Dear friends,
The following is the 2-5-09 posting (under the title "In Vino Veritas") on
John Holdredge's blog, http://pinotdiatribes.blogspot.com, which I commend
to your attention. John makes pinots, syrahs and zins from various
appellations around Sonoma County, and is an all around prince of a guy.
Quoting John now:
Blah, blah, blah, in wine there is truth...hell, you could say the same
about Vodka. Or beer. Drink enough, and even the most discreet individual
will say something he or she shouldn't have said. That's usually a good time
to take pictures of them by the way.
But there are certain truths in winemaking that are beyond dispute. Take any
facet of winemaking, and within that subject, some things just cannot be
argued. A good example is when is the best time to complete malolactic (ML)
fermentation? After all, ML takes a while to finish, and the progress is
affected by numerous things like ambient temperature (bacteria struggle
below 62 degrees or so), pH (high pH is easier, low pH is more challenging),
alcohol levels (high alcohol is a hostile environment), and more. ML
fermentation is anything but a straight line -which I guess is kind of like
that scene in Kill Bill 1 where "Black Mamba" is getting the Hittori Honzo
sword presented to her and Hittori Honzo says something like "revenge is
never a straight line"- or maybe not. Sometimes ML finishes before winter,
sometimes in spring, sometimes the next summer, sometimes it just doesn't
finish.
So which is the best time for an ML to finish? Easy question. Here is what I
know to be beyond dispute about the best time for ML fermentations to
finish**:
1. If your ML's complete before winter- that is the best possible thing
because you can sulfur your wines and keep them safe. This reflects a
conscious effort by the winemaker to always adhere to the best possible
practices.
2. If your ML's don't complete until spring, that is the best possible thing
because longer ML keeps the wine slightly blanketed with CO2.This reflects a
conscious effort by the winemaker to always adhere to the best possible
practices.
3. If your ML's don't complete until summer, that is the best possible thing
because if you bottle in the fall, you will probably have used less sulfur
if you waited to sulfur until ML is complete.This reflects a conscious
effort by the winemaker to always adhere to the best possible practices.
4. If your wines simply don't complete ML, that is the best possible thing,
because that harder profile of malic acid gives the wine an additional layer
of structure.This reflects a conscious effort by the winemaker to always
adhere to the best possible practices.
5. In all instances, NEVER admit anything is out of your control or that you
made a mistake. Instead, always make it clear that you are the ringmaster,
and whatever happens is all part of your grand design.
**this rather fuzzy logic can be applied to any facet of winemaking.
Recommendations
Wednesday, February 25, 2009; F05
Chateau de Francs 2005
** 1/2
Bordeaux-Cotes de Francs, Bordeaux, France, $18
(Good Value)
It's stylish, with a velvety texture and good tannin structure over full cherry and blackberry flavor.
M. Touton: available in the District at MacArthur Beverages (as a direct import), Pearson's; available in Maryland at Bay Ridge Wine & Spirits in Annapolis, Town & Country in Easton; available in Virginia at Cecile's Wine Cellar in McLean, Fern Street Gourmet in Alexandria.
Chateau Listran Cuvee Prestige 2005
** 1/2
Medoc, Bordeaux, France, $20
This wine features classic cabernet-Bordeaux aromas of roasted coffee, toffee, blackberry and graphite (think pencil lead). It also offers rich texture and a long finish.
RNDC: available in the District at Ace Beverage, Connecticut Avenue Wine & Liquor, Continental Wine & Liquor, Lee-Irving Liquor; on the list at La Chaumiere.
Chateau Chabiran 2005
**
Bordeaux Superieur, France, $14
(Good Value)
Low yields and densely planted vineyards give this wine tremendous concentration. It is modern in style, with plum, cherry, cocoa and a hint of clove in the flavor mix and soft, grippy tannins on the finish. Gorgeous.
Wine Traditions: available in the District at De Vinos, Whole Foods Market P Street; on the list at Cashion's Eat Place. Available in Maryland at Finewine.com in Gaithersburg. Available in Virginia at Arrowine in Arlington, the Winery in Alexandria.
Chateau Le Doyenne 2005
**
Cotes de Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France, $20
A core of bright fruit gives nerve and energy to this wine, which shows textbook Bordeaux flavors of blackberry, plum and graphite.
