I’ve been trying to give Cali wines a chance. Honestly I have. But with the exception of some wines from the Russian river valley, I haven’t been having too terribly much luck. Alas dear readers, the wine we are reviewing for you tonight again drives me back to the old world, forever forcing me to besmirch the good name of wineries in California along the way.
The Dry Creek Heritage Zinfandel reminds me of too many movies that are coming out these days. You watch the trailer (smell the wine) are intrigued and excited by what they have shown you (the nose is strong and vibrant, promising unspeakable heights of wineology). And, as such, lured to the theater (actually having a glass), where it suddenly seems flat and two dimensional, as if they somehow managed to edit down the only good parts of the movie for the trailer (or…the nose was the only noteworthy part of the wine).
The problem for me is that it's not bad per say, but rather it's boring. The nose is fantastic, lush, ripe, and promising of delights, but the wine itself is a bit flat and forgettable. The steak we had perked it up a bit, but in all honesty, that was probably just the joy from a solid well cooked bone-in NY strip elevating the wine. In remarking on it, probably the most telling statement was when I looked at Kerri and said “this wine doesn’t even have the decency to punch you in the mouth with fruit like the rest of its west coast brethren”.
All and all, I am going to give this one a pass. At $15-20 there are much better wines out there to go have (and much better Zinfandels for that matter (Redemption Zin…I am looking in your general direction).
Meh.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
2007 Dry Creek Vineyard Heritage Zinfandel
The facts:
2007 Dry Creek Vineyard Heritage Zinfandel
Region: Sonoma County, California
Variety: 87% Zinfandel, 13% Petite Syrah
Aging: 9 months in American and French oak (39% new oak)
(photo courtesy of www.drycreekvineyard.com)
My take:
Given that this is a California Zin, I expected it to be big and bold – and it delivered (though not in a punch you in the mouth kind of way). I also liked it more than I expected, given my penchant for old world style wines.
The wine looks dark red in the glass. It smells spicy and big with hints of green pepper on the nose. I’d say it smells dark red to purple. It pretty much tastes the same way – dark red to purple. It’s big up front with a good bit of spiciness in the middle. And it’s definitely dry. It’s drier and spicier if you pull air over it.
We tasted this wine with a small range of cheeses and red meat, all of which changed the character of the wine to varying extents. A reserve gouda (not particularly aged or smoked) completely erased the spice and the complexity of the wine. I thought the gouda made the wine dull and rather creamy in texture. A manchego dulled the spice a bit (not completely) and made the flavor much more grapey (read purple). Finally (my favorite with this wine), a garlic and spice boursin mellowed the dryness, but still left you with a range of flavors and a good bit of spice in the middle. And the wine was quite good with red meat. The effect of the red meat was similar to the boursin, for me.
Somewhat to my surprise, I rather enjoyed this wine and would definitely have it again.
Price point: An internet search found this one anywhere from $12.99 to $19.49.
2007 Dry Creek Vineyard Heritage Zinfandel
Region: Sonoma County, California
Variety: 87% Zinfandel, 13% Petite Syrah
Aging: 9 months in American and French oak (39% new oak)
(photo courtesy of www.drycreekvineyard.com)
My take:
Given that this is a California Zin, I expected it to be big and bold – and it delivered (though not in a punch you in the mouth kind of way). I also liked it more than I expected, given my penchant for old world style wines.
The wine looks dark red in the glass. It smells spicy and big with hints of green pepper on the nose. I’d say it smells dark red to purple. It pretty much tastes the same way – dark red to purple. It’s big up front with a good bit of spiciness in the middle. And it’s definitely dry. It’s drier and spicier if you pull air over it.
We tasted this wine with a small range of cheeses and red meat, all of which changed the character of the wine to varying extents. A reserve gouda (not particularly aged or smoked) completely erased the spice and the complexity of the wine. I thought the gouda made the wine dull and rather creamy in texture. A manchego dulled the spice a bit (not completely) and made the flavor much more grapey (read purple). Finally (my favorite with this wine), a garlic and spice boursin mellowed the dryness, but still left you with a range of flavors and a good bit of spice in the middle. And the wine was quite good with red meat. The effect of the red meat was similar to the boursin, for me.
Somewhat to my surprise, I rather enjoyed this wine and would definitely have it again.
Price point: An internet search found this one anywhere from $12.99 to $19.49.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
2008 Tormaresca NePriCa
The facts:
2008 Tormaresca NePriCa
Region: Puglia, Italy
Variety: 40% Negroamaro, 30% Primitivo, 30% Cabernet Sauvignon
Aging: Stainless steel tanks and in bottle.
