PJ's Wines

 Lots of bright red fruit greet you at the nose, followed by a light mouth-feel that belies the power of this wine. Balanced tannins also meet layered acidity, in a wine that would work wonders with lamb, or braised short ribs. This is sort of the short story version of Alvaro's novel length L'Ermita, but at a price closer to a pulp paperback than an autographed first addition. - PJ

New York Times

 We’re thrilled to offer you the Best Value Priorat from the NY Times (to be published Wednesday), Alvaro Palacios Camins Del Priorat 2008 ($24).  Among the Priorats that Eric Asimov deemed “the real thing” and “juicy, succulent and full of distinctive mineral flavors” and that one tasting panel member  even swooned “are big, and they’re strong, but they seduce . . . you taste it, you feel it, you want to touch it. It’s very visceral to me.”

The panel found Alvaro Palacios “big and tannic with flavors of plums, mineral and licorice.” 

2007 Alvaro Palacios Camins del Priorat Quick swirl

WINE OF THE WEEK

• 

  (Bob Chamberlin / Los Angeles Times)

January 13, 2010

Few of us can afford Spanish wine star Alvaro Palacios' big dog, L'Ermita. But we can all afford an occasional bottle of his Camins del Priorat. Think of it as an introductory wine from northern Spain's rugged Priorat region. A blend of Carignan and Garnacha with 10% Cabernet Sauvignon, the 2007 Camins del Priorat is made from "younger" vines. That would be in the vicinity of 15 years old. It has everything going for it -- bright concentrated fruit, ripe tannins, silky texture, all of which make it an extremely versatile wine with food.

Stephen Tanzer's International Wine Cellar


Bright ruby. Very sexy, perfumed aromas of redcurrant, raspberry, minerals and flowers; there's a wild, aromatic character here. Quite fresh and juicy in the mouth, with good energy to the red berry, cherry and candied floral flavors. Perfumed and energetic, with silky tannins adding shape to a long, sappy finish.


HiTimeWine.net


This is a delicious blend of 60% Carignan, 30% Granacha, 10% Cabernet and 10% Syrah. The wine is beautifully aromatic of rich fruit, florals and a touch of minerals. The palate is a pure expressions of bright raspberries and black cherries. Following is an array of clove, cinnamon and cardamon and a silky textural mouthfeel. An fantastic Priorat at an amazing price.

Sally Easton MW WineWisdom.com

Roussillon: a region for all seasons

Published by Sally on July 13, 2009

A version of this article first appeared in FD magazine, December 2005.

Deep in the far south of France, edging its southern borders into the foothills of the Pyrenees, and commanding a Mediterranean coastline to the east, lies Roussillon, the sunniest and driest region in France.  Its vineyards cover about the same acreage as those of Champagne, and it is more often than not tacked onto to its much bigger neighbour, making a region covering the whole of southern France – Languedoc-Roussillon.  Yet the wines of Roussillon have an identity and expression all their own.

Roussillon is drenched in both sunshine and history. Vine growing can be traced back thousands of years. And in a similar manner to Alsace, over the centuries Roussillon has passed back and forth between Spanish and French ownership, finally being settled in France in 1659.  In the region’s main city, Perpignan, it is the Palace of Kings of Majorca that holds the city in its gaze, now an historic and tourist monument. Catalan culture remains strong and many people are bi-lingual.

The region has a complex geology, and much that producers speak of is to do with their terroir, and which patch of dirt best suits which of the grape varieties are used in the region. 

Grenache bush vine

Red grape varieties are mainly an extension of those from the better known southern Rhône: grenache, mourvèdre, cinsault, supplemented by carignan, the best examples of which add colour, depth, acidity, and a black fruited meaty spiciness to the blend.  As with neighbouring Languedoc, syrah has been planted for the past 30 years or so, to add with the local varieties.  Whites are based on grenache blanc and increasingly roussanne, marsanne, plus muscat (Alexandria and petits grains) for sweet wines.

What’s rare in a dry, sunny climate is to find white wines with a freshness and minerality that is characteristic in Rousillon. Part of the explanation is altitude. Vineyards are found from sea level up to 550m above the sea.  With an approximate 1°C drop in temperature for every 100m increase in altitude, combined with a tortured topography, it’s possible to envisage cooler plots of land at higher altitudes and aspects away from the sun where white grapes can flourish.

