Getting the Crew Back Together for the Holidays

Pictured: Us.

A couple of nights ago, the Sweet Partner in Crime and I hosted a lovely little shindig for a reunion of the Tennessee Alley Drinking Club. Two of the charter members, Christine the Pie Queen and her husband Jeff, of Jeff’s Dinner Club fame, have unfortunately departed the ‘hood – heading to Washington State where they now boast a big ol’ mountain in what amounts to their backyard.

The holidays are a time for reunions, and we were blessed with the opportunity to spend some quality time with our little gaggle of friends, reminisce and share about what’s happening in our various worlds, and to do what we do best – polish off large quantities of vino while we work our way through a good meal.

The SPinC and I fired up the sous vide machine and did a couple of London Broils at various levels of doneness – cooked to perfection and seared off on the grill, a potato and mushroom soup, an arugula salad with candied walnuts and poached pears, a bunch of roasted root vegetables, and a rich spice cake with cinnamon ice cream from Graeter’s.

Fortuitously, our friends at Colangelo had also sent along a couple of quality, meat-friendly reds to sample. In the spirit of many of our other tasting adventures through the years, we took the opportunity to do a side-by-side of these two wines. The quickly quaffed competitors with our delicious repast:

Caroso 2010 Montepulciano d’Abruzzo Riserva ($22)

Charles Krug 2014 Napa Valley Merlot ($25)

I took a look at the Caroso a few months ago in this space. As I noted then, I usually think of Montepulciano d’Abruzzo as a tasty and flavorful but light table wine. Inexpensive versions of it are standards here in Vine land. The Riserva, aged for two years in barrique and six months in bottle before release, is a different animal altogether.

This wine’s a bigger, more fruit-forward entry. Black currant and blackberry flavors come strongly at first sip. The nose has a fair amount of spice and vanilla and the finish is fruity with a considerable roughness of tannin.

Neither Napa wines nor domestic Merlot get a lot of run around here in general, for one reason or another. I’ve tried so many one-note Merlot over the years that I tend to skip it in favor of Merlot-dominant Bordeaux if I’m in that kind of mood. This Merlot from Krug might cause me to do a little reconsideration of that corner of the wine store.

The Krug Merlot is actually a blend – but any domestic wine with more than 75% of one varietal can be labeled as that varietal. The Krug is 82% Merlot, with the rest made up of Bordeaux elements Cabernet Sauvignon, Petit Verdot, and Malbec. Plums and raspberries were the order of the day flavorwise, and the tannins – holding in the background – are nicely balanced. The finish is lasting, with a nice back-and-forth between cherry and graphite.

We opened these up for the assembled at the table to try with the various courses. Alas, there wasn’t a lot of opportunity to take copious notes. The general consensus, however, held that the Krug was the superior wine in balance and general flavor. While I liked both of them well enough, I found myself drifting back to the Krug, which paired better with most everything we had on the table, although I thought the Montepulciano was a good match with the soup, which did have a bit of an Italian flair. The SPinC thought the Caroso was too jammy for her tastes. At the end of the day, the Krug won by unanimous consent.

But the real star of the evening was the conversation and the reconnection with our friends, who spoiled us from across the alley for many years. The spirit of the season found itself in full effect around our table, and we have many happy memories (as well as a number of other empty bottles!) to sustain us in the new year! Many thanks to Jeff, Christine, Marlane, Phoenix, Ken, and – always – the Sweet Partner in Crime for the lovely evening.

Naked Vine One-Hitter: Purple Heart Wines

August 7^th is national Purple Heart Day, a day to pay respect to those who were wounded or killed in the cause of protecting and defending our nation in the US Armed Forces. The Mondavi family (whose patriarch, Peter, is a veteran of WWII) and winemaker Ray Coursen, a Vietnam Veteran, collaborated on the Purple Heart 2013 Red Wine.

The wine retails for around $20. Purple Heart Wines will make a generous annual donation (up to $50k per year) to the Purple Heart Foundation, an organization set up to help provide for the unmet needs of military men, women, and families. They focus on PTSD recovery, cancer treatment, sexual trauma, traumatic brain injury treatment, and other such services.

The wine is a blend made up primarily of Merlot and Cabernet Sauvignon, sourced from the Napa Valley. Its flavor profile lends itself to grilling season. Fruit-forward and firm, the nose is full of raspberry tart and plums. The body is medium-to-full, with big plummy flavors that slide towards licorice on the palate. The fruit’s pretty overwhelming at first pour, but as that calms down, the tannins start to emerge, yielding a long, somewhat smoky finish.

We tried this with a London broil alongside a grilled watermelon salad. (No, I’m not kidding – it was really good! Balsamic glaze is just the best.)  I thought it was a very solid pairing, and I think you’ll like it with most flame-kissed meals.

(Stop reading here if you don’t want to get semi-political.)

On a personal note, if you have veterans – especially ones who may have earned this particular medal -- in your circles of friends and acquaintances, thanks, thoughts and prayers are nice – but ask them how they’re doing and how you can help. Maybe it’s just hanging out. Maybe you offer a ride to the VA. Perhaps you offer to let them tell you a story or two. In most cases, they’ve seen things that you haven’t, and they know things you don’t. Listen.

We have a long way to go in this country regarding the way that we treat our veterans. I’ll just ask you to do your part to keep this from ever happening again:

This image still galls me.

We are America. We must do better. We are better.

What’s in your Glass? A Case of the Blends.

“I like Cabernet.”

“I like Merlot.”

“I like Zinfandel.”