Price point:
I picked it up for just under $10. An internet search found this wine for anywhere from $7.45 to $11.99.
My take:
A while back, I picked a bunch of random wines that I’d never had with the intention of reviewing them. This was one of those wines. Admittedly, we’ve probably had it 3 or 4 times before actually writing this review, so obviously it’s one we like.
This one quite literally has a nose of cherry vanilla with a hint of tobacco. Yes, I know, we said from the get-go that we weren’t going to talk about wines that way, but I can’t help it. That’s exactly what this wine brought to mind for me. Perhaps the wine made me want to wax poetic, to steal a term from Jonathan. In my color terms, I’d say it smells purple to dark red.
It tastes purple/dark red to slightly brown, but not too earthy. And it’s somewhat dry, but not overly so. It also has a relatively long finish, which is a bit surprising at this price point. I find the wine to be very well balanced.
This wine is definitely not one note; perhaps two or three? It has a couple of layers. The dark red cherry gets you up front and then it mellows to the purple followed by just a hint of spice. In an ideal world, I wish it were a bit more complex to match the length of the finish. But again, at this price point, I’m not arguing the point of complexity. In my oh so humble opinion, this is a very nice wine for under $10. It’s more like getting a $15 bottle for less than $10.
2008 Tormaresca NePriCa
Region: Puglia, Italy
Variety: 40% Negroamaro, 30% Primitivo, 30% Cabernet Sauvignon
Aging: Stainless steel tanks and in bottle.
Price point:
I picked it up for just under $10. An internet search found this wine for anywhere from $7.45 to $11.99.
My take:
A while back, I picked a bunch of random wines that I’d never had with the intention of reviewing them. This was one of those wines. Admittedly, we’ve probably had it 3 or 4 times before actually writing this review, so obviously it’s one we like.
This one quite literally has a nose of cherry vanilla with a hint of tobacco. Yes, I know, we said from the get-go that we weren’t going to talk about wines that way, but I can’t help it. That’s exactly what this wine brought to mind for me. Perhaps the wine made me want to wax poetic, to steal a term from Jonathan. In my color terms, I’d say it smells purple to dark red.
It tastes purple/dark red to slightly brown, but not too earthy. And it’s somewhat dry, but not overly so. It also has a relatively long finish, which is a bit surprising at this price point. I find the wine to be very well balanced.
This wine is definitely not one note; perhaps two or three? It has a couple of layers. The dark red cherry gets you up front and then it mellows to the purple followed by just a hint of spice. In an ideal world, I wish it were a bit more complex to match the length of the finish. But again, at this price point, I’m not arguing the point of complexity. In my oh so humble opinion, this is a very nice wine for under $10. It’s more like getting a $15 bottle for less than $10.
2008 Tormaresca Neprica
It’s high time we reviewed this wine. Kerri picked this one up on a lark and the first time we had it, I felt more like drinking and less like reviewing, so it was consumed sans documentation. Since we found it interesting and wanted to review it Kerri bought us another bottle.
I drank that one when she wasn’t looking. (This may have happened twice, I lose track sometimes.. but hey…who’s counting) So another bottle(s) was procured to provide the source material for this missive.
While the name is a bit kitschy for my liking, with Neprica being an amalgamation of the grapes in the wine (Negroamaro, Primitivo, Cabernet) it immediately meets one of my criteria for wines I want to drink; exotica grapes. While I suppose grapes are not exactly exotic in nature, there are varietals that you don’t tend to see every day. I find these days that I love to explore wines that are not primarily Cabs, Merlots, Pinot Noirs etc.. Given that, here we have a solid candidate with old world grapes chock full of Italian blended mystery.
Ever since running into one at Proof in D.C. I have been a sucker for a Negroamaro. There is something mysterious in the name itself, that, for me, seems to be passed down into the wine. You don’t see them every day, but in poking around in stores with a decent Italian wine selection you are sure to find them. The Negroamaro is native to southern Italy, and as such, is one more reason I need to go there.
In describing the wine, I am going to skip the usual aromatic metaphors, as I believe there are professionals out there paid to do just such a thing, and go with a visual instead. This wine, is like red satin sheets on a waterbed in a candle lit room. Think about that for a bit. I’d go into more detail, but honestly, at that point, I’d just be adding unnecessary words to a beautifully crafted image, one that is wholly sufficient to describe my impressions of this wine.
