Tasting Notes: Hangar 24 Gordgeous

Appearance: Pours a dark, opaque brown, with a thin, mocha colored head which disappears rather quickly, but does leave some decent lacing on the glass.

Aroma:  Smells like when you lick the knife (am I the only one that does this) after cutting the first slice of a pumpkin pie.  A hint of pumpkin, a lot of fall spices, and even a little bit of graham cracker which reminds me of the crust.  Also do get a whiff of the alcohol on this one, which comes in at 8.5% ABV.

Mouthfeel:  Surprisingly light on the palate for me.  Goes right down, with no viscosity.

Flavors:  The alcohol is the first thing I taste on this one, then it goes into some nice, roasty, coffee flavors very quickly.  I get a lot of the pumpkin pie flavors again in the finish, which lingers for some time.  It is more of the spices than the actual pumpkin.  I get a lot of cinnamon, allspice, nutmeg, and clove, with just a hint of pumpkin.

Overall: I'm not normally a pumpkin beer fan, and I love this one.  The combination of the high alcohol and the porter base beer mean there's a lot of strong flavors going on in this beer even without the pumpkin.  The flavors are all strong, clean, and pleasant.  The alcohol hits hard at first, but doesn't burn or come with cloying sweetness.  The beer then moves cleanly into a classic, roasty, almost bitter coffee/porter flavor.  It finishes with a wonderful pumpkin pie, fall spiciness.  The flavors are different enough that none become overpowering, but because they seem to progress in order, they also never clash.  This is definitely one of my fall favorites!

Tasting Notes: 2012 Sutter Home Pink Pinot Grigio

Appearance: Pours an almost transparent peachy pink.  After swirling, you get a film which seems to pool down the glass, rather than legs that run.

Aroma:  Slight peach and stone fruit, with a sharp acidity (lemon and grapefruit).

Mouthfeel:  Light on the tongue, although a little bit of a syrupy feel after it goes down.

Flavors:  Definitely heavy on the peach.  Also get a little bit of melon, kiwi, and a touch of strawberry.  The citrus notes from the nose are absent, although it finishes with an acidity which leaves the mouth watering.  A lingering finish of peach, and the strawberry becomes more prominent in the finish than it was on the palate.

Overall:  This is, I guess, what you would expect from a pink wine from Sutter Home.  Like other low-end pink pinot grigios I've tried, it is interesting how different it is from a traditional pinot grigio.  The flavors and the mouth feel both have a definite sweetness to them which white pinot grigios lack.  While hardly complex or refined, the flavors are pleasant, and I would consider drinking this again on a hot summer day, as it is a refreshing, easy drinking wine.

Tasting Notes: Lagunitas Cappuccino Stout

Appearance: Pours a thick, dark brown, almost black, and almost entirely opaque.  Has a nice, frothy caramel colored head to it, which has a good hold and some pretty nice lacing after it settles.  When poured, the head develops almost as if the beer were on nitro (will have to look into this actually), kind of cascading up the beer to the top of the glass.

Aroma:  Strong coffee with a hint of chocolate as well.  The aroma is more like coffee beans than already-brewed coffee.

Mouthfeel:  Flows pretty freely over the palate for coming in at over 9% ABV, although it does coat the tongue toward the finish, and the astringency dries the palate for the finish as well.

Flavors:  Initial flavors are strong on coffee, like a fresh brewed, black coffee.  Very strong coffee flavor, and none of the chocolate I picked up in the nose.  As the beer rests, the bitterness changes from a coffee bitterness to a hoppy astringency.  Finishes with just a touch of heat from the relatively high ABV, and a dry, astringent pucker from the hops.

Overall:  Not an easy-drinking stout for sure.  At almost 10% ABV, and with a healthy dose of both coffee and hop bitterness, this one is probably better served in a snifter than a pint glass, but hey, I'm at home and not driving anywhere, right?  Definitely not a smooth transition from someone whose only exposure to stouts is Guinness or something similar.  A serious beer with a lot of complementary flavors.  The bitterness is prominent, but not overpowering, and the interplay between the hops, the dark malt, and the coffee is fun.  The bitterness never goes away, but it does morph as the beer sits on your palate, which makes it a little intriguing and more interesting than some other stouts, or some other "bitter" beers.  Probably not an everyday choice for me, but definitely a great beer for a fall night.

Is it whiskey or whisky?

A quick and short post today.  This is a common question people have, and everyone seems to think they're right about it.  Well, in this particular case, everyone is actually right.

The dark, distilled-from-grain alcoholic beverage can be spelled either way.

In Scotland, Japan, and Canada, it is most commonly spelled whisky.

In Ireland and the United States, it is generally spelled whiskey.

A seemingly ridiculous, but useful way of remembering that is that, at least as far as the 5 major whiskey producing countries go, if there is an "e" in the country, there is an "e" in the whiskey.  If there's no "e" in the country, there's no "e" in the whisky either.

This question is further complicated by the locavore and craft spirits movements, particularly in the United States.  In particular, there are some whisky producers who produce Scotch or Canadian style whiskies (heavy on the rye or the malted barley), who choose to spell the word without an "e," to reflect the style of the whiskey.

But long story short, both whisky and whiskey are correct spellings for the word.

The Sommelier Battle: How Valuable is a Certification?

I read an article the other day in one of the major wine publications about the rift between wine industry professionals who think that a certification in wine (from the Court of Sommeliers, Society of Wine Educators, etc.) is important, and those who think that a good sommelier is someone who does a good job selling wine, putting together a wine list, and organizing a wine program.

Here's my two cents.

A certification is a valuable tool, but real life experience is far more important, and a certification is becoming less and less important.  That last part is probably the most controversial, but I'll explain why below.

Changing Technology
With the advent of the internet, smart phones, etc., information, about wine or just about anything else, is easier than ever to come by.  It is much easier to teach yourself what you need to know about wine than it ever was before.  It is also much easier to find "obscure" information about a particular wine, vineyard, region, grape, or vintage, than ever before.  If someone asks you a question, and you don't know the answer, it is much easier to look it up now than it was ten years ago.

Changing Consumer Tastes
Wine tastes have changed.  Most of the certifications are based on the classics, or at least cover them in more depth than the less highly regarded (over time) wines.  These certification programs have become a bit outdated, and, more so, someone who may have been an expert five years ago when they took their exam, may not know about wine varieties which are popular now.

Changing the Standard of Great Wine
This fits with the above.  I think that people, both inside the industry, and across the bar, have different standards of what makes a great wine or a great wine list now than they used to.  The First Growths, the original Meritage blends, etc. will always have a place in high end restaurants and retail stores.  But the availability of hard to find, small production wines, with really unique flavors, is the standard a lot of people use to judge a wine list now.  They also look for wines which are affordable enough to drink on a regular basis, not just on special occasions.  I think this comes from several places.  One, the wine industry got a bit too snobby for its own good.  Even former wine critics acknowledge that wine became something exclusive or intimidating.  Second, as craft spirits, beer, and cocktails have become more popular, wine has more competition.  Instead of your options at a nice steakhouse being an Absolut martini, a Miller Lite, or a nice Bordeaux wine, there are now a myriad of options across all three categories.  The wine industry can't afford to make only jug wine and $100+ bottles of wine anymore.  The mid-range has become increasingly important to their economic survival.  So has the idea of creating unique, fun, and interesting wines, over those that hit the mark on a set of criteria based on the varietal or regional standards set to classify wines.

Changing the Way People Talk About Wine
With the last two points is the fact that people are looking at wine lists and asking different questions.  As wine has begun to come off of its pedestal, and as the internet has made at least basic wine knowledge more accessible to the average consumer than ever, people are comfortable really talking about wine.  People are asking about where it was made, who made it, and the flavor profile.  And they're not always using "fancy" words.  People don't talk about tannin, "perceived dryness," or "residual sugar."  They talk about big, fruity, bold, etc.  They talk about their personal tastes, even when that might not be the textbook description of a varietal.  They want a wine that is right for them, not a wine someone says is the best.