M. Touton: available in the District at Pearson's; available in Maryland at Bay Ridge Wine & Spirits in Annapolis; available in Virginia at Arrowine in Arlington, Leesburg Vintner in Leesburg.
Chateau Prignac 2005
**
Medoc, Bordeaux, France, $11
(Good Value)
Cabernet sauvignon gives this wine a blackberry-black cherry character, which is accentuated by anise and a good balance and impressive finish.
M. Touton: available in the District at Ace Beverage, Burka's Wine & Liquor, Connecticut Avenue Wine & Liquor, Modern Liquors, Pearson's; available in Maryland at Silesia Liquors in Fort Washington, Beers & Cheers in Germantown, Old Farm Liquors and Westridge Liquors in Frederick, Bay Ridge Wine & Spirits in Annapolis.
Lalande-Couturier 2005
**
Bordeaux, France, $18
This 100 percent merlot wine is from Jean-Luc Thunevin, the famed "garagiste" producer of Chateau Valandraud. Modern in style, it is dense and dark but features appealing bright fruit flavors and velvety texture throughout.
Simon N Cellars: available in the District at P&C Market, Potomac Wine & Spirits; on the list at Bistro Francais, Cafe du Parc. In Virginia, on the list at Inox in Tysons Corner.
Chateau de Castelnau Reserve 2005
* 1/2
Bordeaux, $13
This 100 percent merlot wine shows nice, ripe plum flavors with firm acidity and a medium-long finish.
M. Touton: available in the District at Cairo Wine & Liquor, Watergate Wine and Beverage; on the list at Peacock Cafe and Petits Plats. Available in Maryland at the Wine Shoppe in Waldorf, Town & Country Wine Liquor Etc. in Easton. Available in Virginia at Balducci's in Alexandria and McLean.
Chateau Sainte Colombe 2005
* 1/2
Cotes de Castillon, Bordeaux, France, $15
The blend of 70 percent merlot and the rest cabernet franc is a bit rough around the edges, with woodsy spice notes dominating its cherry and berry fruit. The texture is velvety, and soft tannins restore harmony for a delicious finish.
Direct import of MacArthur Beverages; may be available elsewhere.
Chateau Tour de Pic 2005
*
Premieres Cotes de Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France, $12
A hint of earthy mushrooms accentuates this wine's bright cherry flavors, lending complexity and interest.
M. Touton: available in the District at Connecticut Avenue Wine & Liquor; available in Virginia at Curious Grape in Shirlington and by the glass at Signature Theatre in Shirlington.
--
------------------------------
* Dr. James Ellingson, jellings(a)me.umn.edu *
* University of Minnesota, mobile : 651/645-0753 *
* Great Lakes Brewing News, 1569 Laurel Ave., St. Paul, MN 55104 *
I'm unable to verify the quote:
Churchill commented that 'a magnum is the perfect size for two gentlemen over lunch'.
I did find this quote about the Imperial Pint:
What, though, was so special about the imperial pint? Churchill believed it to be the perfect measure: just enough for two people to drink at lunch and for one person to drink at dinner," says Simpson. "He drank one every day, between his whisky and his brandy."
Cellaring Champagne? Supersize it, experts say.
Steve Pitcher, Special to The Chronicle
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Sparkling wine ages longer and better in a magnum (left).
There's no denying that serving Champagne or sparkling wine from a magnum - a 1.5-liter bottle containing the equivalent of two standard bottles - is dramatic and impressive. With Valentine's Day just around the corner, consider that the amorous message bubbly sends is magnified twofold by a magnum.
But is there any difference between the same wine in the two bottle sizes, whether it's produced in Champagne or California? Most experts agree that not only does a sparkler in magnum taste different, but also it certainly will last longer, stay fresher and develop more character and complexity in the cellar. A cooking analogy might be useful. A beef roast will taste better when cooked at low temperature over a long period of time, compared to one cooked quickly at high temperature.
"Magnums age more gracefully than (standard) bottles," asserts Eileen Crane, president and winemaker at Domaine Carneros. "They promote a tempo and type of aging by which sparkling wine shows its best over time."
