Battle of the Pinot Noirs

It's about time I posted on my wine blog again! I've had a trio of bottles waiting on me to do a tasting flight. It's been so long since I bought them that I somehow started thinking they were Rieslings, but NO--they're all Pinot noir! How could I have made them wait so long?

Of these three bottles, we're covering three different years and three different countries.

Just had to show you the cutesy
 little penguin footprints
imprinted on the foil

Up first is the 2010 Little Penguin from south eastern Australia. The label tells me to look for delicate flavors of cherry and strawberry with a hint of spice. It's the brightest, reddest one of the three, and OH, it smells so good! Maybe that's just because it's been too long since I've had a Pinot noir. But I do smell red berries. As for the taste: Wow, that's quite sweet for a Pinot noir. Not too sugary-sweet, though; just fruity-sweet. It takes a bit for the spiciness to come out, but after a moment it hits with a zing.

Next is the 2009 Red Bicyclette from Vin de Pays D'Oc, France. The label claims enticing aromas of fresh red fruits and a soft, smooth mouthfeel. It looks slightly orange-red in my glass (though I'm sure some of you would call it pink-red instead). Oddly enough, there's not much to the nose. Maybe it's not completely odorless, but it's close. And, well, there's not much to the taste, either.

Finally, it's the 2008 Cupcake Vineyards from the central coast of California. The label suggests the bright aroma of cherries with a touch of red currants and a hint of spices. It's "reminiscent of a cherry cupcake with currant coulis*" (whatever that is). I see there's a slight purplish tinge to the deep red color, and it's not quite as clear as the other two (or maybe it's just in a glass that's a tad more smudgy? I'll never tell). It has more of a sharp green odor than the other two, though that's not necessarily a bad thing. Something about it makes me want to break out the cheddar cheese. The taste, however, is not great. It's rather bland. But I'm sure the cheese will help, and if you'll give me a moment I'll let you know . . . YES, it's excellent with cheese. But only with the cheese.

I wonder if the poor Red Bicyclette would be helped by cheese?
Let's see . . . nope. For whatever reason, that one actually tastes worse with cheese.

My verdict: I like Australia's Little Penguin the best, although California's Cupcake with cheddar cheese is a close second. The French Pinot noir was my least favorite, although if France keeps all of her best wines to herself, that's not too surprising.

*I looked up coulis for you, and apparently it's like gravy made of fruit. I'm sure it tastes better than it sounds.

Shirazorama

My super-cool cousin, Lori, gave me a lovely bottle of wine during our last visit. (I knew she was my favorite cousin for a reason.) Lori, bless her heart, is not a wine drinker, and I haven't had time to convert her yet. I mean, yeah, I've known her since before I was born, but she lives far away and I don't get to see her often. Thus, Cousin Lori's wine-drinking status is a work in progress.

Meanwhile, I get to enjoy the (fermented) fruits of her shortcoming. At some point she had been given a 2004 bottle of Rosemount Estate Shiraz as a gift (from someone who doesn't know her well, obviously. OR . . . could it have been a fellow wine evangelist?) The bottle followed her on several moves and quite possibly had questionable storage circumstances on more than one occasion, but I have high hopes that the wine will still be enjoyable. And tonight--tonight!!--I will find out.

But wait, there's more. During my most recent hunting and gathering expedition to the Party Factory, I picked up a pair of bottles for a horizontal tasting (yeah, I had to look up the terminology to refresh my memory, so to keep you from having to do the same thing: that's a comparison of wines from the same vintage but different wineries) and the pair I picked up happened to be two 2008 Shirazes. (Shirazi? Shirazeses? Whatever.)

By a happy coincidence--or perhaps some sort of strange subconscious guidance?--guess what one of those two bottles was? None other than a 2008 Rosemount Estate Shiraz. I didn't even realize the serendipitous duplication until I got the two new bottles home where they belonged. So tonight I bring you not only a horizontal tasting, but a concurrent vertical tasting as well (different vintages of the same wine type from the same winery).

The other 2008 Shiraz is a [yellow tail], and as the odd man out, I will begin with the description of that one. The label claims mulberry, spice and smooth vanilla (sounds excellent), as well as an "approachable, fresh, flavorsome personality all of its own." Now THAT sounds like a wine I could be friends with.