Changing the Culinary Landscape
Fine dining, and, just as importantly, upscale dining, has changed a lot.  First of all, as I have claimed with wine, the mid-range has become increasingly important in restaurants. "Polished casual," "gastropub," "modern, upscale," etc. are now a huge part of the market.  Second, "fusion" cuisine, whether labeled as such or not, has become more popular.  The emphasis is now on putting a chef's own twist on traditional recipes, not on perfecting those recipes themselves.  Finally, small plates, shareables, and non-coursed dinners are now quite popular.  What this means is two things, in my opinion, for wine.

First of all, the "traditional" pairings, which anyone serving wine, and especially a som, would have been expected to know by heart 10 or 15 years ago, are not as important.  A steakhouse likely provides their own twist on a steak, and their wine list should do the same.

Second, the definition of "food friendly" has changed.  Food friendly used to mean something that is just a knock down, jaw droppingly perfect pairing with certain types of food.  Bold, tannic, full bodied red wine and steak is one option that immediately comes to mind.

Now, as cuisine becomes more varied, and as the likelihood that rather than start light, go heavy, and then go sweet, a diner will have some light options, some savory, and some sweet in front of them all at the same time increases, "food friendly" wine takes on another meaning entirely.  Rather than something bold enough to really jive with one particular dish, it is wine which has enough flavor and/or body to stand up to the heaviest of dishes, but is not so bold as to overpower any one dish.  It is wine with enough layers and complexity to bring out different flavors in each dish, as well as to change with each bite of a different dish.

In my mind, this is best illustrated with reds.  I see a shift away from big, bold cabernets and cabernet blends.  At the same time, pinot noir, especially from the central coast, is becoming much more popular with food.  With the bold, fruit flavors of American grapes, but the finesse and earthy undertones that come from Burgundian winemaking techniques, these wines go great with light meat or bolder fish (salmon/pinot is a classic pairing).  They also have enough bold fruit flavor and alcohol to stand up to red meat, but enough smoothness and light enough tannins to not be offensive even with a light salad or appetizer.  And their cherry flavors go well with chocolate, or with a fruitier, less rich dessert.  In my mind, if I want to order a wine I know will mesh with my food, before even looking at the menu, a Central Coast pinot is a safe bet.

Changing Service Standards
As the "fine dining" world becomes less formal, and more upscale casual, with no dress code, and a more casual, comfortable raport built between staff and guests, the rules of wine service change.  I feel like there used to be two ways to serve wine.  In a "family" restaurant, or "casual" restaurant, you would get a bottle of wine opened and placed with the cork back in it in the middle of the table, along with the glasses.  In a "fine dining" restaurant, whether Italina, French, or a steak house, wine service was stuffy and ceremonial, and always done by someone with a lot of practice who hit every point of service.  Now, in the majority of restaurants, it's somewhere in between.  Decanters and candles aren't always around.  Cradles aren't used.  Coasters aren't always used for the cork and the bottle.  Sometimes a server forgets a servillete.  But the bottle is still presented, tasted, and then poured, with the host getting the last glass.  Every restaurant has its own standard of how casual is too casual, and exactly which steps of wine service are most essential.  This makes the service training part of certifications less relevant or important.

Increasing Variety in the Wine World
This is probably not actually true, but more of a factor, at least in the restaurant world, of all of the above factors combining.  The reality is, however, that wine lists now feature varietals, and especially particular wines, that a consumer likely hasn't seen before.  Even an experienced server, bartender, or sommelier can come into a new restaurant and have never seen or tasted many of the wines on a list.  This means that proper training on a particular wine list, rather than generic training, becomes more important than ever.

So What Value Does a Certification Have?
Keep in mind a few things that may surprise you.  I do think the same general conversation could be had about formal certification in both the spirit and beer world, where I hold certifications.  I also do plan on taking at least one level of the Sommelier exam, although I've been saying that, and "studying" for six years.

I think that the importance of a certification is less than what it used to be.  I do, however, think they still are useful in several ways.  First, the last point above works both ways.  Yes, it is important to learn your own wine list, rather than generic information.  At the same time, it is helpful both in training staff, and speaking to guests, to have a universal "language" to talk about those things in.  Even above, when talking about Central Coast pinot, I used the word "Burgundian."  While you don't need to take a sommelier exam to know what that means, it is helpful.  When you talk about new world, old world, earthy, fruit forward, etc.  The difference between a "fruit forward" wine and a "sweet" wine is another example, although sometimes wine professionals and experts need to understand that communicating effectively is more important than knowing the "right" answer, particularly when speaking to a consumer.

Second, with the increasing approachability of wine, and the increasing availability of wine knowledge, these certifications show a certain level of dedication.  They show that someone spent a significant amount of time and money learning about wine.  They didn't attend a wine tasting dinner somewhere, decide they loved wine, and quit their job to become a sommelier, bartender, server, or "wine expert" on a whim.  They show a dedication and persistence in their pursuit of knowledge that might convince me that this is not a passing trend for them, but something they are truly passionate about.

Third, everyone has different styles of learning, and honestly, some people are stupider than others, or stupider when it comes to certain subjects.  You can hire someone with a great personality, who is eager to learn, and loves wine, thinking you can teach them what they need to know.  Some people, though, just won't catch on.  Whether it is that their palate doesn't pick up on wine, or their brain can't translate descriptive words into tastes or vice versa, some people just don't seem to get it.  Hiring someone with a sommelier certification tells you that they have not only a certain level of intelligence, but the right type of intelligence, to effectively learn about, teach about, talk about, and sell wine.

Fourth, it is a great way of testing yourself.  This is why I want my sommelier certification, and why  got my level one cicerone and my CSS certifications.  It's one thing to go about your professional life assuming that due to your experience and research you know more than Joe the Plumber about a topic.  It's another thing, both when looking for jobs, and evaluating yourself, to be able to say you got a certification.  In the course of studying for and taking the exam, you're likely to learn a lot.  You're also likely to know, even before seeing how you did on the exam, that there are certain areas that you don't know as much about as others.  It's a great way to see what the "industry standard" for a particular knowledge area is, and where you excel and where you could use some work.

Basically, I think these certifications have a place, and a role to play, but they're not essential.  Being a Sommelier and being a sommelier are certainly not mutually exclusive, but one doesn't make the other.  A great sommelier can have little formal training on wine, but know their wine list like the back of their hand, and, just as importantly, know how to get information by questioning a guest without making them uncomfortable.  On the other hand, a Sommelier with a certification could know everything about wine, and still not have the skills to put that knowledge to use on the floor.

What are Single Malt, Blended, Vatted, and other Scotch terms?

Scotch terminology can be a bit confusing at first.  Even the name itself, Scotch whisky, is confusing?  Where did the "e" go?  Well, I'm not going to get into that one right now, but I am going to explain some terminology that describes different types of Scotches, and what those terms actually mean to the Scotch drinker (if anything).

The easiest way to understand it is that there are two major ways of classifying Scotches.  First is by where and when they are made, and second is by what they are made from.  The term "single malt" actually addresses both of these questions.

Where and when a Scotch is made.  In addition to the regions (which I won't get into here), this is a question of how many distilleries and how many seasons the Scotch is made in.  A single Scotch was distilled at a single distillery, in a single season.  Blended Scotch, vatted Scotch, or scotch that doesn't specify, is usually a mix of Scotch from different distilleries, and/or year.

What Scotch is made from is also, obviously, important.  A malt whisky is a whisky made exclusively from malted barley, often and traditionally kilned over a peat-fueled fire.  Grain whisky is still made primarily from malt, but also contains other grains (unmalted barley, rye, wheat, or corn typically).

So there are essentially four categories here:

Single Malt Scotches are Scotches made only of malted barley, at one distillery, in one distilling season.