The dry, sunny climatic disposition of Roussillon enables producers to make some excellent wine to organic principles. Without regular moisture, disease pressure is low, lending viticulture to minimum intervention practices.  Domaine Gauby, one of the top producers in Roussillon farms to the more rigorous biodynamic approach. Fourth generation Philippe Mercier, of Domaine Joliette which produces certified organic wines, explained: ““Organic is more a work of observation. I learn a lot by being near to the vines. You need to be near the vineyard to understand the vines and their treatment.”

One of the best open secrets of this self-contained Catalan enclave is the region’s varied fortified wines. Called vins doux naturel (VDN), these are made by adding pure grape spirit to partially fermented grape juice, to create a sweet wine.  The characteristics of the grapes are preserved by using pure spirit, rather than grape brandy.

Maury, and its more famous cousin, Banyuls are made from red grapes, notably grenache, while Rivesaltes is from white.  The wines can be made in more reductive (primary fruit) or more oxidative (nutty, dried and candied fruits) styles.  These latter, tuilé (tawny) styles of red VDN and ambré (amber) styles of white VDN, are a perfect accompaniment to traditional English winter season fare.

Vin Doux Naturels, maturing outside

Of his Maury, Robert Pouderoux, of Domaine Pouderoux said: “We try to finish on freshness, not sugar. If you have a good tannin structure, then even with 100g/l of sugar, you don’t see the sugar, also if you have a good acidity. All the work is the balance of these three – tannin, acidity and sugar.”

Muscat de Rivesaltes is always reductive, always to be drunk within a year after the harvest. Gentle, grapey, aromatic, with an elegance and lightness of touch despite the sweetness.

As concern increases about higher alcohol levels in wine, Vins doux naturels could find themselves becoming fashionable once more.  They consistently have an alcohol level of about 15% abv.  This is undoubtedly similar or even lighter than muscular Australian shirazes or Californian zinfandels. At just three-quarters the alcohol level of port, they also offer a different style of digestif.

Eric Aracil, export manager for the promotional body Vins du Roussillon has suggested ““marrying the colour of wine with the colour of dessert”, which is a new twist on the idea that the wine should be as sweet as, if not slightly sweeter than, the dessert.  Certainly across the styles of VDN, almost every colour can be catered for, from the palest lemon tart Muscat de Rivesaltes to the densest, darkest, most chocolatey Maury.

This article was inspired by a visit to the region sponsored by Wines of Roussillon (Vins du Roussillon).

Domaine Olivier Pithon "La Coulee" Cotes du Roussillon 2007 Slope Cellars $21.99 13.5% alc.

40% Carignan, 40% Grenache, 20% Syrah

Onyx Priorat Classic Priorat DOQ Wine Exchange $17.99 14.5% alc.

Unfortunately Onix doesn’t have a website that I could find so my info on the wine is limited, except for the fact that it is 50% Garnacha and 50% Carinena and was aged entirely in stainless steel.

My Tasting Notes -

Nose: boysenberry, leather, black tea, pomegranate, rosemary

Taste: blackberry, tea, black cherry, cinnamon

Mouthfeel: full bodied, smooth and round with intense leather tannins that creep up at the finish

Finish: Long and fruity

At under $20 this is a screaming value, with rich full bodied mouthfeel and intense back ended tannic structure. Definitely, more new world style with it’s intense dark fruit flavors but the notes of tea and dried herbs reflect the terroir of the Priorat region.

Montauk Wine Club Heads to Tornado Country (Hold Down the Ash Tray!!)

Wouldn’t you know, just when tornados were beginning to tear up the Midwest, the Montauk Wine Club on April 21 decided to travel to Missouri!  Why?  Well, it’s kind of a long story that the Thompsons may be persuaded to tell you, but in short, we heard tell there are some mighty good native American grapes grown there.  So, undaunted or perhaps made foolish by the cunning nature of alcohol, we decided to check it out.  We first compared a 2010 Stone Hill Winery Vignoles (13% alcohol) from Missouri (labeled by the vintner as the “jewel of Missouri”) with a 2007 Salmon Run New York Riesling (11.5% alcohol).  Then we moved on to the famous red Norton grape (what you’ve never heard of it?), which is a cross between the typical European grape and a wholly indigenous American grape.  Just to make sure we got a complete picture of the Norton, we tried two:  a 2007 Cross J Norton (13% alcohol) also from the Stone Hill Winery in Herrmann, Missouri (possibly no relation to the former Club manager) and a 2004 Crown Valley Norton (12.5% alcohol) from the Ozark Highlands.  We thought we ought to see how they both compared to something more traditional so we pulled out an old standby – a 2006 Franciscan Cabernet Sauvignon from Napa Valley.  This is what we discovered.