The 2004 Rosemount is described as "intense, spicy fruit with a richly textured finish . . . [and] subtle oak." I guess by 2008 they gave up trying to describe their Shiraz, because that label doesn't give me any help. I guess I'm on my own there. But the bottle is kind of cool because it's square at the bottom. Unique. I just hope that's not the best part of the wine.

The 2004 bottle, by the way, isn't without its own pleasant little idiosyncrasies: a cute little red wax seal on top of the cork instead of foil, and a great big lip around the edge of the mouth that almost kept me from letting out that extra (and for me, apparently inevitable) drip.

First, a good look at each. Of course they're all a beautiful deep dark red, and nearly opaque. The 2004 Rosemount has a discouraging brownish tinge which I'm hoping is not a portent of doom. The 2008 Rosemount is a pure ruby red, and the [yellow tail] is just a tad purplish. I am not sure if Shiraz is commonly an amputee, but I'm not really seeing much in the way of legs on any of these three. The 2008 Rosemount is a definite Bob (you know, what you would call a legless man in the ocean). But since I have no idea what legs on wine might signify, I'm not too worried about that.

Now for the sniff test. Mmmm, the 2008 Rosemount smells good. Good and spicy. The 2004 Rosemount smells disappointingly bland. But, urg, it smells better than the [yellow tail]. (Do I really have to type those pretentious little brackets every time?) It doesn't have a strong aroma, but it smells a bit green. Already I'm predisposed to prefer the 2008 Rosemount.

And now--yippee, the best part!--to taste each one.

Ahhh, the 2008 Rosemount is lovely. Spicy, a little tangy, and a very smooth finish. I'm afraid this may be one of those that is all too easy to drink!

The 2004 Rosemount is not as bad as I expected, though it tastes every bit as bland as it smells. It really just tastes kind of watery, though I'm sure several years of less-than-ideal storage conditions are to blame.

The 2008 [yellow tail] is a pleasant surprise. I think I really do taste a bit of berries and vanilla. It doesn't have the zippy spice of the 2008 Rosemount, but it's definitely worth drinking--though I must admit I've not met many wines that aren't.

My vote is for the 2008 Rosemount Estate Shiraz. I'm still in search of the Best Wine Ever, but this was a nice little pit stop on the journey.

The Muscat You've Been Waiting For

My husband hates his job and is threatening to quit (again), so pretty soon I may not be able to afford wine, or at least I will have to drink it all from a box. May as well enjoy these bottles while I can. But what better wine to enjoy than my wonderful new discovery of Purple Cow Muscat! Here's that 2008 vs. 2009 tasting flight I promised you.

This Muscat is made from the Muscat Ottanel grape, while the Moscato d'Asti I'd previously tried (which I didn't really care for) is from Muscat Blanc à Petits Grains. I'm not sure how much of the difference comes from the grapes themselves and how much is from the winemaking process, but I found a huge variation between these Muscats and that Moscato d'Asti. I loved these Purple Cow wines! Both of them!

I first opened the 2009, which is called "off-dry." The Purple Cow website says it has 1% residual sugar with a coconut, peach, and honeysuckle nose, and that it's dry enough to enjoy with food.

Next was the "supremely dry" 2008. The website says this "was a very cool year with a long, dry autumn. Its effect on the Muscat vintage was near perfection. The varietal character came out strong and naturally created a nice sugar/acid balance. The only downside to this vintage was that the yield was very poor, so there isn't much to go around . . . classic Muscat aromas of peach, honeysuckle, magnolia, and coconut are framed in a very subtle package that is excellent for many food pairings." It's also described as a very intense vintage with a high skin/seed to weight ratio.

The 2008 does have a stronger aroma than the 2009, in which I can certainly smell more sweetness, but they both smell great. I could probably convince myself that I'm smelling peach, honeysuckle and coconut, but then if the bottle had claimed it smelled like strawberries, lemons, and rocks, I probably would have believed that too. The 2008 has no sweetness to it at all and has a nice tart aftertaste, but it is still light and fresh, just like my sister said. The 2009 seems calmer and more relaxed. (Or maybe that's just me). I can definitely taste more sugar in the 2009. It's almost like the 2008 is wine with the essence of grapefruit juice, and the 2009 is the same with an added dusting of sugar on top.