Single Grain whiskys, contrary to their name, are made from multiple grains, but are distilled at one distillery, in one distilling season.

Vatted whisky is a "blended" whisky made entirely of single malt Scotch.  That is, it is all malted barley, but can be a mixture of different years and different distilleries.

Blended whisky is a blend of whiskys mad from different grains, in different years, and/or at different distilleries.

So what's the best?  Single Malt, right?
Well, this is where people have a lot of misconceptions.  Everyone thinks single malt Scotch is inherently better than the rest.  They certainly can be the most expensive.  My challenge to these people would be to taste Johnny Walker Blue or Double Black Label against Glenlivet 12.

The reality is that no one category is inherently "better" than any other.

Single malts tend to be the most expensive, for a very good reason that has nothing to do with quality.  When they're gone, they're gone.  Since the law requires single malts to be distilled at a single distillery, in a single season, each year, for example, there is only so much Glenlivet which has been in cask for 12 years.  If they sell all of it, there is no way to produce more "on the fly."  Distilleries often distill, age, blend, and bottle more than one brand of whisky, so there are definitely ways to adjust, for instance, using more or less in blends vs. single malts, etc.  But those decisions have to be made before blending and bottling, and often before barrel aging, requiring a prediction on what demand will be like for certain whiskys 8, 10, 12, or even 25 years in advance.

The reality, however, is that there is an easy argument to make that vatted or blended whiskys are actually a better quality product.  At the very least, they are more consistent.  If a barrelmaster does not like a Scotch he tastes out of the barrel, or does not think it is consistent with the brand's profile, he has two options if that barrel was intended for a single malt.  1) bottle it anyway, especially if the variation is slight but it is still a high quality whisky; 2) give up on making it a single malt and either blend it or throw it away.

On the other hand, when a barrelmaster tastes a cask intended for a blended whisky, he can make infinite adjustments.  If it is too dry, he can add some whisky which was finished in sherry casks.  If it is not smokey or peaty enough, he can add more peaty whisky.  The goal in making a blended or vatted whisky is to create a whisky each bottling which not only tastes great, but is consistent to the previous year.

And, the reality is, there are only a handful of companies in the Scotch game.  Most of them own several distilleries and several brands.  They make a lot of whisky, and each year, they taste tons of casks.  Those which are most similar to their "big name" single malts get bottled as single malts.  Those that aren't, or those that are in excess of the quota they've set for their single malts, get blended.

So you are often drinking the exact same whisky, prepared by the exact same people, when you sip on a single malt and a blended whisky, even if the label is different.  

So in short, don't worry about price point or about what type of Scotch you're drinking.  Find one you like.  The single malts will vary slightly from year to year, but should stay in a very similar flavor profile.  If you find a blend you like, it should stay consistent year to year!  Cheers!

What's With the Sediment in My Beer?

This is a follow up post to my post on sediment in wine,  A lot of the same questions apply to beer, and some of the answers are very different.  What is the sediment in my beer?  Is it good?  Is it bad?  Should I drink it?

First, what is the sediment?  Like wine, there are a couple of answers to this.  The most common answer is that it is the yeast remaining in the beer.  This happens for two reasons.  One is because a beer was bottled unfiltered.  The other is that a beer went through bottle conditioning.  There are some situations in which a sediment or haze could be a sign of bad handling of the beer some time between brewing and consumption.  Mostly, though, this is a deliberate choice by the brewer, whether traditional or untraditional to the particular style of beer.  Unfiltered beers have dead yeast cells (lees) deliberately left in the beer in order to contribute to the flavor, color, and body of the beer.

Bottle conditioned beers undergo a secondary fermentation, usually with the intention of adding carbonation naturally, in their bottle.  The dead (or, in some fresh, bottle conditioned beer, even living) yeast obviously remains in the bottle.

In terms of if the sediment is good or bad, with the exception of beers which are not intentionally hazy, the haze and sediment is usually a good thing.

Should you drink it?

Well, that's really quite a subjective question.  The lees add flavor, body, and texture to a beer.  They are also, apparently, quite nutritious, offering protein and lots of vitamins.  That being said, I'm a big texture person, so too much can leave a chalky or gritty mouth feel.  This is why, at a great beer bar, the server will ask you, before serving you a beer which throws sediment, if you like the sediment.

My personal preference varies on the size of the bottle the beer comes in.  That sounds strange, right?

Well, if a beer comes in individual serving bottles, and has been poured properly, and is agitated ever so slightly before service, the sediment is spread out throughout the beer and quite manageable.  If, however, the beer is served in a large format bottle (like a 750ml bottle), and has been sitting upright, ALL of the sediment is likely to be present in the last glass served.  That's a bit much for my personal taste.  Similarly, draft weiss beers and belgians often throw a lot of sediment, even enough to turn them from pale gold to hazy gray in color, toward the bottom of the keg, particularly if they are served upright.  Those last few glasses are a bit too much sediment for me.

At the end of the day, if you are drinking a Belgian beer, a wheat beer, or even some British styles, chances are the sediment in your beer is harmless at worst, and tasty at best.  It's really your choice whether to indulge or stick to just the liquid!

What's with the sediment in my wine?

A lot of people probably have questions about the sediment at the bottom of a bottle of wine.  What is it exactly?  Is it good?  Is it bad?  Should I drink it?

Well, these questions are all complicated.  In short, sediment in wine comes from many sources.

Sediment can consist of debris from the winemaking process, lees (dead yeast cells), and tartrate crystals, or, usually, some combination of the above.

Wine is naturally a hazy substance.  The yeast which has created the alcohol is suspended in the wine, as are tiny particles of grape skin, pips, seeds, etc.  Many wines are filtered or fined to remove sediment, although, unfiltered and unfined wines are becoming more popular for several reasons (biodynmic and vegan winemaking, health concerns, and a healthy respect for more natural wines among them).  Moreover, the process of filtering out or, especially, fining out "undesireable" sediment can also remove things which positively affect the way the wine develops with age.  This is why white wines, and red wines meant to be drunk young, are more often filtered or fined.

Moreover, as wine ages, tartrates crystalize in the wine, particularly if the wine is stored in or transported in, cool temperatures.  These are perfectly harmless, but not temperature stable, substances found in all wines.  As the wines chill, they crystalize and fall to the bottom of the wine.  Barrel aging wine allows many tartrates to crystallize before the wine is bottled, but wines which are bottled young have more tartrates to crystalize.  Many winemakers "cold stabilize" their wines, chilling them and removing tartrate crystals before bottling the wine.  Like filtering and fining, the problem is that you can also filter out many things that contribute to desireable changes during bottle aging.  So, again, this is much more common in wines meant to be consumed in their early years.

As far as if sediment is good or bad, the answer is really neither, but leans toward good, particularly n older wines.  Sediment is perfectly harmless, and the compounds in the sediment, particularly grape remnants and lees, can contribute great flavors to wine as they age.  As far as if you should drink sediment, the general feeling seems to be no.  This is the main reason to decant wine (as opposed to aerating it, which also involves putting it in a decanter).  By carefully pouring the wine into the decanter, and by again, carefully pouring from the decanter to the glass, you can avoid most, if not all, of the sediment.  If a little sneaks into the glass, though, it's not the end of the world.  I think for the most part, the aversion to sediment is more of a personal taste, and based primarily on texture, especially since sediment settles at the bottom of the bottle and glass, so the last sip of the last glass poured would have quite an interesting texture to it.

Why are Belgian Beers So Strong

So I read something interesting the other day that I thought I would share.  Ever wondered why Belgian beers, many of which were originally, or still are, brewed by priests, monks, and nuns, are so strong?  Seems counter intuitive, doesn't t?  Especially since most monastic breweries also produce a "patersbier" or "fathers' beer" which is very low alcohol, and which is what the actual monks drink.

Well, this is an interesting example of laws changing the history of the drinking world forever, and not always in the way intended.

