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.
