Oak and Tannin

Oak?  Tannin?  The focus of November's Wine Club session was to compare two similar whites and two reds to learn about the presence of oak and tannin respectively.

Your moderator started the session by explaining the rationale for the use of oak barrels, how they are made and the detectable flavors. Oak doesn’t make wine taste woody, it often adds a vanilla aroma.

 Although fellow Brownstone dwellers needed no introduction, a section of recently sanded oak was passed around to remind class members of the aroma.

Two Chardonnay wines were compared:

Louis Jadot Pouilly Fuissé  2010 ($27), an unoaked white burgundy from the Macon region of France.

Beringer Napa Valley Chardonnay 2010 ($15), a California Chardonnay, aged in oak barrels or casks.

One taster felt that Wine No. 2 was more intense.  Another remarked on the aroma of Wine No. 1. Tasters remarked that Wine No. 1 was slightly golden while Wine No. 2 resembled pale straw.  Another noticed the pure fruit flavor of Wine No. 2.

Unfortunately, only one of our tasters was able to correctly identify Wine No. 1 as the unoaked French Chardonnay and Wine No. 2 as the oaky California Chardonnay.


**********

Next, we moved on to tannin, often associated with red wines. Tannin is an anti-herbivore agent, a defensive mechanism to make certain plans unattractive to animals. Tannin is present in tea, and accounts for the bitter taste when tea has been steeped too long. We were also able to taste a tiny amount of acorn tea -- very bitter, very tannic.

Two red wines were compared:

J. Lohr Paso Robles Cabernet Sauvignon 2010 ($15.59), a California Cabernet.

Wild Horse Central Coast Pinot Noir 2010 ($26), a California Pinot Noir.

Cabernets are known for being tannic, Pinot Noirs are not.

Tasters discussed the wines.  One found Wine No. 1 to be "furrier", that sandpapery feeling when you rub your tongue across the top of your mouth after drinking a wine.  Another taster concurred.

Wine No. 1 was considered darker than Wine No. 2.  One taster described Wine No. 1 as "agate" and Wine No. 2 as "ruby".

Warm aromas and sharp aromas were discussed.  One taster felt they sensed an animal aroma, similar to being close to another person.

In this tasting the class unanimously and correctly identified Wine No. 1 as the more tannic Cabernet, and Wine No. 2 as the less tannic Pinot Nolir.

We discussed matching wine and food. Most found the Cabernet heavier, suited to a porterhouse steak.  Wines for food and wines for sipping were discussed.

Why Bordeaux?

Montauk Club Wine Club Hosts Special Guest Sommelier Who Asks the All-Important Question:

WHY BORDEAUX?

The October 25, 2012 convocation of the Montauk Wine Club was most pleased to host a special guest sommelier, B, who tried his darndest to teach us all about the wonderful world of Bordeaux.  (B, by the way was an active resident member and former director of the Montauk Club in times past, and is now a non-resident member hailing from New Hope, Pennsylvania.  More importantly, he is extremely knowledgeable about wine.)  After giving us a lot of essential facts about Bordeaux – such as:

(i) people drink expensive Bordeaux when travelling by train (at least that’s what they do in the movies),

(ii) there are those who often mistake Bordeaux for Burgundy, but only at lunch time and

(iii) drinking the popular Bordeaux known as Cabernet Sauvignon will make you sing "I Love You" in a loud whisper.

Our stalwart group of students took careful note of these facts and stood ready to try to impress our guest teacher.  This was our agenda:

1. How to tell a Graves from a St. Julien (or most other left bankers)
2. How to tell a St. Emilion a St. Estephe (right bank v. left bank)
3. How to tell a Paulliac from a Margaux (fuller v. lighter bodied)

Each flight would match two "blind" Bordeaux, accompanied by a Mouton Cadet as a control wine. (Don't you like the concept of a "control wine"?)

