At our December 18, 2008 class we explored different rankings of white and red burgundies. Wines in Burgundy are actually ranked according to the quality and prestige of the neighborhood in which the wine is produced. So in our blind taste test to determine whether we could distinguish this quality we compared a 2006 Jean Marc Brocard Chablis Montmains Premier Cru (13% alcohol) with a 2005 St. Jacques Rully Premier Cru Marissou (13.5% alcohol) and a 2006 Louis Latour Pinot Noir (13% alcohol) with a 2004 Joseph Drouhin Beaune Premier Cru (13% alcohol). Well, we easily distinguished the two whites from the two reds, and we picked out the higher quality white, but the reds stumped most of us. Here’s what we thought about each.
Our first white seemed to have slightly more legs and a more golden color compared to the second. The smell appeared more complex with grassy and more toasty aromas. We found the wine to be bolder and rounder with flavors of green, baked apples showing through. The taste was also oakier while at the same time being sharp and tart. Some thought it had more alcohol.
In comparison our second white was paler in color and had a brighter, fresher and decidedly fragrant floral small, as one person put it “like electricity after it rains.” The taste was sweeter than the first wine, although it seemed blander and softer and at times somewhat chalky. Most of us correctly identified the first wine as the St. Jacques Rully Premier Cru Marissou and the second as the Jean Marc Brocard Chablis Montmains Premier Cru, being of a slightly lower quality. And a majority of us favored the higher quality St. Jacques Rully.
When we turned to the two pinot noirs we found the first to have more going on. It was lighter, brighter and sharper. We detected more oak or smoke and some cinnamon in the flavor. The mouth feel was rougher and more granular, and as time passed the color changed, becoming tawnier. Perhaps it was the rougher mouth feel that led most of us to misidentify this as the lower ranked Louis Latour Pinot Noir, when what we were actually tasting was greater tannins in the Joseph Drouhin Beaune Premier Cru.
Our second red, what turned out to be the Louis Latour, had a slightly darker color, and its legs were slower to develop and drip. Perhaps we should have known from the cherry pie flavor that this was a less sophisticated wine. Although to some it had a deeper, richer and spicier flavor, some thought it had a calmer taste. We thought it held up better on its own, and there were some of us who thought this wine was more tannic and complex. So as you see, we were all over t he lot on this one, which is why it had us fooled. Even though this was the lower ranked wine, all but one of us preferred it to the premier cru. Just goes to show you we need MORE PRACTICE!!
But that won’t stop us from traveling on, this time to the Rhone Valley where we will explore a cheap, but good Cotes du Rhone, a more classic Chateauneuf-du-Pape and a Muscat Beaume-de-Venise. If we can’t tell the desert wine from the other two, well we’ll just have to KEEP PRACTICING.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Thursday, November 20, 2008
MONTAUK CLUB WINE CLASS BAFFLED IN ALSACE
Our November 20 wine class took a trip to Alsace to taste four quite different white wines from the region – a Riesling, a pinot gris, a gewurztraminer and a muscat. All were from the same producer, so we were confident we could distinguish the four in our blind taste test. Once again we were baffled, or perhaps the producer got his labels mixed up.
Our first wine had a clean aroma with scents of apple and petroleum. The gas station flavor followed through in the taste. The wine was not very fruity and was quite dry. This one we correctly identified as the 2004 Frederic Mallo Riesling Reserve Speciale (12.5% alcohol).
Wine #2 was both dry and fruity, having the richest smell, both spicy and musky with lots of lychee aroma coming through. The taste closely echoed the smell – lychee nuts, minerals and pepper. It felt quite fat in the mouth. Natually, because of the spiciness and dryness, we thought this was the gewürztraminer, but No-o-o, it was the Frederic Mallo 2006 Muscat (12% alcohol).
Our third wine was sure to be the Muscat having a sweet smell of nectarine and floral tones. It too tasted just the way it smelled, very floral and not too dry. It really struck us as a desert wine that would be great with biscotti. But we were wrong again; this was the Frederic Mallo 2005 Gewurztraminer Cuvee Saint Jacques (13% alcohol).
Our final wine was so clean in smell and taste that we actually found it a bit boring. In fact the smell reminded us of linen sheets drying outside, although we did pick up a scent of candied apple. In the taste we noticed a bit of marmalade, but in all it was not very sweet or fruity. This we correctly identified as Special Delivery 2006 Pinot Gris (which means dingy in French, so why so clean?) by Frederic Mallo.
Oh well, having decided unanimously that we favored the Riesling over all, we packed our bags and hit the road for Burgundy, probably the most famous wine-producing region of France. At our next class, on December 18, we’ll taste two white wines, a French Chablis and a Cote de Beaune, and two reds, a village ranked wine and a premier cru- or grand cru-ranked wine. To learn about these, please read pages 170 through 190 of Andrea Immer Robinson’s Great Wine Made Simple.
See you all on December 18!
