color advanced almost completely to the edge of the rim. The wine had average moving, watery colored legs, which could indicate a dry wine with medium alcohol.

Nose:
A very clean nose, no detection of faults or oxidization. The intensity of aromas was medium, and the development was very youthful. The Aromas included: Strawberry, Red Raspberry, Watermelon, Roses, a slight smokiness (possibly from the minerality).

Palate:
The wine was dry on the palate, the acidity was medium, and there were no perceivable tannins. The alcohol was medium, and the body had a medium weight. The flavor intensity was medium, with characteristics of: Rose Water, Watermelon, Fresh Strawberry, Fresh Red Raspberry, Light Red Apple, Wet Stone, and a very little bit of bubble gum. The length was medium to medium + and continually evolved.

Conclusions:
The quality was very good (better than good, but not quite outstanding). As for price category this a midpriced French rose. This wine is ready to drink now and should not sit much longer than 1-2 years on a shelf.

Authors Notes:
This was one of the best roses, I dare say, I have ever had! It is elegant, beautiful and filled with character. It has amazing balance and layers of fruit and minerality all supported by near perfect acidity. Ive tasted roses in the same price point that are no where near as interesting, refined or balanced. This would go perfectly with many foods such as cheeses, fish, light chicken dishes, but I would love to pair this wine with a blackened seafood dish (yes this is the street and co side of me). I would venture to say that 99 out of 100 people would call this a really good wine, and those who have tasted a few roses would say this is a great wine. I highly suggest people seek out this wine and try it! Im thinking about scoring wines, so I might as well start now. I would give this wine 92+ points.

I tasted this wine about an hour later and found that the same characteristics still prevailed, but a slight creaminess started to develop, which really piqued my interest. Im not exactly sure if some percentage of the juice had some malo-lactic fermentation, but as the wine had some exposure with oxygen it really became more rich with almost a medium + body. A real rockstar of a wine and something I would highly suggest, especially for first time rose drinkers.

Criteria for Evaluating and Reviewing Wines

This is the very first blog for the Portland Wine Review and I would like to take the time to set the stage for my own evaluations. I'm basing my criteria on the information from the WSET (Wine Spirits and Education Trust) advanced level text book and their official tasting sheets (which can be obtained in a PDF format from the link at the bottom of this blog). This is the most recent course I have taken and is the foundation for my continual wine education. Each author has some formal wine training as well as a lot of experience in the business, but please understand that each of us will have our own style of evaluation and even though we are trying to be as objective as possible, each persons' senses, and personal tastes are unique and will influence the different assessments. With that said I have outlined each section with brief descriptions of the sections, but please refer to the official WSET tasting sheets that cover each section (with the exception of wine preparations). This is the format I have used during my courses, and continue to use since it provides definitive points of evaluation. I have posted a link for the tasting sheets at the end of this blog because they are a great reference since they provide the full ranges for each section. Thank you for reading the Portland Wine Review Blog.

--Galen

Wine Preparations

• Temperature- All wines will be tasted at room temperature for initial reviews, however the reviewer may chill the wine after the first assessment as to note any changes.

• Aeration- Some wines require decanting however to be as fair as possible the initial review will be a "pop-and-pour." Again the reviewer may chose to use any method to aerate the wine after the first assessment as to note any changes.
  

• Foods- Some wines really need to be accompanied by food to show their true potential, but once again the reviewer will evaluate the wine first, then have the option to pair it with food and note the changes.

Appearance

• Clarity- In terms of wine appearance is very important. Cloudiness could be an indication of a flaw in the wine or it could indicate various forms of filtration or non-filtration, sediment due to age, etc. Range: Clear, Dull.
  

• Intensity of Color- Can tell a lot about the wine. what grape(s) used, the method of production, age, etc. Range: Water White, Pale, Medium, Deep, Opaque
  

• Color- The differences in color is another facet of evaluation that will again be used to review the grape(s) used, the method of production, age, etc. Range: White Wines- Colorless, Lemon/Green, Lemon, Gold, Amber, Brown. Rose Wines- Pink, Salmon, Orange. Red Wines- Purple, Ruby, Garnet, Tawny, Brown.
  