Standard bottles of bubbly are typically drunk soon after purchase, and that's just what the wineries expect. That's the beauty of bubbly: It's ready to drink when released, and will age in its standard 750 ml bottle. But it will age even better in a magnum. The consumer gets to make the choice.
How long can a well-made California sparkling wine age in magnum? "Let's pop that sucker when it's 20 years old!" advises Hugh Davies, president and vintner at Napa Valley's Schramsberg Vineyards, which has an extensive library of older vintages. "Sparkling wine and Champagne age longer and better in magnum than any wine, red or white."
For Davies, it's bubbly's extra ingredient that makes the difference. "The carbon dioxide in the wine acts as a preservative that helps keep it fresh over time," he says.
Davies' 20-year boast isn't an idle one. Serious Champagne collectors shudder at the thought of opening a magnum before its time - at least five to six years for most and up to 50 years or more in the case of some British aficionados, who make a habit of drinking their magnums of Bolly (that's Bollinger to the rest of us) quite old. That preference is sometimes called the "English palate" - an appreciation of the softened mouthfeel that comes as more and more carbon dioxide is absorbed into the wine over time, reducing the bubbles' persistence.
When bubbly is very young, regular-size bottles may be the way to go. "Within the first two years of release, the wine from the standard bottle will generally taste comparatively better," observes Crane, who has done extensive comparative tastings using various bottle sizes. "After that time, the same wine from magnum tastes better and shows more depth and complexity."
That's because, by then, an alchemy of sorts has begun to take place. Davies explains that within the first couple of years of development, the wine in magnum has only barely absorbed the trace amounts of oxygen remaining in the bottle. That slows the aging process. It's a faster process in smaller bottles because the air-to-wine ratio is greater.
"The slower the process, the more nuanced and complex the evolution of the wine," explains Davies. Crane adds that there's actually less oxygen in magnums because the bottle's longer neck allows a higher fill, thus reducing the ullage (the space between the bottom of the cork and the wine's surface, a source of trace oxygen).
Kyle Nadeau, manager of D&M Wines & Spirits, a Champagne retail specialist in San Francisco, advises that perceived differences depend greatly on the style of the winery or Champagne house. "The same vintage of Krug Champagne, which is made in a bigger, bolder style than most, will exhibit little difference between bottle and magnum on release, while a vintage of Perrier-Jouet, for example, a lighter-styled Champagne, will generally taste different, and I'd say better, from the magnum early on."
Then there is the matter of autolysis, a key component in the creation of sparkling wine, if one discussed only in the most wine-savvy company. Arnaud Weyrich, the French-trained winemaker at Roederer Estate in Anderson Valley, explains that autolysis - the gradual breakdown of yeast cells, known as lees, that provide the wine with its bubbles during a second fermentation - works differently in a magnum. There's proportionally more glass surface, which allows more contact between the lees on the inside of the bottle and the wine. "This results in more creaminess and roundness as the wine ages, finer, tinier bubbles and imparts complex aromas of baked brioche, cashew or hazelnut and spice," he says.
Tom Tiburzi, Domaine Chandon's winemaker, adds that autolysis takes more time in a magnum, up to four weeks longer than in a regular bottle. "During this time the yeast cells are in a struggling stage - going through a long, slow death, so to speak - and getting to more of the wine," he explains.
Particularly in Champagne, wineries presenting an important vertical tasting of their bubbly for visiting media or trade prefer to do so from magnums. At a tasting of Dom Perignon in 2005 with cellar master and winemaker Richard Geoffroy at the Dom's ancient abbey in Hautvillers, we were poured from imposing magnums the vintages of 1998, 1996, 1995 and 1990.
Comparing bubbly from magnum to the same wine poured from a regular bottle is sometimes possible at sparkling wineries. At Roederer Estate, for example, "a magnum is always open for tasting," says Sharon Sullivan, the director of hospitality.
The differences are immediately clear, as side-by-side tastes of Roederer's current nonvintage brut revealed. The regular bottle yielded a wine with little frothiness, forward apricot and creamy hazelnut aromas and a round mouthfeel. The same wine from magnum was far frothier (much more so than from a well-aged magnum) with aromas and flavors based more on citrus, and had a certain shyness to it.
