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.
Showing posts with label Syrah. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Syrah. Show all posts
Saturday, October 9, 2010
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.
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.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
2004 TheBlend of Poggiotondo
I’m going to dispense with my usual lead in, and get right down to business with this one. A blizzard was bearing down on us and Kerri was kind enough to pick up a random wine for us to review. Now here is the thing about random, you really have an equal choice of getting a good wine, or a bad wine. Fate wasn’t on our side with this one.
It’s a blend (40% Sangiovese, 30% Merlot, 30% Syrah), and normally when I think of blends, I imagine layers of flavor deftly woven together. In this wine blend was probably closer to the flavors you used to get as a child, when you went into 7-11 and filled you cup from equal portions of the various fountain soda taps. There are a lot of flavors in this wine ranging from the passably acceptable to “why in gods name am I drinking this”.
The nose, is equally as interesting (in the way that a twelve car pile up on the freeway is interesting) with a heavy level of alcohol mixed in with black cherry or currants.
What really killed it for us was the taste. It starts fairly fruity, and quite frankly turns to ash in your mouth. After less than a glass, I’m packing it in and putting this one down the drain.
Sometimes a $10 wine, isn’t even worth that much, this is one of those times.
It’s a blend (40% Sangiovese, 30% Merlot, 30% Syrah), and normally when I think of blends, I imagine layers of flavor deftly woven together. In this wine blend was probably closer to the flavors you used to get as a child, when you went into 7-11 and filled you cup from equal portions of the various fountain soda taps. There are a lot of flavors in this wine ranging from the passably acceptable to “why in gods name am I drinking this”.
The nose, is equally as interesting (in the way that a twelve car pile up on the freeway is interesting) with a heavy level of alcohol mixed in with black cherry or currants.
What really killed it for us was the taste. It starts fairly fruity, and quite frankly turns to ash in your mouth. After less than a glass, I’m packing it in and putting this one down the drain.
Sometimes a $10 wine, isn’t even worth that much, this is one of those times.
2004 The Blend of Poggiotondo
Well, as you may have heard, the eastern seaboard of the US got hit with a pretty big snow storm this weekend. And while most people were at the grocery store on Friday night picking up bread, milk, eggs, and toilet paper – you know, because you never know if you might be snowed in for a day and your family of say 12 is going to eat up all of the bread and eggs, drink all the milk, and use up all of the toilet paper in the known universe in those 24 hours (oh no! we might starve and be forced to drink water, eat ketchup, and use paper in the bathroom) – I had my priorities in order and stopped at the liquor store to get gin and wine!
I know that some folks drink wine every day and as such, purchasing wines that are around the $15 price point can be a bit spendy, so I sought out a wine around the $10 mark to review. That’s how we ended up with this....
The facts:
2004 The Blend of Poggiotondo
Region: Tuscany, Italy
Variety: 40% Sangiovese, 30% Merlot, 30% Syrah
This is where I’d normally provide a photograph of the wine. In this particular case, I’m going to refrain from that practice lest you see this wine in a store, recall the photograph from our blog, and purchase it because you can’t recall what we said about it, but you know you’ve seen it before. Read on and you’ll see why.
My take:
When you first pour the wine into your glass, it smells purple, with the slightest bit of chalky pink candy. Seriously. Not necessarily a bad thing. But, it quickly turns to something strange – I’d say gray becomes the predominant color. And it tastes exactly the same way. It’s purple, gray, and chalky. When Jonathan and I were talking about the wine, trying to figure out what it was all about, I specifically said, “it tastes like gravel and ash in a liquid mouthful.”
Yeah, not a fan. And I say this knowing full well that I do not like a gray wine. However, I know what a good gray wine tastes like – there is a gray characteristic to a lot of malbecs that Jonathan likes that I simply don’t care for. This is not that same gray. This is a bad gray, at least in my oh so humble opinion.
Other qualities, just in case you want more info – it’s dry, medium bodied, a little spicy, and there’s still some purple (somewhere between grape and currant) in there, despite the ashy flavor.