These are typical responses to “What’s your favorite type of wine?” Simple enough question with a simple enough seeming answer. You love Pinot Noir, for instance. You go to the wine store and head for the sign that says “Pinot Noir.” You snag a bottle. You pay and head home. Pop. Pour. Drink. Easy peasy.

But how do you know that the pinot noir in your hypothetical glass is actually, you know, pinot noir? “It says so right there on the bottle,” you might say. In reality, that Pinot juice in your glass may have some friends along. Very few wines, especially American wines, are made strictly from a single varietal. Instead, they’re generally blends, with certain varietals being a greater percentage.

In the U.S., the Alcohol & Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau of the Department of Treasury (that mouthful “acronyms down” to “TTB”) monitors the blending of wines. For a U.S. wine to be labeled as a single varietal, at least 75% of the blend must be made up of that varietal. That said, up to a quarter of that glass of Shiraz you ordered might be made up of different grapes – white or red. If a wine has less than 75% of a single varietal, it’s simply going to be labeled as “red wine,” often with the percentages of the various grapes listed.

Now, there’s nothing new about blending wine. If you’ve ever sampled Bordeaux (and if you haven’t, what in tarnation’s wrong with you?) – then you’ve gone to town on a blended wine. A bottle of red Bordeaux will be a blend of various percentages of primarily Cabernet Sauvignon, Cabernet Franc, and Merlot, with some Petit Verdot and Malbec thrown in for good measure. Chateauneuf-de-Pape, that magical wine from France’s Rhone region, may have up to 18 different grapes in the blend.

"We make there's none of that
pesky antifreeze in your wine..."

Why blend wine? There are some practical reasons – like trying to stretch production in a lean year or complying with regional winemaking guidelines. The terroir also plays a role. Not every harvest is the same. Varying amounts of sun and rain, seasonal differences in temperature, and other factors all affect the final flavor from a grape. Winemakers usually like to deliver a consistent product. A wine’s particular profile is, after all, what draws in a consumer initially. A skilled winemaker will often make tweaks to a wine’s final blend to try to create consistency from year to year.

Primarily, though, winemakers blend wines for flavor. Each grape has its own flavor profile. Some grapes yield wines that are fruity but watery on their own, while others are so inky and tannic that they are nigh undrinkable. Blending grapes in various ratios allow a skilled winemaker to produce something, as the cliché goes, more than the sum of its parts. A winemaker is typically trying to make the best of what’s around, which is, in my mind, the true art of wine production.

Blending should not be seen as a mark of inferiority. The most expensive wines produced domestically and abroad around the world are blends, such as Sine Qua Non’s “Queen of Spades” – a Syrah-dominant blend from Santa Barbara that will set you back about $5,000 a bottle. While I’m not willing to shell out that kind of scratch for a blend, I did recently have the opportunity to check out three blends at slightly lower price points.

The first was from New Zealand. The Trinity Hill 2014 “The Trinity” Red Wine has a slightly misleading name. This merlot-dominant (55%) blend is actually a mix of five grapes. Tempranillo, Cabernet Sauvignon, Syrah, and Malbec make up the remainder. Merlot on its own can be a little one-note, so the other additions add some complexity, tannin, and depth. I found this wine to be full of plums and spice, with a surprisingly earthy backbone – not something I see in many New Zealand wines. This wine’s very straightforward, so it’s an easy drinker on its own or would pair with any number of meaty or cheesy dishes. At around $15, it’s a pretty solid buy.

To South Africa for the Mulderbosch 2013 “Faithful Hound” Red Wine. South Africa is best known for the Pinotage grape, but there’s none to be found in this bottle. Instead, this is a straightforward Bordeaux blend – Cabernet Sauvignon and Franc, Merlot, Malbec, and Petit Verdot. Don’t expect the somewhat lean flavors of a Bordeaux here. This is a fairly burly offering with lots of cherries and leather flavors and a big smoky backbone. I found this wine

to need some considerable air before the tannins die down. Once they do, however, you’ve got a nice option for alongside any type of grilled meat. It’s around $25, which I thought was a tad pricey. (Also, the wine’s label tells the story of the “faithful hound” who kept a three-year vigil at a house on Mulderbosch farm after being abandoned by his master. The dog died. Side of sadness with your steak?)

Finally, back to the States for the Leviathan 2012 California Red Wine. The winemaker, Andy Erickson, has worked with some of the best known cult wineries in Napa, including Screaming Eagle, Harlan, and Staglin. Through his connections, he sources small quantities of grapes from across various California regions (though largely Napa-centric) to blend into his signature juice. I gotta say, Erickson knows his stuff. This is a gorgeous wine. With a name like Leviathan (which is a nasty mythological sea creature), I expected a knock-you-on-your-ass California monster red. What I found was a bold, rich wine – but it’s so balanced and silky that you don’t realize you’ve got 14.5% ABV in your glass. A blend of the Cabernets, Merlot, and Syrah, the flavor is a polished mix of candied plums, berries, smoke, and spice. The finish is velvety and lasting, full of cacao and happiness. It’s not cheap at $48, but I’d be hard pressed to find much out of Napa at this quality at that price. Try it with dark chocolate, close your eyes, and enjoy the ride.

Naked Vine One Hitter – Faust, Five Years’ Future

In March 2009, I took my first spin through the Cincinnati International Wine Festival, doing my level best to spin and sip my way through most every booth in the place. The sheer number of tastings I did eventually overwhelmed me, my taste buds, and – as you can see – my tooth enamel. 