Suzy Marquard
Our first wine had a clean aroma with scents of apple and petroleum. The gas station flavor followed through in the taste. The wine was not very fruity and was quite dry. This one we correctly identified as the 2004 Frederic Mallo Riesling Reserve Speciale (12.5% alcohol).
Wine #2 was both dry and fruity, having the richest smell, both spicy and musky with lots of lychee aroma coming through. The taste closely echoed the smell – lychee nuts, minerals and pepper. It felt quite fat in the mouth. Natually, because of the spiciness and dryness, we thought this was the gewürztraminer, but No-o-o, it was the Frederic Mallo 2006 Muscat (12% alcohol).
Our third wine was sure to be the Muscat having a sweet smell of nectarine and floral tones. It too tasted just the way it smelled, very floral and not too dry. It really struck us as a desert wine that would be great with biscotti. But we were wrong again; this was the Frederic Mallo 2005 Gewurztraminer Cuvee Saint Jacques (13% alcohol).
Our final wine was so clean in smell and taste that we actually found it a bit boring. In fact the smell reminded us of linen sheets drying outside, although we did pick up a scent of candied apple. In the taste we noticed a bit of marmalade, but in all it was not very sweet or fruity. This we correctly identified as Special Delivery 2006 Pinot Gris (which means dingy in French, so why so clean?) by Frederic Mallo.
Oh well, having decided unanimously that we favored the Riesling over all, we packed our bags and hit the road for Burgundy, probably the most famous wine-producing region of France. At our next class, on December 18, we’ll taste two white wines, a French Chablis and a Cote de Beaune, and two reds, a village ranked wine and a premier cru- or grand cru-ranked wine. To learn about these, please read pages 170 through 190 of Andrea Immer Robinson’s Great Wine Made Simple.
See you all on December 18!
Suzy Marquard
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Montauk Club Wine Class Fooled!!
Thanks to a big turnout, our October 23 wine class was a blast. This time we were comparing white Bordeaux with California Sauvignon Blancs, and we came up with some pretty eclectic descriptions.
We started out comparing a 2007 Monsieur Touton Sauvignon Bordeaux (12% alcohol) with a 2006 Cakebread Cellars Napa Valley Sauvignon Blanc (14.2% alcohol). Wine #1 was almost white in color, but it had heftier legs. Its aroma was much subtler with a hint of vanilla and oak. As for taste, it was grassier and more balanced. Many thought it would pair well with most foods, and indeed it was voted likely best with crab cakes. Wine #2 had a much more golden color, and the aroma was more pronounced, smelling of citrus candy and peach. In fact, some tasters announced that they would rather smell #2 but drink #1. We found the taste drier but fruitier with a longer finish and not as much oak. So thinking that #1 was subtler and a more pleasurable quaff, we picked it to be the Bordeaux. And every one of us was wrong. How could that be? Well there are two big differences. First the alcohol content of #1 was significantly higher and its price was almost three times as high! Just goes to show that price can make a difference.
Our second comparison pitted a 2006 Barons de Rothschild Reserve Speciale Bordeaux (12% alcohol) against a 2006 Beringer Alluvium Blanc from Knights Valley (14.1% alcohol). (There’s that alcohol difference again.) We were determined not to be fooled by this pairing, so we really paid close attention, coming up with as many descriptions as we could. Here’s what we thought. Wine #3 was the paler of the two, but not quite as pale as the expensive Californian #1. It had a sweeter fragrance with more vanilla. Some found its taste very oaky, while others thought of shampoo! With an oilier feel on the tongue, someone wanted to pair it with a vegetable napoleon. Wine #4 had a more amber color and more legs even than #2. Some of the words used to describe the aroma were “swampy”, “raisin”, “stale cabin” (remember last month’s favorite – summer camp cabin?), and “battery acid”. On the taste side, we found #4 to have heavier herb notes with a bit of lemon drop candy thrown in. It was fuller, smoother and subtler, a wine someone wanted to have with red snapper. Six out of ten of us chose #4 as the Bordeaux and #3 as the California, and this time the majority was right. This time the two wines were quite close in price, making it a more difficult call.
And for the final vote on overall preference? We unanimously chose #1, the Cakebread Cellars Napa Valley Sauvignon Blanc, although we all thought that the Barons de Rothschild Reserve Speciale Bordeaux was the best value.
In our next class, we’ll continue our tour through France in the Alsace Region. We’ll be trying a Riesling, a pinot gris, a Muscat and a gewürztraminer. Be sure to study pages 166 to 170 of Andrea Immer Robinson’s book Great Wines Made Simple to be ready to tell these four grapes apart.
Hope to see you all on November 20!