This is not one I’ll be buying again. In fact, I’m not even going to drink a full glass.
Price point: We bought locally for $10.99, but an internet search revealed bottles for as little as $8.27.
I know that some folks drink wine every day and as such, purchasing wines that are around the $15 price point can be a bit spendy, so I sought out a wine around the $10 mark to review. That’s how we ended up with this....
The facts:
2004 The Blend of Poggiotondo
Region: Tuscany, Italy
Variety: 40% Sangiovese, 30% Merlot, 30% Syrah
This is where I’d normally provide a photograph of the wine. In this particular case, I’m going to refrain from that practice lest you see this wine in a store, recall the photograph from our blog, and purchase it because you can’t recall what we said about it, but you know you’ve seen it before. Read on and you’ll see why.
My take:
When you first pour the wine into your glass, it smells purple, with the slightest bit of chalky pink candy. Seriously. Not necessarily a bad thing. But, it quickly turns to something strange – I’d say gray becomes the predominant color. And it tastes exactly the same way. It’s purple, gray, and chalky. When Jonathan and I were talking about the wine, trying to figure out what it was all about, I specifically said, “it tastes like gravel and ash in a liquid mouthful.”
Yeah, not a fan. And I say this knowing full well that I do not like a gray wine. However, I know what a good gray wine tastes like – there is a gray characteristic to a lot of malbecs that Jonathan likes that I simply don’t care for. This is not that same gray. This is a bad gray, at least in my oh so humble opinion.
Other qualities, just in case you want more info – it’s dry, medium bodied, a little spicy, and there’s still some purple (somewhere between grape and currant) in there, despite the ashy flavor.
This is not one I’ll be buying again. In fact, I’m not even going to drink a full glass.
Price point: We bought locally for $10.99, but an internet search revealed bottles for as little as $8.27.
Monday, October 19, 2009
2005 Concannon Limited Reserve Petite Syrah
So I have a dirty little secret. It weighs on me heavily at times, and today is the day that I free myself from its crushing weight. Given that, I think perhaps its best to just put it out there before I go on.
Our house/table wine is Californian and I love it dearly.
Yes…yes… I know it may come as a shock, and I can certainly understand why it does. I spend more time talking shit about Californian wines than I do writing sonnets about French ones. And while I am sure this admission will bring jeers, this wine is certainly worth enduring the mockery that comes from my love affair with a left coast wine. That being said, we ran into this wine as the DC International Wine Expo a couple of years ago, and to this date I don’t think any wine we have had at a large venue tasting has had such a a lasting impact on me. It’s the Concannon Limited Release Petite Syrah, and I think its wonderful.
There I said it. Its like a weight has been lifted from me.
The gentleman who was pouring it was pushing the distributing wine group's Big House series of jail themed wines (true story….) and mentioned that the Concannon was the lesser known “off brand” (As a slight tangent, I cant think of anything that makes less sense than jail themed wines other than say….a Wookie on Endor, but hey, they do silly things out in Cali so who am I to judge). As you would expect the big house wines sucked being single note, huge and jammy as is the coin that Californian wines typically trade in. It was this off brand however that really did capture my attention, and I dare say undying devotion. The moniker off brand does this wine a great disservice, but hey, that’s how it was presented.
First and foremost it’s a Petite Syrah. For those of you not in the wine industry, a Petite Syrah is basically like a Syrah (or Shiraz) that doesn’t suck….or maybe I am just editorializing a tad. Regardless, the wine is a rich red tending more towards the purple, and the nose is fruity and light. The flavor is where it shines for me. I find it incredibly soft on the palette, so much so, in fact, that you can fill your mouth with wine holding it there without a hint of tannins or alcohol, simply meditating on the soothing blend of soft complexity. With air pulled across said mouthful, again we are treated to a dizzyingly complex array of flavors and aromas without the least hint of overbearing tannins. The complexity, the softness, and ease with which this wine goes about it's busniss all belie its modest price tag, and are what make it shine in otherwise crowded wine racks.
