I did not like this wine very much. Maybe it is because I have come to expect something specific from Mark Ryan's Viognier (which I probably should not have). However, this was definitely not what I was expecting. My hunch is that this wine did not see any (or very little) of the concrete egg that the usual Viognier sees. It probably saw a lot more neutral oak. Other than this, I did not write any formal tasting notes for this wine. Just wanted to share my impressions on the major difference between this Viognier and the old one from Mark Ryan.
0 Comments
Decent Rose Champagne. Bottle was opened well in advance so it had time to get some air. Seemed kind of tight originally. Both on the palate and on the nose there was some straberry, cranberry, some yeast elements, good freshness and acidity. Medium finish. Overall, I would not characterize this is a "value" but was still quite enjoyable.
My first note about this wine was that it did not feel like a 17 year old champagne. It still felt quite young and fresh. This has just entered its drinking window and I think that it will continue to evolve in a good way for many years to come. I would revisit this in 3-4 years. If opened now, I would give it a little bit of air as the complexity evolved quite well after about an hour. On the nose there is some yeasty notes, minerals, pear, and baked apple. On the palate, I get similar notes of baked apple, baked dough (not too much brioche here...which I like), minerality, yeast, some lemon, and had a creamy texture. Overall, a superb wine with excellent acidity and a long finish.
This wine seems to be getting a lot of hate from various media outlets. To be honest, I am not sure why all the hate here. Maybe too much acidity (which might make it seemed unbalanced)? The color on this is medium red to ruby. On the nose there is a lot of red fruit, a lot of earth, maybe some floral elements just a very beautiful nose. Both on the palate and on the nose this wine has some similarities to some Gevrey-Chambertin wines that I have had in this vintage. The palate has similar notes to the nose. I get some red fruits like cherry, raspberry, and some cranberry. I also get some mushroom, some earth, and some spice. Again this wine does have a lot of acidity so that may be off-putting for some. It is def not the most complex wine I have had (but thenagain I would not expect incredible complexity from an entry level wine). The body is medium with a medium finish and not a whole lot of oak. Give it maybe 30-60 minutes of air and it does seem to come alive a little more. I would leave this in the cellar for maybe another year or two.
My wife and I have been wanting to taste Billecart Salmon champagne for a long time. This week we just decided to pick one up and taste it. The blend in this champagne is approximately 50% Pinot Meunier, 30% Chardonnay, and 20% Pinot Noir (the Pinot Meunier proportion fluctuates). Billecart-Salmon is a Champagne house located in Mareuil-sur-Ay.
Visually, this wine has a straw color, very fine and constant bubbles, and a nice mousse. The nose has some pretty distinctive characteristics that I have never had in other champagnes. In particular, there is a very slight nose of grape sour candies (those vibrant purple sour grape candies). More prominent on the nose is red cut apples, fresh cut white flowers (this is probably where the candy smell comes from), some red berries, and some lime zest. On the palate, I get a touch of hay, a bit of lime, some ripe pear, peach, fresh red apples like on the nose, and crushed stone. This wine has a good amount of acidity and a very long finish. Overall, this is a very complex for a non-vintage Champagne and I would not hesitate to recommend it to anyone looking for something a little different. Upon opening, this wine is a little tight but develops into a luxurious wine after just 30 minutes of being open. Also, this wine should be served a little warmer than I would normally serve Champagne. When it is too cold, it looses some of its complexities.
I wanted to apologize to my readers for not having posted in a while. Things have been crazy! Rest assured, however, that I will get right back to it in the coming weeks. Over the last few weeks I have tasted a large number of new vintages from various Washington State wineries, I have done a Chateauneuf-du-pape tasting of the 2013 vintage, and I have been discovering some very interesting wines from Chile. All of these will come shortly. I also plan on doing a post on my perspective on the 2014 vintage. Although I have not had the opportunity to taste them, I have done a lot of research and have decided to buy En Primeurs. I will give more details on why I made this decision.
In the meantime, if you are interested in a very thorough analysis of the 2014 Bordeaux vintage, I invite you to visit the Panos Kakaviatos blog Wine Chronicles for an in-depth look at 2014 in Bordeaux. Here is the link:
http://www.wine-chronicles.com/blog/bordeaux-2014-barrel/
One of the tasting rooms that I visited during my recent trip to Walla Walla was the CorlissTranche tasting room. Their regular tasting room is closed (for renovations I believe) so they are doing tastings in their production facility. You need an appointment to do a tasting (I chose Corliss). I was very excited about tasting their wines since I had heard so many great things about them. Sadly, however, the whole tasting experience fell very short of my expectations. I had a similar experience at Corliss as I had at Shafer last year (for those who have not seen my post on Shafer… here is the link http://bit.ly/1zdRRwx).