In 1919, a socialist lawmaker named Emile Vandervelde encouraged the passing of a law (named after him), which sought to reduce the negative affects of alcohol on the working class.  The Vandervelde law outlawed restaurants and bars from serving distilled spirits, and limited retailers to selling a minimum of two liters of distilled spirits to a customer, making it a more expensive investment than buying smaller quantities.

The law did not apply to beer, and thus, brewers started brewing stronger beers, adding candi sugar, more malt, wheat, oats, and other ingredients to raise the gravity (sweetness) of their mash, thus also increasing the alcohol content of the finished product.

The craziest part of this story?  The Vandervelde Law wasn't repealed until 1984!

What Exactly is Malolactic Fermentation???

Wine geeks and professionals often use terms that can be difficult for the casual consumer to understand.  Usually, though, at least the major point of the words, can be broken down pretty simply.  One example of that is malolactic fermentation, which I'm going to try to break down pretty simply and then at least at an introductory scientific level.

The easiest way to understand malolactic fermentation is to actually look at the words themselves.  Fermentation is the action of yeast converting sugar into alcohol and carbon dioxide, at least at the most basic level that most of us drinkers need to/want to know about.  The reality of it is, much like our own digestive process, or any other chemical reaction, there's a lot more going on.  In the case of malolactic fermentation, one of the results is the conversion of malic acid into lactic acid.  Hence the name malolactic fermentation.  Malic acid is the tart acid which tastes a lot like a green apple or tart pear.  Lactic acid is the acid found in milk, butter, and other dairy.

So, on its most basic level, malolactic fermentation is fermentation which turns tart, apple-like acids into creamy, buttery, acids.  Chardonnay is the varietal where this simple breakdown is most evident, and most easy to understand.  On the other hand, malolactic fermentation is either desired, or not desired, in many other varietals, which neither start out with such a sharp green apple taste, or end up quite as buttery as many chardonnays do.

The Science Behind It
Malolactic fermentation usually uses one or more of three different types of bacteria, Oenococcus oeni, Lactobacillus, and Pediococcus.  Each of these bacterias eats up tart malic acid and spits out lactic acid and diacetyl.  Lactic acid provides a smooth, creamy, round flavor and mouth feel, and diacetyl, which is often considered a fault in both beer and wine, provides a buttery flavor and aroma (think movie theater popcorn).

Again, Chardonnay is the most extreme example, but most red wines, and many whites, undergo some malolactic fermentation.  The original flavor profile of the wine, the environment in which malolactic fermentation occurs, and many other factors affect how obvious the flavor effects are on a wine.  On the other hand, many crisp, tart, fruity, and floral whites are produced in such a way as to almost eliminate the possibility of malolactic fermentation, in order to preserve the sharp acidic notes in the wine.

Malolactic fermentation can occur either as part of the primary fermentation, or after the wine has been fermented.  It can and does occur naturally, or the bacteria can be deliberately introduced.  It is almost always done either during fermentation or aging, and almost never in the bottle.  One increasingly rare exception is certain Vinho Verdes from Portugal, which underwent malolactic fermentation in the bottle, since slight effervescence is expected in the wine.  This is less popular now, as wines which undergo fermentation in bottle also throw a sediment and pour less clear.

Hopefully this post helps a few people understand a little more exactly what malolactic fermentation means, and more importantly, why they should care about it when buying or drinking wine!

Tasting Notes: 2013 Nobilo Sauvignon Blanc, Marlborough

Appearance: Very light yellow, almost white, translucent.  No legs whatsoever.

Aroma:  It's all citrus to me.  A hint of lemon and lime, but primarily grapefruit.

Mouthfeel:  Light, rolls right off the tongue.  A little bit of acidity leaves your mouth watering.

Flavors:  Refreshingly acidic and citrusy.  Lemons, limes, a hint of fresh cut grass, and a decent amount of grapefruit, though the grapefruit is not as prominent as it is on the nose.  Just a hint of melon to cut through the acidity here.

Overall:  Not my personal favorite, because I have an aversion to grapefruit.  But the grapefruit is not nearly as overwhelming as the nose left me to expect.  A pretty well balanced Sauv Blanc with citrus, a little tropical fruit, and just a touch of grass, so something for almost every Sauv Blanc drinker.  Not one I would buy for myself, but definitely one I would take to a party or suggest to someone who likes Sauv Blanc and doesn't mind that grapefruit.

Liqueurs, brandies, cordials, and "other spirits"

Basically, spirits are organized into 8 "families," or types of spirits.  Those are, in no particular order: vodka, gin, rum, tequila, whiskey, brandy, liqueurs, and "other spirits."

When someone mentions one of the first five, a pretty good idea probably comes to mind as to exactly what they mean, but the last three get confusing for most people.  Add to that the fact that you often see things sold as "cordials" and it can get really weird.  This post is an attempt to demystify some of these classifications.

Brandy is the easiest and narrowest to define of these categories.  It is a spirit distilled from a wine, which in turn is an alcoholic beverage fermented from fruit.  This is what separates it from the other categories.  Within brandy, there are three basic types: grape brandy (often called just brandy), fruit brandy, and pomace brandy.

Grape brandy is brandy made from grapes.  In other words, it is basically distilled table wine.  It is usually barrel aged (more on this later).  This is what Cognac and Armagnac are known for.  If a bottle is labeled just "brandy" it is most likely made from grapes.  Although this is changing, especially with U.S. craft distillers, I misled a little bit when I called it distilled table wine.  The base wine is usually, although, not always, made from different grapes than the wine we are used to drinking.  The ideal wine is high in acid, moderate in sugar, and low in alcohol, which, while making it rather unpleasant to drink on its own, allows it to hold up to both distillation and extensive aging.  In fact, brandy is the one drink which it is believed does not hit a "peak" of ideal age, after which it starts to decline.  Some fine brandy is aged many decades, and it is believed that the best brandies in the world only continue to get better in the barrel.

Pomace brandy is also made from grapes, but not from the juice or wine.  This brandy is made from the pips, skins, stems, etc. left over after wine grapes are pressed.  It is usually served unaged.  Pomace brandy, marc, and grappa are all examples of this category.

Fruit brandy is brandy made from fruit other than grapes.  Apple brandy is a common one, followed by pear, cherry, and peach.  Many Eastern European countries also drink plum brandy.  This can be served aged, or unaged.  Unaged brandy, whether from grapes or other fruit, are known as eaux-de-vie (water of life), and are clear.  Aged brandies are darker in color.  Calvados and applejack are common apple brandies.  Kriek, poire, and framboise are common ways to label cherry, pear, and raspberry brandies, respectively.  A brandy made from fruit other than grapes will almost always be labeled including the fruit.  That is, it will be labeled as a "Raspberry Brandy," rather than "Brandy."

Liqueurs are often confused with brandies, especially fruit liqueurs and fruit brandies.  The key distinction here is that fruit brandies are distilled from that fruit.  Liqueurs, on the other hand, can have any base spirit, but are flavored, and have a sugar content between 2.5% and 30%.  Examples are triple sec, Drambuie, Benedictine, curacao, Grand Marnier, schnapps, crème de menthe, crème de cacao, etc.
Proprietary liqueurs are liqueurs which refer to a specific brand name, i.e. Grand Marnier, Bailey's, Kahlua, while generic liqueurs are generally accepted flavors of liqueur which may be available in multiple brands, i.e. curacao, crème de menthe, crème de banana, etc.
An interesting liqueur to consider is Grand Marnier.  Many people think Grand Marnier is an orange brandy, rather than an orange liqueur.  This is where it is tricky.  Grand Marnier has a brandy base. The orange flavor and sugar, however, are added into the brandy (which has a grape base).  This makes Grand Marnier a brandy based orange liqueur.  In order to be an orange brandy, Grand Marnier would need to be distilled from oranges.