I find it fascinating to read my old reviews from a few years back to see how my palate has changed as time’s gone by. Before the decade’s turn, I was much more into big, extracted red wines like merlot, cabernet sauvignon, and zinfandel. (“Extracted” is WineSpeak for “Wine made in such a way as to concentrate the flavors, producing a bigger, generally fruitier, and more “in your face” wine.)

When I wrote up my experiences from that day, the wines I chose as my “Best in Show” was the 2006 “Faust” Cabernet Sauvignon from Huneeus Vintners in Napa Valley. The wine, to no surprise, is named for the protagonist in the famous work by the German poet Goethe. Here’s what I wrote back then:

“Maybe it was the name that piqued by devilish curiosity. Maybe it was the powerful black cherry, fresh tobacco, and blackberry flavors that cut through everything else that I'd tasted up to that point. Maybe it was the tannins, strong but without taking away from the fruit and the finish that seemed to go on for days. Whatever deal was struck by these winemakers, they put together an absolutely delicious cabernet -- likely in my personal Top 10 of that varietal all time. Probably will set you back around $55, but considering that "high end" Napa cabernet sauvignons are selling for literally hundreds of dollars a bottle, run with this as a splurge and hold on to your soul.”

A bit of youthful hyperbole? Sure thing – but it *was* a really good wine which had enough power to blast its way through the thick coating of tannin that was undoubtedly wrapped around my tongue by the time I tried it on that March day. While I hadn’t run into an occasion to pick up a bottle over the years, I always remembered it, and I was excited for the notion of having my way with an entire bottle of the stuff!

Fast forward to late 2014. Your favorite companion in the wine review world got an email from Toby at Fineman PR, asking me if I’d like to sample the 2011 vintage of Faust. With memories of my previous brief dance with this devil in my mind, I quickly agreed.

Much like it’s namesake’s winding journey to salvation in that German poem, this bottle took some time to get to me. A bit of a shipping mishap and some ridiculous state import laws kept the bottle from me for a time, but Toby eventually succeeded in getting me a bottle of the just-released 2012 vintage. I did some decanting, grilled up some veal loin chops, rousted the Sweet Partner in Crime from her end-of-semester grading and set to tasting.

OK, first off – “extracted” still qualifies as an apt descriptor here. This is a Napa cab, through and through. Most of what I wrote for the 2006 holds true today. There are still big, bold red and black fruits on the nose and on the palate, which is rich and packed with tannin that definitely needs some air to unwind. The finish is long and chewy. It smooths out a bit as the evening winds on.

Since this is the just-dropped vintage, I thought it’s still drinking pretty young. Six more months in bottle would do the integration of this wine a world of good. The SPinC was more succinct, “It’s just too much for me,” she quipped, “I remember loving wines like this, but my palate just isn’t set up for this one anymore.” I understood where she was coming from. I still liked it more than she did.

With the veal chops, I was pleased with the pairing, but I wasn’t blown away by it. It was a good red wine pairing, but I didn’t think it was quite $55 good. Now, next to a piece of dark chocolate towards the end of the evening, I would have at least entertained an offer for a small piece of my aforementioned soul. Really super there.

For fans of premium California cabernet, I think you’re going to be pleased with this wine. If you’re looking for a holiday gift for a special someone, it’s a pretty solid option. I could certainly see the potential – especially if one were to lay a few bottles of this down for awhile. It’s certainly got the “bones” that could potentially mature into something really special.

The price for Faust remains the same -- $55. I also see that Huneeus is producing a couple of single-vineyard reserve wines inspired by Faust’s story called “The Lure” and “The Pact” which retail for $75 apiece.

Naked Vine Luxury Double Barrel -- Euclid Wines

Opus One. Heard of it?

Maybe you only know it as a Jay-Z lyric, but Opus One helped put Napa Valley’s Cabernet Sauvignon on the world wine map. First created in 1979 as a joint venture of California’s Robert Mondavi and Baron Philippe de Rothschild, owner of Chateau Mouton Rothschild – producers of the first-growth Bordeaux of the same name. Opus One was, at the time, the most expensive wine produced in California – retailing for $50. Opus One now retails for $235 per bottle.

Alas, the Opus One folks did not send along samples. But Opus One’s former cellarmaster, Mike Farmer, did. (Thanks, also, to Susan at WineGlass Marketing.) When Mike retired from his position, he and his son Lucas created Euclid Wines – drawing on his 30-plus years of experience in the wine business.

For those unfamiliar with what a “cellarmaster” does (and this included me until writing this review!) – this individual is the person who’s in charge of all aspects of production at a winery from when the containers of grapes come rolling in the door to when the cases of bottled wine go rolling out. A winemaker draws up the strategy to create a wine. The cellarmaster executes that strategy.

This father-son duo said they wanted to make a Cabernet Sauvignon as their signature wine. They currently produce a premium Cabernet (which is 97% Cabernet with 3% Syrah to round out the blend) and a 100% Syrah, both produced from grapes grown on Howell Mountain in Napa County. The geometrical-sounding name of the winery is Mike Farmer’s middle name, passed down from his grandfather, Euclid Doucette. Farmer describes his grandfather as “a man of intensity, integrity, and true to his word,” and he tried to model his wines after the emotions stemming from that familial respect.

Lucas and Mike Farmer

There are fewer more direct examples of the market’s invisible hand than wine price points. High-end wine demands high-end prices because people are willing to shell out the cash. As any marketing student will tell you, there are plenty of ways to make wine more desirable aside from actually making a superior product. Fancy packaging, slick marketing, using adult film stars to garner positive reviews, and other tricks of the trade.