So what happened? First, I was never told where the tasting was. I went to the address on the website. When I called and told them that the door was locked, they told me that I was not in the right spot, which already started the experience badly (i.e. with me irritated). Had the tasting been only for me, I would not have felt bad since it was not my fault. However, there was another couple doing the tasting and I felt bad that I was wasting their time. Then, I was told that I would get a Tranche tasting even though it was very clear (both when making and when confirming my appointment) that I was there to taste Corliss and not Tranche. For some reason, the hostess kept insisting that I was there to taste Tranche (despite me telling her I was there for Corliss). What made it even worse was that the other couple was also there to taste Corliss and yet she kept insisting that I taste their Tranche lineup. For those who are not familiar with the two brands, Tranche is their entry-level line (although they state that they are two different brands). It was as if she was insisting that I “should be” tasting Tranche for some reason. Once that was settled, we proceeded to do the tour (which I would have skipped… how many times am I going to have to tour production facilities in my lifetime?). Once the tour had ended, we started to taste their wines. We tasted the 2008 (I believe…I did not note the vintage) Malbec and the 2009 Syrah. Throughout the tour/tasting, I felt like the host was not taking me seriously. I did not buy their wines in the end, not because I could not afford to purchase their wines but rather because I did not enjoy their wines. I am aggravated by wineries who judge people by what they think they will buy (or by what winery names they drop during the visit). The very fact that I sought them out should be a signal that I am serious. This is the kind of place that makes me understand why some people are intimidated by the world of wine. It should be about enjoyment and experiences rather than snobbism (which is how I would characterize Corliss). Before I turn to the tasting notes, it is important to note that Corliss claims to make old-world style wines (this was emphasized during the tour). These, at least to me, are pretty much as far from old-world as a wine can get! They are the very definition of fruit bombs with little, if any, terroir characteristics. One last thing: I would like to commend them on the pours. The pours that they gave us were more than generous (especially since the tasting was free). So here are my tasting notes: 2008 Malbec – This wine is exclusively available to club members (which always puzzles me – why am I tasting it then?). The color was very dark and purple as one would expect. The nose was very aromatic and rich, almost like smelling a baked dark fruit dessert. I got some dark fruits (blackberry and plum mostly) and maybe a hint of dark chocolate. There was mostly fruit on the nose for this wine (hence the fruit bomb characterization above). The palate was quite similar to the nose although I did get a tiny bit of minerality. I did not find the tannins to be overbearing on this wine and it had decent acidity. There was also some sweetness that came through (from the use of oak I suspect). Overall, I think that if you like this style of wine, it should be up your alley. If I had to score this wine, I would give it an 88-90. 2009 Syrah – This was my favorite wine of the tasting. The color was a very rich and dark purple color. I would describe it as a very ripe wine. On the nose, it had the typical Syrah suspects: a bit of smoked (or maybe grilled?) meats, a bit of dark chocolate, some dark fruits (mostly blueberry and blackberry here), and maybe some licorice. On the palate, the notes are similar except that I also got some notes of exotic spices (from the oak?). This is definitely a very rich and ripe wine and it was not overly tannic with a good balance and finish. Overall, this was a good wine. If I had to give it a score, it would be a 90-91. 2011 Slice of Pape – Since the hostess really wanted us to taste their Tranche cellars wines, she opened their Chateauneuf-du-Pape style wine. Unfortunately, this wine was so incredibly tight that it was not very enjoyable. It should be opened many many hours before being served. Even the couple who was there tasting with me did not finish their glass of this wine. Basically, the wine was so tannic and closed that there really was nothing discernable about it. Ultimately, I did not write any notes because there was nothing to write about. I am sure that, if opened ahead of time, this wine would have been pleasurable. Given that it did not breathe, opening this bottle was essentially nothing more than a waste. One problem with their sale strategy is that they are adamant about selling in pre-specified amounts. You cannot buy one or two bottles. You must purchase six bottles (or some other multiple). This makes absolutely no sense to me, especially since almost all of their wines can be purchased in stores or online (and often at prices that are better than winery prices). The fact that people are willing to purchase their wines (in any quantity) should be reason enough to allow them to buy however many they want. For the life of me, I cannot understand why wineries impose restrictions on quantities to people who want to buy their wines! What difference does it make (especially if I am paying shipping and handling)? If you have ever wondered when you should or should not decant your wine, this article should help you decide. This is a great and very informative article about decanting:
http://www.fix.com/blog/decanting-wine/ It seems as though every time I decide to go ahead and purchase this wine, there is none left at my local store. Well, this weekend I found some in stock so I decided to give it a try. I had been wanting to try this wine in part because of the unique descriptors used in describing it (maybe NZ Sauvignon Blanc in general). So, without further ado, here are my tasting notes:
