Someone recently asked me this question, and I thought it was a really good question. Working in the bar and restaurant industry for over a decade, I guess most of my beer, wine, and spirit knowledge just kind of came to me. Or I learned of opportunities to pursue that knowledge through work, vendors, or conversations with coworkers.
So, my advice to someone looking to learn about wine. First, buy The Wine Bible. This book is incredibly overwhelming and challenging, even for people that know a fair amount about wine, to read cover to cover. But as you read through it, and learn more about wine, you can learn a lot from it, and it will make a lot more sense. It is also a great reference point.
Second, have fun with it. When you talk about wine, or beer, or spirits, you're talking about something that engages all of your senses. Sitting in a class, or reading a book, on its own, first of all, will just not be as fun as having a few glasses. Second of all, unless you learn by engaging all of your senses, you won't really learn in a useful way.
My advice is to do one, or all, of three things.
1) Taste with a friend that knows more about wine than you do. You, as the aspiring learner, should express what you see, smell, and taste first. Let them fill in the gaps or help you find the words you're looking for.
2) Print out, or have someone print out, tasting notes, either from the winemaker, or from the internet. Don't read the notes. Taste the wine you want to try, write down your own tasting notes, and then compare them.
3) Taste with another friend who doesn't know a lot about wine. Make sure you're taking turns "going first," or each of you write down your own tasting notes while you taste, then compare, and revisit the wine after comparing.
The keys to all three of these things are:
1) Actually taste the wine.
2) Taste it blind to the opinions of others. See what you experience first. This is the only way to truly learn wine, or to truly enjoy wine. The power of suggestion can be deceptive. If I tell you a wine is grassy, that is the first thing you will taste, or, if it's not, you will be so busy tasting for grass you miss the other fun flavors in the wine.
3) Use your friends, printed wine notes, books, or other resources, to help you find flavors and aromas you might not be as sensitive to. Everyone's senses work differently, and you may either not be as perceptive to a particular smell or flavor, or you may perceive it differently than someone else.
4) Use a knowledgeable friend, the label, wine notes, etc. to both learn "wine words" and to help you identify what you are tasting. Sometimes you will know exactly what you're tasting, but not be able to find the word, identify the flavor exactly, or connect it to something else. Hearing or seeing it right after tasting it will help you make those connections.
Hope this is helpful for anyone looking to learn more about wine. Luckily, in the last 5-10 years, I think largely because craft beer has popped up as serious competition, the wine world has become a little more casual. People are less and less concerned about "proper" training or using the right words, and more concerned about making wine, and the way we talk about it, approachable and something people can relate to. So remember, when you're tasting wine, it's okay to say what it reminds you of, even if it seems silly. After all, "cat piss" is an acceptable (and even desirable) way to describe some wines.
Showing posts with label wine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label wine. Show all posts
Friday, April 10, 2015
Monday, January 5, 2015
Tasting Notes: Rosatello Rosso
Aroma: Smells almost like a moscato. Slightly effervescent aroma, with slightly sweet notes of peaches and berries.
Mouthfeel: Light bodied, but does kind of coat the mouth with an almost syrupy texture in the finish. The effervescence is noticeable, but not as prominent as you would think from looking at or smelling this wine.
Flavors: Confirm the nose, but stronger, and definitely sweeter. Almost tastes like a peach melba wine. Peaches and stone fruit with ripe raspberry, hints of strawberry and cherry. Almost, but not quite, cloying sweetness.
Overall: This is a semi-sparkling, sweet, red blend. Probably not everyone's cup of tea, and not the most refined wine I've ever tasted, but it is surprisingly tasting. It is just this side of being sickeningly sweet, so if you're not a sweet wine drinker at all, definitely stay away. Although it's hard to imagine in Chicago winter, I'm sure this would be a great wine for the beach or the pool on a hot, summer day. It's also only 6%. Overall, not a terrible wine if you know what you're getting yourself into and don't mind a slightly sparkling, sweet red.
Monday, November 24, 2014
Tasting Notes: 2012 Sutter Home Pink Pinot Grigio
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.
Thursday, October 2, 2014
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.
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.
Friday, September 12, 2014
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.
Wednesday, February 19, 2014
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.
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.
Monday, February 17, 2014
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!
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!
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
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!
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!