I’m a huge fan of this wine, and at under $10 there is no reason you shouldn’t have a bottle or four in your wine fridge, rack, cabinet, cupboard, sock drawer, or where ever else it is that you store your wines.
I drank that one when she wasn’t looking. (This may have happened twice, I lose track sometimes.. but hey…who’s counting) So another bottle(s) was procured to provide the source material for this missive.
While the name is a bit kitschy for my liking, with Neprica being an amalgamation of the grapes in the wine (Negroamaro, Primitivo, Cabernet) it immediately meets one of my criteria for wines I want to drink; exotica grapes. While I suppose grapes are not exactly exotic in nature, there are varietals that you don’t tend to see every day. I find these days that I love to explore wines that are not primarily Cabs, Merlots, Pinot Noirs etc.. Given that, here we have a solid candidate with old world grapes chock full of Italian blended mystery.
Ever since running into one at Proof in D.C. I have been a sucker for a Negroamaro. There is something mysterious in the name itself, that, for me, seems to be passed down into the wine. You don’t see them every day, but in poking around in stores with a decent Italian wine selection you are sure to find them. The Negroamaro is native to southern Italy, and as such, is one more reason I need to go there.
In describing the wine, I am going to skip the usual aromatic metaphors, as I believe there are professionals out there paid to do just such a thing, and go with a visual instead. This wine, is like red satin sheets on a waterbed in a candle lit room. Think about that for a bit. I’d go into more detail, but honestly, at that point, I’d just be adding unnecessary words to a beautifully crafted image, one that is wholly sufficient to describe my impressions of this wine.
I’m a huge fan of this wine, and at under $10 there is no reason you shouldn’t have a bottle or four in your wine fridge, rack, cabinet, cupboard, sock drawer, or where ever else it is that you store your wines.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
2007 Chateau Sainte Eulalie Plaisir d'Eulalie - reviewed by Kerri
The facts:
2007 Chateau Sainte Eulalie Plaisir d’Eulalie
Region: La Liviniere, France
Variety: 15% Syrah, 45% Grenache, 40% Carignan (this is the blend for the 2003 vintage, according to the winery’s website)
Aging: Stainless steel for 15 to 18 months (again, for the 2003 vintage)
My take:
When we opened the wine fridge to look at our choices for wine tonight, we decided to go with the mystery French. Had no idea what grapes comprised this wine, but decided to take a chance and review it.
The wine looks dark red in the glass, but smells a bit more cherry red. I’d call this one a light bodied wine that is relatively short. It comes across as rather one note to me. It’s drinkable and pleasant enough, but I don’t get any complexity from it.
After letting it breathe a bit, it tastes more purple, but is still light bodied and not complex. Drinking the wine with grilled steak seemed to add some spicyness to the wine and made the finish a bit metallic. I actually didn’t care for it with the steak.
The bottom line for me: this one is a good sipping wine, if you like a light bodied red that is soft on the palate.
Price point: An internet search puts this at around $13 per bottle.
2007 Chateau Sainte Eulalie Plaisir d’Eulalie
Region: La Liviniere, France
Variety: 15% Syrah, 45% Grenache, 40% Carignan (this is the blend for the 2003 vintage, according to the winery’s website)
Aging: Stainless steel for 15 to 18 months (again, for the 2003 vintage)
My take:
When we opened the wine fridge to look at our choices for wine tonight, we decided to go with the mystery French. Had no idea what grapes comprised this wine, but decided to take a chance and review it.
The wine looks dark red in the glass, but smells a bit more cherry red. I’d call this one a light bodied wine that is relatively short. It comes across as rather one note to me. It’s drinkable and pleasant enough, but I don’t get any complexity from it.
After letting it breathe a bit, it tastes more purple, but is still light bodied and not complex. Drinking the wine with grilled steak seemed to add some spicyness to the wine and made the finish a bit metallic. I actually didn’t care for it with the steak.
The bottom line for me: this one is a good sipping wine, if you like a light bodied red that is soft on the palate.
Price point: An internet search puts this at around $13 per bottle.
2007 Chateau Sainte Eulalie Plaisir d'Eulalie
Light and Thin.
Now this would probably be a compliment if I were talking about a white wine, but since I am talking about red maybe not so much. Interestingly enough, when I first poured the wine, it had almost no nose and very little flavor, time and a bit of warming up fixed that (the whole wine fridge being stuck at 52 thing and all…).