If there's a note of caution, it's that some sparkling wineries produce magnums by transferring the contents of two standard bottles, which won't produce the enhanced results. But none of California's top sparkling wine houses employs the transfer process for magnums. And in Champagne, according to Sam Heitner, director of the Office of Champagne in Washington, D.C., regulations prohibit using the transfer process for magnums.
Some prefer not to complicate bubbly with scientific musings. More an affair of the heart than the brain, so to speak. As for me, a magnum of sparkling wine or Champagne is the perfect bottle for a party of two come Feb. 14 or any other day.
Buying guide
Magnums are usually priced slightly higher than two standard bottles of the same wine. If you don't see your choice on the shelf, ask the merchant to order it for you (but be prepared to pay for a six-magnum case).
Store the bottles in a cool, dark place for at least a year; label nonvintage wines with the year of purchase. If you do this every year, you'll have a constant supply of superior bubbly.
NV Arlaux Brut Champagne ($79) This tiny producer based in Vrigny, run by Christine Marechal, makes subtly fruity Champagnes primarily from Pinot Noir and Pinot Meunier. (Importer: Wine House Ltd.)
NV Collard-Picard Cuvee Selection Brut Champagne ($75) A blend of 80 percent Pinot Meunier and 20 percent Chardonnay fermented in stainless steel with no malolactic fermentation. Round and full on the palate with richness to spare. (Importer: Premier Wine Co.)
NV Domaine Chandon Brut Classic ($32) This very well-priced sparkler is refreshingly soft and dry, offering complex aromas of apple and pear accented by subtle nuttiness and brioche.
NV Fleury Carte Rouge Brut Champagne ($89) From the first grower in the region to be certified biodynamic by Demeter. Made from Pinot Noir in a Blanc de Noir style, this is fruity and delicate, yet still rich, with low dosage, making it quite dry. (Importer: Premier Wine Co.)
NV Nicolas Feuillatte Blue Label Brut Champagne ($80) A blend of 40 percent each Pinot Noir and Pinot Meunier with 20 percent Chardonnay, offering hazelnut and apple and quince aromas. (Importer: Chambers & Chambers)
NV Pommery Brut Royal Champagne ($75) From a large producer based in Reims, this classic, lighter-style Champagne offers fresh aromas of white flowers and citrus, with ample lemony fruit flavors, rich texture and a spicy finish. (Importer: W.J. Deutsch & Sons)
NV Roederer Estate Anderson Valley Brut ($48) Tasted against the standard 750 ml bottle ($22), it's a different wine. Livelier and more plentiful bubbles. Wine in the smaller bottle offered forward aromas of hazelnut cream, apricot and citrus, while this has shy aromas of lemon blossom and toasted brioche, enhanced by green apple and quince. In the mouth, very full and a bit frothy with more citrus flavors showing.
NV Roederer Estate Anderson Valley Brut Rosé$57) A blend of 60 percent Pinot Noir and 40 percent Chardonnay, with the lovely salmon hue coming from the addition of a small amount of still Pinot Noir. Full and round in the mouth with lively, tiny bubbles and a remarkable balancing act of elegance and austerity contributed by the Chardonnay.
- S.P.
Steve Pitcher is a contributing editor for Wine News magazine. E-mail him at wine(a)sfchronicle.com.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/08/FDPQ15H8J4.DTL
This article appeared on page E - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle
--
------------------------------
* Dr. James Ellingson, jellings(a)me.umn.edu *
* University of Minnesota, mobile : 651/645-0753 *
* Great Lakes Brewing News, 1569 Laurel Ave., St. Paul, MN 55104 *
Or should I say "The Emperor's new score."
Poking a hole in wine judging
If you sub in three identical wines, will any judge notice?
Carlos Avila Gonzalez/The Chronicle, 2001
If you sub in three identical wines, will any judge notice?
The latest study to cause a fluster among winemakers has nothing to do with price points, labels or anything involving less household spending. It's about wine judging, specifically judges at wine competitions.
A paper released last month in the Journal of Wine Economics found that judges in the California State Fair wine competition were able to score the same wine with the same rating only about 10 percent of the time, and that less than half the judging panels provided consistent judging results. Nor were judges who judged consistently one year necessarily consistent the next. The study was conducted by Robert Hodgson, a retired professor at Humboldt State University who also runs Fieldbrook Winery in Humboldt County and has served as a wine judge at the state fair. He performed the study with the cooperation of the competition's organizers. (You can read the full paper here.)