Along the way, I learned something new. Allow me to pass it along to you! What I have done tonight is called a "vertical tasting," meaning I have compared the same wine through different vintages. This is as oppposed to--you guessed it--a "horizontal tasting," which is not at all what it sounded like to me. That would be comparing a group of wines from the same vintage or of the same style (such as all Pinot Noirs, or that Malbec vs. Malbec tasting I last did), and has nothing to do with bed. Both differ from my usual willy-nilly tasting, which I suppose would be considered "diagonal," or perhaps even "skew."

I believe in this vertical tasting we have what one might term a draw. There is a slight though distinct difference between these two wines, but I wouldn't kick either one out of bed. And it's great to have finally found a white wine that I love. Keep that in mind if you see me on the side of the interstate holding a hand-lettered cardboard sign that reads, "Will work for wine."

Malbec vs. Malbec

Tonight, for the first time, it's a fair fight. (I think.) Not only am I comparing one Malbec to another, but they are both freshly opened.

First we have Don Rodolfo's 2007 Malbec, which happens to have an annoyingly hard-to-read sideways label, but I have gone through the great effort of reading it for you to find that this wine is described as "big, rich, and deeply flavored, with notes of red berries, cassis, and plums." Sounds great, but of course I know that's the whole point of putting a description on the label--to make the wine sound good. I had to look up "cassis"--it's a synonym for "black currants," which I have heard of before. I hope you are relieved.

Next we have High Note 2008 Malbec, with a "deep violet hue, smooth velvety texture and vibrant fruit aromas." A slightly more generic description, but still sounds like something I might like.

So here is what I think of the two wines. The Rodolfo is a very deep brownish red, and the High Note looks almost identical except it is slightly more purple. I really can smell red berries, maybe strawberries, in the Rodolfo, and it makes me want to eat cheese with it which isn't such a good thing at this time of night. The High Note smells more bright and green. The Rodolfo is smooth and dry and spicy, and has a slight coffee-like aftertaste; the High Note really does feel velvety (just how suggestible am I?), and is even more dry, but is a little bit bland.

I think I prefer the Rodolfo, but I may need to do a blind test next time because I have a feeling I was swayed by the yummier label description. I also wonder how much difference the vintage makes between these two wines. Would the High Note be more complex and more enjoyable next year? Too bad I'll never know.

Here's something interesting about Malbec: Argentina (where both of these wines originated) is very well-suited to growing the Malbec grape, due to its high altitude, intense sunlight, cool temperatures and dry atmosphere.

It's time . . .

I worked all weekend and my house looks like an elephant took a dump in it. In other words, it's Sunday night. This calls for another of my own personal private wine tastings. Maybe then I can focus on the fact that my kids are in bed and there's all kinds of peace and quiet to be appreciating until 7 a.m.

Tonight it's the Jacob's Creek Reserve Shiraz, Alexander Valley Cabernet Sauvignon, Rex-Goliath Pinot Noir, Layer Cake Primitivo, and a boxed Cab. (It's Franzia, in case you wanted to know, but does it really matter?) Since you probably don't feel like going back and reading those posts (heck, I don't even want to), I'll give you the short version of what I thought of each previously.

The Jacob's Creek was smoky, spicy and nice. The Alexander Valley was a little dry, and mild but complex. (I'm expecting this one to be the winner tonight, by the way.) The Rex-Goliath was fruity but unremarkable (and my favorite in the last tasting flight). The Layer Cake was acidic, green, and smoky--good but not great. The boxed Cab was green and tart.

Ok, so first I'm giving them each the sniff test. They each have a distinct smell. The Jacob's Creek, well, it just smells like wine to me. The Alexander Valley still has that flowery smell. The Rex Goliath smells beer-y (though back when I opened it, it smelled fruity. Maybe it's gone bad . . . after all, it's been more than two months since I opened it). The Layer Cake smells sweet. The boxed Cab smells kind of bad. Like cheese. Or feet. I wonder if I would have had a more favorable opinion if this had been a blind test.

I think I actually like the Jacob's Creek Shiraz the best, although the Alexander Valley (definitely the unique one of the bunch) is nearly as good; it's just different, and I find the Shiraz more pleasant. I'm afraid the Rex-Goliath just isn't right anymore. It is definitely my least favorite of the five, but it would be nice to be able to compare a freshly-opened bottle of it to the others. The Layer Cake is a little bit too sweet, and I'm sure it has changed since I first opened it a month ago, because my previous call (acidic, green, smoky) does not match up at all anymore. The boxed Cab was the most boring one, but it is a decent backup, and it actually tasted the best with the crackers and cheese I tried with each wine.