The first white wine had a slightly deeper color but was considerably lighter on legs.  Overall, it bore a nice fragrance, but a little straw and airplane glue snuck through.  The taste was rather more fulfilling, starting with a basic green apple flavor laced with caraway seeds.  This gave the wine an acidic, slightly sour, but not too dry effect.  As it developed, a moldy, cheese flavor began to emerge, making it a great match with the cheese on the table.

The second white had a milder hue and short legs, and its smell was considerably more interesting than the first.  It was exceedingly floral like smelling perfume, but at the same time had a sweet, peachy smell. The sweetness of the aroma was not so present in the taste, however.  It lacked the cloying quality that one might have expected from the smell.  It also had a thicker mouth feel than the first white.  All in all, most of us found this wine to be surprisingly tasty, a pleasant wine to drink even if one were not held hostage to a tornado in Missouri.   We unanimously and correctly picked this as the Vignoles, matching it to the vintner’s description as semi-sweet, with rich complexity and warmth.  Of the two whites, we all favored this one.

When we turned to the reds, our experience turned quite bizarre.  The first red wine had a rosier color, but that was not its stand-out quality.  That first appeared in the smell – like someone had been smoking in the room and left the stale ash tray to ripen.  Then notes of petroleum began to come out, giving the overall impression of burnt rubber.  Surely, the cigarette butts flavor couldn’t carry over into the taste, or could it?  Yep, it brought back memories of your grandfather smoking in his favorite chair.  We ultimately concluded that this wine just needed to air out some, like for a couple of days.

Needless to say, the second red was much more pleasant.  First of all, it had more of a brownish tint to it, but more importantly, it had fruity overtones, despite the tar smell lurking in the background.  When it came to tasting, this wine was more astringent, dark and heavy, although it did have a slight fruit finish.  This was a big wine that would stand up to a large juicy steak, for sure.  There was something more reliable about it.

Moving on to the third red wine, we encountered some unusual qualities again.  First there was the airplane glue in the smell, even though we detected some jammy fruit.  The taste seemed to be a milder version of the first red (there’s a clue in there) with its hint of petroleum.  Again, the taste had more fruit than the first red such as plums and prunes.  On the other hand, it also had some citrus feel to it, like a sour lemon ball.  Indeed, this was a very interesting taste.  (What does it mean when someone says a food tastes “interesting”?)

The verdict?  It was pretty clear that red #2 was the cabernet sauvignon.  Red #1 turned out to be the Stone Hill Norton, while #3 was the Crown Valley.  Interestingly, the Stone Hill retails for a higher price.  One has to pay for the rare stale ash tray terroir, we supposed.  The out-of-the-ordinary experience of this tasting was worth it because most of us actually preferred the Crown Valley to the other two reds.

The moral?  You never know what excitement awaits you at the Montauk Club Wine Club.

So be sure to join us on Thursday, May 19, around 7:00 p.m. for more adventure.  We’re going to review some basic style characteristics such as dryness, crispiness, oakiness and tannin and promise an evening of fun and delight.

See you all then!!