Suzy Marquard
We started out comparing a 2007 Monsieur Touton Sauvignon Bordeaux (12% alcohol) with a 2006 Cakebread Cellars Napa Valley Sauvignon Blanc (14.2% alcohol). Wine #1 was almost white in color, but it had heftier legs. Its aroma was much subtler with a hint of vanilla and oak. As for taste, it was grassier and more balanced. Many thought it would pair well with most foods, and indeed it was voted likely best with crab cakes. Wine #2 had a much more golden color, and the aroma was more pronounced, smelling of citrus candy and peach. In fact, some tasters announced that they would rather smell #2 but drink #1. We found the taste drier but fruitier with a longer finish and not as much oak. So thinking that #1 was subtler and a more pleasurable quaff, we picked it to be the Bordeaux. And every one of us was wrong. How could that be? Well there are two big differences. First the alcohol content of #1 was significantly higher and its price was almost three times as high! Just goes to show that price can make a difference.
Our second comparison pitted a 2006 Barons de Rothschild Reserve Speciale Bordeaux (12% alcohol) against a 2006 Beringer Alluvium Blanc from Knights Valley (14.1% alcohol). (There’s that alcohol difference again.) We were determined not to be fooled by this pairing, so we really paid close attention, coming up with as many descriptions as we could. Here’s what we thought. Wine #3 was the paler of the two, but not quite as pale as the expensive Californian #1. It had a sweeter fragrance with more vanilla. Some found its taste very oaky, while others thought of shampoo! With an oilier feel on the tongue, someone wanted to pair it with a vegetable napoleon. Wine #4 had a more amber color and more legs even than #2. Some of the words used to describe the aroma were “swampy”, “raisin”, “stale cabin” (remember last month’s favorite – summer camp cabin?), and “battery acid”. On the taste side, we found #4 to have heavier herb notes with a bit of lemon drop candy thrown in. It was fuller, smoother and subtler, a wine someone wanted to have with red snapper. Six out of ten of us chose #4 as the Bordeaux and #3 as the California, and this time the majority was right. This time the two wines were quite close in price, making it a more difficult call.
And for the final vote on overall preference? We unanimously chose #1, the Cakebread Cellars Napa Valley Sauvignon Blanc, although we all thought that the Barons de Rothschild Reserve Speciale Bordeaux was the best value.
In our next class, we’ll continue our tour through France in the Alsace Region. We’ll be trying a Riesling, a pinot gris, a Muscat and a gewürztraminer. Be sure to study pages 166 to 170 of Andrea Immer Robinson’s book Great Wines Made Simple to be ready to tell these four grapes apart.
Hope to see you all on November 20!
Suzy Marquard
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Montauk Club Wine Class Not Bored in Bordeaux
Far from it. Our September 18 wine class explored the two predominant red varietals from the Bordeaux region of France and compared them with comparable varietals from California. It was kind of like a review of our Old World-New World tastings earlier this year.
First, we tried a merlot-based 2006 Chateau Picau-Perna from St. Emilion (12.5% alcohol) and compared it to a 2006 Francis Coppola Merlot (13.5% alcohol). Wine #1 had a more translucent color and more depth to the smell with a variety of floral scents. The taste made us pucker more, suggesting a greater amount of tannin. Wine #2 had a denser color, with color in the legs even, while the smell was sharper, really popping out. The taste was jammier a fruitier with strong notes of blueberry and quite a bit more oakiness. Which was which? After reading the notes, it’s pretty obvious -- #1 was the Bordeaux, and #2 the Californian.
Then we moved on to the other great varietal of Bordeaux, cabernet sauvignon, or otherwise known to would-be wine hipsters as cab. Here we pitted a 2005 cab-based Chateau Bellevue from Médoc (13% alcohol) against a 2005 Simi Alexander Valley Cabernet Sauvignon. So here’s what we thought of wines #3 and #4. Wine #3 had a more forceful smell with lots of vanilla showing through. Tasters found it more accessible and rounder with obvious fruitiness, including notes of fig. Some even thought it was almost too sweet. Wine #4 appeared to have a bit more body with its darker color and abundant legs. The smell? Summer camp cabin and wet leaves? Hmmm. Not surprisingly, its taste was more earthy and tarter but softer. All in all, we thought it more complex in taste. It’s pretty easy to tell from these notes which was the Bordeaux – it was #4.
And for the final vote on overall preference? We unanimously went for the summer camp cabin. What is it about wine #4 in our class? (See Wine Class Notes vol. 2, issue 1.)
Our next class will be held a week later on October 23 because of a fabulous fundraiser to be held on the 16th. We’ll be investigating some white Bordeaux wines comparing them to oak-aged California sauvignon blanc. (There’s that sauvignon word again!) So be sure to study pages 160 and 161 of Andrea Immer Robinson’s book Great Wines Made Simple if you want to move to the head of the class. And here’s an optional assignment for you: go to andreaimmer.com and sign up to be a member. For just under $30.00 a year you get a wine course DVD and lots of information about wine. She also has a website called andreawine.com where she rates wines and has on-line wine courses. Check it out!
Hope to see you all on October 23!