I know what I need to start doing: I should do my taste tests on freshly-opened bottles. Guess that means I need to get me some more unopened bottles.

Tonight I have a buddy!

My husband is off work tonight, so I decided to share my wine with him while I do my new tasting. We have the previous Alamos Malbec, Rex Goliath Pinot Noir, and boxed Merlot along with a boxed Cabernet Sauvignon which I have not yet tried.

First I must mention that I recently read a book which I really enjoyed: "Swallow This" by Mark Phillips. One of the things I learned from it is that I may not be getting these bottled wines at their best for these tasting flights. Apparently wine can become "off" in just a few days after uncorking. Well, to be honest, I've never noticed this. Sure, after a few weeks or certainly months an opened bottle of wine will go bad. But just a few days? I'm not too worried about it.

So let's start with the Cab, since it's new to me. It smells a little bit green and has a somewhat tart taste (which I guess I'm supposed to call acidic). Hud thinks it tastes watered down and bland, but I'm not getting that at all. It's not bad. I'd buy it again.

The Merlot kind of smells like vanilla, but not like a cupcake or anything. It's a little more sour than the Cab. Hud says it tastes more dry and tart. I'm not really noticing that it is any more dry than the others. It has a slightly different flavor from the Cab, but I think they're about equal.

OK, maybe the Malbec has turned by now. There was a lot of sediment in the bottom of the bottle and it tastes a little odd. Maybe it's unfair to compare it to the others, because I'm afraid it's been exposed to air for too long and it's not at its best. Hud says it tastes less tart, but at this point I'm not sure how valuable his opinion is. It does taste a little weird, though.

The Pinot Noir is kind of bland. I can smell grapes (imagine that!) and it tastes like beer. Hud thinks it would be better with a little Jack Daniels in it. Of course, Hud thinks just about everything would be better with a little Jack Daniels in it. I didn't try that.

Hud's final prouncement was, "I don't know. They all taste like crap." I don't know what's wrong with him, because I say they're all pretty good. My least favorite is the Rex Goliath, but even that is decent. I think next time I'll just keep my wine to myself. No sense in wasting it on someone who doesn't appreciate it!

Heaven on Earth!

Today my definition of joy is being home alone with five different kinds of wine. I finally have time to do the new taste test I've been itching for. I am so happy that, not only am I showing you my own sorry attempt at photography, but I am also allowing you to see that I drink my wine out of water goblets. (Gasp!)

The five contenders are my four most recent acquisitions previously blogged about (Forest Glen White Merlot, Sebeka Cabernet Pinotage, Le Grand Pinot Noir, Blackstone Cabernet Sauvignon), and Franzia Merlot in a box. (Yes, in a box, but I have an excuse. I always keep some sort of boxed wine on hand just to make sure I don't run out. These things are necessary when you live in a dry county and you have to drive to Arkansas to restock).

That's the White Merlot in the foreground, of course, and then the other four are rather indistinguishable from each other in the picture. The boxed Merlot is not quite as inky as the other three, and the Cabernet Sauvignon is maybe slightly more purplish, but I really don't think there's any way I could tell the true reds apart by just by looking at them. OK, truth be told, I probably couldn't tell them apart by tasting them, either. I'm not that good (yet. But I'll keep working on it).

The White Merlot is definitely the lightest and sweetest of the bunch. No surprise there. The boxed Merlot is not quite as sweet as the white, but is a little plain compared to the other three. Unfortunately, I can smell nail-polish remover in the Cabernet Pinotage (just like wikipedia warned me), though it is faint. Odd that I didn't catch this scent previously. Even more odd is that I still like the taste. I mean, it's nothing like what I imagine drinking nail-polish remover would be like.