Friday, January 17, 2014
Tasting Notes: 2010 Layer Cake Primitivo (Pigulia IGT)
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.
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
Tasting Notes: Rex Goliath Pink Pinot Grigio
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.
Monday, December 23, 2013
Tasting Notes: 2012 Gabbiano "Il Caviliere" Chianti
Aromas: Tannin, alcohol.
Mouthfeel: Medium bodied, but rolls through the mouth, no residue or syrupy remains.
Flavors: Balanced. Red fruit flavors (but not really any residual sweetness) are balanced but not overpowered by the tannins. Flavorful without being abrasive or harsh. Just a touch of black pepper spice.
Overall: Meh on its own, but, like many Italian wines, could probably benefit from and benefit a pairing with the right food. I want to try this wine with pasta in a nice arabiata sauce, or with a dish with spicy Italian sausage. The food would really bring the flavors in this to life. The tannins and slight spiciness of the wine would highlight the spice, but the fruit would also keep the spice of the sauce or sausage in check. Probably not a bottle I would buy again to drink on its own, but next time I cook some nice spicy Italian food, I'll be trying it wit this wine for sure. That might be partly my own bias, as I tend to think of Italian wines as being particularly well suited for pairing with food, and a little bland on their own.
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
Tasting Notes: 2011 "It's a Headsnapper" Sauvignon Blanc
Appearance: Pours a very light, very clear golden color, as expected from a sauv blanc. No legs.
Aromas: I get a little bit of tropical fruit, kiwi, melon, etc. but mostly acidity, in the form of grapefruit with a slight touch of lime.
Mouthfeel: Incredibly light, rolls right off the tongue.
Flavors: Bold. Starts out very fruity, with kiwi, and melon, and finishes with a lot of acidity, both lime and tart green apple. Don't get any of the grapefruit I got on the nose on the palate with this one. Pretty crisp finish, although there's a slight lingering green apple flavor.
Overall: My kind of sauvignon blanc. Still light, crisp, and drinkable, but not shy with the flavors. The contrast between the very soft but bold tropical fruit flavors at the front and the lime and green apple at the finish is great, and makes you want to take another sip to really appreciate both sets of flavor. Definitely a wine I'll be trying to find in the near future.
Sunday, December 15, 2013
Tasting Notes: Fetzer 2011 Goosefoot Road Riesling
Aroma: Sweet, honey aromas.
Mouthfeel: Medium bodied, slightly thicker/heavier on the finish, but not quite syrupy.
Flavor: Mild peach and apricot flavors, a little more honey. Sweet in the start, but has a fairly clean, almost dry finish with a decent amount of acidity.
Overall: A good, middle of the road riesling. A lot of "sweet" flavors, with peach, apricot, and honey, but not as sugary or syrupy as some "sweet" rieslings. Finishes with no residual, syrupy aftertaste, making it an easy wine to pair with either sweet or spicy foods, and not overload the palate with sugar. This is a wine I could drink outside on a hot day, or definitely with food.
Thursday, December 12, 2013
Tasting Notes: Barefoot Refresh "Perfectly Pink" Rose
Aroma: Slightly sweet, peachy, but a little citrus as well.
Mouthfeel: Light at first, but leaves a bit of a syrupy film behind. Also get a little of the effervescence on the palate that I saw in the glass.
Flavors: Sweet. Lots of peach, a hint of strawberry and raspberry. Tastes kind of like a peach flavored hard candy.
Overall: For being a "new" wine from barefoot, this is pretty much the stereotypical California pink wine. Which I guess could be good or bad. It is sweet and slightly syrupy, low alcohol (just under 10%), and light bodied. Very drinkable. The kind of wine that gave "white zin" and "blush" wines a bad name in the U.S. wine market, but also got a lot of working and middle class people drinking wine. For $8 a bottle, it's not terrible if you're looking for dessert or something incredibly drinkable on a warm summer day, but don't expect anything too complex or elegant from this one.
Thursday, September 26, 2013
Tasting Notes: 2011 Trefethen Family Vineyards Chardonnay
Aroma: Bright, citrus, lemon, just a touch of butter/creaminess.
Mouthfeel: Medium bodied.