The Euclid 2010 Napa Valley Cabernet Sauvignon retails for $85, and this is one of the few wines I’ve tried where I thought, “You know, this really tastes like an $85 bottle of wine.” This cabernet is exceptionally well crafted and offers some of the most interesting aromatics I’ve sniffed. My notes say “peaches, cotton candy, crème brulee perfumed sweetness.” Needless to say, these aren’t words that pop up in my reviews of reds very often. The flavor is exceptionally well-balanced, full of vanilla, dark fruit, and super-balanced tannin. The finish was lasting, gorgeous lushness. I grilled a couple of good steaks, which I put next to some grilled beets with goat cheese and dill and it was transcendently good.

The Euclid Cab is a fabulous wine and it’s a shame it goes so quickly. I had the last half-glass in the quiet of the Man Cave while mellowing out after the Sweet Partner in Crime had retired for the evening. The wine tasted like Dobie Gray’s “Drift Away” sounds at the end of a hard day.

The Euclid 2010 Sierra Foothills Syrah is not quite as pricey as its sister Cab. The retail on this bottle is $40. Syrah is generally a couple of orders of magnitude fruitier and deeper than Cabernet Sauvignon, so I didn’t expect the same sort of subtlety we’d experienced. Even with that notion…wow, what a contrast in style between these wines.

Returning to the previous metaphor, if the Cabernet is a mellow 70’s tune, the Syrah is A Tribe Called Quest’s “Low End Theory.” Good lawrd, I don’t know that I’ve ever experienced anything quite like this wine. The nose is typical Syrah – plums, violets, and spice – although it’s really well balanced and quite pretty. The mouthfeel is rich, thick, and fruity…and then the bottom absolutely drops out of this inky, tannic monster. Imagine the warming feel of a good bourbon or scotch and convert that sensation to the fullness and depth of tannin and you’ve got this Syrah’s finish. I could feel blackness filling my chest as I drank this down. While it’s not the drying, mouth puckering tannin that it could be, it feels like a dark depth charge. Boom.

I decided to do some lamb chops as a pairing with this – and about halfway through the meal, the Sweet Partner in Crime says, “I just can’t do it. It’s too big.” Caught between the richness of the wine, the marbling of the chops and the savory nature of the fennel and caper relish I’d done as a side, the SPinC overloaded. (My Uncle Alan, in contrast, would have been in absolute heaven.) I got through my glass and, upon seeing myself in the bathroom mirror later, noticed that a single glass of the Euclid was sufficient to blacken my teeth.

We didn’t get through the whole bottle. I put a VacuVin on it and sampled it over the next couple of days. After a day, it hadn’t opened up much. After two days, some of the lighter, more vanilla aspects of the nose started to come through – even though the body was still enormous. I think it still needs more time. Make sure you decant it for at least a couple of hours before you drink it. My half-hour wasn’t enough. If you like wines this powerful, snag a couple of bottles to hold for a few years.

Back to the Monastery -- Franciscan Cab Redux

About a year and a half ago, I had a chance to try Franciscan Estate's Napa Valley Cabernet Sauvignon. I don't expect you to have the review memorized or anything like that, so here's a refresher to make it easy on you. Bottom line, the 2010 vintage turned out to be a really good bottle of wine, so I was pretty excited when Nicole from R/West PR had the wine fairy send me a bottle of the 2011.

In general, larger producers are generally able to create consistent results from year to year, but there's always room for variety from vintage to vintage. Comparing the tasting notes from this year to last, it looks like the folks at Franciscan changed up the blend a bit, replacing the small amount of malbec in the 2010 blend with petit verdot and cabernet franc. (Remember, a U.S. Cabernet Sauvignon has to be at least 75% cabernet sauvignon to be labeled as such. The rest of the blend is up to the winemakers.) I wondered if that change might have an effect on the overall flavor.

In short, it did. The Franciscan Estate 2011 Napa Valley Cabernet Sauvignon is somewhat different from last year's offering. This year’s nose has some of the same plum and herbal characteristics as last years, but there's also a roasted meat or bacony aroma. This year's wine feels a little alcoholically "hotter" than last year’s as well, but there's not an increase in the actual alcohol content. Regardless, it’s not too powerful a cab. I found plenty of plum and cocoa flavors bouncing around on the palate, and the finish is smoothly tannic with some lingering fruit and spice.

All in all, I think the 2011 vintage is still a good bottle of wine -- but I think it lacks some of the finesse that I enjoyed so much with last year's offering. It's still reasonably priced at $28 for a quality wine, but if you can still find the 2010 lying around, that would be my choice.

Naked Vine Double Barrel -- Waterstone: The Winery that Wasn't There

Sometimes a winery can be just a load of grapes and a plan.

Estate winemaking, especially in well-known areas like Napa Valley, is an expensive proposition. Land is expensive, as can be cobbling together a winemaking infrastructure. Equipment, tanks, barrels, bottling lines, storage – the list of expenses goes on and on.

Winemakers with good relationships, however, can take advantage of their connections and start an operation of their own. That’s what winemakers Phillip Zorn and Brent Shortridge are attempting to do with Waterstone Winery – a winery that doesn’t exist as a brick-and-mortar place.

Zorn and Shortridge source the grapes for their various wines from growers that they know around Napa Valley and assemble the various blends for the wines in Zorn’s kitchen. They rent time and equipment at other wineries to put together their finished product. According to the Waterstone website, the pair attempts to “develop balanced wines of varietal character through intelligent sourcing…rather than the accumulation of land and facilities.”