Suzy and Jim

Montauk Wine Club Explores Italy Again

Our world tours took us back to Italy for our March 24, 2011 Wine Club meeting.  And a tasty tour it was.  We started out in Piedmont (in northwestern Italy) tasting a Bruno Giacosa Dolcetto d’Alba DOC 2009 (100% Dolcetto grape, 13% alcohol), a Giacomo Conterno Cascina Francia Barbera d’Alba DOC 2008 (100% Barbera grape, 14.5% alcohol) and an Elvio Cogno Cascina Nuova Barolo DOCG 2006 (100% Nebbiolo grape, also 14.5% alcohol).  We wanted to see whether we could taste a difference among these three varietals from essentially the same region.  We tasted differences all right, but did we discern which was which?  Let’s see.
Our first wine had a lighter hue than the other two, but it was a bit murky in comparison.  It was fairly transparent with short-lived legs suggesting lightness of body.  We were in for an awakening (I won’t exactly describe it as rude) with the smell as we encountered the sharp fumes of airplane glue.  Not to worry, though, as some vanilla finally emerged as we kept trying.  On the tongue this wine was pretty astringent, really tightening up the mouth.  While it was smoother than the third wine, it seemed to have a lot of structure.  We could definitely trace the source of the aromas as we picked up the tastes of steel and tar.  This had to be one of the wines with the high alcohol content, and indeed it was the Barolo.  A majority of the members picked this correctly.
The second wine was hard to distinguish from the others in color, but it seemed to have slightly more legs.  Here the smell was quite sweet at first with strong fruity aromas that finally calmed down after a while. Like the first wine, this one was pretty dry, but it had a lighter, fruitier taste.  Its after taste was acidic and tannic with an overlay of dried cherries.  Only one member of the tour correctly picked this as the Dolcetto.
Needless to say, the third wine was the Barbera, but here too, only one tour member correctly identified it as such.  It was perhaps a half a shade darker than the others.  Its smell was distinctive and more complex, however, as we picked up dark fruit, limestone or clay and a little bit of spice as it opened up.  The taste was very interesting, as it started out smooth and sweet and then would leave a ping on the tongue.  We found this to be the most accessible of the three as it was more rustic and acidic with the familiar taste of cranberries.
We concluded our tour of Piedmont deciding that the Barolo was our hands-down favorite of the three.  So we decided to see how a Nebbiolo grape would stand up against a Chianti from Tuscany, which is just to the south.  For this leg of the trip we compared a Castiglione Falletto Cavalloto Langhe DOC Nebbiolo 2007 (14% alcohol) with an old favorite – Ruffino Riserva Ducale Chianti Classico DOCG 2006 (13% alcohol).  This time we found it much easier to distinguish the Nebbiolo from the Chianti.
The first of the two had just a hint of orange compared to the second. It was dramatically leggy, although the legs were transparent.  Some familiar scents came out when we put it to our noses, however, as we picked up the volatile fumes of petroleum mixed with spice and old shoe leather.  The perfect balance of tannins, astringency, meat and tar made this a most enjoyable taste.
The second wine was slightly darker and more ruby in hue with smoother, slower legs.  The smell was quite different.  At first it was more floral, like rose petals, but as we continued to experience it, the fruit seemed to start to ripen and even rot, finally ending up with compost or manure pile aromas.  Thankfully, the taste was much more pleasant.  It was bright and spicy on a base of bruised or overripe cherries.
Not only did we all correctly choose the first of the pair as the Nebbiolo, we unanimously preferred it over the Chianti.  Of the evening, our favorite continued to be the Barolo Nebbiolo, however, though we’d be happy to be stranded on the Via Appia with any one of the wines tasted this night.
Our next jaunt will be something quite different as we journey to Missouri – that’s right, the middle of the USA, of all places!  We’re going to get acquainted with an up and comer on the wine scene, the Norton grape.  We’ll try Nortons from a couple of different wineries and compare them with on old standby cabernet sauvignon.  Then, while we’re still in Missouri, we’ll try out a Vignole, a white blend which we’ll compare with a Riesling.  What could be more fun (if you happen to find yourself in Missouri)?
Some come join us around 7:00 this coming Thursday, April 21 for lots of good cheer (and some good food too at 20% off!!).
See you all then,
Suzy and Jim