Once it had a bit to open up, it got a bit better, but I am still going to stick with the light and thin comment. Honestly, I cant think of any other way to describe it, and in its defense, the thinness is a gliding, dancing thinness rather than the anemic fragility that plagues, say a Pinot or a Tempranillo. Which at least makes for some semblance of depth of character, but it's a bit like second place, sure you gave it your all...but you still didn't win.
What this wine lacks, unfortunately, is perhaps what I crave most in wine, and what keeps me opening cork upon cork; mystery, depth, a sense of exploration. There are wines that when you drink them, defy understanding on the first taste. They require study, exploration, spelunking through the caverns of complexity that they offer. This is what I seek (well…at least when I am not just drinking for the sake of it), and what this wine fails to provide me with.
I realize, that I have said more about what the wine is not, rather than what it is; I shall correct that now. It’s light, it’s definitely French, and at temperature, it makes for decent sipping wine.
The bottom line: This wine fails to inspire me, I’m not sure I would pick it over the Concannon, or my new love the Neprica (I promise we’ll review that soon. We’ve tried to twice but ended up having such a great time hanging out and enjoying it that it just hasn’t happened yet), but the Plaisir d'Eulalie doesn’t suck, and we didn’t pour it out. I'll label it decent, but not my thing.
Now this would probably be a compliment if I were talking about a white wine, but since I am talking about red maybe not so much. Interestingly enough, when I first poured the wine, it had almost no nose and very little flavor, time and a bit of warming up fixed that (the whole wine fridge being stuck at 52 thing and all…).
Once it had a bit to open up, it got a bit better, but I am still going to stick with the light and thin comment. Honestly, I cant think of any other way to describe it, and in its defense, the thinness is a gliding, dancing thinness rather than the anemic fragility that plagues, say a Pinot or a Tempranillo. Which at least makes for some semblance of depth of character, but it's a bit like second place, sure you gave it your all...but you still didn't win.
What this wine lacks, unfortunately, is perhaps what I crave most in wine, and what keeps me opening cork upon cork; mystery, depth, a sense of exploration. There are wines that when you drink them, defy understanding on the first taste. They require study, exploration, spelunking through the caverns of complexity that they offer. This is what I seek (well…at least when I am not just drinking for the sake of it), and what this wine fails to provide me with.
I realize, that I have said more about what the wine is not, rather than what it is; I shall correct that now. It’s light, it’s definitely French, and at temperature, it makes for decent sipping wine.
The bottom line: This wine fails to inspire me, I’m not sure I would pick it over the Concannon, or my new love the Neprica (I promise we’ll review that soon. We’ve tried to twice but ended up having such a great time hanging out and enjoying it that it just hasn’t happened yet), but the Plaisir d'Eulalie doesn’t suck, and we didn’t pour it out. I'll label it decent, but not my thing.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
2005 Surfrider Red - reviewed by Kerri
The facts:
2005 Surfrider Red
Region: Malibu Newton Canyon, California
Variety: 73% Merlot, 26% Cabernet Sauvignon, 1% Petit Verdot
Aging: French oak, 18 months
Winemaker: Christian Roguenant
My take:
Upon first pour, the wine was rather red and smelled red-pink. A full glass looks purplish and smells a little jammy.
The first sip was rather surprising. I didn’t get that full, in your face, jammy sip of a California wine that I was expecting. On the contrary, it is more mellow than what I normally expect from a California wine. After reading about the wine and the winemaker at the Rosenthal Estate website, it's not that surprising. The winemaker lived in Burgundy for some time and the wine is aged only in French oak. (For reference, I make it a practice not to read anything about the wine before I taste and draft my review. I don't want to be biased or unduly influenced by what I read prior to writing my review.)
I’d call this one a good sipping wine.
I find it to be medium bodied with a nice mouth-feel. It’s not too dry (though it’s more so if you pull some air over it), but it’s also not very creamy. It’s somewhere in the middle. Very nicely balanced. The downside to this wine is fairly short and you’re not going to get a huge amount of complexity from it. Like I said..., a good sipping wine.
Price point:
$24-$29
Frankly, though I think this is a nice wine, it’s too short and not complex enough in my opinion to warrant that price tag. $15..., sure. $30...,nope. (We must have gotten this one through wine club or as a gift.) That being said, the label says, "For each bottle purchased, a donation is made to the Surfrider Foundation, a grassroots, non-profit, environmental organization that works to protect our oceans, waves, and beaches."
