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