Flavors: Refreshing, crisp, slightly acidic, and with more prominent wood notes than on the nose, although only a little bit of butter. More the fresh, woody, oaky, flavor, than the malolactic flavor a lot of heavily oaked chardonnays have. Lingering citrus and oak finish.
Overall: A balanced chardonnay. Not super tart or acidic like some 100% stainless California Chardonnays can be. But also not completely overcome by malolactic fermentation. Very little butter flavors, and definitely still light and crisp, rather than creamy like some oaked Chardonnays. Probably not a favorite for fans of either super citrusy, fresh, or super buttery, creamy Chardonnays, but a good balance of the two.
Friday, July 12, 2013
Tasting Notes: Retsina Olympias
Before I begin this, let me give the disclaimer that this is my first taste of Retsina, so other than a vague, book-gained idea, I really have no clue what Retsina is "supposed" to taste like, and no point of comparison. So while all tasting notes and reviews are objective, and really just my opinion, this one really is pulled straight from my posterior. That said, here goes:
Appearance: Pours a bright yellow, completely translucent, and a little more yellow, less green or white, than any other wine I'm used to.
Aroma: Pine, lemon, a little bit of honey. The pine is not so much like a gin or Christmas tree pine, but more the smell of fresh cut pine wood, or of pine sap, a little more earthy than Christmasy.
Mouthfeel: Very light bodied, rolls right off the tongue and through the mouth.
Flavors: Very much like the smells, but with less lemon. Definitely get the woody version of pine, and a little bit of sappy flavors. I still get honey, but it's hard to describe, since it is not sweet at all. The same flavors, and kind of tingling sensation, but light bodied and not sweet. Flavors have a pretty clean finish, although there's some slight lingering pine and woodsy notes to it.
Overall: Unique, new, and different would be the three words I could come up with. Not really sure a) whether I like it, b) if I could learn to like it, or c) if it would go better with food than on its own. I'm guessing the answers to b) and c) are yes. Probably, like most wines, and most new food and drink experiences, it's an acquired taste. And the dry but honey-like flavor, along with the woodiness, make me think that with a good Greek dish, this wine's flavors would really pop. As of yet, I'm still undecided.
Appearance: Pours a bright yellow, completely translucent, and a little more yellow, less green or white, than any other wine I'm used to.
Aroma: Pine, lemon, a little bit of honey. The pine is not so much like a gin or Christmas tree pine, but more the smell of fresh cut pine wood, or of pine sap, a little more earthy than Christmasy.
Mouthfeel: Very light bodied, rolls right off the tongue and through the mouth.
Flavors: Very much like the smells, but with less lemon. Definitely get the woody version of pine, and a little bit of sappy flavors. I still get honey, but it's hard to describe, since it is not sweet at all. The same flavors, and kind of tingling sensation, but light bodied and not sweet. Flavors have a pretty clean finish, although there's some slight lingering pine and woodsy notes to it.
Overall: Unique, new, and different would be the three words I could come up with. Not really sure a) whether I like it, b) if I could learn to like it, or c) if it would go better with food than on its own. I'm guessing the answers to b) and c) are yes. Probably, like most wines, and most new food and drink experiences, it's an acquired taste. And the dry but honey-like flavor, along with the woodiness, make me think that with a good Greek dish, this wine's flavors would really pop. As of yet, I'm still undecided.
Saturday, May 25, 2013
What does gravity have to do with booze?
So, what does gravity have to do with booze anyway? More specifically, what are original gravity and final gravity, and what do they mean?
Basically, these are measurements which relate to the sweetness, the dryness, and the alcohol content of a beer or wine.
Measuring actual sugar and alcohol content precisely and scientifically is a very complicated and expensive process. By using gravity (more specifically, the original (OG) and final (FG) gravities) brewers and winemakers can estimate these measures.
Sugar is heavier than water, so by using a hydrometer, brewers and winemakers can estimate the sugar content of their juice or wort through the original gravity. Water has a specific gravity of 1.000. So, a hydrometer which rests slightly higher than it would in pure water (say, in juice or wort) would measure something like 1.050 or 1.060. The higher the original gravity, the higher the sugar content of the juice or wort.