Cordials are a category with different meanings in different parts of the world.  In the U.S., they are synonymous with liqueurs.  The EU, however, recently changed their definition to mean a non-alcoholic ingredient.  So beware, if shopping in Europe, your cordials will not have alcohol!

Other Spirits are not really one of the major families of spirits, and that's kind of the point.  They were fairly unimportant until recently.  With the resurgence of spirit forward cocktails and bitter cocktails, and with the re-legalization of absinthe, they are gaining in popularity.  There are basically three major categories (in my objective opinion) to consider here: bitters, absinthe, and unsweetened liqueurs.

Bitters include two groups of spirits.  One I call mixing bitters and one I call drinking bitters, although in reality, both are primarily used as ingredients in cocktails.  Mixing bitters are usually sold as bitters and come in small bottles to be used by the drop or dash in cocktails.  They include Angostura, Peychauds, orange bitters, etc.  People often forget that these are spirits, as they are alcoholic (usually very high alcohol content, in fact).  Drinking bitters usually come in full sized bottles, and, although it is not very popular, can be consumed on their own, or used as the base in a cocktail.  These include Campari, Lillet, Fernet, etc.  These are on the rise in current cocktail culture.

Absinthe I discuss in more detail here.

Unsweetened liqueurs are essentially flavored spirits which either are not sweetened at all, or are not sweetened enough to be considered a liqueur.  Although frequently sold with, and considered liqueurs, they are not technically a liqueur.  These are also gaining in popularity, as craft distilleries become more popular, and overly sweet cocktail go out of fashion in favor of more spirit forward drinks.

Questions?  Have a favorite brandy or liqueur?  Let me know in the comments!

Tasting Notes: Chimay White (Cinq Cents)

Appearance:  Pours a hazy, light gold with a hint of orange.  A pillowy, eggshell head.  Great retention and really nice lacing.

Aromas:  I get banana nut muffin, with the yeastiness, the breadiness, the banana, and a hint of sweetness.

Mouthfeel:  Medium to full body, but with a nice effervescence and foaminess that lightens it up on the palate.

Flavors:  I get a little bit of a fresh yeast flavor, along with a hint of banana, although not as much as I got on the nose.  Also a bit of apricot.  Definitely a bit of sweetness, but finishes dry.  A bit of coriander and baking spice as well.

Overall:  Definitely a great beer.  Its 8% alcohol is masked nicely by a variety of yeast-driven flavors, from a fruitiness to a breadiness and finishing with a refreshingly dry bit of spice.  No one element overpowers the other.  Very balanced, with everything Belgian styles have to offer, without anything becoming too much.

Tasting Notes: 2011 "Les Ursulines" Nuit-Saing-Georges

Appearance: Pours a deep ruby red.  Pretty dark, but when it swirls, does let some light through.  Quick moving legs.

Aroma:  I get a little bit of alcohol heat, along with a nice balance of tart and sweet black cherry aromas, and a hint of raspberry as well.

Mouthfeel:  Light to medium body, a soft tannic presence which would definitely not stand out if this were not a pinot, but does give just a touch of astringency at the end that I wasn't expecting.

Flavors:  I do get some of the earthiness and minerality I expect from a red Burgundy, but I also get a lot more fruit than I would expect.  Fruit flavors confirm the nose, with ripe cherry and a hint of raspberry.  The alcohol I picked up on the nose was not present on the palate.

Overall:  I'm not 100% sure how I feel about this wine.  It is a lot more like an American pinot, although a little less bold, than I had thought it would be.  Fruity, but still subtle and easy drinking.  A good balance of earthy flavors with some gentle but definitely noticeable fruit flavors. A flavorful, but still very easy-drinking wine.  For a Burgundy under $20 it is a pretty good value.  Something I would probably drink again, but not rush out to buy another bottle of.

Alternative Wine Packaging Part Two: The Package Itself

Continuing on the theme of alternative wine packaging, I'm now going to go into the actual packaging a wine comes in.  Specifically, I'll discuss bottles, cans, kegs, bag in a box, and tetra packaging.

Bottles are the most traditional packaging for modern wines.  Glass is incredibly sterile, sturdy, and, aside from the issue of the hole in the top of the bottle (see my post on closures), generally protect very well against heat and oxygen.  On the other hand, they do expose the wine to light, and different types of glass are better than others for this.  Green glass is generally the worst at keeping harmful UV rays out of wine.  Because some light does get through glass, and because cork is designed to let some air in, wine continues to age and develop as it sits in a bottle, and, since most winemakers are used to using glass bottles to package their wine, this is accounted for in the wine making process, and these changes are, generally speaking, positive changes.

Bag in a box wines have a pretty bad rep in the U.S., thanks largely to Franzia.  From an objective standpoint, there are a lot of variables.  The quality of the bag which goes into the box is important, as both alcohol and acidity can degrade plastic, and can lead to a leaching of plastic flavors into your wines.  Most winemakers who use bag in a box packaging use grades of plastic which don't do this, but it is still a factor.  Objectively speaking, there are some pluses and some minuses to bag in a box wine.  For starters, the box keeps out light.  Light can be a major source of spoilage in wine.  On the other hand, some light can also lead to desired flavors that come with maturation of wine.  Similarly, BIB packaging is pretty much air tight, which, while reducing the chance of harmful bacteria, can also prevent maturation.  On the other hand, the ability to reseal the bag completely means that your wine will stay fresh for longer after it is opened.  This is somewhat mitigated by the large quantity of wine, as I still wouldn't want to keep it around for too long.  While most of the BIB wine out there is not very good, much of this has to do with the quality of what's going into the box, not the effects of the box on the wine.  In fact, there are some very drinkable boxed wine options out there (I've heard Target has some good ones, in fact).  My verdict on this is similar to my verdict on screw caps, which is that it is a perfectly acceptable way to package wines which are ready to drink when bottled, and meant to be consumed young.  For wines expected to mature in bottle, however, a BIB is probably not the ideal package.

Tetra paks are similar to bag in a box, and are, from what I've heard, quite popular in Europe.  This is a specific brand of boxes, which are highly sustainable and very portable.  The packaging, from what I've heard, is not susceptible to leaching, which is great.  The plus side versus a traditional bag in box is that Tetra Paks come in smaller, single sitting servings.  The biggest disadvantage that I can see (again, compared to a traditional BIB) is that the option to re-close the package is more like a screw cap and not quite as air tight as the method used in most BIB.  That being said, I think because of the more carton-like appearance, rather than the bulky square box we all associate with Franzia, I think both consumers and wine-makers are more open to putting mid-range wines in these packages.

Cans are a relatively new way to commercially package wine.  I have yet to actually try wine in a can, so this is a) theoretical and b) second hand information that I'm using to judge this.  The linings on aluminum cans are strong enough to keep harmful bacteria, rust, and minerals out of your beverages.  Soda is notoriously high in acid content, so leaching from modern cans should not be an issue.  Moreover, they are impermeable to light, which, as mentioned above, is a good thing from objective quality and consistency standpoints.  Metal does, however, conduct heat, so if you leave this in your car in the dessert, then throw it in the fridge, then back in your car, the temperature change will likely have a noticeable affect on the wine.  Cans are completely air tight, which is, again, from an objective quality and consistency standpoint, great.  They are also convenient and one of the most sustainable options.  People don't really understand that not all "recyclables" are created equal.  While glass is technically recyclable, it is difficult to recycle, and because of its weight, expensive to transport to a facility equipped to do so.  Aluminum is a much easier product to recycle.  My judgement on cans would be twofold, first of all, wait and see.  There's not enough wine in cans yet to really see how it does with different quality levels and varietals.  Second, my gut feeling is the same as screw caps and BIBs.  For bright, meant to be drunk young, wines, it could be great.  It probably won't allow full maturation of more complex wines which are meant to age in bottle.