Hodgson has said he wanted to delve into the inconsistencies that seem to plague wine competitions. A wine scores a gold in one; comes home empty-handed in another. Based on his own experiences, he suspected that judging dozens of wines per day might be too much to ask. As he told the Los Angeles Times: "Wine judges in the setting of a competition must make about a hundred decisions a day. It is in this environment where I think their ability is taxed beyond a reasonable level."
The study makes for interesting reading, and though I haven't had a chance to discuss the results with Hodgson directly, I'd love to query him in particular about this last notion -- that it's a matter of fatigue, presumably both mental and physical.
There's inevitably a portion of wine folk out there who are gazing at these findings with a big "So what?" on their faces, since it's no secret that judging results are often wildly inconsistent from competition to competition.
But there is plenty of interesting fodder in the results. Let's just separate two different issues at work here.
The first is whether judges are able to score the same wine with similar scores when presented with it. That goes to consistency, and though wine can show itself differently depending on when you're tasting it, how it has evolved and whether it's from the same bottle, Hodgson arranged for triplicate samples of the same wines to be served to 16 judging panels, typically all in the same flight and typically during the second flight of the day, before any palate fatigue set in. The second is to understand whether a wine is being judged on its own merits or on the subjective palate preferences of a judge.
This latter one is more difficult, and more interesting. My own experience judging tells me that both factors are in play; my panel at this year's Chronicle wine competition (which uses a similar judging method) spent a lot of time discussing technical execution of the wines we tasted, in part because I once again got the pleasure to taste with Dick Peterson, and to benefit from his decades of technical expertise in winemaking. Even in panel, it was clear that one person's technical fault in a wine may be what someone else considers an extra bit of character. (That's true even for the world's top wines, though a topic for another day. Sometime we'll discuss the volatile acidity in the 1947 Cheval Blanc.)
But beyond that, there's an inherent tension between the notion of wine judging as an extension of agricultural tradition -- the state fair connection very much a salient one -- versus being an aesthetic consideration of talent and quality. In the first, judging wine becomes just like judging ewes or pumpkins (though I suspect some squash and sheep connoisseurs out there take similar issue). In the second, wine becomes a matter of taste -- considered blind, perhaps, but ultimately not so different than the Academy Awards or, dare I say, the Grammies, or any award program that uses a series of expert judges, including those for journalism. Does this Merlot suck? Was "Wall-E" robbed? Discuss.
There are other factors to chew on, too -- ones that are somewhat harder to study. The claim that competitions are set up to hand out as many medals as possible, for instance. Or what the real value of a gold medal might be. Hodgson gives a nod to this last by noting that wineries spend over $1 million in entry fees at four California competitions, yet many consumers barely care whether the wine they're buying won a medal.
Which brings us to the ultimate question: Are wine competitions still relevant in a world flooded with 100-point scores, blogs (natch) and endless sources of opinion? What do you think?
Posted By: Jon BonnéEmail) | February 04 2009 at 09:30 AM
Listed Under: Events, News, Tastings, Winemakers | Comments (11) : Post Comment
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/wine/detail?&entry_id=35402
:wq
--
------------------------------
* Dr. James Ellingson, jellings(a)me.umn.edu *
* University of Minnesota, mobile : 651/645-0753 *
* Great Lakes Brewing News, 1569 Laurel Ave., St. Paul, MN 55104 *
Sacre Bleu Wine
& Haskell's Wine and Spirits presents
the EXCLUSIVE Minneapolis screening of
MERLOVE is a new documentary film from Rudolph McClaim celebrating
Merlot wine in response to the movie Sideways. Have the courage to
embark on your own wine adventure. Merlove will help you learn more
about wine, but it is your own experience that will guide your personal
journey. As you try new wines you will gain love and appreciation for
the gifts that wine can bring. Like anything in life, wine can be
enjoyed and enhanced by sharing it with others. The bottom line is good
wine is good wine and bad wine is bad wine, but that should not stop the
adventure. The message of Merlove is that no single grape varietal
should be singled out as superior or inferior to others. Enjoy as we
interweave documentary style filmmaking with the animation of a bottle
of Merlot wine named “Merlove” who must find a way to fill itself with
love when aimlessly tossed into the ocean of mediocre Merlot wine.