Thanks to the good folks at Folsom & Associates, I received a pair of bottles from Waterstone to sample. What sort of wines does this phantom winery produce?

Waterstone 2012 Carneros Chardonnay – The notion of balance in a Napa wine is something I’m still getting used to. Many of those wines are strong and in-your-face. That’s not so much the case with the Waterstone. This is a much more mellow wine than many oak bombs I’m used to from Napa Chardonnay. The nose is fragrant with apple blossoms, oak, and a little bit of a toasted, yeasty undertone. This chardonnay is about as far from buttery as you’ll find. Instead, there’s a distinct mineral character that connects green apple and pear with an oaky backbone, although not as much oak as I thought there’d be after getting a whiff. The finish is oaky and fruity, with a slight astringency that fades a bit as the wine gets a little air. It’s a fairly solid middle-of-the-road chardonnay if you’re looking for something on the lighter side. Alongside a cheese and apple board we had as a snack, it was OK. It retails for $18, which may be just a tad high.

Waterstone 2011 Carneros Pinot Noir – I could have clacked out (or, more accurately, copied) the first few line of the Chardonnay review for this pinot noir. Again, this is a much more restrained glass of pinot noir than I expected from Napa. The nose, full of plums and cherries, had me ready for a big wave of fruit that didn’t materialize. Instead, a well-constructed cherry cola flavor (without sweetness) dominates the palate, along with a light trace of tannin that lingers for just a bit on the palate before deepening on the finish into long smokiness. It’s got one of the longer finishes I’ve had in a pinot in quite some time. The Sweet Partner in Crime deemed it “delicate and really pretty.” With a dinner of pork chops and citrus-flavored lentils, it proved to be deliciously food-flexible. According to the winery’s notes on this wine, the 2011 growing season was a very challenging one for their sources. If that circumstance led to the balance and focus of this wine, I hope they took good notes – because whatever technique they used worked wonderfully. We really enjoyed it. Retails for $22.

Naked Vine Triple Play -- More from Mondavi

There are few quality wine stores anywhere in the States you can walk into without bumping into a few Mondavi labels. Mondavi’s wines run the gamut from very expensive to downright cheap. The package that showed up at Vine HQ not long ago contained three bottles from their “Napa Valley” series. This slate of wines generally clock in between $20-50 and are from selected sites within that appellation. This series includes a fumé blanc (aka sauvignon blanc, the wine that put Mondavi on the map), chardonnay, cabernet sauvignon, pinot noir, and merlot.

One of the benefits of being a wine reviewer is that, if you hang around long enough, you’ll start getting some repeat wines along the way. It turns out that I’ve actually reviewed previous vintages of all three of these wines. Larger wineries generally work differently than smaller ones when it comes to wine flavors and quality. Smaller wineries have to play the hand that’s dealt them, as they have to make the best wine they can with what grows in either their own vineyard or from grapes they can get their hands on. Larger wineries tend to find a “signature” flavor for their wines, then assemble a blend of grapes from their estates and elsewhere to keep that flavor consistent from year to year. I don’t expect a great deal of variation from year to year with wines from big producers like Mondavi, so I was very interested to see how wines from a “major” winery might vary from year to year.

Robert Mondavi 2011 Napa Valley Chardonnay – I read over the review of the 2010 I did last year, and I can say that the winemakers of the Napa Valley series didn’t stand pat. Where last year’s chardonnay was full of big fruit and big oak, the 2011 is considerably more subtle. This year’s entry has a nose of pear and oak, which is followed by flavors of pear and apple. There’s a creaminess there that didn’t exist in last year’s model, and the oak has been dialed back considerably. It’s still an oaky California chardonnay, but it’s not quite as charcoally and has some nice subtlety on the finish. I’d call it an improvement. $19.

Robert Mondavi 2012 Napa Valley-Carneros Pinot Noir – In contrast, this vintage of the Napa Valley pinot noir was very similar to the previous review. For this bottle, I’d have written almost exactly the same thing that I wrote for the 2010: “There’s lots of vanilla on the nose, followed by big flavors of plums, cherries, and smoke. The finish is firm, lasting, and smoky…If you like your pinot on the bolder side, it’s a pretty solid choice.” The Sweet Partner in Crime thought that it was a merlot when I first poured it. She thought it was decent, but unspectacular. Like her, I tend to prefer my pinot a bit more subtle, especially with a $26 price tag. It paired well with some chicken breasts roasted with white wine and tarragon alongside an earthy apricot and toasted almond couscous. 

Robert Mondavi 2011 Napa Valley Cabernet Sauvignon – It was the end of another busy stretch for the SPinC and I. We wanted to kick back with a nice, easy dinner. We settled on a couple of grilled filets, some buttered carrots with fresh parsley, and a simple, fresh salad. We wanted a nice bottle of wine alongside, and this Mondavi turned out to be a perfect accompaniment for the occasion. I don’t say that because it’s a challenging, complex wine with flavors running every which way that would strike me as fascinating and unique. No, what we hoped for was a wine that was good -- a wine of quality and elegance that would accompany a simple yet well-prepared meal.  We found a winner. There’s a nice blackberry and red fruit core to the wine balanced by mellow tannins, and a finish that lingers softly. As with the chardonnay, this is a marked improvement over the 2010. The blend is similar with around 85% Cabernet Sauvignon with small parts Cabernet Franc and Merlot, but they went back to the more traditional Petit Verdot as a blending grape instead of last year’s addition of Syrah. When you pop into your local wine store with your $28-ish, you can feel comfortable here knowing that you’re getting a quality product that will please most wine-knowledgeable folks at your table.  