Hey wait, does that mean my wine tonight is tax deductible? ;)
2005 Surfrider Red
Region: Malibu Newton Canyon, California
Variety: 73% Merlot, 26% Cabernet Sauvignon, 1% Petit Verdot
Aging: French oak, 18 months
Winemaker: Christian Roguenant
My take:
Upon first pour, the wine was rather red and smelled red-pink. A full glass looks purplish and smells a little jammy.
The first sip was rather surprising. I didn’t get that full, in your face, jammy sip of a California wine that I was expecting. On the contrary, it is more mellow than what I normally expect from a California wine. After reading about the wine and the winemaker at the Rosenthal Estate website, it's not that surprising. The winemaker lived in Burgundy for some time and the wine is aged only in French oak. (For reference, I make it a practice not to read anything about the wine before I taste and draft my review. I don't want to be biased or unduly influenced by what I read prior to writing my review.)
I’d call this one a good sipping wine.
I find it to be medium bodied with a nice mouth-feel. It’s not too dry (though it’s more so if you pull some air over it), but it’s also not very creamy. It’s somewhere in the middle. Very nicely balanced. The downside to this wine is fairly short and you’re not going to get a huge amount of complexity from it. Like I said..., a good sipping wine.
Price point:
$24-$29
Frankly, though I think this is a nice wine, it’s too short and not complex enough in my opinion to warrant that price tag. $15..., sure. $30...,nope. (We must have gotten this one through wine club or as a gift.) That being said, the label says, "For each bottle purchased, a donation is made to the Surfrider Foundation, a grassroots, non-profit, environmental organization that works to protect our oceans, waves, and beaches."
Hey wait, does that mean my wine tonight is tax deductible? ;)
2005 Surfrider Red
Surfrider!
Yes, you did indeed read correctly. I just had a wine called Surfrider. Normally, the mere name would knock it off my radar, and my wine fridge as I (a) have an aversion to wines with stupid names, and (b) an aversion to wines with stupid labels. However, that being said, every month I get two bottles of random wine in the mail, and apparently they have a better sense of humor than I do (or a love of variety...but hey...details right?), which would indicate how this whole affair came to be.
Sidebar – Note to wineries
Labels with funny pictures, or strange logos, or pictures of cats, or Studabakers with a surfboard coming out are unlikely to sway me into purchasing your wine. I don’t like surfing, I like California even less, and while I do adore kitties I suspect they would get in the way of my wine glass, and thus might detract from the drinking experience. Pro Tip: Include the grapes, their percentage and the amount of time your wine was in oak, the wines name, and your name. Nothing else is necessary.
That out of the way, Surfrider came to us by way of our wine club. It espouses to be a Californian Bordeaux wine (by varietal composition). The wine comes out in a rich red color, and a slightly fruity nose, and while I don’t normally get into this sort of thing, its chock full of cherry. It’s a good competent wine, and it’s well made, and very drinkable. The balance is nice and the tannin level is near perfect. It’s really just a bit one note for me. It’s pleasant, well mannered and tasty. It is also lacking in anything vaguely akin to soul. The wine is devoid of any personality or interest past being a delightful beverage.
Bottom line: It’s tasty, I’m going to drink it, and marvel at how well balanced it is, but for the $25 price I’m going for a Reserva Malbec, or Rhone wine.
Yes, you did indeed read correctly. I just had a wine called Surfrider. Normally, the mere name would knock it off my radar, and my wine fridge as I (a) have an aversion to wines with stupid names, and (b) an aversion to wines with stupid labels. However, that being said, every month I get two bottles of random wine in the mail, and apparently they have a better sense of humor than I do (or a love of variety...but hey...details right?), which would indicate how this whole affair came to be.
Sidebar – Note to wineries
Labels with funny pictures, or strange logos, or pictures of cats, or Studabakers with a surfboard coming out are unlikely to sway me into purchasing your wine. I don’t like surfing, I like California even less, and while I do adore kitties I suspect they would get in the way of my wine glass, and thus might detract from the drinking experience. Pro Tip: Include the grapes, their percentage and the amount of time your wine was in oak, the wines name, and your name. Nothing else is necessary.
That out of the way, Surfrider came to us by way of our wine club. It espouses to be a Californian Bordeaux wine (by varietal composition). The wine comes out in a rich red color, and a slightly fruity nose, and while I don’t normally get into this sort of thing, its chock full of cherry. It’s a good competent wine, and it’s well made, and very drinkable. The balance is nice and the tannin level is near perfect. It’s really just a bit one note for me. It’s pleasant, well mannered and tasty. It is also lacking in anything vaguely akin to soul. The wine is devoid of any personality or interest past being a delightful beverage.