Suzy Marquard
First, we tried a merlot-based 2006 Chateau Picau-Perna from St. Emilion (12.5% alcohol) and compared it to a 2006 Francis Coppola Merlot (13.5% alcohol). Wine #1 had a more translucent color and more depth to the smell with a variety of floral scents. The taste made us pucker more, suggesting a greater amount of tannin. Wine #2 had a denser color, with color in the legs even, while the smell was sharper, really popping out. The taste was jammier a fruitier with strong notes of blueberry and quite a bit more oakiness. Which was which? After reading the notes, it’s pretty obvious -- #1 was the Bordeaux, and #2 the Californian.
Then we moved on to the other great varietal of Bordeaux, cabernet sauvignon, or otherwise known to would-be wine hipsters as cab. Here we pitted a 2005 cab-based Chateau Bellevue from Médoc (13% alcohol) against a 2005 Simi Alexander Valley Cabernet Sauvignon. So here’s what we thought of wines #3 and #4. Wine #3 had a more forceful smell with lots of vanilla showing through. Tasters found it more accessible and rounder with obvious fruitiness, including notes of fig. Some even thought it was almost too sweet. Wine #4 appeared to have a bit more body with its darker color and abundant legs. The smell? Summer camp cabin and wet leaves? Hmmm. Not surprisingly, its taste was more earthy and tarter but softer. All in all, we thought it more complex in taste. It’s pretty easy to tell from these notes which was the Bordeaux – it was #4.
And for the final vote on overall preference? We unanimously went for the summer camp cabin. What is it about wine #4 in our class? (See Wine Class Notes vol. 2, issue 1.)
Our next class will be held a week later on October 23 because of a fabulous fundraiser to be held on the 16th. We’ll be investigating some white Bordeaux wines comparing them to oak-aged California sauvignon blanc. (There’s that sauvignon word again!) So be sure to study pages 160 and 161 of Andrea Immer Robinson’s book Great Wines Made Simple if you want to move to the head of the class. And here’s an optional assignment for you: go to andreaimmer.com and sign up to be a member. For just under $30.00 a year you get a wine course DVD and lots of information about wine. She also has a website called andreawine.com where she rates wines and has on-line wine courses. Check it out!
Hope to see you all on October 23!
Suzy Marquard
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Montauk Club Wine Goes to France to Find Beads
Beads you say? Why look for beads in France? Well that’s what the bubbles in champagne are called because they look like strings of beads as they stream up to the surface of the glass.
What a great introduction to French wine we had on June 19 when we explored the world of champagne, first comparing two styles of French champagne and then comparing a French champagne with a California sparkling wine made by the same winemaking family.
We started with a Veuve-Clicquot Ponsardin Brut (nv, 12% alcohol) and compared it to a Perrier-Jouet Grand Brut (nv, 12% alcohol). The Veuve-Clicquot was supposed to taste and smell yeastier compared to the light and elegant Perrier-Jouet. Most of the class failed to pick which was which, but we decided to blame our troubles on the outside temperature which made the wine warm up pretty quickly. We did find a yeasty aroma and a frothier feel to the Veuve-Clicquot, but the extra crispness and granny smith apple tastes threw us off a bit. We should have known from the longer lingering taste that it still wasn’t as crisp as the Perrier-Jouet, which, true to the elegance of its reputation, had finer beads. It also had a richer and more pronounced green apple flavor. In the end, a majority of the class preferred the Veuve-Clicquot.
Next, we tried to decide whether French champagne is all it’s cracked up to be compared to California wines made by the same method. (You can’t call it champagne unless it’s made in the Champagne region of France – sort of like bourbon is supposed to be made in Bourbon County, KY. So such snobbery isn’t limited to France.) Anyway, we compared a Moet et Chandon White Star (nv, 12% alcohol) with a Domaine Chandon California Blanc de Noir (nv, 13% alcohol – hmmm, notice something different already?) The class scored a perfect score in distinguishing the French from the California in our blind test. The champagne was more complex, with flavors other than fruit such as almonds and herbs. It stayed quite bubbly after awhile also. The sparkling wine had sweeter and brighter aromas and tasted quite fruity, almost like apple sauce, quite in keeping with its New World provenance. Many thought they would enjoy the champagne more at a luncheon on the patio, while they wouldn’t mind having the California sparkling wine at a dinner beach party. Even though the latter sounds like more fun, a majority of the class decided they preferred the champagne.
At our next class on July 17, we’ll drill down on the Bordeaux region of France, concentrating on differences between cabernet sauvignons and merlots and learning which side of the tracks (or make that Gironde River) they come from. We’ll throw in some California varietals to help our comparison. To prepare, please study pages 151 through 160 of Andrea Immer Robinson’s book Great Wines Made Simple, and don’t forget – practice, practice, practice!
Hope to see you all on July 17!
Suzy Marquard
What a great introduction to French wine we had on June 19 when we explored the world of champagne, first comparing two styles of French champagne and then comparing a French champagne with a California sparkling wine made by the same winemaking family.