Kegged wine is something I am a huge proponent of.  Essentially, there are two ways to keg wine.  First, you can use what's called a "pub keg."  These consist of a reuseable and recyleable hard outer plastic keg, which looks just like a beer keg, but plastic, and a disposable liner which holds the wine.  This is essentially a larger BIB, meant to hold more wine and dispense using low pressure.  The second is an actual beer keg, which is cleaned and refilled.  The advantages to keg wine overall are huge.  They are incredibly sustainable, reducing waste in the bar and restaurant industry dramatically.  They also reduce waste and improve quality because, since no oxygen is introduced to the wine, there is no waste of opened bottles at the end of the night.  Moreover, they protect completely from heat, light, oxygen and bacteria, and mean a restaurant or bar can count on a much more consistent product than in a bottle.  In traditional, cork and bottle packaging, I have heard estimates as high as 1 in 10 for the number of corked bottles.  With kegged wine, there is a much more consistent product.  As far as sustainability, the traditional steel keg is a much better option than the pub keg, as there is no waste from a liner being disposed of each time the keg is refilled.  The biggest disadvantages to kegs are two fold:  1) as mentioned above, some wines are meant to have some exposure to heat, light, and oxygen in order to fully mature and develop.  2)  While in the long run, kegging is a less expensive packaging option, the initial investment in the kegs themselves, as well as the equipment to clean and fill them is huge, as is the investment in setting up kegged wine lines at a bar or restaurant.  Kegged wine shouldn't be dispensed with either regular CO2, or at normal pressure.  What this means is that a bar needs to get a separate gas system or a gas blender (unless they are already pouring Guinness or other nitrogenated beers), as well as a high enough end draft system that they can adjust pressure on individual lines.  This is a major reason that a lot of craft beer bars are pioneering the tap wine system, since they already have both gas blenders and individual regulators on each tap.  Because of the expense of installing these systems, restaurants have been reluctant to try it, unless they know there are plenty of unique, quality options out there for them to put on tap.  Wineries are reluctant to invest in the equipment and cooperage unless they know they have accounts who will buy it.  So kegged wine has been slow to grow.  It is starting to become more popular though, which means there are some really great options out there now.

A final note on kegged wine, which I also think affects how I think about other non-traditional packaging.  While it is easy to set general rules, like "wines which need to mature should go in glass" there are some factors which we simply don't know about.  In my experience, different varietals react very differently to kegs.  Bright, un-oaked Chardonnay, and Chardonnay which is more "oaky" than "buttery" tastes great in a keg.  Buttery Chardonnays, in my experience, tend to taste kind of flat and dull out of a keg.  One interesting varietal is Pinot Noir.  This may be just the specific brands I dealt with, although there were several, so I don't really think it's just coincidence.  Some of the "better" brands in bottles really don't hold up well in keg.  On the other hand, inexpensive ($9/glass) California pinots which would definitely be considered "value" or "table" wine in a bottle really got bolder and more exciting in keg.  In fact, I had many a $14/glass pinot returned (I'm not going to name names, because I really like the producer, and they are known as one of the best Burgundy-style producers in California), and BOTH of the $9/glass pinot noirs were my top selling wines when they were on, even outselling my whites in a hot California summer.  I also don't think that it had to do with a problem or flaw in packaging, as I also carried a Chardonnay in keg from the same "top producer" which did very well.  Simply put, I think there are things which are beyond logic or (at least basic) science which go into winemaking, and similarly which affect the way a wine's packaging affects is taste.  The best way to find out is to try more wine (responsibly, of course) in different packaging, and decide for yourself what works best for what varietals.

Alternative Wine Packaging Part 1: Corks vs. Screw Caps

So lately I've been reading a lot and hearing a lot of debate about wine packaging, both the container itself, and the closures.  So, I thought I'd pitch into the conversation with my personal thoughts on wine packaging.  I've decided to split this into two posts, and first will talk about wine bottle closures.

When talking about a traditional bottle of wine, there are basically four options out there to seal the wine: cork, cork blend, synthetic cork, and screw cap.

Corks are the classic choice, and still used in most high end wines.  They are porous enough to allow limited oxygen to come into the wine, but in a very controlled and predictable manner.  Cork also has the ability to shrink and expand, meaning that it will adjust to temperature differences and maintain its seal.  Cork also comes from the bark of a tree and is therefor a renewable resource.  There are some drawbacks to cork.  While renewable, cork is a limited resource, in that the trees from which it is harvested take time to grow their bark to the necessary thickness.  This means cork supply is limited and cork can be expensive.  There is also a chemical called TCA which can find its way into wine from cork.  This gives a wet paper flavor and aroma to wine, and is what us wine folk are actually talking about when we talk about a "corked" wine.  Some experts estimate that 10% of wines containing traditional cork have some level of cork taint.  One of the biggest problems here is that cork taint is sometimes subtle, and, if you have not had an un-corked bottle of the same wine, or been trained in identifying off flavors in wine, you might not recognize cork taint as such, and might just think the wine itself was bad.

Synthetic corks are plastic plugs designed to look and feel like cork and serve the same purpose.  Their biggest advantages are that there is no risk of cork taint, and that they are inexpensive, since they can be artificially produced.  That being said, I have heard some people say that plastic corks leak a plastic flavor into some wines, particularly high acid wines.  These corks are also not as porous as real cork, meaning the wine will not really breathe or develop in the same ways it would in a bottle sealed with cork.  Synthetic cork is also not as malleable, meaning that dramatic temperature changes may cause small gaps in the seal, allowing unexpected oxygen, or even other contaminants, to enter your wine.  In my personal opinion, synthetic cork is the worst way to seal a bottle of wine.

Cork blends are generally made from scraps of cork and/or recycled cork, synthetic cork, or some combination of the two.  Depending on the exact amount of plastic and cork, and the way in which the cork is put together, they can vary greatly in terms of the pros and cons of both synthetic and real cork.  Most low-mid priced wine with a "real" cork is actually blended these days.  One huge advantage to this, if using a higher quality cork blend, is that the amount of oxydation can be selected, as the cork maker can create a blend which allows more or less air in.

Screw caps are rapidly growing in popularity.  Due to their being used primarily on cheap table wine in the U.S. originally, they had a certain stigma which has taken years to get over.  On the other hand, almost all wines from Australia and New Zealand, across all quality and price ranges, are packaged with screw tops.  In terms of its actual affects on wine, it is a pretty solid choice.  The biggest advantage is convenience.  No digging through a drawer looking for a wine key.  Another advantage is that there is no risk of cork taint.  Then there is a factor that can be considered both an advantage and a disadvantage.  Screw caps, generally speaking, are about as close as you can get to being air tight.  This means there is almost no risk of an oxidized wine.  On the other hand, many wines develop quite nicely in bottle and really open up, or mellow, when stored in a bottle (for a short or a long period of time).  Screw caps don't allow this development.  There was also some concern about screw caps leeching a metallic flavor into wines, but over the years, they have developed linings which are strong enough to remove this as a major concern.  The other interesting thing is that they are now developing screw caps which do allow for limited aeration of the wine as it rests or ages in bottle.  I'm a little skeptical about that personally.  Overall, my take on screw caps is this:  wines which are meant to be drunk young are great out of a screw cap.  They tend to be bright and fresh.  This is good for fruit-forward wines, and for wines with balanced but high acidity, and low tannin.  On the other hand, wines meant for aging, or wines with bold tannin flavor, probably won't open up in a screw cap the way they would in a cork-sealed bottle.

Do you know of another popular closure for bottled wines that I missed?  What's your favorite closure?  Let me know in the comments!

California Wine Regions 101

Wine regions can be confusing.  What do they mean, and what do they really tell you about a wine?  Well, the answer is complicated, and largely depends on where a wine is from.  In most of the old world, the appelation system is very complex, and can actually tell you quite a bit about wines.  For instance, only wines from certain grapes can be produced in and labeled as being from certain regions.  An introduction to, for example, French or Italian wine regions, would be anything but brief or basic.