Bottom line: It’s tasty, I’m going to drink it, and marvel at how well balanced it is, but for the $25 price I’m going for a Reserva Malbec, or Rhone wine.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
2008 Carmen Carmenere
The facts:
2008 Carmen Carmenere
Region: Rapel Valley, Chile
Variety: 85% Carmenere, 15% Cabernet Sauvignon
Aging: Taken from www.carmen.com, "The bunches were crushed and cold macerated for 10 days at 3ºC to obtain colour and fruitiness. Alcoholic fermentation was made in stainless steel tanks between 26-28ºC. Malolactic fermentation occurred naturally in stainless steel tanks. 30% of the wine was aged in French and American oak barrels for a period of 6 months."
My take:
This wine had a red-black nose to me. I definitely got a sense of black pepper upon the first sniff or two. After opening up a bit, that black pepper transformed a bit to more of a green bell pepper.
Though I know we said we wouldn’t describe wine this way, it quite honestly made me think of strawberries, green bell pepper, and black pepper. It’s definitely on the spicy side, but not overbearingly so.
The texture was ever so slightly chewy and slightly dry. I’d call it full-bodied.
When all is said and done, I don’t really have too much to say about this wine. It isn’t great, but it isn’t bad either. We drank it before, during, and after having a steak dinner and it held up to marinated, grilled rib eye. But for me, that green pepper flavor didn’t seem to pair well with the steak. I liked the wine better without food. That being said, it’s not velvety enough for my tastes and I get no sense of the brown that I tend to prefer, so it’s not something I’d purchase again.
Price point: $12-$13
2008 Carmen Carmenere
Region: Rapel Valley, Chile
Variety: 85% Carmenere, 15% Cabernet Sauvignon
Aging: Taken from www.carmen.com, "The bunches were crushed and cold macerated for 10 days at 3ºC to obtain colour and fruitiness. Alcoholic fermentation was made in stainless steel tanks between 26-28ºC. Malolactic fermentation occurred naturally in stainless steel tanks. 30% of the wine was aged in French and American oak barrels for a period of 6 months."
My take:
This wine had a red-black nose to me. I definitely got a sense of black pepper upon the first sniff or two. After opening up a bit, that black pepper transformed a bit to more of a green bell pepper.
Though I know we said we wouldn’t describe wine this way, it quite honestly made me think of strawberries, green bell pepper, and black pepper. It’s definitely on the spicy side, but not overbearingly so.
The texture was ever so slightly chewy and slightly dry. I’d call it full-bodied.
When all is said and done, I don’t really have too much to say about this wine. It isn’t great, but it isn’t bad either. We drank it before, during, and after having a steak dinner and it held up to marinated, grilled rib eye. But for me, that green pepper flavor didn’t seem to pair well with the steak. I liked the wine better without food. That being said, it’s not velvety enough for my tastes and I get no sense of the brown that I tend to prefer, so it’s not something I’d purchase again.
Price point: $12-$13
2008 Carmen Carmenere
Its not a bad wine, and likely I will finish the bottle (that probably more about me liking to drink wine and less about this one), but here is my one sentence review:
If I saw it on a menu, I’d pick something else.
It’s not particularly notable; it doesn’t really stand out in any particular category. If there is anything I did notice it’s the green pepper aspects that really seem to overpower this particular wine. With each sip I am amazed at how “green” tasting this robust purple wine is. You get pepper in the nose, and green pepper on the taste buds with a nice long finish, which while pleasant, is also not particularly remarkable.
The bottom line, it’s a well crafted wine, smooth and balanced. I just don’t think its appeals to my leanings. I recognize the quality in it, but it’s just not my thing.
If I saw it on a menu, I’d pick something else.
It’s not particularly notable; it doesn’t really stand out in any particular category. If there is anything I did notice it’s the green pepper aspects that really seem to overpower this particular wine. With each sip I am amazed at how “green” tasting this robust purple wine is. You get pepper in the nose, and green pepper on the taste buds with a nice long finish, which while pleasant, is also not particularly remarkable.
The bottom line, it’s a well crafted wine, smooth and balanced. I just don’t think its appeals to my leanings. I recognize the quality in it, but it’s just not my thing.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
2007 Trivento Amado Sur - reviewed by Kerri
And we’re back!