Alcohol, on the other hand, has a lower specific gravity than water. As fermentation progresses, the specific gravity of the wort or juice drops as well. Through their own and other brewers' and winemakers' past experiences, brewers and winemakers know what the expected final gravity for a given style of beer and wine is, based on the wort or juice, as well as the particular yeast strain. During fermentation, they can use a hydrometer to check the "attenuation" or the degree of fermentation, of their product. Each yeast strain, as well as grain or grape recipe, has a different expected or target attenuation. That is, what percentage of the sugars will be turned into alcohol?
What does this mean for us as beer or wine drinkers? Well, sweetness (as opposed to fruity flavors, which can come from esthers even in dry wine) is a measurement of the sugar remaining in a finished beer or wine. Essentially, this is the result of two decisions the brewer or winemaker makes: how much sugar to start with (original gravity), and the degree to which the sugars will be converted into alcohol (attenuation), which affect the final gravity of a beer.
Final gravity is a direct correlation to sweetness, and is also a good measure of what the mouth feel of a beer will be like, more or less, since the heavier a beer, the heavier the body will be.
All other things being equal (original ingredients, or at least the original gravity of them), a higher alcohol beer or wine will be drier than a low alcohol beer or wine, as more sugar was converted to alcohol. Meaning that if you want to make a sweeter beer or wine, there are three ways to do it.
1) You can add more sugar (malt/grain or grape juice) at the beginning of fermentation, or pull water out of your juice to concentrate sugars. This will result in a higher OG, meaning more fermentable sugars. Even after attaining the same degree of attenuation, this beer will have a higher final gravity, meaning both more sugar and more alcohol, than a beer with a more watered down, less sweet base.
2) You can stop fermentation, by either using a yeast strain with a lower alcohol threshold or lower expected attenuation, or by actually forcing fermentation to stop by removing yeast or changing the temperature or environment to stop fermentation. This will create a lower alcohol, sweeter product.
3) You can add sugars during or after fermentation. Depending on whether the goal is more alcohol and more sugar, or just a sweeter product, this can be done at various times during fermentation. In winemaking, this is known as chapetalization, and is prohibited in certain regions and styles in old world winemaking. If you add the same type of sugar (grape juice for wine, or malt/grain for beer), before fermentation is completed, you will wind up with a higher alcohol, sweeter product. If you add the sugar after fermentation is completed, the ABV will remain steady, and the final gravity, or sweetness of the product, will increase. Alternatively, you can add other types of sugar. This is common in Belgian styles, where candy sugar, which is not fermentable by ale yeasts, is added to the wort to create a sweeter finished product, without limiting the fermentation of the sugars in the wort.
Basically, these are measurements which relate to the sweetness, the dryness, and the alcohol content of a beer or wine.
Measuring actual sugar and alcohol content precisely and scientifically is a very complicated and expensive process. By using gravity (more specifically, the original (OG) and final (FG) gravities) brewers and winemakers can estimate these measures.
Sugar is heavier than water, so by using a hydrometer, brewers and winemakers can estimate the sugar content of their juice or wort through the original gravity. Water has a specific gravity of 1.000. So, a hydrometer which rests slightly higher than it would in pure water (say, in juice or wort) would measure something like 1.050 or 1.060. The higher the original gravity, the higher the sugar content of the juice or wort.
Alcohol, on the other hand, has a lower specific gravity than water. As fermentation progresses, the specific gravity of the wort or juice drops as well. Through their own and other brewers' and winemakers' past experiences, brewers and winemakers know what the expected final gravity for a given style of beer and wine is, based on the wort or juice, as well as the particular yeast strain. During fermentation, they can use a hydrometer to check the "attenuation" or the degree of fermentation, of their product. Each yeast strain, as well as grain or grape recipe, has a different expected or target attenuation. That is, what percentage of the sugars will be turned into alcohol?
What does this mean for us as beer or wine drinkers? Well, sweetness (as opposed to fruity flavors, which can come from esthers even in dry wine) is a measurement of the sugar remaining in a finished beer or wine. Essentially, this is the result of two decisions the brewer or winemaker makes: how much sugar to start with (original gravity), and the degree to which the sugars will be converted into alcohol (attenuation), which affect the final gravity of a beer.
Final gravity is a direct correlation to sweetness, and is also a good measure of what the mouth feel of a beer will be like, more or less, since the heavier a beer, the heavier the body will be.