(Many thanks to the good folks at Folsom + Associates for the samples.)

Just In Time for the 4th -- Return of the Ravens(wood)

Almost exactly a year ago, I received a couple of Zinfandels -- framed by some reminiscences of the trip to Sonoma County which led the Sweet Partner in Crime and I us down our path of oenological debauchery. The grape that started it all was Zinfandel. (Click up there to get the rest of the story.)

The wines  in that particular review were from Ravenswood. Well, lo and behold, another pair of Ravenswood Zins landed on my doorstep for review as their new vintage rolls out. (Thanks, Lisa!) This package of goodness contained the following wines:

Ravenswood 2011 "Vintners Blend" Old Vine Zinfandel ($9)
Ravenswood 2011 "Napa Valley" Old Vine Zinfandel ($14)

To refresh your memory, the term "Old Vine" in relation to a Zinfandel is similar to calling a piece of beef "Angus." Just as "Angus Beef" roughly denotes "slightly higher quality," there's not a precise definition. Along those lines, there's no real guideline for what constitutes an actual "old" grapevine. The general rule of thumb is "older than 45 years."  Since there's nothing cast in stone, the term can be applied somewhat loosely. Like I said last time, winemakers usually turn to Potter Stewart for direction. So, how do these wines compare to last year's entries?

The Vintner's Blend still is designed to be a crowd pleaser -- fairly big and juicy, approachable, and flexible. Thanks to the consistency of the California climate and  the skill of the winemakers, this wine stays fairly consistent from year to year. There are still big cherry and blueberry scents and flavors, the tannins are relatively mild, and the finish lingers fruity and pleasant.

The Napa Valley, another one of the "County Series" wines from Ravenswood, has a little more character. (Ravenswood's other "County Series" Zinfandels are Lodi, Sonoma County, and Mendocino -- wonder what a side-by-side-by-side-by-side would be like?) Also like its cousin, it definitely needs some time in air before you can really get a handle on how the flavors actually are. After a good period of swirling and swishing, some vanilla and spice flavors start to emerge, followed by some cocoa and blackberry flavors. The finish is more tannic and grippier than the Vintner's blend.

The suggested pairing with Zinfandel is any kind of grilled meat or, for a twist, hearty red sauce pastas, and I'll put my big ol' red sauce up against just about anyone's. A big plate of penne tossed with Mike's Magic Quasi-Marinara seemed like a logical accompaniment for a side-by-side exploration. Both wines worked quite nicely alongside the sausage and mushrooms in the sauce. Again, just like last year, we split opinions. The Sweet Partner in Crime liked the Vintner's better -- and I was a bigger fan of the Napa. We had a similar split with our evening chocolate.

Bottom line -- Ravenswood makes a very solid, approachable Zinfandel. If you like the grape, you're probably going to like these wines. They're affordable and decent, and if you're doing some grilling out, your guests will be plenty happy with this.

Naked Vine One Hitter – Franciscan Estates “Equilibrium”

“This is a really good wine if you want to impress people. It would be great if you’re serving a nice brunch -- or if you’re opening it up for the first bottle of girls’ night.” 
    – The Sweet Partner in Crime

I remember a conversation I had at a conference in the days well before I knew much of anything about wine. The woman I was speaking with (whose name and face are long-lost in my dusty, ethanol-laden synapses) was waxing rhapsodic about her favorite white wine – a white wine from California called “Conundrum.” The wine’s name was a reflection of its several-grape blend. I filed that nugget away.

A couple of years later, I met a very attractive professor at the University of Kentucky who agreed, in a stunning lapse of judgment, to let me cook dinner for her. I made a shrimp and scallop curry that night, and I’d splurged on a bottle of this Conundrum stuff. This wine tasted like nothing my unpracticed palate had run into before – very fruity, a little sweet without being heavy, and super-easy to drink. I also remember it as a great pairing with the curry. The attractive professor is better known to all of you as the Sweet Partner in Crime, and during the early days of our relationship, Conundrum was our “special occasion” wine. Conundrum became wildly possible (and more expensive) as the years went on.

What does all that have to do with the sample of Franciscan Estates 2012 “Equilibrium” Napa Valley White Wine from Folsom & Associates that showed up on my doorstep?

While white wines sourced from a number of different grapes certainly aren't a new thing, they were reasonably rare in American winemaking. These "field blends" tended to be inexpensive wines made from whatever was left over after making the "premiums." Conundrum was one of the first mainstream California wines to marry the tart acidity of sauvignon blanc, the body of chardonnay, and the sweet fruit of sauvignon blanc (and a few other grapes) in one bottle in a manner that suggested high quality.

Equilibrium, to me, represents a step forward with these sorts of wines. As my palate became more experienced, I found myself liking wines like Conundrum less. It seemed a bit overly heavy. Similar wines started appearing -- many of which simply weren't very good. (They were usually much too sweet or tasted like they were artificially "thickened.") Equilibrium, on the contrary, is quite nice.

It's a blend of Sauvignon Blanc, Chardonnay, and Muscat. The nose is grapefruity, like a sauvignon, but with an light undertone of flowers. The first taste gave me more grapefruit, melon, and nectarine. It's medium-bodied and fresh. The finish is very fruity. I expected a sweetness like honey or sugar at the end, but there's none of that. Instead, there's a lingering peachy flavor that's extremely pleasant. Very nice to sip on its own.

