Would you drink wine from a can? Should you?
Wine in a can? Sure. Let's do this! |
Our neighbor, Christine the Pie Queen, relayed the results
of a bit of work-related research performed by her loving hubby Jeff, both of
whom you may remember from several write-ups over the years (including the
ever-popular “Jeff’s
Dinner Club” series). Jeff had uncovered a series of videos produced by
Union Wine Company in Oregon for their Underwood
Pinot Noir.
These videos, presented with the hashtag #pinkiesdown, are
humorous takes on the overblown, overwritten world of wine reviews. The “sommelier,”
“hipster wine bro,” and “sweater around neck guy” humorously hit your humble
reviewer far too close to home with lines like “You know, I’m getting some
strong notes of Axl Rose and a hint of heirloom purple carrots…” (Look for “Union
Wine Company” on YouTube if you want to see. 15 solid minutes of chuckles.)
The videos are support for Underwood’s…yes, it’s true…wine
in a can. Can-as-delivery-system is an interesting idea to be sure, just from
hiking and poolside possibilities alone! The operatively begged question, of
course, is “Is the damned stuff any good?”
As I usually do when there are oenological curiosities like
this, I hit up the PR contact for Underwood to ask for review samples. Most
companies are pretty good about sending along tasters for me to try. Underwood,
however, informed me that press samples were not available “due to high demand.”
In my mind, that either meant that they’re moving so much volume that they don’t
need reviews to generate interest – or perhaps they don’t want reviewers looking too closely. Or maybe they just don’t have
any to spare.
Undeterred, I popped down to Big Wine Store and made a
couple of selections. I picked up two cans of Underwood Pinot Noir for ~$6 apiece. Each
can is 375ml, slightly larger than a typical beer can. A standard wine bottle
is 750ml, so each Underwood can is equivalent to a half-bottle or “split.” (Part
of Jeff’s work, which includes occasional international espionage, consists of enforcing
standards on alcohol labels.)
For science, I also snagged a bottle of Underwood 2013 Pinot Noir ($13),
and a bottle of King’s Ridge 2013 Oregon
Pinot Noir ($19), which is a higher end bottling from Union. (They also do
an even more expensive one called “Alchemist” at $28, which wasn’t available.)
The Sweet Partner in Crime and I invited Jeff and Christine
to Vine HQ for a “scientific comparison” of the various Union Wine offerings.
To establish a “cross-inexpensive-vino” comparison, we also poured some Bota Box Pinot Noir because, well, it
was cheap and we had it around. We took up our places around the living room
and began to carefully pour, swirl, and…oh, who am I kidding? We commenced to
pounding pinot whilst taking notes.
We started with the cans, of course. The unmistakeable “pffft”
of opening aluminum proceeded pours all around. (We did our best to emulate the
various characters from the videos as we tried the stuff.) Our first impression
– this wine ain’t bad! It’s not the rich, earthy Oregon pinot that I can get
all William Burroughs about (as in “If God made anything better, he kept it for
himself…”), but the basic flavors certainly are along the lines of a solid,
inexpensive Oregon wine.
The can label helpfully suggests: “Notes: Raspberry, Cherry,
Chocolate.” The actual flavors are pretty much along those lines. For wine that
you can schlep in a cooler or backpack and slap a koozy on, it’s quite decent.
For a picnic or other outdoor activity where glass isn’t practical, I’d
consider it certainly workable. It’s also miles better wine when compared to
the Bota Box, which tasted heavier, thicker, and sweeter than the Underwood.
We also had a tableful of snacks to go alongside our wine:
Christine’s Caprese Skewers with homemade squeaky cheese; Jeff’s Smoky Baba
Ganoush; and some dry sausage, gouda, and crackers. The wine went well enough
with the entire spectrum of flavors, so it should be workable with nearly
everything.
As I mentioned, we poured the wine into glasses to sample
it, but I was the first of the group to step up and take a big ol’ chug straight
from the can. In all honesty, I can’t recommend that particular technique.
Since so much of wine’s flavor is scent, you get nothing aroma-wise when you
drink it like a Coors Light, so make sure you pour it into some kind of available
container – glass, mug, Solo cup, what have you – for best results.
Jeff also pointed out that its alcohol content (13%) is
basically the same as Four Loko, so if you wanted to either mimic These Kids
Today or pretend you’re back at a college kegger, you could #ShotgunAnUnderwood
– but I wouldn’t recommend it. (However, if you’re going to try, I want video.)
Interestingly, we discovered that the canned and bottled
Underwood pinots are completely different wines. The bottle’s label reads, “Notes: Cherry, Blackberry, Cola.” As I mentioned already, the
Underwood in a bottle has a vintage, which means that all of the grapes were
harvested the same year. The canned wine is non-vintage, meaning that it’s a
blend of grapes or wines from different years. My guess is that the can wine is
the “leftovers” at the end of a bottling run from a couple of subsequent vintages,
but I’m not for certain.
In any case, the bottled version of Underwood pinot is, by
unanimous consent of our little foursome, a superior wine to the canned
version, even though the price is basically the same. The fruit is brighter,
there’s a nice smoky flavor that I liked, and there’s better balance overall.
It’s very good for a $12 pinot.
We then poured some of the King’s Ridge for price point
comparison purposes. The King’s Ridge, while somewhat more expensive than the
Underwood, proved to be a bit of a disappointment. The flavors were darker and
heavier, but that didn’t make them more interesting. In fact, when we compared the
Underwoods to the King’s Ridge, which also has “Notes: Cherry, Blackberry, Cola,”
we ranked them: Underwood bottle, King’s Ridge, Underwood can. In short, I
wouldn’t bother with the King’s Ridge. There are better pinots out there for
around $20.
Bottom line – if you’re considering taking wine to your next
softball game, tailgate, or backyard hootenanny, you can safely snag some of
these Underwood cans if you want to reduce the risk of ending up with shards of
glass in your feet from an accidentally misthrown football. Or, if you’re
hiking, it’s an excellent alternative to the traditional dinner flask of
bourbon. Or maybe that’s just the Pie Queen’s tradition...
As an addendum, a few days later, the Sweet Partner in Crime
and I tried a can of the Underwood Pinot
Gris. Again, a decent enough white (notes: peach, grapefruit, and pear). It’s
much more interesting than most inexpensive pinot grigio. I thought it had an
odd yeasty scent that faded as it got some air. It’s certainly dangerously
drinkable on a hot day. Underwood also is releasing a rosé, which I have not
tried yet.
Bottom line – Underwood is a quality wine for any
occasion where a can is your best beverage delivery option. It’s worth a try.