For the record I am well aware that I am swooning over a $13 wine. Did I mention the price? While not a dollar twice (but granting, that the reaction is indeed satisfaction) the Concannon is a steal. It’s widely available, and infinitely drinkable, and for those nights that you want a glass (or three) of wine and don’t feel like getting into something new you cant beat it. It’s also widely available, finding its home in most reputable wine shops, as well as grocery stores.
I love it, and don’t think I have had more bottles of any single wine other than this one. Which makes sense, because if I had the same number of bottles of $30 bottles of wine, I would need to force Kerri to get a second job. To summarize, you are unlikely to find a wine of the complexity and character in this price range. And if by some miracle you did manage to make that happen, it’s likely that you would be telling me about it when you showed me your pictures of the Loch Ness Monster, Leprechauns and Big foot.
Run out to buy a bottle or six now.
Our house/table wine is Californian and I love it dearly.
Yes…yes… I know it may come as a shock, and I can certainly understand why it does. I spend more time talking shit about Californian wines than I do writing sonnets about French ones. And while I am sure this admission will bring jeers, this wine is certainly worth enduring the mockery that comes from my love affair with a left coast wine. That being said, we ran into this wine as the DC International Wine Expo a couple of years ago, and to this date I don’t think any wine we have had at a large venue tasting has had such a a lasting impact on me. It’s the Concannon Limited Release Petite Syrah, and I think its wonderful.
There I said it. Its like a weight has been lifted from me.
The gentleman who was pouring it was pushing the distributing wine group's Big House series of jail themed wines (true story….) and mentioned that the Concannon was the lesser known “off brand” (As a slight tangent, I cant think of anything that makes less sense than jail themed wines other than say….a Wookie on Endor, but hey, they do silly things out in Cali so who am I to judge). As you would expect the big house wines sucked being single note, huge and jammy as is the coin that Californian wines typically trade in. It was this off brand however that really did capture my attention, and I dare say undying devotion. The moniker off brand does this wine a great disservice, but hey, that’s how it was presented.
First and foremost it’s a Petite Syrah. For those of you not in the wine industry, a Petite Syrah is basically like a Syrah (or Shiraz) that doesn’t suck….or maybe I am just editorializing a tad. Regardless, the wine is a rich red tending more towards the purple, and the nose is fruity and light. The flavor is where it shines for me. I find it incredibly soft on the palette, so much so, in fact, that you can fill your mouth with wine holding it there without a hint of tannins or alcohol, simply meditating on the soothing blend of soft complexity. With air pulled across said mouthful, again we are treated to a dizzyingly complex array of flavors and aromas without the least hint of overbearing tannins. The complexity, the softness, and ease with which this wine goes about it's busniss all belie its modest price tag, and are what make it shine in otherwise crowded wine racks.
For the record I am well aware that I am swooning over a $13 wine. Did I mention the price? While not a dollar twice (but granting, that the reaction is indeed satisfaction) the Concannon is a steal. It’s widely available, and infinitely drinkable, and for those nights that you want a glass (or three) of wine and don’t feel like getting into something new you cant beat it. It’s also widely available, finding its home in most reputable wine shops, as well as grocery stores.
I love it, and don’t think I have had more bottles of any single wine other than this one. Which makes sense, because if I had the same number of bottles of $30 bottles of wine, I would need to force Kerri to get a second job. To summarize, you are unlikely to find a wine of the complexity and character in this price range. And if by some miracle you did manage to make that happen, it’s likely that you would be telling me about it when you showed me your pictures of the Loch Ness Monster, Leprechauns and Big foot.
Run out to buy a bottle or six now.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
2007 Il Cuore Rosso Classico
The facts:
2007 Il Cuore Rosso Classico
Region: Mendocino, California
Winemaker: Dennis Patton
Variety: 51% Syrah, 26% Zinfandel, 12% Sangiovese, 6% Carignane, 5% Merlot
Aging: “Modest oak barrel” aging according to their website
This wine is all about mixed messages for me. The label leads me to be skeptical.