We started with a Veuve-Clicquot Ponsardin Brut (nv, 12% alcohol) and compared it to a Perrier-Jouet Grand Brut (nv, 12% alcohol). The Veuve-Clicquot was supposed to taste and smell yeastier compared to the light and elegant Perrier-Jouet. Most of the class failed to pick which was which, but we decided to blame our troubles on the outside temperature which made the wine warm up pretty quickly. We did find a yeasty aroma and a frothier feel to the Veuve-Clicquot, but the extra crispness and granny smith apple tastes threw us off a bit. We should have known from the longer lingering taste that it still wasn’t as crisp as the Perrier-Jouet, which, true to the elegance of its reputation, had finer beads. It also had a richer and more pronounced green apple flavor. In the end, a majority of the class preferred the Veuve-Clicquot.
Next, we tried to decide whether French champagne is all it’s cracked up to be compared to California wines made by the same method. (You can’t call it champagne unless it’s made in the Champagne region of France – sort of like bourbon is supposed to be made in Bourbon County, KY. So such snobbery isn’t limited to France.) Anyway, we compared a Moet et Chandon White Star (nv, 12% alcohol) with a Domaine Chandon California Blanc de Noir (nv, 13% alcohol – hmmm, notice something different already?) The class scored a perfect score in distinguishing the French from the California in our blind test. The champagne was more complex, with flavors other than fruit such as almonds and herbs. It stayed quite bubbly after awhile also. The sparkling wine had sweeter and brighter aromas and tasted quite fruity, almost like apple sauce, quite in keeping with its New World provenance. Many thought they would enjoy the champagne more at a luncheon on the patio, while they wouldn’t mind having the California sparkling wine at a dinner beach party. Even though the latter sounds like more fun, a majority of the class decided they preferred the champagne.
At our next class on July 17, we’ll drill down on the Bordeaux region of France, concentrating on differences between cabernet sauvignons and merlots and learning which side of the tracks (or make that Gironde River) they come from. We’ll throw in some California varietals to help our comparison. To prepare, please study pages 151 through 160 of Andrea Immer Robinson’s book Great Wines Made Simple, and don’t forget – practice, practice, practice!
Hope to see you all on July 17!
Suzy Marquard
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Montauk Club Wine Class Dips Into the Red
But that’s not a bad thing. Our May 15 wine class dove into the four most popular red grape varieties with relish, in fact. This was a fine review of what we’ve learned in the past year about red wines to prepare us for our upcoming tours of France. Here’s how it went:
First, we tried a 2005 Kendall-Jackson Pinot Noir from California (13.5% alcohol). Its smooth and silky texture and light cranberry color were just what you’d expect from pinot noir, the lightest bodied of the four popular reds. The aromas and tastes centered around cool climate fruits like strawberry, rhubarb and cranberry with a tart and acidic, but juicy overtones. Then we moved on to a 2004 Frei Brothers Reserve Merlot from Dry Creek Valley in Northern Sonoma, California (13.8% alcohol). Here we found a garnet color reminiscent of a medium-bodied wine compared to the pinot noir. It was quite a bit drier and not as fruit-forward as we might expect from a New World wine, but note the pretty high alcohol content. Like the pinot noir, some found this merlot to be quite tart, tasting of dry cherries and spicy chile pepper. Many thought the aromas promised more than the taste delivered, but this may be owing to the winery’s attempts to follow more Old World traditions. The second medium-bodied wine that we tried was a 2003 Simi Cabernet Sauvignon from Alexander Valley, California (13.5% alcohol). In terms of color, it was much the same as the merlot, though perhaps a tad inkier. It had a more velvety texture, however, evidencing somewhat higher tannins, making us pucker up a bit. The flavor seemed to deliver more balance and terroir, tasting a little musky or even like quarry tile. I think we’re starting to get the difference between merlot and cabernet sauvignon, which will stand us in good stead when we get to France next month. Our final red was a 2004 Lengs & Cooter Shiraz called The Victor from South Australia (14.5% alcohol). As the fullest-bodied of the wines, this one was more opaque with big legs (not necessarily a bad thing with wine; indeed one of our number found them “elegant”). Of course we smelled and tasted the black pepper characteristic of the shiraz, but also picked up on chocolate, coffee, black plum and raspberry as well as some earth tones. In the end our favorites turned out to be the cabernet and the shiraz.
So now we’re off to France on June 19. And what better way to start than with champagne!! We’ll compare two different house styles in French champagnes and then we’ll pit France against California. So be sure to study pages 139 through 150 of Andrea Immer Robinson’s book Great Wines Made Simple.
Hope to see you all on June 19!