We want people to know that Merlot is ready to be loved again by all and
remember that every vintage has a new story to tell...
Tickets: $20.00
Join us on February 19^th at 6:00 P.M. as we begin with a special wine
tasting of some of the worlds best Merlots from Haskell's as well as
Sacre Bleu's Pinot Noir. The premier screening of MERLOVE will begin at
8:00 P.M. and will include a Q&A with filmmaker Rudolph McClain.
February 4, 2009
WINES OF THE TIMES
For Barolos, the Thrill Is Back
By ERIC ASIMOV
LET.S get this out of the way immediately: Barolo is not an inexpensive wine. I acknowledge that. But put that aside for a moment for these very good reasons: Barolo is a great wine, it can be a profound wine, and it is a wine that I love.
Like all great wines, Barolo appeals both to the head and to the heart. Its complexity and depth reward contemplation, while its sensual aromas and flavors seduce and enthrall. For me, Barolo is right up there with Burgundy in possessing this thrilling combination of intellectual and soulful attraction, although my cabernet-loving friends scoff that I simply haven.t drunk enough great Bordeaux. I.m sure they are right.
In the late 1980s through the .90s, Barolo lovers got used to good vintages. The vintages from 1996 to 2001 in particular were excellent, and I would even add the forgotten 1995 vintage to that streak. But in 2002 hail destroyed much of the crop, and in 2003 unrelenting heat and drought contributed to unusual, anomalous wines. By all accounts, though, 2004 was a superb return to form.
To see for ourselves, the wine panel recently sampled 25 Barolos from the 2004 vintage. We decided to limit ourselves to bottles under $100, which means we omitted many of the pantheon producers, like Bartolo Mascarello, Bruno Giacosa, Giacomo Conterno, Paolo Scavino, Luciano Sandrone and quite a few others.
Still, even at Barolo.s lower tier, it was clear to us that 2004 is indeed a fine year. For the tasting, Florence Fabricant and I were joined by Chris Cannon, an owner of Alto in midtown Manhattan and Convivio in Tudor City, and Fred Dexheimer, the wine director of the BLT restaurant group.
What makes 2004 distinctive? To me, it is the fact that many of the wines are approachable right now . much earlier than is typical for tannic, high-acid Barolos . without sacrificing elegance or structure. In a classic, austere vintage like 1996 or 2001, Barolos can take years to come around. Many .96s are still not ready to drink. Riper years like 1997 and 2000 are accessible earlier but sacrifice some of the precision and focus of the more austere years. In this sense, the .04 vintage performs a rare balancing act.
Nonetheless, by accessible I don.t mean, .Drink it now!. I.m simply saying many of these wines will not overwhelm your mouth with ferocious tannins. It is possible to enjoy them today. But they will be far better and more rewarding if you can put them aside for five years or longer.
The nebbiolo grape, of course, is famous for its impenetrable tannins. For this reason, among others, some young Barolo producers in the 1960s and .70s began to change their methods, hoping to make the wines more enjoyable at an earlier age. They quickened the fermentation time, diminished the time the juice would macerate with the skins and began to age the wine in small barrels of new French oak, rather than the big barrels of old oak that were traditional.
For much of the .80s and .90s, Barolo and its neighboring partner in nebbiolo, Barbaresco, were defined by conflict between the so-called modernists and the traditionalists.
But in the last five years, there has been movement to the center, with many producers moderating previously rigid stands. We found far fewer Barolos than we expected marked by the overbearing flavors of new oak or by inky black colors, rather than the more natural ruby. If these wines were more accessible earlier, it was not so much a result of winemaking techniques as a sign of the vintage.
Indeed, we found even the wines of producers long associated with the modernist movement to offer the aromas and flavors more typical of classic Barolos.
The Pajana from Domenico Clerico, for example, and the Elio Altare, our No. 4 and No. 5 wines, were lovely, balanced bottles. The robust Clerico did have a touch of detectable oak, but it was not over the top, nor did the fruitiness of the Altare overwhelm the floral and licorice flavors.