Montauk Wine Club Pulls Into Port for a Taste of Chocolate

In honor of Valentine’s Day, the Montauk Wine Club succumbed to a craving for chocolate, and what better accompaniment than some Port and other dessert wines. We had an interesting evening tasting a tawny port and a ruby port, both by the same vintner (W&J Graham’s Late Bottled Vintage and their Honor QH Porto Special Reserve), as well as a French muscat ( a Chapelle St. Arnoux Muscat Beaumes de Venise) and a Napa Robert Mondavi Moscato d’Oro.
The chocolate we tried came from Mast Brothers Chocolate of Brooklyn. These fellows roast and grind their own cocoa beans and then hand wrap the chocolate bars in papers they design themselves. We had two different chocolates – a dark chocolate with cocoa nibs (72% cacao) and a Dominican dark chocolate (74% cacao).
While continuously nibbling on chocolate, we started right out comparing a tawny and a ruby port. Normally, you’d think we could tell which was which by looking at the color, but the tawny that we tried had the same color as the ruby, even though it was a vintage port. The tawny was a dark ruby color with a hint of purple and slightly more viscous legs. Its aroma was potent and not so sweet. The nose had some complexity that made it less accessible, but fairly interesting nonetheless. The ruby, on the other hand, was slightly less viscous. Its aroma was simpler – more alcoholic with a greater effect on the nose.
When it came to taste, the tawny tasted quite smooth and even a bit bland. It was very fruity and sweet, but it had a hint of pepper. The ruby had a harsher less developed flavor. The real taste highlight, however, was the chocolate. In tasting the Dominican chocolate and the tawny port, it was virtually impossible to tell where one began and the other left off. The pairing of the two was absolutely seamless. This made the tawny port the unanimous favorite of the group. The same could not be said for the chocolate-ruby combination, but no one would be bothered being stranded outside of port with these two in tow.
The French vs. Napa muscat tasting was a sublime aromatherapy experience. The French version had a wonderful, floral aroma reminiscent of a gardenia corsage while the Napa was decidedly citrusy in comparison. These aromas carried over to the taste. The French was very flowery like a Chanel perfume until a bit of apricot snuck through. The Napa tasted of green apple with a bit of honey and a little bite on the tongue. Nevertheless, the Napa was the unanimous favorite of this tasting.
Both were good with the chocolate, though not quite the exquisite experience we found with the ports. The Napa actually presented a contrast with the chocolate, cleansing the palate of it. We thought we might prefer these wines with poached pears and even cheese. And speaking of cheese, we were grateful for the Club chef’s lovely selection of a pecorino, a camembert and a delightful sheep’s milk cheese called Cottage Pleasure. When we ran out of chocolate, we were definitely not out of luck.
For our next gathering, we’re going to sail on over to Italy and taste our way around the Piedmont region. So don’t miss us on March 24 around 7:00 for more good cheer.

Suzy Marquard

Substitute Moderator Drives Wine Club into a Ditch in Tuscany!

The Plan:

First, compare three wines, all from the hill town Montepulciano south of Sienna, all made from the Sangiovese grape known locally as Prugnolo Gentile or the Vino Nobile: two Rosso di Montepulciano DOC (Villa Sant’Anna $34 on the Club’s winelist and Bertile 2007, $19 at Astor Wines, 12.5% alcohol) and one higher classified Vino Nobile di Montepulciano DOCG (Bindela 2006, $22 at Astor Wines, 14% alcohol). We would be tasting three very similar wines, mostly for preference but also to see if we could identify the higher classified DOCG wine.

Second, compare a Chianti Classico DOCG 2006 ($22 at Eataly) with a Super Tuscan, Villa Antinori Rosso 2006 ($27 at Eataly). We would taste to distinguish, if possible, the Sangiovese based Chianti from the Super Tuscan blend of 80% Cabernet Sauvignon and 20% Sangiovese.

The SNAFU:

Your substitute moderator recklessly caused the tasting to careen off its intended path by asking the wait staff to pour the Villa Sant’Anna from the Club’s winelist (intended for the first tasting) with the Chianti and Super Tuscan (intended for the second tasting), and presented these three wines as the wines for the first tasting! The tasters tried to identify the three Montepulcianos in a tasting that only included one Montepulciano. After the SNAFU was discovered, we tasted the two remaining Montepulcianos for preference and to identify the DOCG.

The First Tasting:

The Villa Antinori Super Tuscan was darkest in appearance, dark crimson to purple. The Villa Sant’Anna was browner, less crimson and more translucent. The Chianti was in between.

The Super Tuscan had an earthy aroma, while the Chianti smelled of cinnamon or something sweet. The Villa Sant’Anna had a somewhat off-putting sweet smell, reminiscent of licorice, candy or cough drops.

When we tasted, we found the Super Tuscan dry and spicy with hints of raspberry. The Villa Sant’Anna was also spicy, more full-bodied and dry, with hints of red fruit and, just at the back of the palate, black pepper. The Chianti tasted “happy”, with hints of plum, and acidity which gave it a complex balanced tartness as it coated the tongue.

We liked all the wines. We thought they all had a European style, well balanced fruit. The Chianti was the favorite (Who doesn’t like happy?), but we thought that the Villa Sant’Anna was the Vino Nobile (which in fact was in the other tasting).