Suzy Marquard
First, we tried a 2005 Kendall-Jackson Pinot Noir from California (13.5% alcohol). Its smooth and silky texture and light cranberry color were just what you’d expect from pinot noir, the lightest bodied of the four popular reds. The aromas and tastes centered around cool climate fruits like strawberry, rhubarb and cranberry with a tart and acidic, but juicy overtones. Then we moved on to a 2004 Frei Brothers Reserve Merlot from Dry Creek Valley in Northern Sonoma, California (13.8% alcohol). Here we found a garnet color reminiscent of a medium-bodied wine compared to the pinot noir. It was quite a bit drier and not as fruit-forward as we might expect from a New World wine, but note the pretty high alcohol content. Like the pinot noir, some found this merlot to be quite tart, tasting of dry cherries and spicy chile pepper. Many thought the aromas promised more than the taste delivered, but this may be owing to the winery’s attempts to follow more Old World traditions. The second medium-bodied wine that we tried was a 2003 Simi Cabernet Sauvignon from Alexander Valley, California (13.5% alcohol). In terms of color, it was much the same as the merlot, though perhaps a tad inkier. It had a more velvety texture, however, evidencing somewhat higher tannins, making us pucker up a bit. The flavor seemed to deliver more balance and terroir, tasting a little musky or even like quarry tile. I think we’re starting to get the difference between merlot and cabernet sauvignon, which will stand us in good stead when we get to France next month. Our final red was a 2004 Lengs & Cooter Shiraz called The Victor from South Australia (14.5% alcohol). As the fullest-bodied of the wines, this one was more opaque with big legs (not necessarily a bad thing with wine; indeed one of our number found them “elegant”). Of course we smelled and tasted the black pepper characteristic of the shiraz, but also picked up on chocolate, coffee, black plum and raspberry as well as some earth tones. In the end our favorites turned out to be the cabernet and the shiraz.
So now we’re off to France on June 19. And what better way to start than with champagne!! We’ll compare two different house styles in French champagnes and then we’ll pit France against California. So be sure to study pages 139 through 150 of Andrea Immer Robinson’s book Great Wines Made Simple.
Hope to see you all on June 19!
Suzy Marquard
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Montauk Club Wine Class Covers the Great White Way
On April 17 a small group of us began our exploration and review of the most popular wine varietals (that’s grape varieties) by comparing some of the big three whites – a Riesling, two sauvignon blancs and a chardonnay. After just 14 classes, we’re able to talk about color, body, mouth feel, acidity, aromas and flavors, like grassiness, butter, oak and fruits, and yes even that sophisticated term, “terroir” (which we translate as gravel or wet leaves). Here are some notes on what we tasted:
First, we tried a 2005 Trimbach Riesling from Alsace (12.5% alcohol). To our delight, this was a relatively dry Riesling that quite reminded us of our grassiness lesson, although it had a nice apple finish – to be expected from a cool-climate wine. Then we moved on to a 2005 Chateau de Sancerre, a sauvignon blanc from Sancerre, France (13% alcohol) and compared it with a 2005 Hanna Sauvignon Blanc from Russian River Valley, California (13.6% alcohol). With both we noticed the fuller body than the Riesling had, but we were a bit surprised that the Sancerre (Old World) had a darker color than the New World Hanna. Nevertheless, the Sancerre otherwise well represented its Old World origins with greater complexity of flavor (lemon tart, almond and honey) and terroir. The Hanna’s more fruit forward style exposed its New World traditions with its nectarine, citrus, sour strawberry and even brown butter flavors. (Someone even noted a hint of onion!) The Hanna was dryer (a possible result of the higher alcohol content) and more acidic, but lacked that terroir of the Sancerre. Finally, we tasted 2005 Franciscan Chardonnay from Napa Valley. As expected from the fullest-bodied of the Big Three Whites, its color was quite golden. We picked up right away on its nutty and buttery flavor, although some noticed a bit of pungency. Oakiness also rang through loud and clear making it go very well with cheese.
So what was our final vote? Well, in terms of favorites, it was a pretty even split, which just goes to show that personal preference is the name of the game. Interestingly, although we agreed that the Sancerre seemed to go better with food, it was no one’s first choice. In the end, the chardonnay received the most first and second place votes.
Our next class on May 15 will focus on the Big Reds – pinot noir, merlot and cabernet sauvignon, and syrah/shiraz. Again we’ll review our basic tasting techniques and the differences in body while we also try to apply the other lessons we’ve learned. For those who have been regulars, our tasting will show what a long journey we’ve taken and how much we’ve learned, and for new comers, it will be a perfect time to get started before we head off to France.
Hope to see you all on May 15!
Suzy Marquard
First, we tried a 2005 Trimbach Riesling from Alsace (12.5% alcohol). To our delight, this was a relatively dry Riesling that quite reminded us of our grassiness lesson, although it had a nice apple finish – to be expected from a cool-climate wine. Then we moved on to a 2005 Chateau de Sancerre, a sauvignon blanc from Sancerre, France (13% alcohol) and compared it with a 2005 Hanna Sauvignon Blanc from Russian River Valley, California (13.6% alcohol). With both we noticed the fuller body than the Riesling had, but we were a bit surprised that the Sancerre (Old World) had a darker color than the New World Hanna. Nevertheless, the Sancerre otherwise well represented its Old World origins with greater complexity of flavor (lemon tart, almond and honey) and terroir. The Hanna’s more fruit forward style exposed its New World traditions with its nectarine, citrus, sour strawberry and even brown butter flavors. (Someone even noted a hint of onion!) The Hanna was dryer (a possible result of the higher alcohol content) and more acidic, but lacked that terroir of the Sancerre. Finally, we tasted 2005 Franciscan Chardonnay from Napa Valley. As expected from the fullest-bodied of the Big Three Whites, its color was quite golden. We picked up right away on its nutty and buttery flavor, although some noticed a bit of pungency. Oakiness also rang through loud and clear making it go very well with cheese.