Still, we preferred more traditional expressions, like the Massolino Vigna Margheria, our No. 1 wine, rich and powerful yet graceful and already complex. Incidentally, while Massolino.s methods of vinification are traditional, one could argue that the Vigna Margheria, made from a single vineyard, is a modern manifestation because Barolo is traditionally a blend from several sites. But we won.t get caught up in that.
Our No. 2 bottle, the Einaudi Costa Grimaldi, was complete yet approachable, typical of these 2004s in that it will give pleasure now but reward patience. I especially liked the No. 3 Brovia, with its earthy tar, mineral and cherry flavors. It, too, was surprisingly accessible.
We all admired the consistency of the wines, but Chris, perhaps, was a little less taken with the vintage than the rest of us. .People overstate the quality of the vintage,. he said. .It.s very good, but not .96, .99 or .01..
Stylistically, he.s right about that, as these wines do seem more open at this stage in their development. Who knows, we may be drinking these while we continue to wait for the .96s.
All right, now let me return to the subject on everybody.s mind, money. Yes, these are not inexpensive wines. Barolo lovers know that, yet are willing to sacrifice. Obviously these are not everyday wines . but for special occasions they are good values, certainly compared with other wines in the same price range.
And, honestly, so many good Barolo producers are out there, including quite a few that we didn.t have in our tasting.
Roagna is one of my favorites and always a great value, as are Anselma, Azelia, Cavallotto, Ratti, Francesco Rinaldi, Giuseppe Rinaldi, Vietti . I could go on and on.
And then there.s the best nebbiolo value of all, Produttori del Barbaresco, but that.s another story entirely.
February 4, 2009
Tasting Report: The 2004s Are Here, Ready for Special Occasions
By ERIC ASIMOV
Massolino Barolo Vigna Margheria 2004 $90 *** 1/2
Rich, full and deep with beautiful aromas of violets, cherries, spices, tar and licorice. (Importer: Domaine Select, New York)
Luigi Einaudi Barolo Costa Grimaldi 2004 $80 *** 1/2
Dense yet accessible with lingering flavors of flowers, licorice, tart cherry and menthol. (Premier Wine Company, Richmond, Calif.)
BEST VALUE
Brovia Barolo 2004 $50 ***
Rich and complex with classic aromas of cherries, tar, earth and minerals. (Rosenthal Wine Merchant, New York)
Domenico Clerico Barolo Pajana 2004 $84 ***
Full-bodied and spicy with flavors of black cherries, flowers and menthol. (Marc de Grazia Selection/Michael Skurnik Wines, Syosset, N.Y.)
Elio Altare Barolo 2004 $95 ***
Dense and well balanced with dark fruit augmented by aromas of licorice and flowers. (Marc de Grazia Selection/Michael Skurnik Wines)
Luigi Pira Barolo Vigna Margheria 2004 $65 ** 1/2
Dense yet velvety with elegant fruit and mineral flavors. (Marc de Grazia Selection/Michael Skurnik Wines)
Mauro Veglio Barolo Vigneto Gattera 2004 $43 ** 1/2
Bright, floral and spicy; accessible and pleasing now. (Wine Warehouse, Los Angeles)
Boroli Barolo 2004 $42 ** 1/2
Tannic and chewy with rich, lingering flavors of fruit, menthol and licorice. (Dalla Terra, Napa, Calif.)
Marchesi di Barolo Barolo 2004 $40 ** 1/2
Earthy with mineral, licorice and pomegranate flavors. (Palm Bay Imports, Boca Raton, Fla.)
Fratelli Alessandria Barolo San Lorenzo 2004 $52 ** 1/2
Straightforward and pleasing with aromas and flavors of flowers, cherries and earth. (U.S.A. Wine Imports, New York)
WHAT THE STARS MEAN:
Ratings, from zero to four stars, reflect the panel.s reaction to the wines, which were tasted with names and vintages concealed. The wines represent a selection generally available in good retail shops and restaurants and on the Internet. Prices are those paid in shops in the New York region.
Tasting coordinator: Bernard Kirsch
--
------------------------------
* Dr. James Ellingson, jellings(a)me.umn.edu *
* University of Minnesota, mobile : 651/645-0753 *
* Great Lakes Brewing News, 1569 Laurel Ave., St. Paul, MN 55104 *