Apologies for the radio silence on the blog. With the holidays and then some health issues, reviewing wine has proven a bit difficult in the last several weeks. Now that the second blizzard of the 2009-2010 winter season has hit our area, we’re happy to be snowed in with a bottle of wine, heat, and our laptops.
I picked up this wine from a local grocery store, so presumably it’s readily available in the states. I’ve actually purchased this wine a couple of times (Jonathan loves it, as I’m sure you’ll see from his review), but I have yet to drink it. I wanted to review this one in particular because Jonathan loves a Malbec and I’m notorious for hating them. So, with that as an intro, here’s my take.
My take:
There is quite a bit of intense fragrance on the nose. It smells purple-red to me. That in and of itself is a bit surprising to me, but I’ll get into that more in a moment.
A few swirl and sips later, I’d say it tastes dark purple and has most of its intensity and complexity in the middle. There is a nice subtle, yet mildly spicy quality in the middle. The finish is medium – not long, but not short either.
I’d say it’s medium bodied. And it’s not particularly dry, but it’s not velvety either. It’s too astringent to be velvety. A more velvety texture would likely develop with time, given the blend of grapes.
I’d call this one a good sipping wine, if you like the purple, maybe purple-black, end of the flavor spectrum. What I find most surprising is what it lacks. It lacks that gray ashiness that I usually get from Malbecs. Must be tempered by the Syrah and Bonarda.
The Bonarda is a grape with which I’m unfamiliar. A quick search online reveals that it is widely grown in Argentina and is the same grape as Italy’s Dolce Nero, or Sweet Black. That would certainly explain the darkness that I get from this wine. Similarly, the Syrah is undoubtedly moderating some of the Malbec’s gray and bringing it more to the red side.
In taking the photograph of the wine, I saw the Wine Spectator sticker on the label. Apparently the Wine Spectator gave it 89 points. All things considered, I'd expect this one to age well.
The facts:
2007 Trivento Amado Sur
Region: Mendoza, Argentina
Variety: 72% Malbec, 16% Bonarda, 12% Syrah
Price point: $13
Apologies for the radio silence on the blog. With the holidays and then some health issues, reviewing wine has proven a bit difficult in the last several weeks. Now that the second blizzard of the 2009-2010 winter season has hit our area, we’re happy to be snowed in with a bottle of wine, heat, and our laptops.
I picked up this wine from a local grocery store, so presumably it’s readily available in the states. I’ve actually purchased this wine a couple of times (Jonathan loves it, as I’m sure you’ll see from his review), but I have yet to drink it. I wanted to review this one in particular because Jonathan loves a Malbec and I’m notorious for hating them. So, with that as an intro, here’s my take.
My take:
There is quite a bit of intense fragrance on the nose. It smells purple-red to me. That in and of itself is a bit surprising to me, but I’ll get into that more in a moment.
A few swirl and sips later, I’d say it tastes dark purple and has most of its intensity and complexity in the middle. There is a nice subtle, yet mildly spicy quality in the middle. The finish is medium – not long, but not short either.
I’d say it’s medium bodied. And it’s not particularly dry, but it’s not velvety either. It’s too astringent to be velvety. A more velvety texture would likely develop with time, given the blend of grapes.
I’d call this one a good sipping wine, if you like the purple, maybe purple-black, end of the flavor spectrum. What I find most surprising is what it lacks. It lacks that gray ashiness that I usually get from Malbecs. Must be tempered by the Syrah and Bonarda.
The Bonarda is a grape with which I’m unfamiliar. A quick search online reveals that it is widely grown in Argentina and is the same grape as Italy’s Dolce Nero, or Sweet Black. That would certainly explain the darkness that I get from this wine. Similarly, the Syrah is undoubtedly moderating some of the Malbec’s gray and bringing it more to the red side.
In taking the photograph of the wine, I saw the Wine Spectator sticker on the label. Apparently the Wine Spectator gave it 89 points. All things considered, I'd expect this one to age well.
The facts:
2007 Trivento Amado Sur
Region: Mendoza, Argentina
Variety: 72% Malbec, 16% Bonarda, 12% Syrah
Price point: $13
2007 Trivento Amado Sur
I love this wine…. A lot.
Granted, that is somewhat of a spoiler, and by somewhat, I mean a complete one. But I figured I would go ahead and proclaim my undying devotion to it upfront.