All other things being equal (original ingredients, or at least the original gravity of them), a higher alcohol beer or wine will be drier than a low alcohol beer or wine, as more sugar was converted to alcohol. Meaning that if you want to make a sweeter beer or wine, there are three ways to do it.
1) You can add more sugar (malt/grain or grape juice) at the beginning of fermentation, or pull water out of your juice to concentrate sugars. This will result in a higher OG, meaning more fermentable sugars. Even after attaining the same degree of attenuation, this beer will have a higher final gravity, meaning both more sugar and more alcohol, than a beer with a more watered down, less sweet base.
2) You can stop fermentation, by either using a yeast strain with a lower alcohol threshold or lower expected attenuation, or by actually forcing fermentation to stop by removing yeast or changing the temperature or environment to stop fermentation. This will create a lower alcohol, sweeter product.
3) You can add sugars during or after fermentation. Depending on whether the goal is more alcohol and more sugar, or just a sweeter product, this can be done at various times during fermentation. In winemaking, this is known as chapetalization, and is prohibited in certain regions and styles in old world winemaking. If you add the same type of sugar (grape juice for wine, or malt/grain for beer), before fermentation is completed, you will wind up with a higher alcohol, sweeter product. If you add the sugar after fermentation is completed, the ABV will remain steady, and the final gravity, or sweetness of the product, will increase. Alternatively, you can add other types of sugar. This is common in Belgian styles, where candy sugar, which is not fermentable by ale yeasts, is added to the wort to create a sweeter finished product, without limiting the fermentation of the sugars in the wort.
Saturday, May 11, 2013
Tasting Notes: 2012 Kim Crawford Marlborough Sauvignon Blanc
Aroma: Grapefruit, a touch of lemon, and a slightly herbaceous aroma.
Mouthfeel: Light, smooth, rolls right across the palate.
Flavors: Bright, fresh, tropical fruit on the front. A touch of grapefruit toward the end, but nothing overwhelming. Smoother, more lingering finish than most sauvignon blancs, leaving a fresh, bright, tropical fruit (melon, pineapple, a little grapefruit) lingering. A little bit of an herbaceous taste, but definitely more fruit forward.
Overall: I was really pleasantly surprised by this one. It is pretty balanced. Dry but still fruity. A touch of herbaceous aroma and flavor which gives it some structure, but very strong fruit notes as well. There are definitely some grapefruit notes, but they don't overpower the ripe melon, pineapple, or herbaceous flavors, which I appreciated. Will definitely drink this one again.
Saturday, April 27, 2013
Tasting Notes: 2010 Kunin Wines Alisos Vineyard Guwertzraminer
Aroma: A lot going on. A little acidity, maybe lemon, a sweetness of ripe fruit and honey, and an herbaceous/earthy aroma as well.
Mouthfeel: Medium-heavy body, leaves kind of a film behind.
Flavor: I get a pretty strong alcohol/boozy note off of this one, along with a kind of earthy/herbaceous/floral/savory note, maybe a bit of bell pepper or other green veggies. Finish is very herbal/floral, and leaves a lavendar or rose flavor in the mouth well after drinking.
Overall: Interesting wine. Fruity and floral without being sweet. Have to be in the right mood, but could enjoy this wine on its own. Pairing with food would take some thought, as it is pretty bold in both body and flavor, so traditional fish/chicken/light salad white wine pairings might not work out so well. The only thing that I find slightly off-putting is the distinct alcohol flavor mid-palate. As opposed to some other high alcohol wines, where there is a hot feeling throughout, but not a lot of ethyl flavor at any one point, this one has a distinct moment where ethanol is all you're getting, then goes back to its more pleasant flavors.
Tasting Notes: 2011 Villa Maria Private Bin Sauvignon Blanc
Aroma: Bright, fresh, grapefruit, lemon, a hint of grass.
Mouthfeel: Very light, rolls right over the palate, very drinkable and refreshing.
Flavor: Complex and varied. I get everything from a canteloupe or honeydew melon flavor, to grapefruit, to fresh lemon and lime. A slight herbal, grassy note. Crisp, but leaves a refreshing citrus note which lingers for a bit.
Overall: Pretty good New Zealand Sauvignon Blanc. Refreshing, light, drinkable, without being one-note or boring. Great for a hot day, and could probably pair well with a variety of food, but is also drinkable on its own. Not stellar but for the price, a pretty good buy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)