Graves

St. Julien

For the first flight, we tasted a Graves, Chateau Clos Marsalette 2008 ($26) against a St. Julien, Chateau Lalande Borie 2007 ($28). We were told that, primarily due to the different soil, the Graves would be a bolder, more intriguing wine than the medium-bodied, well balanced St. Julien, typical of left bank Bordeaux other than Graves. With Wine No. 1 we found a very purple or ruby colored wine with an aromatic scent that exuded the kind of warmth one finds when standing very close to an animal or another person.  The taste was soft in comparison to Wine No. 2 but nonetheless inviting. Wine No. 2 had a darker color and denser look accompanied by a sharper, stronger taste with a bit of tar. We unanimously picked Wine No. 1 as the St. Julien because of its lighter, ruby color and less robust taste, and Wine No. 2 as the Graves.  This was the correct choice putting the students on track to achieve a perfect score.

St. Estephe

St. Emilion

The second flight featured a left-bank Bordeau from St. Estephe, Chateau L’Argilus du Roi 2005 ($35) and a right-bank Bordeau from St. Emilion, Chateau Simard 2001 ($20). The difference here was was in the grape varieties. The St. Estephe contained 55% Merlot and, 40% Cabernet Sauvignon, while the St. Emilion contained 80% Merlot and 20% Cabernet Franc. The Cabernet Sauvignon, we were told, would give the St. Estephe a fuller body compared to the more approachable St. Emilion.  We found Wine No. 3 to have a denser, darker, agate color.  The taste was definitely more complex with a bit more tannin (described as that "scrapey" feeling on the top of your mouth) and all in all more likeable and drinkable.  Wine No. 4, in comparison, was a lighter ruby color with a tinge of brown.  We thought it a "nice" wine with a juicier taste.  Because Wine No. 3  had the deeper color and more tannic mouth feel, we unanimously chose it as the St. Estephe and Wine No. 4 and the St. Emilion. Right again!! We were on a roll and sure to impress our guest speaker.

Margaux

Paulliac

With the third flight, our work was really cut out for us as we attempted to tell the difference between the boy wine (the Pauillac) and the girl wine (the Margaux). Representing the masculine Pauillac wines was a Chateau Haut Bages Averous 2005 ($40), and representing the feminine Margaux was a Chateau Segond du Dufort 2000 ($30). We thought this would be easy, but when we took a look, we weren’t so sure.  Both wines had a dark color, but upon closer inspection we thought Wine No. 5 thinned out a bit toward the edge. In its flavor we noticed licorice and then some tar. It was definitely more distinctive compared to Wine No. 6 which seemed to have a sweeter, softer flavor. Based on the sweetness and light of No. 6, all of us chose it as the Margaux, and No. 5 as the Pauillac. Unanimously correct once more!

A perfect score on three flights!!  Bryce was duly impressed (or did his wry smile belie the fact that he chose the wines so we couldn't miss?)

When we asked students for their preferences, they chose the St. Julien from flight one, the St. Estephe from flight two and the Margaux from flight 3.  The best of show was the St Estephe.  The Mouton Cadet, a run-of-the-mill Bordeaux, paled in comparison.  But what do you want from a control wine?  Controlled drinking is never fun.  It was good to know we wouldn't run out of wine during dinner though.

OK, back to the original question:  Why Bordeaux?  Well clearly after trying seven different Bordeaux wines in one night, no one but the note-taker can remember anything.  So we’ll just have to keep drinking them until we get it down.

Back to School with the Big Six

Like many other students returning to classes after a fun-filled summer, the wine club was pretty confident it could take whatever was thrown or poured at it. Hey, we've done this before! This will be review.

And then came the first examination. Oops. Maybe there's a little more to learn about the Big 6 Basics.

First we tasted the Big 6 whites - Riesling, Sauvignon Blanc and Chardonnay. To be more specific:

Riesling - Dr. Bürklin-Wolf Estate Riesling. 2009. Rheinpfalz, Germany. 12.5% alc. $20.

Sauvignon Blanc -  Matanzas Creek Sauvignon Blanc 2010. Sonoma County, California. 14.1% alc. $20.

Chardonnay - Simi Chardonnay Sonoma County, California. 13.5% alc. $19.

Wine No. 1 was quite light, paler than Wine No. 2, which had a deeper, more golden color than either of the other wines. Wine No. 3 was limpid, with tiny bubbles. Some thought the legs were most noticeable in Wine No. 1; others thought Wine No. 3.