So what was our final vote? Well, in terms of favorites, it was a pretty even split, which just goes to show that personal preference is the name of the game. Interestingly, although we agreed that the Sancerre seemed to go better with food, it was no one’s first choice. In the end, the chardonnay received the most first and second place votes.
Our next class on May 15 will focus on the Big Reds – pinot noir, merlot and cabernet sauvignon, and syrah/shiraz. Again we’ll review our basic tasting techniques and the differences in body while we also try to apply the other lessons we’ve learned. For those who have been regulars, our tasting will show what a long journey we’ve taken and how much we’ve learned, and for new comers, it will be a perfect time to get started before we head off to France.
Hope to see you all on May 15!
Suzy Marquard
Thursday, February 21, 2008
In Year #2 Montauk Club Wine Class Goes for Wine #4
Our usual wine class attendees may have found their favorite red so far as we began our second year on February 21 reaching into the Old and New Worlds of merlot and cabernet sauvignon. We began our tour this month comparing a 2003 Chateau Brun-Despagne Heritage from the Bordeaux region in France (13% alcohol) with a 2002 Blackstone Merlot from Napa Valley (14% alcohol). We described the Old World Brun-Despagne as quieter but more complex, smokier (like a wood fire), but earthier and having more scents of spring. On the whole it seemed more balanced. The New World Blackstone on the other hand we found juicier, even more fragrant with flavors of blueberries and vanilla. One person thought this wine had more earth to it, and despite the pencil-lead aroma found by another participant, the entire class preferred the New World merlot for its bigger, bolder presentation. (Oh, and note also the difference in alcohol content.) So does size matter? Let’s see.
For the cabernet sauvignon varietal, we matched a 2003 Chateau Duhart-Milon Rothschild, again from the Bordeaux region in France (13% alcohol), against a 2002 BV Rutherford Cabernet Sauvignon from Napa Valley (13.8% alcohol). Well the Rutherford seemed sweeter and riper to us – in fact so much so that we began using words like “licorice” and “lollipops”. The Duhart-Milon was more opaque, and even browner in color, which maybe went along with coffee aroma some class members identified. One person went so far as to say this wine would be “good with a piece of meat!” while the Rutherford might be more enjoyable at a cocktail party. So did the class prefer the in-your-face New World wine over the more reserved Old World one? Nope, the majority liked the Duhart-Milon better. And of those who preferred the Duhart-Milon, many thought it might be their favorite of the wines we’ve tasted so far. So if you’re around the Club some night and hear some of our wine aficionados refer to the great #4 (the wine’s number in our blind tasting), this is what they’re talking about.
In March, we’ll finish our Old World and New World white wine education comparing a pinot grigio from Italy with a pinot gris from the United States, and for reds we’ll compare a syrah from France’s Rhone Valley with a syrah or shiraz from the U.S. or Australia. These wines are pretty hot on the popularity scale right now, so don’t miss our class on March 20. Not only will we perform our usual blind tasting, we’ll vote on the best explanation for the different names chosen by the New World growers.
To prepare for the class, please review pages 117 through 128 of Andrea Immer Robinson’s book if you need to, and then focus on the tasting notes for the pinot grigio/gris on pages 136-137 and for the syrah/shiraz on pages 134-135.
See you on March 20!
Suzy Marquard
For the cabernet sauvignon varietal, we matched a 2003 Chateau Duhart-Milon Rothschild, again from the Bordeaux region in France (13% alcohol), against a 2002 BV Rutherford Cabernet Sauvignon from Napa Valley (13.8% alcohol). Well the Rutherford seemed sweeter and riper to us – in fact so much so that we began using words like “licorice” and “lollipops”. The Duhart-Milon was more opaque, and even browner in color, which maybe went along with coffee aroma some class members identified. One person went so far as to say this wine would be “good with a piece of meat!” while the Rutherford might be more enjoyable at a cocktail party. So did the class prefer the in-your-face New World wine over the more reserved Old World one? Nope, the majority liked the Duhart-Milon better. And of those who preferred the Duhart-Milon, many thought it might be their favorite of the wines we’ve tasted so far. So if you’re around the Club some night and hear some of our wine aficionados refer to the great #4 (the wine’s number in our blind tasting), this is what they’re talking about.
In March, we’ll finish our Old World and New World white wine education comparing a pinot grigio from Italy with a pinot gris from the United States, and for reds we’ll compare a syrah from France’s Rhone Valley with a syrah or shiraz from the U.S. or Australia. These wines are pretty hot on the popularity scale right now, so don’t miss our class on March 20. Not only will we perform our usual blind tasting, we’ll vote on the best explanation for the different names chosen by the New World growers.