I have a hard time taking wine seriously, when it has kitschy things on the label (like the hearts, cats, etc.). But this is a blend of Syrah, Zin, Sangiovese, Carignane (for some reason in California, they add an E on the end), and Merlot. I usually like a red blend, so that led me to be hopeful.
My take:
It looks purple in the glass and upon seeing it, we both remarked, “Well this is a California wine.” It smells purpley-black to me.
The wine is big up front and a bit of spicy in the middle, but more so if you’ve pulled air over it. If you’re just sipping it, the middle kind of falls flat. It has a rather long finish (maybe 10 to 15 seconds) – longer than I’d like, actually because I’m not a huge fan of the taste.
It tastes the same way it smells – purpley-black; almost like dull blackberries, as if they were not tart or sweet, but bland. Because it's a California wine, I expected a more intense flavor, but didn’t really get it. And then the finish is a bit gray.
I’d call it medium bodied and not dry.
Now, all that being said, I went and read up on the wine after tasting and describing it. Turns out Il Cuore is Italian for “the heart” and is a tribute to the Italian immigrants who first planted grape vines in Northern California. Sheds a bit of light on the label, which was designed by Dan Rizzie, a cubist artist. All that is well and good, but it doesn’t make me like the wine any better. It’s just not my style. (I did mention at the outset of this endeavor that I’m biased toward old world style wines.)
If you like California-style wines, you might enjoy this. I read other reviews that indicated this embodies a Northern California wine.
Price point:
$10 - $13 per bottle
2007 Il Cuore Rosso Classico
Region: Mendocino, California
Winemaker: Dennis Patton
Variety: 51% Syrah, 26% Zinfandel, 12% Sangiovese, 6% Carignane, 5% Merlot
Aging: “Modest oak barrel” aging according to their website
This wine is all about mixed messages for me. The label leads me to be skeptical.
I have a hard time taking wine seriously, when it has kitschy things on the label (like the hearts, cats, etc.). But this is a blend of Syrah, Zin, Sangiovese, Carignane (for some reason in California, they add an E on the end), and Merlot. I usually like a red blend, so that led me to be hopeful.
My take:
It looks purple in the glass and upon seeing it, we both remarked, “Well this is a California wine.” It smells purpley-black to me.
The wine is big up front and a bit of spicy in the middle, but more so if you’ve pulled air over it. If you’re just sipping it, the middle kind of falls flat. It has a rather long finish (maybe 10 to 15 seconds) – longer than I’d like, actually because I’m not a huge fan of the taste.
It tastes the same way it smells – purpley-black; almost like dull blackberries, as if they were not tart or sweet, but bland. Because it's a California wine, I expected a more intense flavor, but didn’t really get it. And then the finish is a bit gray.
I’d call it medium bodied and not dry.
Now, all that being said, I went and read up on the wine after tasting and describing it. Turns out Il Cuore is Italian for “the heart” and is a tribute to the Italian immigrants who first planted grape vines in Northern California. Sheds a bit of light on the label, which was designed by Dan Rizzie, a cubist artist. All that is well and good, but it doesn’t make me like the wine any better. It’s just not my style. (I did mention at the outset of this endeavor that I’m biased toward old world style wines.)
If you like California-style wines, you might enjoy this. I read other reviews that indicated this embodies a Northern California wine.
Price point:
$10 - $13 per bottle
2007 Il Cuore Rosso Classico
They say packaging is important, that it can draw you in and make you want to purchase or try a product. Or…. if you are me, it also has the possibility to make you completely discount a product and write it off entirely. Meet my friend Il Cuore. They decided to jazz up their label and put hearts all over the bottle. I'd say I'm not sure why, but the sheet we got with wine club went into detail about it, and its a bunch of crap that some clod in marketing wrote to try and justify it...or they are just chumps. True story. We aren’t talking about just one heart here, there are no less than 5 hearts on the bottle, the foil is even emblazoned with a heart. Awwww…. how precious. Gee…. maybe the hearts will prompt me to pick it for a romantic occasion OR maybe they will warm my black heart and get me all sentimental. Or more likely they will give me yet another reason to talk shit about Californian wines and reinforce my theory that they are, by and large, so devoid of character that they need to resort to clever packaging to ever have a chance of leaving the shelf when there are French, Spanish, or Italian wines in stock.