The color on this wine is quite a bit darker than what I have grown accustomed to with Sauvignon Blanc. It almost had a straw yellow color. The nose was quite aromatic. There was a definite smell of pineapple. Then, as I started to focus a little more, I got some freshly cut grass (cut in the morning when it is still a little wet). I also got a bit of grapefruit and lemon (citrus). This wine is quite zesty and jumps out from the glass. On the palate, I get similar notes to what I got on the nose. In particular, I get the same pineapple and citrus fruitiness. I also get the cut grass (feels like I am tasting the grass but not in a bad way). There is maybe a touch of minerality in this wine (although for this wine this could be because of the amount of acidity). I think that most would associate this taste with licking a wet rock. The wine has a good amount of acidity but not enough to throw it out of balance. It is a well balanced white wine with a long finish. I paid 11$ for this wine and I think that it is a great value for sipping on a hot summer weekday. I attended a virtual tasting of Chapoutier wines at Total Wine. I am not a big drinker of Northern Rhone wines so I thought it might give me an opportunity to discover wines that I would not drink otherwise. The wines that we tasted during this event were the 2013 Crozes-Hermitage “Petite Ruche” Blanc, the 2012 Hermitage “Chante Alouette”, the 2011 Chateauneuf-du-Pape “La Bernardine”, and the 2011 Hermitage “Monier de la Sizeranne.” Overall, the experience was a positive one. Not only did we get the opportunity to taste these great wines, Michel Chapoutier himself walked us through the wines (hence the virtual tasting). My only issue with the tasting experience was with the wine glasses. These are beautiful wines (the price on some of these was as high as $120 per bottle) and they should be served in equally beautiful glasses. I am a firm believer in using the appropriate glass for each wine. These were definitely not appropriate given the quality of the wines being poured. Also, the pours (which we were paying for) on these wines were quite small. I would much prefer paying more (or at least be given the option to pay more) to get a decent amount of wine to taste. The following are my impressions of each of the wines tasted during this event:
2013 Crozes-Hermitage “Petite Ruche” Blanc 2013 – As I wrote above, I am not a big buyer of Rhone wines so I do not know the vintages very well. On the nose, this wine had a bit of tropical fruit (I noted that it had similar characteristics to some of the cooler Mark Ryan Viognier wines), some white flowers, and some citrus (maybe grapefruit). On the palate, there was good balance and acidity. There was a bit of white pepper, some citrus fruit rind, along with the fruits and flowers noted on the nose. The wine had a medium body with a medium finish. For the price (around $20), I would say this was a great wine. 2012 Hermitage “Chante Alouette” – This wine was very interesting to me. It is 100% Marsanne which I had never had before (I have had Marsanne before, but not on its own). My initial impression was that this wine was very good. I noted that it seemed to have seen some new oak (which other people in the group also noted). However, the Chapoutier website states that the wine has only seen neutral oak (which appears odd considering my guess would have been 10-15% of new oak). On the nose, there were definitely some nuts (almonds and walnuts), maybe some apple and pear (others described this as quince), and some warm spices. The palate was similar to the nose with an emphasis on the nutty component (I described it as almond peal/dust taste) and a bit of hay. The wine was medium-full bodied, had very good acidity, a very long finish, and was very rich. This was unlike any white wine that I have ever had. Overall, I really liked it and I would recommend it if you do not mind paying over 100$. 2011 Chateauneuf-du-Pape “La Bernardine” – This wine was definitely young and needed some time to mellow out. I prefer my CDP to have some age on it. This wine was quite closed. I am not sure how long the wine was opened before we arrived, but they could certainly have opened it earlier than they did. On the nose, there was some black pepper, some dark fruits, some licorice, maybe some roasted coffee, and warm spiced. On the palate, I got more fruits than on the nose but the fruits were a mixture of red and dark fruits. More specifically, I got some raspberries, red cherries, red currant, plum, maybe some red pepper, and warm spices again (some said cinnamon but I could not put my finger on the exact spice). This was not what I have come to expect from CDP. The abnormally high use of Grenache in this wine may explain the discrepancy. I could not detect any oak in the wine. Overall, I thought that this was a decent wine but I prefer other producers for CDP (Beaucastel) for similar prices. 2011 Hermitage “Monier de la Sizeranne” – This wine was the major reason I attended the tasting in the first place. Since I had recently come back from a week in Walla Walla, I wanted to compare Syrah from France to some of the best Washington State Syrah. There was a striking difference between what I tasted in Walla Walla and this Hermitage wine. Do not get me wrong: I was expecting a difference but these were definitely more different than expected. I have tasted wines that resembled their old world counterparts quite closely, but it was not the case here. Much like the CDP, this wine was quite closed. Given that the tasting organizers are trying to convince us to buy these wines, I am amazed that they are not being more careful in trying to show these wines at their best. For future reference, these wines should probably be opened a few hours before the event (or maybe double decanted). On the nose, it seemed this wine had seen some new oak (it is not clear from the website’s description if it was indeed the case), some red fruits, and maybe some earth/stone. The nose also showed a bit of funk (not sure how else to describe it). On the palate, I got some dried meats (might have been where the funk on the nose was coming from), some spice, some red and dark fruits (raspberry and blackberry), and savory herbs (rosemary?). The wine was very elegant with round tannins and a good amount of acidity. Overall, I thought that this was a great wine and I would not hesitate to buy it despite its 120$ price tag. |
Anthony SanfordWine has become a passion. Join me as I develop my understanding and love for wine. Archives
January 2016
Categories |