The Second Tasting:

With the assistance of the entire panel, we managed to get our vehicle out of the ditch and moved on to a tasting of two, not three, Montepulcianos.

The Bertille had more legs, while the Bindella had a more purple hue.

The aroma of the Bertille was sweet, but also had a hard edge like a garage band, and even smelled of gasoline and spices. The Bindella had a warm floral fragrance of purple fruit.

The Bertille had at first a very dry finish, almost too strong. We discovered, however, that the wine loved the cheese, taking on a rich woody flavor. The difference made by pairing the wine with cheese was like day and night. The Bindella had an earthy, rich, luxurious, complex flavor of fruit and spice.

With one dissent in each case, we preferred the Bindella, but incorrectly identified the Bertille as the DOCG.

The Conclusion:

Despite landing in the ditch, no one was seriously injured. In fact, tasting what we all agreed were five good Tuscan wines enabled us to shrug off the trauma and have a pretty good time. Had the tasting been conducted as designed, would we have been able to distinguish the Super Tuscan from the Chianti? We identified some clues: the darker color and dryness of the Super Tuscan and the balanced fruit of the Chianti. Was it just the power of suggestion that made the Super Tuscan taste much the same as the Sangiovese wines? Or does the Villa Antinori, despite its Cabernet content, share the traditional Tuscan style of the Sangiovese wines? The answers to these questions, and many others, await us on the road ahead.

Montauk Wine Club Holds Second Challenge

On August 19, we held our second Club challenge. The Club wines we challenged were the 2002 Schleret Riesling “Herrenweg” and the 2007 Cotes du Rhone, Manarine. As challengers, we chose wines from the new distributor’s catalog so that if we liked a challenger better, the Club would be able to begin stocking it once the Club wine inventories got low. It was a lively crowd with a lot to say, especially about the Rieslings.
The first Riesling we tried had a peachy color and just a few bubbles. Its scent was a light floral, but every bit a Riesling, just with the volume turned down a bit. After the muted floral aroma, we were a touch surprised by the fruity taste, smacking of golden delicious apples and, my favorite, bazooka bubble gum. This wine was sweet and not too crisp, very much like a spaetlese. All in all, we found it easy to drink and probably a good accompaniment to a variety of foods.
We couldn’t decide whether second white really was complex or we just had nine different palates in the room. It was a lemon yellow in color and a tad cloudy, with no bubbles. You’ll love the descriptions we had of the aroma, though they might turn you away from this wine. Words we used were smokey, gravelly, musty, dung, cigarette filter and unwashed gym socks. Wow! But we were undaunted and went ahead to taste it anyway. There was quite a bit more to the taste than met the eye or nose. We found green apples, leather, burnt rubber, watermelon and just plain old debris. Some likened it to retsina while others thought of a Kabinett Riesling. The mouth feel was strange with an almost unpleasant finish that made it seem like one was taking a spoonful of nutmeg. With all this, we decided it was complex and had character.
Our third white didn’t quite measure up to the second in complexity, but we found it a bit easier to drink. It had a gold-green color of straw with a few bubbles. Of the three this had the mildest aroma with a hint of butterscotch showing through. The taste was not a surprise, as it was a bit sweeter at first than the other two with a creamy, indeed, almost gummy mouth feel. Then some tartness began to come through that reminded us of Macintosh apples. In the end we thought that we tasted something like licorice Twizzlers which is perhaps the reason we thought this might appeal more to a college crowd. And perhaps that’s why this wine got more votes than the other two. Wine number three turned out to be a 2007 Covey Run Riesling from Columbia Valley. Number 1, which received the next highest number of votes, was a 2008 Chateau Ste. Michelle Riesling, also from Columbia Valley, and number 2, which received the fewest votes, was the Club’s selection.
The first red that we tried had the look of a syrah or shiraz in that it coated the glass quite well and seemed almost to have more solids. Its color had a browner tint compared to the other two. The smell was interesting with notes of vanilla cream, peat, popcorn with butter and fire-roasting. But where was the pepper characteristic of this varietal? Well it was hiding until the last taste when it finally came out a little. Otherwise, the flavor reminded us of black cherry cough medicine with the vanilla that we smelled showing up in fine form. Some of us thought this wine tasted more like a petite syrah.
Red number two had a surprising look to it because it was somewhat transparent and lighter looking than the other two – not what you’d expect from a syrah. When we brought it up to the nose, though, we almost started to sneeze en masse, the pepper was that strong. We wanted to marinate a strip steak in it then and there. Once we got past the pepper, however, we did catch the scent of strawberries. Then when we tasted it, we found a nice balance of pepper, blackberry and cherry.
Our final wine of the evening certainly had a syrah/shiraz look to it; it was inkier, leggier and more opaque than the other two. The nose, however, was not so distinctive as the second wine – i.e., not as much pepper. It was a tad on the funky side, more like the peaty smell of the first red, with just a hint of chlorine. The look had us a little surprised when we got to tasting though. The more neutral aroma seemed to carry over into the taste, which was a lot lighter than the look would have you think. Beyond the fairly neutral taste we did pick up some olives, but again, very little of the spice or pepper you’d expect from this grape.
When we got to voting, one of our members (who shall remain nameless of course) refused to vote in favor of any of the wines. The rest of the members were much more favorably disposed. While the first red got a couple of votes, number two was the clear winner. And it was the Club selection! Red number one was a 2005 Kendall Jackson Syrah from California, and number 3 was a 2006 Ravenswood South Eastern Australia Shiraz.
Our next Club meeting will be devoted to Tuscan wines when we’ll pit a few challengers against the Club’s 2005 Rosso di Montepulciano. Don’t miss it. We’ll get started around 7:00 p.m. on Thursday, September 16, 2010. Hope to see you all there.