• Other Observations- Are there other features of the wine's appearance that are worthy of noting? I.E. Rim vs. Core color, tears/legs, deposits, petillance, tints/highlights, etc

Nose

• Condition- This is a reference to any possible faults in the wine that were the result of storage, and without getting too technical, the idea of this section is to determine whether this wine corked or not. Range: Clean, Unclean (referring to faults such as oxidized, out of condition, cork taint, other)
  

• Intensity- This section is used to determine the aroma intensity of the wine. Range: Light, Medium -, Medium, Medium +, Pronounced.
  

• Development- Where is the wine in its developmental stage? Any where from youthful-tired/past its best, also has this wine received deliberate oxidation? Range: Youthful, Developing, Fully Developed, Tired/Past its Best, Deliberate Oxidation.
  

• Aroma Characteristics- This is the good stuff! Is there something else to be perceived in the wine's bouquet? Range: Fruit, Floral, Spice, Vegetal, Oak, Other (The second part of the WSET tasting sheets provides an even further breakdown of each general flavor, i.e Within fruit would involve citrus which includes grapefruit, lemon, lime, orange, etc)

Palate

• Sweetness- This section evaluates the sugars in the wine. Range: Dry, Off Dry, Medium Dry, Medium, Medium Sweet, Sweet, Luscious.
  

• Acidity- This section evaluates the acidity in the wine. Range: Low, Medium -, Medium, Medium +, High
  

• Tannin Level- This section evaluates the tannins in the wine, but does not provide descriptors such as velvety, biting, etc. Those I save for my author's notes. Range: Low, Medium -, Medium, Medium +, High

• Alcohol level- This is a bit more difficult because some wine have high alcohol levels such as port, and some have lower alcohol levels like trebbiano. So to clarify, this section looks to determine whether the wine has a low-high alcohol range based on the grape(s), as well as the region. For example syrah from rhone might have a lower alcohol level than shiraz (same grape) from Australia. This might also be a time to note the authors perception of alcohol, for example does the alcohol integrate into the wine well or is it off balanced, again this section has some room for the authors discretion. Range: Low, Medium -, Medium, Medium +, High. With separate ranges for fortified wines: Low, Medium, High
  

• Body- Evaluates the weight/body of the wine (i.e how does it feel on the palate?). Range: Light, Medium -, Medium, Medium +, Full
  

• Mousse- This is for sparkling wines only, but in such a case the range goes from: Delicate, Creamy, Aggressive

• Flavor Intensity- How prominant/intense is the flavor? Range: Light, Medium -, Medium, Medium +, Pronounced
  

• Flavor Characteristics- This is another really fun part! What sort of flavors are involved? Fruit, floral, spice, vegetal, oak, other. (The second part of the WSET tasting sheets provides an even further breakdown of each general flavor, i.e Within fruit would involve citrus which includes grapefruit, lemon, lime, orange, etc)
  

• Length- How long do the flavors linger on the palate? Range: Short, Medium -, Medium, Medium +, Long
  

Conclusions

• Quality- This is another section where authors and readers may differ. Hopefully we (the reviewers) can make an objective (fingers crossed) evaluation of the quality of the wine, based solely on the grape(s), region, production, etc. and come to an objective conclusion (toes crossed too) about the quality of the wine. Is this wine true to its varietals, regions, production method. Not whether of not we like the wine, was it made well. Ranges: Poor, Acceptable, Good, Outstanding. Sometimes I find wines that fit inbetween these catigories so I might say, "very good" which is between good and outstanding.
  

• Price Category- Although a little bit easier to determine, this does not refer to a set price for all wines, however it determines whether the wine is anywhere from inexpensive-high priced and even premium, based on the region, grape(s), producer, etc. This section will not include such descriptors as "over priced or under priced," it only evaluates the ranges of prices based on the aformost mentioned conditions. I will include my personal thoughts on the prices in the "Authors Notes" section. Ranges: Inexpensive, Mid Priced, High Priced, Premium.
  

• Readiness for drinking- does it need time to age? is it ready to drink? or is it tired/past its best? Range: Needs Time, Ready to Drink but Can Age, At its Peak/Drink Soon, Tired/Past its Best.
  

Authors Notes:

• This is going to be the section set aside for the author to speak their mind about the wine. We're all humans with individual taste buds, so this section is reserved for the authors personal thoughts and comments and is by nature the least objective section. Authors can provide scores, opinions, suggestion or anything they feel is important to share with the reader.

Official WSET Tasting sheets:

http://www.wset.co.uk/documents/ac_sat_14.08.08.pdf