For dinner that night, in a lucky coincidence, I was making shrimp curry. (Seriously, I didn't plan it that way.) I was very impressed. The label recommends “BBQ and Asian cuisines” – so I thought, "Hey, close enough!" It went delightfully. The very prominent fruit flavors of the wine were strong enough to shine through the curry spices, both cooling the heat a bit and complementing the meal well.

A really nice effort. Equilibrium retails for around $23. Good first-bottle-of-the-night wine, especially if you're following the SPinC's advice above.

Hardly Monastic: Franciscan Estate Winery

A double barrel of holiday cheer showed up the other day – a couple of bottles from Napa’s Franciscan Estate Winery. Franciscan was founded in 1972 by Justin Meyer and Raymond Duncan – a couple of the old-heads in Napa winemaking. Meyer purchased the winery outright in 1974 and produced the first vintage in 1975. He sold the winery in 1979 to pursue his other venture, Silver Oak, now one of the best-known names in Napa Cabernet.

In the 1980's, Franciscan bottled "Magnificat" -- one of the first "Meritage" blends in California, along with a chardonnay called "Cuvee Sauvage," the first barrel-fermented California chardonnay made with wild yeasts.

Franciscan's popularity expanded throughout the 90's and oughts. They still make the aforementioned wines, as well as estate cabernet sauvignon, sauvignon blanc, merlot, and chardonnay. The samples I received were of the Cabernet Sauvignon and Chardonnay -- which are "two of our most widely available wines," according to Janet Myers, Franciscan's director of winemaking. Myers believes that these wines "represent classic expressions of each variety." Here are my thoughts:

Franciscan Estate 2011 Napa Valley Chardonnay – A cool growing season in Napa like 2011 usually means an extra boost of richness for the white wines. This richness is definitely reflected in this 100% Chardonnay, which I thought was nicely structured and full. I got a whiff of caramel-covered apples on the nose. The mouthfeel is creamy with enough mineral to keep it from being overly thick. There's a nice array of melon, honey, cream, and minerals with some oak as an undertone rather than a feature. The finish is crisp and a little flinty with just a touch of oak at the end. The note I wrote sums up with "Nicely done." For $18, you're getting a quality bottle of Chardonnay -- one of the better ones I'd tasted from Napa this year.

Franciscan Estate 2010 Napa Valley Cabernet Sauvignon -- We were in the mood for a special meal one evening around Vine HQ and roast leg of lamb sounded like it would fit the bill nicely. Since the promotional material from Franciscan specifically mentioned lamb as a potential food pairing, we got the roast ready to go (cloves of garlic plugged in, rosemary paste smeared all over), and let this cabernet get some air. Once we took the roast out of the oven -- and it turned out marvelously, by the way -- we poured a glass of the wine (85% cabernet sauvignon, with merlot, syrah, and malbec thrown in for good measure) for a first taste. Even after an hour or so decanting, the flavors were still quite tight. Very strong coffee notes -- so strong initially that it overwhelmed the fruit in a large fashion. We set the glasses aside, finished preparing the side dishes (buttered carrots, some herbed couscous, and small salads), plated everything up and moved to the table.

After some time sitting in glasses followed by a good swirl, the wine improved dramatically. Plum and fennel flavors started to emerge in a much more harmonious fashion. The tannin was considerable, but hardly off-putting. My first reaction was that it was a very solid, complex wine. I don't have detailed notes after that, and I think that's a good thing. We had a lovely meal, laughing and talking and savoring. We'd cobbled together one of the better tasting meals in quite some time, and the wine complemented it as I hoped it would. Flavors were married, lips were smacked, glasses were poured. Blissfully yummy all around. It retails at $28, but for such a meal, it's worth it.

Wine Fairies and the Unexpected Picnic – Robert Mondavi Wines

Vine HQ was a happy place last week. Not one, but two unexpected deliveries appeared from the wine fairy –samples from Robert Mondavi winery. I learned later that they were from our friends at Folsom & Associates, so thanks very much!

Robert Mondavi is a ubiquitous label. I’m trying to remember the last time I walked into a wine store and didn’t see at least a few selections from Mondavi. One reason we should all appreciate Mr. Mondavi -- back in the 1960’s, Mondavi was one of the first vintners in California to label wine by varietal instead of by vineyard – which is now, of course, the standard in the nomenclature wine bottled outside France, Italy, and a few other places.

Mondavi was known in the 60’s and 70’s for making high-end wines (and they still do – their 1997 reserve Chardonnay was rated #1 in the world). Over the years, the wild success of their more inexpensive labels like Mondavi Coastal and Woodbridge overshadowed their more premium bottlings (aside from some of the super high-end stuff like Opus One, done in partnership with Chateau Mouton Rothschild of Bordeaux). Mondavi has been trying to improve the marketing of its “inexpensive premium” wines, as well as giving a facelift to some of the less expensive lines. I had the opportunity to try a couple from each of these categories.

The first lot we received was from the “Napa Valley” series. This wines run $20-50 and are from selected sites within that appellation. This series includes a fumé blanc (aka sauvignon blanc, the wine that put Mondavi on the map), chardonnay, cabernet sauvignon, pinot noir, and merlot. We had one bottle each of the pinot noir and the chardonnay:

Robert Mondavi 2010 Carneros Pinot Noir – Carneros is a region that bridges Napa and Sonoma Counties. It includes some of the cooler climates found in either region – which makes Carneros a very good candidate to grow pinot noir. This bottle definitely needs a chance to breathe before you get down to it. Short of giving it a good solid spin or decanting it for a bit, I expect you’ll be a bit taken aback by the initial tannin level. Once it calms down, there’s lots of vanilla on the nose, followed by big flavors of plums, cherries, and smoke. The finish is firm, lasting, and smoky. We thought that it went well with a challenging pairing of stuffed green peppers. Quite nice with dark chocolate, too. If you like your pinot on the bolder side, it’s a pretty solid choice. Retails for $27.