See….I have had this wine before. Specifically, this would be my third bottle. Kerri bought the first bottle in a random batch of wines to review, and due to its Malbecness, it got ganked from the wine fridge one Friday night when she wasn’t looking. Well…it’s not like I had to sneak past an armed guard for it. Kerri typically isn’t a huge fan of the Malbec, but I do so adore them. So when its Friday night, and I raid the fridge she’s usually more than happy to let me be the guinea pig for it. And, of course, when I raved about it she went out and bought another bottle so we could review that one.
And then another Friday came, and I absconded with that bottle too. (well…it might have been a Tuesday, but that is neither here nor there…)
More determined than ever to review this wine, she hit the store and returned with two bottles, knowing that if she let me near the fridge without supervision, one of them was likely to meet an untimely demise.
A round about way to get here certainly, but I for one enjoy the recanting of the story almost as much as my participation in it. I suppose, in this particular case I can say with just as much enjoyment, by way of said third bottle, and the review that seems to be going on right about now (or would rather, if I stopped telling stories and started being more descriptive….)
The Amado Sur is just simply fantastic. The bottle has this little “89” sticker, which is probably about 10 too low the way that I see it. Typically Malbecs run big bold and jammy, this one…not so much. If I were blindfolded and asked where this wine was from I would probably say France, and I would call it a Grenache and Syrah blend. Yes my friends, this Malbec is, in fact, that subtle. It is gentle and soft on the palette, and when drunk you can almost feel the flavors gently massaging your taste buds.
The flavor is slightly sweet, and slightly dark. I find it to be well balanced with a large amount of nuance, and little in terms of bold defining characteristics. And this is why I am on my third bottle (research of course). With each glass I feel like I am chasing the most elusive of definitions, needing to understand the breadth of what is going on in this wine. And with each glass I am sucked further into the rabbit hole, willingly and joyfully compelled to examine it further and to philosophize more deeply about its nature.
If I had to find fault with this wine, it would be the nose. I find it a bit sharp, a bit heavy on the alcohol. That aside, this one is a must buy for fans of Grenache and for fans of the Malbec. To date, this wine stands as the most sophisticated Malbec I have had yet, and I am heartened knowing there is another bottle sitting in my fridge.
Granted, that is somewhat of a spoiler, and by somewhat, I mean a complete one. But I figured I would go ahead and proclaim my undying devotion to it upfront.
See….I have had this wine before. Specifically, this would be my third bottle. Kerri bought the first bottle in a random batch of wines to review, and due to its Malbecness, it got ganked from the wine fridge one Friday night when she wasn’t looking. Well…it’s not like I had to sneak past an armed guard for it. Kerri typically isn’t a huge fan of the Malbec, but I do so adore them. So when its Friday night, and I raid the fridge she’s usually more than happy to let me be the guinea pig for it. And, of course, when I raved about it she went out and bought another bottle so we could review that one.
And then another Friday came, and I absconded with that bottle too. (well…it might have been a Tuesday, but that is neither here nor there…)
More determined than ever to review this wine, she hit the store and returned with two bottles, knowing that if she let me near the fridge without supervision, one of them was likely to meet an untimely demise.
A round about way to get here certainly, but I for one enjoy the recanting of the story almost as much as my participation in it. I suppose, in this particular case I can say with just as much enjoyment, by way of said third bottle, and the review that seems to be going on right about now (or would rather, if I stopped telling stories and started being more descriptive….)
The Amado Sur is just simply fantastic. The bottle has this little “89” sticker, which is probably about 10 too low the way that I see it. Typically Malbecs run big bold and jammy, this one…not so much. If I were blindfolded and asked where this wine was from I would probably say France, and I would call it a Grenache and Syrah blend. Yes my friends, this Malbec is, in fact, that subtle. It is gentle and soft on the palette, and when drunk you can almost feel the flavors gently massaging your taste buds.
The flavor is slightly sweet, and slightly dark. I find it to be well balanced with a large amount of nuance, and little in terms of bold defining characteristics. And this is why I am on my third bottle (research of course). With each glass I feel like I am chasing the most elusive of definitions, needing to understand the breadth of what is going on in this wine. And with each glass I am sucked further into the rabbit hole, willingly and joyfully compelled to examine it further and to philosophize more deeply about its nature.
If I had to find fault with this wine, it would be the nose. I find it a bit sharp, a bit heavy on the alcohol. That aside, this one is a must buy for fans of Grenache and for fans of the Malbec. To date, this wine stands as the most sophisticated Malbec I have had yet, and I am heartened knowing there is another bottle sitting in my fridge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
