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.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Thursday, August 19, 2010
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
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
Thursday, June 24, 2010
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.
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.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
I hope to see a good crowd on May 20 at 7-ish; it’s going to be fun. And don’t forget, it’s also $10 Thursday, so plan to stay for dinner.
At our April 15 wine tasting, we achieved a perfect score! At this tasting, we were exploring oakiness, by comparing a 2008 Clos du Bois North Coast Chardonnay with a 2008 Pouilly-Fuissé Petite Chapelle, and tannins, comparing a 2007 Benziger Cabernet Sauvignon with a 2007 Ramsay North Coast Pinot Noir. Every one of us picked the oaky white and the tannic red. This only goes to prove Andrea Immer Robinson’s adage that practice makes perfect – this is the fourth time we have done the oaky and tannic tasting at the wine class. Find out how our tasting went after the jump.
We started by putting the two whites in front of us to taste for oakiness. While their color was very close, the first was perhaps a bit darker and a bit more golden. The second, however, seemed to have more viscous legs. We noticed a difference right away when we brought the wines to our noses. The first had a bolder, woody (that would be clue # 1, Sherlock) aroma, while the second was much fruitier. Our suspicions were borne out as we tasted the wines. Wine #1 had a bolder, thicker mouth feel, and we detected something beyond pure fruit (what could that be?). Indeed, this wine was made of sterner stuff like solid, old furniture. Wine #2 was quite refreshing, with the pure fruit flavor of a crisp green apple. It almost tasted like a fruit punch meant for drinking on a summer afternoon on the patio. So it was practically a no-brainer to guess that wine #1 was the California chardonnay aged in oak barrels and that wine #2 was the French Pouilly-Fuissé made with a more subtle touch.
Then we went on to the reds to look for tannins. Here the colors were more distinguishable, wine #3 being deeper, darker and inkier. In the nose department, wine #4 had a smoothness to it that paled in comparison to wine #3 with its rich, jammy aroma with strong coffee overtones. When we put wine to tongue, the difference was quite noticeable. Wine #3 seemed to leave a thick coating on the tongue that felt like velvet, and the finish was quite dry. One was really tempted to counteract that dryness with a nice juicy steak. Wine #4, on the other hand, felt like satin on the tongue, and though dry, it was much subtler. This was a wine that you could pair with almost anything. Again, it was pretty easy for us to conclude that wine #3 was the cabernet sauvignon and that wine #4 was the pinot noir. The overwhelming, but not unanimous, favorite of the evening was the cab, although one person liked the pinot noir quite a lot.
Our next class, on May 20 might be a bit more challenging. We’ll start out with a grüner veltliner, a white varietal from Austria, which I’ve seen billed as “the best little wine you’ve never heard of” and which I happen to know is fantastic with oysters. We thought we’d compare that with an Alsatian dry Riesling and perhaps another dry Riesling from the Finger Lakes. Then we’re going to get really serious about roaming the Rhone. We’ll taste a chateauneuf-du-pape from the northern Rhone and a gigondas from the southern Rhone. We might throw in a Cotes du Rhone just to round things out.
At our April 15 wine tasting, we achieved a perfect score! At this tasting, we were exploring oakiness, by comparing a 2008 Clos du Bois North Coast Chardonnay with a 2008 Pouilly-Fuissé Petite Chapelle, and tannins, comparing a 2007 Benziger Cabernet Sauvignon with a 2007 Ramsay North Coast Pinot Noir. Every one of us picked the oaky white and the tannic red. This only goes to prove Andrea Immer Robinson’s adage that practice makes perfect – this is the fourth time we have done the oaky and tannic tasting at the wine class. Find out how our tasting went after the jump.
We started by putting the two whites in front of us to taste for oakiness. While their color was very close, the first was perhaps a bit darker and a bit more golden. The second, however, seemed to have more viscous legs. We noticed a difference right away when we brought the wines to our noses. The first had a bolder, woody (that would be clue # 1, Sherlock) aroma, while the second was much fruitier. Our suspicions were borne out as we tasted the wines. Wine #1 had a bolder, thicker mouth feel, and we detected something beyond pure fruit (what could that be?). Indeed, this wine was made of sterner stuff like solid, old furniture. Wine #2 was quite refreshing, with the pure fruit flavor of a crisp green apple. It almost tasted like a fruit punch meant for drinking on a summer afternoon on the patio. So it was practically a no-brainer to guess that wine #1 was the California chardonnay aged in oak barrels and that wine #2 was the French Pouilly-Fuissé made with a more subtle touch.
Then we went on to the reds to look for tannins. Here the colors were more distinguishable, wine #3 being deeper, darker and inkier. In the nose department, wine #4 had a smoothness to it that paled in comparison to wine #3 with its rich, jammy aroma with strong coffee overtones. When we put wine to tongue, the difference was quite noticeable. Wine #3 seemed to leave a thick coating on the tongue that felt like velvet, and the finish was quite dry. One was really tempted to counteract that dryness with a nice juicy steak. Wine #4, on the other hand, felt like satin on the tongue, and though dry, it was much subtler. This was a wine that you could pair with almost anything. Again, it was pretty easy for us to conclude that wine #3 was the cabernet sauvignon and that wine #4 was the pinot noir. The overwhelming, but not unanimous, favorite of the evening was the cab, although one person liked the pinot noir quite a lot.
Our next class, on May 20 might be a bit more challenging. We’ll start out with a grüner veltliner, a white varietal from Austria, which I’ve seen billed as “the best little wine you’ve never heard of” and which I happen to know is fantastic with oysters. We thought we’d compare that with an Alsatian dry Riesling and perhaps another dry Riesling from the Finger Lakes. Then we’re going to get really serious about roaming the Rhone. We’ll taste a chateauneuf-du-pape from the northern Rhone and a gigondas from the southern Rhone. We might throw in a Cotes du Rhone just to round things out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)