Suzy Marquard

Montauk Wine Club Brings Out the Vuvuzelas

On June 24, the Montauk Wine Club conducted our own "World Cup" revelry with some wines from South Africa. Each time we voted on a wine, our choices were accompanied by vuvuzela sound effects thanks to one of our loyal members. We first tried a 2009 Graham Beck Chenin Blanc (14% alcohol) from the Beck family game preserve in South Africa which we matched against a 2007 Le brin de chevre chenin blanc from Touraine, France (11.5% alcohol). Then we saw how a 2008 Graham Beck Pinotage (a hybrid of Cinsault and Pinot Noir unique to South Africa, 14% alcohol) compared to a 2007 Primarius Pinot Noir from Oregon (13.5% alcohol). The score on the whites was pretty much a draw, but the South African pinotage was a clear winner.
Our first wine was honey colored with a green tint and lots of legs. Its smell was fairly complex -- grassy and mineral on one end and baked apples with honey and cinnamon on the other. The smell was bolder than the taste, which took a bit of time to develop, although the cinnamon definitely came through in the beginning. This wine did not seem to have much of a finish, making it a good candidate for stoop sipping.
Our second white paled in looks to the first, being clearer, greener and less viscous. But, this wine was much bolder in the nose with strong scents of apple and petrol. One could clearly make out a more tart and acidic aroma. That tartness and acidity showed up in the taste as well. We found much more going on here in the taste arena compared to the first white. It was both creamy and prickly on the tongue. In fact, there was quite a bit of chewiness to it and a bit more minerality compared to the first wine. It was this complexity in the taste that led most of us to believe this was the French chenin blanc, but we were wrong. This was the South African wine. We ultimately decided that the key to the first wine being French was the time it took to develop after pouring. We were evenly divided on which we liked better.
When we moved on to the reds, our task was much easier. Our first red was clearly more powerful. Its color was deeper, more opaque and more purple. One even described it as bloody, dark and mysterious. Its legs were more lasting. When brought to the nose, we were first hit with a strong scent of blackberries, although some minerality began to take over which when mixed with the berries reminded one of a rubber welcome mat. That is, until the chocolate started to come through. Definitely a lot of stuff in there. The flavor pretty much echoed the smell. We finally decided to describe it as being like a char-grilled black and blue steak followed by a dessert of berries and chocolate. Wow!
The second red had a quite different color, being browner and more transparent. In its own way, it was more welcoming. As we smelled it, some fruit began to develop, but it was a fairly simple smell of grapes. The grape jelly was discernible in the taste as well, although this wine "died on the soft palate". This was certainly not a jammy wine, suggesting perhaps that it was from a colder climate. As a result, it was pretty easy for most of us to pick this out as the pinot noir from Oregon, and the first red was definitely the South African pinotage. When it came to a vote for the favorite, we raised a unanimous cheer for the South African red.