On the other hand, in most of the New World, appelations are really only about place.  That is, in the US, the AVA (American Viticultural Area) literally only tells you where the grapes were grown.  That being said, there are some general categories of wine which each area is known for.

First, a word on what an AVA is, and how they're structured. An AVA is a legally protected growing area for grapes.  They work much like stacking dolls, although in some areas, they get even more complex.  What that means is that California, yes, the entire state, is actually an AVA.  A producer whose grapes all come from California can label their wine a "California" wine.  Within that, there are several fairly large AVAs (North Coast, Central Coast, Sierra Foothills, South Coast,).  Within each of these there are some moderate sized AVAs (Napa, Sonoma, Mendocina, Santa Barbara County, Temecula, etc.), and within these are yet smaller AVAs.  Rutherford, for example, is within Napa, which is within the North Coast, which is within California.  So in theory, the same wine could be labeled one of several ways.  Generally speaking, the winemaker will choose the most specific AVA, although this might vary if, for instance, they are making a Pinot Noir in an area primarily known for Cabernet Suavignon, or if where they source their grapes or juice from varies from bottling to bottling.

Next, a word on California geography.  If you folded a map of the world over the Atlantic Ocean, you'd notice that the state of California would land on, and stretch from, basically the Southern tip of Italy, through France, Spain, and Portugal, and about halfway up Germany.  If you know just a bit about Old World wines, you'll know that this is basically the wine growing latitudes of Europe.  California also has a tremendous amount of coastline, a lot of mountains, a lot of forests, lakes, rivers, valleys, and dessert.  This creates a wide variety of climates, and can lead to some climates which don't necessarily directly correspond to their North-South equivalents in Europe, or areas which, because of coastal winds, valleys running perpendicular to or parallel to the coast line, etc. can be vastly different even though they are geographically very close.  These areas have what are referred to as micro-climates.  Microclimates are why it's useful to have so many AVAs within each other in California. 

Now, let's get into some specific California wine regions, starting in the North, and talk about them and what wines they are known for.  This does not mean a particular area can't produce other wines, or even other good or great wines, it only speaks to what they're best known for.

Mendocino County is one of the furthest North wine regions in California.  Its climate is similar to Burgundy, and it is, likewise, known for its Pinot Noir and Chardonnay.

Sonoma Valley and Napa Valley are also fairly far North.  They are also two of California's (in fact, the New World's) most established and oldest commercial wine regions.  They are also known for their Pinots and Chardonnays.  They are also (Napa in particular) known for their Cabernet Sauvignon and Cab Sauv blends.  Napa and Sonoma Chardonnays and Cabs tend to be heavily oaked, giving the Chardonnays a big, buttery flavor which separates them immediately from their Burgundy counterparts, and a the Cabs a huge body and a notable astringency, again, separating them from their European counterparts.  Napa is also known for producing Bordeaux-style blends featuring Cabernet and Merlot, which stand up to their French counterparts in both taste and performance in competition. Many, although not all, of these blends are known as Meritage wines, a trademarked term meant to indicate a Bordeaux-style blend made outside of Bordeaux.

Within Sonoma County there is an AVA called Dry Creek which is known for producing amazing Zinfandel in warm years.  This is a perfect example of a microclimate in one AVA setting it apart from its wider region.

Similarly, within Napa, there are AVAs which excel at certain types of wine, including some which make lovely Sauvignon Blancs.

Generally speaking, the Napa and Sonoma wine regions, and their wineries, are pretty well established.  They tend to do a few things (Bordeaux blends, fruity pinot, oaked cabs and chardonnay) very well.  They are known for those, and can charge a decent price for them.  The risk of giving up a steady income to try something new doesn't seem worth it for a lot of producers, and most of the good wine from these regions fits into those categories.

 The Central Coast is a great region, which, although close in latitude to the Rhone, Spain, and Italy, also features many valleys, running in different directions, and mountains and hills both along the coast and inland.  This creates several micro-climates.  Generally speaking, San Luis Obispo and Paso Robles are known for Pinot Noir and Chardonnay, which thrive despite the Southern latitudes because the microclimate creates a reasonable amount of cloud cover, as well as very cool nights, and Santa Barbara County is known for the same varieties, as well as Syrah, both on its own and in Rhone-style blends.

That being said, the Central Coast is, as mentioned, full of micro-climates.  Its wineries are also somewhat less established than their North Coast counterparts, and are thus willing to experiment a lot more.  Literally, almost every variety of wine grape is grown in the Central Coast.  Wines are blended in ways that mirror almost every major region in France, Italy, and Spain, as well as in some unique ones (using, for instance, a mix of Rhone and Spanish or Italian grapes).  Central Coast wines tend to be somewhat more reasonably priced than their European and North Coast counterparts, are often just as great, and are usually more interesting wines.  The Central Coast is also home to some of the newest AVAs in the country, regions which either just started producing wine, or just started producing wine that is both good enough and unique enough to merit their own recognized region.

Finally of note is that Central Coast wineries often are less tied to the "traditional" California methods.  This to me is most obvious with their Chardonnay.  While most North Coast Chardonnay will be heavily oaked, and very buttery, Central Coast Chardonnay shows a much wider variety.  Some is oaked and buttery, some is 100% stainless, and very bright and fruity, and some falls somewhere in between.

The South Coast (most notably Temecula) is known primarily for its Syrah.

There are over 100 AVAs in California.  If you're looking at a California wine on a shelf somewhere, and wondering where a particular AVA is, or if it fits in one of the major regions listed above, I recommend googling the specific AVA on the label, or checking this list from Wikipedia.

What's your favorite California AVA?  Is there a particular region you'd like to know more about?  Let me know in the comments!

Myths About Getting a Bartending Job

So one thing that a lot of people, especially in today's economy, wonder, is how to get a bartending job.  Thanks to most search engines selling high results to the highest bidder, as well as most people's conceptions of bartenders, there's a lot of false information out there.  Here are some of the biggest myths in the world of entry level bartending:

I'm not good looking enough to bartend.  There are places (mainly busy night clubs, gay bars, pool bars) that really place a premium on someone's physical appearance when looking for bartenders.  Chances are, though, that these are also the places that are busy enough they're not really where you want to start out anyway.  They tend to get very, very, high volumes of business.  The bartenders at places like this also tend to make very inconsistent money.  Yes, these are the ones you hear about making upwards of $500/night.  But these are also the places where if the busy season ends, you're laid off or making $30/night, or where a new hot club opens and you're making $50 every night, or where you're only open 3 nights a week, or when the weather is nice, meaning you might only get one or two shifts a week.  These are not the best beginning bartender jobs anyway, so don't worry.  As for the myth that all bartenders are attractive, I think there's something about being a bartender which makes someone more attractive.  There's also the fact that you're usually 4-5 feet away from your guests in a dimly lit space.

I have to dress provocatively (if I'm a woman) to get a bartending job.  Keep in mind that most places will give you a uniform or dress code once you're hired.  Bartending is a business, and for more and more people, a career.  Dress to impress with your professionalism, not your "assets."  Wearing the right clothes to a bartending interview can be tricky.  You want to look professional without being stuffy.  I recommend slacks and some kind of collard shirt or blouse.  Ladies, keep in mind that you are interviewing for a job where you will be on your feet and in a foodservice environment.  That means that while they may look great, heels and open toed shoes are probably a mistake.

I have to know someone to get a bartending job.  This is a tricky one, and more and more, I don't think this is just limited to bartending.  It helps to know someone, not so much because it is required, but just because these jobs are in high demand.  As a hiring manager, I gave very little weight to whether or not an applicant knew someone who already worked for me.  On the other hand, posting help wanted ads costs money, is time consuming, and especially in the current economic climate, gets you way more (mostly unqualified) applicants than you have time to thoroughly sift through.  If someone left my restaurant, however, our staff usually let any friends that they knew were looking for a job know that we might have a position opening up.  Their applications were the first I saw because they had the good fortune of knowing when we might be hiring.  If someone happened to walk in and apply the same day, they were just as likely to be considered for the job.  So the best advice is to just hit the pavement and apply everywhere.  Eventually you'll have the right timing.