Ok…I feel better now. Or not. Hearts people…. Seriously? Why not just put a kitten on there? Or an Alien! With Lasers! And a robot. Now, that my friend, is a wine I would buy just because of the label! I should note I did, in fact, once buy a wine called Nostradamus, because A. It came in a clay jug, and B. It's named Nostradamus, and who isn’t going to buy an Eastern European wine named after the premier soothsayer of our time. I’m not sure that’s a good thing to admit but it’s neither here nor there.
On the plus side it’s a blend, weighing in with a good 51% Syrah 26% Zinfandel and 12% Sangiovese. Now I likes me some blends, and if anything can save a Cali wine, its going to be mixing some grapes together. And it works here for the most part.
Poured, the wine splashes into the glass with a warm purple-red hue. Its rich and dark and when swirled clings longingly to the side of the glass. The nose comes off a bit grapey for me but surprisingly low on the alcohol aroma. I wouldn’t call the aroma particularly complex, one good sniff and swirl and you can pretty much get its full measure.
Time to taste.
Gut reaction:
The wine deserves a better label. It doesn’t really suck badly enough to be festooned with brick brack and a cubist doily for a label. I found the syrah to give it a nice soft base on the pallet with the zinfandel punching it up and providing some wow factor (I’d note, that wow factor for me is typically unnecessary and generally what I dislike about Californian wines, I prefer them subtle). I don’t quite know what the Sangiovese is adding, but I found the wine to be balanced and there was no flavor or aroma that was glaringly out of place. It’s smooth, medium bodied and drinkable. Ultimately, the wine ends up being a bit jammy for my tastes, but if you tend to like the offerings of our Western coast, then you might want to give this one a try.
And one of these days, if you all behave and eat your vegetables like you are supposed to, I will let you in on my dirty little secret and tell you about the Californian wine I adore.
Ok…I feel better now. Or not. Hearts people…. Seriously? Why not just put a kitten on there? Or an Alien! With Lasers! And a robot. Now, that my friend, is a wine I would buy just because of the label! I should note I did, in fact, once buy a wine called Nostradamus, because A. It came in a clay jug, and B. It's named Nostradamus, and who isn’t going to buy an Eastern European wine named after the premier soothsayer of our time. I’m not sure that’s a good thing to admit but it’s neither here nor there.
On the plus side it’s a blend, weighing in with a good 51% Syrah 26% Zinfandel and 12% Sangiovese. Now I likes me some blends, and if anything can save a Cali wine, its going to be mixing some grapes together. And it works here for the most part.
Poured, the wine splashes into the glass with a warm purple-red hue. Its rich and dark and when swirled clings longingly to the side of the glass. The nose comes off a bit grapey for me but surprisingly low on the alcohol aroma. I wouldn’t call the aroma particularly complex, one good sniff and swirl and you can pretty much get its full measure.
Time to taste.
Gut reaction:
The wine deserves a better label. It doesn’t really suck badly enough to be festooned with brick brack and a cubist doily for a label. I found the syrah to give it a nice soft base on the pallet with the zinfandel punching it up and providing some wow factor (I’d note, that wow factor for me is typically unnecessary and generally what I dislike about Californian wines, I prefer them subtle). I don’t quite know what the Sangiovese is adding, but I found the wine to be balanced and there was no flavor or aroma that was glaringly out of place. It’s smooth, medium bodied and drinkable. Ultimately, the wine ends up being a bit jammy for my tastes, but if you tend to like the offerings of our Western coast, then you might want to give this one a try.
And one of these days, if you all behave and eat your vegetables like you are supposed to, I will let you in on my dirty little secret and tell you about the Californian wine I adore.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