Swirling and smelling the wines, Wine No. 1 had the lightest, least powerful, least aromatic smell, though it hinted at a mouth-watering crispness.  Wine No. 2 had a sour, astringent aroma which made it a contender for the most aromatic. But Wine No. 3 was, by consensus, the "high-volume" aroma referred to by Andrea Immer.

When we tasted the whites, Wine No. 1 had a clean and nice taste. Someone noted a subtle lemon flavor. Wine No. 2 made mouths pucker. It made one member's tongue tingle. Another detected green apple. Wine No. 3 was the sweetest, with a hint of mango.

Identifying each wine should really be quite simple: just line them up according to body from light- to full-bodied, Riesling, Sauvignon Blanc – Chardonnay. How well did we do? Well . . .

Three of us thought the Chardonnay was the Riesling and one thought the Sauvignon Blanc was the Riesling.  So only one out of six correctly identified the Riesling. By a nice symmetrical coincidence, the two class members who did not think the Chardonnay was the Riesling thought the Sauvignon Blanc was the Chardonnay. But two other members correctly identified the Chardonnay and, of course, one member thought the Riesling was the Chardonnay. As for the Sauvignon Blanc, the class was evenly split – half thought it was Riesling and half thought it was Chardonnay.  [Please, somebody draw me a chart!?!] We haven't completed our mathematical analysis yet, but our preliminary conclusion is that with six people picking three wines, our total of three correct answers is considerably worse than we would probably have done if we had picked the wines without looking, smelling or tasting at all!

We unanimously preferred the Sauvignon Blanc over the other wines, even though nobody actually knew it was a Sauvignon Blanc.  Could it have had anything to do with the alcohol content?  Naaaah.

We were naturally eager to move on to the reds where at least the law of averages would be on our side. Here are the reds we tried:

Angeline Pinot Noir Reserve 2010. Sonoma, Mendocino and Santa Barbara Counties, California. 13.9% alc. $20.

Joel Gott Cabernet Sauvignon 2010. California. 13.9% alc. $20.

Qupé Syrah 2009. Central Coast, California. 13.5% alc. $20.

Wine No. 1 appeared to be ever-so-slightly more transparent than the other wines, yet it also had gooey legs. Wine No. 2 was very similar to Wine No. 1. Wine No. 3 was the darkest, the purplest. It had fewer legs, but the legs had color.

One member remarked that Wine No. 1 didn't even smell like wine. (Note: A change in the Wine Club bylaws would be required before the moderator would be allowed to have some other liquid poured and served at a "wine tasting." But it's an interesting idea.) Wine No. 2 was described as the "most subtle"; having an "extra dimension."  (Notice the pattern here? Me neither.) Wine No. 3 at least tried to reveal itself olfactorily. It was smelling "intense" and "peppery".

Wine No.1 tasted "thin" (at last a "body" descriptor, and body was supposed to make this whole exercise so easy); it was not "seductive or velvety", and certainly not "big and saturated". Yet it had a tannic quality, a mildly bitter taste/feel that came out as we drank. Wine No. 2 caused a similar puckering, drying sensation on the tongue. Once again, it was Wine No. 3 that had something to say to our taste buds. It, too, had that mildly bitter taste/feel, but it also had tar, it had cherry fruit, it was fruit forward.

So with three wines, only one of which had personality, how did we do at identifying them? Well, not that badly.  Especially compared with the whites.  All but one member correctly identified Wine No. 1 as the Pinot Noir. The odd-man-out thought it was the Cabernet. Only two members correctly identified Wine No. 2 as the Cabernet; two thought it was the Syrah and one, the Pinot Noir. Finally, a majority of the panel (three) correctly identified the Syrah, with the other two votes guessing it to be the Cabernet.

For preference, three members chose the Cabernet, while two liked the un-seductive Pinot Noir (No comment).

So we managed to bounce back after our poor performance with the whites to do a creditable job with the reds. Overall, it was a sobering reminder of just how much work we have ahead of us during the upcoming year of Wine Club.