I should only apply at the best places to start.  Keep in mind that everyone starts somewhere.  Places with really cool bar programs, or very high volume, or well known places, have the liberty of being able to hire working bartenders away from other bars.  While it never hurts to try, your chances of walking into one of these jobs is not that great.  Your best bet is to start out somewhere "less desirable" and get the basics down.  Good examples: hotel bars, banquets, and restaurant bars.  These tend to be lower volume, but also tend to require you to learn good foundations.  You won't have a specialty drink list to learn, but you will have to have at least some idea of what the common and classic cocktails are.  You'll also have a pretty good mix usually of beer, wine, spirits, and cocktails going across your bar, letting you learn a little bit about all of them, and also figuring out what you like and what you're good at.

I should only apply to bartend, because confidence is key, and I know I can do this.  Bartending is the most revered and respected position in a restaurant usually.  It is highly sought after.  There are a lot of applicants.  If you think you are going to walk into a job with no experience, there's a 90% chance you're mistaken.  Apply for any available front of house position you see.  In the interview, mention that you would like to learn to bartend.  Then bust your ass and do an awesome job.  You need to become the busser, food runner, or host who is such an awesome employee, and has such a great attitude, that your boss would hate to lose you.  Without hounding them, remind them when barback or bartending positions open up that you're interested.  They might just take a chance on you, knowing that if they keep you as a host, you'll find something else.  The key here is to know what you want, but also understand that the way to get it is to be happy, productive, and eager even though you're not yet behind the bar.  A lot of bartending is not the technical skills, but the pace you move, the way you interact with guests, and the way you work with your coworkers in a confined space.  The way you do your job hosting, bussing tables, or running food will show your boss all of these things.  Making drinks is the easy part, and can be taught.  Also, nobody likes somebody with a bad attitude.  A lot of bars will ask if bartenders are willing to serve as well in an interview.  The answer should always be yes.  Even if they don't actually give you both bar and server shifts, this is a smart question for an employer to ask.  When the answer is no, it usually means a bartender wants the barrier of the bar, and the job title of "bartender" to excuse pour or even rude service.  Bartenders are all servers.  They just also make drinks.  The level of service at a bar should be just as great as in the dining room, and people who are unwilling to help the team out and serve on the floor probably think they're "too good" to provide that level of service across the bar as well.

I should go to bartending school to help my chances of getting a bartending job.  This is probably the most common, as well as the most harmful, myth about getting bartending jobs.  Bartending school teaches you how to make drinks.  That's great, as at its very basis, that is what a bartending job is all about, right?  Not really.  If people just wanted a properly made Cosmo, they could google it and make it themselves.  For starters, every bar has their own takes on cocktails, even the classics.  Is your martini 8:1, 4:1, 3:1, or is there any vermouth at all?  Second, making a cocktail in a stimulated bar setting is nothing like doing it behind a real bar.  Is your ice scoop missing?  Are you all out of limes?  Is another bartender at the same well?  Do you have a drunk guy molesting a girl in front of you, a credit card declining, and need to change two kegs?  Didn't think so.  There is absolutely no substitute for actual experience.  And because they make their money convincing you that their training is the best there is, most bartending schools put out individuals with huge egos and attitude problems.  The reality of it is that in the culinary world, including behind the bar, there is often no "right" way to make a particular dish or drink.  If there was, there wouldn't be a difference between restaurants and bars.  A bar will teach you how to make the drinks the way they want them made.  And they want people they know will be open to learning that way, not thinking about how "wrong" it is.  That being said, in lieu of bartending school, there are a few ways to make sure that you stand out as knowledgeable and prepared at your first bartending gig.  You should know what kind of place you're walking into, and know what type of stuff they serve a lot of.  If they serve a lot of standard mixed drinks, it's not a terrible idea to get a bar book, and learn the 10 most common cocktails.  If it's a beer bar, you should know the difference between an IPA and a pale ale.  If it's a restaurant with an expansive wine list, look at their list, figure out what types of wines they serve, and do some basic research.  If it's mostly new world wines, can you effectively explain the difference between a cab, a merlot, and a pinot?  If it's mostly old world, know the grapes of the major regions represented on the list, and their basic differences.  A good strategy is to literally take the entire by the glass list, and learn to rank them according to different standards (sweet to dry, light to full bodied, fruity to earthy, etc.).  If you really feel like you need to get some kind of formal training or education before you feel prepared, you should consider doing it on products, rather than on "bartending" as a whole.  Look into the introductory sommelier test, the certified beer server certification, or the certified specialist of spirits test.  Showing that you took the time to learn about the product shows dedication, and these certifications are industry standards, which show a more recognized, and meaningful level of knowledge than a "certificate" from one of the many for-profit bartending schools out there.

Hopefully this helps dispel some of the many myths about getting a bartending job.

Tasting Notes: 2010 Layer Cake Primitivo (Pigulia IGT)

Appearnce: Deep, dark, red, with a very thin layer of translucent copper/brownish red on the top.  Definitely some body to it, but the legs seem to pool on the side of the glass more than they streak.

Aromas:  A lot of dark, rich fruit, like plums and cherry, with a hint of vanilla.  A little bit of a black pepper zip to it.

Mouthfeel:  Medium bodied, definitely gives a little warmth on the palate.

Flavors:  I get a lot of brandied cherry, a touch of vanilla, and none of the pepper I picked up on the nose.  Smooth, but rich.

Overall:  Pretty decent wine for a supermarket find, and drinkable without being bland.  Rich, dark flavors and 13.5%, but still smooth, without any overpowering flavors or bitter tannins.  Could see this with food, or on its own on a cool night by the fire.

Tasting Notes: Rex Goliath Pink Pinot Grigio

Appearance:  Pours a light peach/orange color, as one would expect from a "pink" or orange pinot grigio.  When agitated, it leaves a film, but it doesn't really streak down the glass as much as it pools its way down toward the liquid.

Aroma:  I get peaches, slightly underripe strawberries, and a touch of ethyl alcohol.

Mouthfeel:  Medium bodied while you drink it, but a definite syrupy residue when you're done.  A little heat in the finish.

Flavors:  Interesting.  I get a slight peaches and cream flavor, with again the underripe berries (this time strawberries and raspberries).  A definite alcohol/solvent flavor, and that is what lingers for me.

Overall:  While the legendary 47 pound rooster may love this wine, I'm not crazy about it.  The sweetness, high alcohol (for a sweet wine), and slight acidity don't really blend together or balance each other so much as they seem to butt up against each other.  Definitely feels more "jumbled" than complex to me.  Probably not a wine I would buy again, even at its very reasonable ($5ish) price.

Tasting Notes: "Stella Pink" from Stella Rosa

Appearance:  Pours a very dark, hazy pink, almost like a pink lemonade color, but darker.  A little bit of effervescence.  A little bit of leg going on, and very slow to move down the side of the glass.

Aroma:  I get a little bit of red fruit, but also a definite tartness, and a hint of alcohol that surprised me for a 5% wine.

Mouthfeel:  Light while you're drinking it, but definitely leaves some syrupy body behind.

Flavors:  Sweet.  I get a little peach, raspberry, etc.  Almost like a peach melba flavor going on.  A touch of strawberries, and definitely a bit of acidity up front as well, although it finishes very sweet, almost like strawberry syrup (think Nesquik).

Overall:  Pretty much what you'd expect for a $5ish, 5% ABV pink wine.  A little too sweet for everyday drinking, or drinking with food.  Not very refined or delicate.  But, not terrible either.  And at $5 and 5%, this is a pretty drinkable treat for a hot, outdoor drinking session in the sun.  More like dessert or candy than wine, though.