Robert Mondavi 2010 Napa Valley Chardonnay – I imagine makers of California Chardonnay as engineers hovering over three dials labeled “Oak,” “Butter,” and “Fruit” -- manipulating dials to generate an algorithm of time in barrel, type of barrel, percentage of malolactic fermentation, residual sugar, etc. to create a consistent profile. This Chardonnay, sourced from all over Napa with a little Sonoma fruit thrown in, had a winemaker crank up the “Oak” and “Fruit” knobs. On the nose and palate, you’ll experience ample but reasonably well balanced oak. Flavorwise, I found pears, cantaloupe, and oak in a relatively friendly, stable environment, which follows through to the finish. Poured on its own, the Sweet Partner in Crime and I split on this wine. I liked it, but she didn’t. With a slow-cooked fall vegetable soup, the roasted veggies played off the oak nicely, making it a tasty meal wine. It retails for around $20.

The second lot was two bottles of the “Robert Mondavi Private Selection” series. Near as I can tell, this is the rebranding of the less-pricey Mondavi “Coastal” line. Most of these wines fit squarely into the Naked Vine wheelhouse, retailing in the $10-15 range.

This pair of wines, however, came with some bonus swag. The wines came in a very attractive soft-side picnic basket with a roll-up picnic blanket, a travel guide to California’s Central Coast, and some very spicy salami. The implication seems to be that these are good picnic wines. We received one bottle of Cabernet Sauvignon and one bottle of Chardonnay. The Private Selection catalog also contains all the other major varietals: Merlot, Pinot Noir, Zinfandel, Syrah, a Meritage red blend, Sauvignon Blanc, Riesling, and Pinot Grigio. How did this pair fare?

Look! Stuff!

Robert Mondavi 2010 Private Selection Central Coast Cabernet Sauvignon – We’d had a very long week at work and decided to grill some filets. What goes better with steak than California cabernet, right? Whew! On opening, this wine was tight. Tight enough to yield entendres galore on Match Game. My first impressions were tart flavors over graphite – not a particularly pleasant combination. Thankfully, after some air, the flavors mellowed. Some blackberry flavors started to emerge, and the tannin calmed down a bit. The finish was tart and a bit clipped. We sipped on it some more while waiting for the steaks to rest, and we each went through half a glass without thinking. When we had it with the steak, it was a decent accompaniment, but we didn’t notice that it did anything special. My note says, “Well, it’s there.” Simple, straightforward, and not unpleasant after decanting, it wasn’t exactly memorable. Retails for $11.

Robert Mondavi 2011 Private Selection Central Coast Chardonnay – Returning to our “Chardonnay engineering” friends and their hypothetical three dials, this time they’ve got the oak dialed way back. There’s a hint of it at the very end of the finish, and a few notes floating through the bouquet and flavor, but it’s largely background, which is a nice surprise for an $11 California bottle. The butter’s turned up a little, as it has a creamier vanilla flavor, but it doesn’t go all the way to full-on buttery. Fruitwise, it’s actually got quite a nice balance of mango, pear, and apple. I thought this was quite a pleasantly drinkable wine. We did another “breakfast for dinner” evening with this wine – and with an open faced omelet with sausage, a bunch of roasted veggies and mushrooms, it worked right well. With California Chardonnay, it’s a matter of finding a combination of the three dials that you like. I honestly enjoyed this one more than I did its doubly-priced cousin.

Naked Vine One-Hitter -- Ca' Momi Ca' Rosa

Tasty, Tasty...

Brunch is my favorite meal of the day, no matter what time it's served. And where's there's brunch in these parts, there's bubbly.

A week or so ago, Tara at Balzac sent me a sample of Ca' Momi winery's new "frizzante" offering: Ca' Rosa, a sparkling rosé. Despite the Italian trappings, Ca' Momi is a Napa winery. To bring a bit of the Old Country flavor to the West Coast, Ca' Momi developed a "prosecco-styled" sparkling white. Apparently that was enough of a success that they decided to venture into the world of pink bubbly with the Ca' Rosa.

Ca' Rosa is a blend of Chardonnay, Sauvignon Blanc, Pinot Noir, and Muscat. It retails for $17-18. The wine was described in the tasting notes as "off-dry." I translated that in my brain as "semi-sweet," so I wasn't thinking about it as a dinner offering. I thought it would be a better match for a lazy Sunday morning over an omelet and some fruit.

What I didn't count on was the sheer scrumptiousness of the salmon filets that I'd cured and cooked to perfection in my little jury-rigged grill/smoker one afternoon. That home-smoked salmon veritably screamed to be used in a main dish, so we decided to do "breakfast for dinner." A simple omelet, some home fries, a little sriracha on the side, and this bottle of bubbly.

Was I mistaken initially. The "off-dry" in the description was much more like "extra dry," which if you remember, is only one step from the bone-dry "brut." The nose was light with some yeast and a little strawberry. The flavor was light with easy pear and strawberry flavors. Nice mousse with a crisp level of acidity. The finish was crisp and fruity. We really enjoyed the bubbly -- and it was a superb pairing with the breakfast food. Brunches aweigh!