To prepare for the class, please review pages 117 through 128 of Andrea Immer Robinson’s book if you need to, and then focus on the tasting notes for the pinot grigio/gris on pages 136-137 and for the syrah/shiraz on pages 134-135.
See you on March 20!
Suzy Marquard
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Montauk Club Wine Class Explores a World of Whites
The red-wine fanatics in our wine class were skeptical as we explored Old World (i.e. France) and the New World (in this case, California) white wines on January 17, but they were in for a surprise. And the white-wine enthusiasts, of course, were in heaven.
We began our trip this month with a 2005 Chateau de Sancerre from the Loire Valley (13% alcohol) with a 2005 Charles Krug Sauvignon Blanc from Napa Valley (13.5% alcohol). We were barely able to notice a difference in color, the Sancerre having a slightly greener tint compared to an ever so slightly more golden hue of the Charles Krug. As we put nose to glass, we detected more lush, fruitier aromas in the Charles Krug, with hints of grapefruit and banana, while the Sancerre exhibited more scents of grass, herbs and tart apple. The tasting bore out our suspicions during our blind taste test about which was the Old World wine and which was the New. The Old World Sancerre had the tart apple and, more importantly, earthy flavor compared to the lusher and riper taste of the New World wine. Which did we prefer in the end? The scales tipped gently toward the New World.
Next we dove into a 2005 Louis Jadot Macon-Villages from Burgundy (13% alcohol) and a 2006 Simi Chardonnay from Sonoma County (13.5% alcohol). Although we couldn’t really detect a difference in the wines’ color, these two proved even easier to assign to the Old World versus New when we took a whiff. The Macon-villages was described as herbaceous, more sophisticated and yet dungy, while we picked up much more fruit and even bubblegum aromas in the Simi Chardonnay. When we got to the taste, it was clear to all that the wine with a more acidic, citrus-like, complete flavor with more tannins showing through was the Macon-Villages, while the bolder wine with tastes of peach and even banana had to be the Simi Chardonnay. Did we go for the lush again in terms of preference? No! All but one of us preferred the Macon-Villages.
In February, as promised, we’ll concentrate on Old World and New World merlots and cabernet sauvignons, but white-wine lovers, don’t be afraid to join us. Remember how pleasantly surprised the red-freaks were this time?
To prepare for the class, please review pages 117 through 128 of Andrea Immer Robinson’s book if you need to, and then focus on the tasting notes for the merlots and cabernet sauvignons on pages 132 and 133.
Our February class will take place on the 21st. Please join us then at around 7:00 for another whirlwind tour of the world of wine. And please, if you can, let me know if you’ll try to attend so that I can be sure we have enough.
See you on February 21st!
Suzy Marquard
We began our trip this month with a 2005 Chateau de Sancerre from the Loire Valley (13% alcohol) with a 2005 Charles Krug Sauvignon Blanc from Napa Valley (13.5% alcohol). We were barely able to notice a difference in color, the Sancerre having a slightly greener tint compared to an ever so slightly more golden hue of the Charles Krug. As we put nose to glass, we detected more lush, fruitier aromas in the Charles Krug, with hints of grapefruit and banana, while the Sancerre exhibited more scents of grass, herbs and tart apple. The tasting bore out our suspicions during our blind taste test about which was the Old World wine and which was the New. The Old World Sancerre had the tart apple and, more importantly, earthy flavor compared to the lusher and riper taste of the New World wine. Which did we prefer in the end? The scales tipped gently toward the New World.
Next we dove into a 2005 Louis Jadot Macon-Villages from Burgundy (13% alcohol) and a 2006 Simi Chardonnay from Sonoma County (13.5% alcohol). Although we couldn’t really detect a difference in the wines’ color, these two proved even easier to assign to the Old World versus New when we took a whiff. The Macon-villages was described as herbaceous, more sophisticated and yet dungy, while we picked up much more fruit and even bubblegum aromas in the Simi Chardonnay. When we got to the taste, it was clear to all that the wine with a more acidic, citrus-like, complete flavor with more tannins showing through was the Macon-Villages, while the bolder wine with tastes of peach and even banana had to be the Simi Chardonnay. Did we go for the lush again in terms of preference? No! All but one of us preferred the Macon-Villages.
In February, as promised, we’ll concentrate on Old World and New World merlots and cabernet sauvignons, but white-wine lovers, don’t be afraid to join us. Remember how pleasantly surprised the red-freaks were this time?
To prepare for the class, please review pages 117 through 128 of Andrea Immer Robinson’s book if you need to, and then focus on the tasting notes for the merlots and cabernet sauvignons on pages 132 and 133.
Our February class will take place on the 21st. Please join us then at around 7:00 for another whirlwind tour of the world of wine. And please, if you can, let me know if you’ll try to attend so that I can be sure we have enough.
See you on February 21st!
Suzy Marquard
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)