The Blackstone Cabernet Sauvignon has the most unique bouquet of the five, and I am trying to put my thumb on what I'm smelling, but I'm having no luck. I called it green banana before, and I guess that's the closest I can manage this time too. I think the Pinot Noir smells the most fruity, the Cabernet Pinotage has a tangy whiff, the Cabernet Sauvignon smells heavy and somehow bright, and the boxed merlot kind of reminds me of smoky barbecue or Worcestershire sauce . . . ? Oh, and by the way, yes I DO realize I am comparing what amounts to apples, oranges, peaches and carrots. But I see no problem in this, since I am trying to decide what I like best.

The White Merlot kind of seems to have a beer-y aftertaste. This may be because it is better straight from the fridge (and I have allowed it to sit out and breathe just as long as the true reds for this taste test). I may make this my summer wine, for a chilled drink, but for the purposes of this taste test, it just does not stand up to the other four. So White Merlot is low man on the totem pole this time around.

The Pinot Noir is a very pleasant wine. The Cabernet Sauvignon has a nice zippy feel to its finish. The Cabernet Pinotage has a really good flavor. Even the boxed Merlot is nice. I can't decide which one I like best! Fortunately for me, I don't have to.

Time for another experiment!

This time it's a Malbec, the Lindemans Pinot Noir, and a boxed Merlot. The Malbec is a Don Miguel Gascon 2008 from Argentina's Mendoza wine region. I did another blind taste test and here is what I found:

First, I was not able to guess which wine was which. I had never tasted the Malbec before, but I got it and the Pinot Noir mixed up. (That means I guessed the Merlot correctly, though!) All three wines were very similar in color, with the Malbec perhaps a slightly more purplish dark red. The nose varied very slightly between the three, though I liked the smell of the Malbec the best--it almost had a hint of vanilla and nutmeg hiding in it. I had trouble describing the smell of the Merlot; all I could come up with was buttery garlic, but that's not quite right. The Pinot smelled somewhat sour (but not in a bad way), with a strong smell of alcohol, and a greenish, almost asparagus-like odor. All three wines had a very smooth taste and for some reason even seemed almost bland to me, which is odd because I normally think of Pinot Noirs as quite spicy. The most interesting flavor I noticed was that the Malbec had a distinctly tea-like taste, which is all the more odd because I originally found this Pinot Noir to have a tea flavor but I didn't notice that at all this time around.

No clear winner in this round. (Unless it's me!) All three wines get two enthusiastic thumbs up.

An Experiment

I have four kinds of red wine in the house right now: A box of Chianti, a bottle of 2007 Ruffino Chianti, the Crane Lake Merlot I've been working on, and my prized bottle of Vino Nobile. I decided to try a little experiment tonight: a taste test. I tried to do a blind test by myself, by numbering the bottom of each glass and then switching them around like a shell game. I first assessed the color of each wine, then the nose, and ended with multiple taste tests. 

The first glass was a clear garnet wine which smelled fresh, clear, bright and green. My first thought on tasting it: "This is GOOD!" I was pretty sure it wasn't the Vino Nobile; this one, to me, seemed to have a sharp finish as opposed to the smoothness of the Nobile. It was spicy, not dry, and went down easy. My guess was the Ruffino Chianti.

The second glass was a clear garnet wine with a heavy, soft smell, almost of sour cream or vanilla; of the four wines, this one smelled the most different. The wine seemed thick as I swirled it. Right away I was thinking Vino Nobile, because I remember it being heavy and velvety. It tasted smooth, velvety, soft and buttery, with low acid.

The third glass was a clear purplish-red. This was a pretty good clue to me that this was the Merlot, as it was the only one of the four that looked different. It smelled very much like alcohol, with perhaps a faint cherry smell. I thought the taste was the worst of the four; it was tart, and it made me make a face when I drank it.

The fourth glass was a clear garnet and smelled like some sort of nut; perphaps hazelnut. Next to the Merlot, this had the worst taste. It was perhaps the most dry of the four (it certainly left my mouth with a strange dry feeling) and it had a bad aftertaste, almost sour. My guess was that this was the boxed Chianti.

Well, I was correct about the first glass (Ruffino Chianti--good!!) and the third glass (Merlot--no reason to bother buying this one again). But, surprise surprise! I mixed up the boxed Chianti and the Vino Nobile!! I can't believe I loved the Vino Nobile so much when I tried it in Montepulciano, but I didn't even like it compared to Chianti in a box!! I guess that answers my question about whether I want to spend a bunch of money getting some Vino Nobile shipped to me (Um, no). An eye-opener!