Thief Wine Blog

Overflow crowd for last Tuesday’s tasting – far and away the biggest yet, and we had to pull in seating from elsewhere in the market. We were a little overwhelmed and couldn’t provide the perfect level of service that we strive for, but everyone was patient and relaxed and loved the tasting. Three varietals, two wines of each varietal served blind and in pairs; one of each was significantly more expensive. I’d say only about 60% of people identified the wines correctly – my guess is that the less expensive wines were more fruit forward and meant to be drunk young – even though they were less complex, people went for the fruit.

Castle Rock 2007 Pinot Noir, Mendocino County ($12.95): Juicy, fruity, and great for the price. Varietally correct, with nice richness and concentration. If you like Pinot, you’ll like this wine.

Tandem 2006 “Auction Block” Pinot Noir, Sonoma County ($64.95): Tandem is owned and run by Greg LaFollette, former winemaker for Flowers. He specializes in wonderful small production single-vineyard Pinots and Chardonnays from throughout Sonoma County; “Auction Block” is a blend of the best lots from the best vineyards he works with. He originally made the blend to donate to charity auctions, but it proved so popular he started bottling it a few years ago. The ‘06 is on the more elegant, Burgundian side; low in alcohol (13.4%) but with a lot of depth, brown spice, and complexity. The fruit was still tight and the oak wasn’t yet integrated, but I think this will age beautifully – we had some left over and it opened up quite a bit the next day.

Leese-Fitch 2007 Cabernet Sauvignon, California ($9.95): A great $10 Cab – dark fruit, good balance, long finish. Not complex, but doesn’t taste cheap. A big hit at the tasting.

Jordan 2004 Cabernet Sauvignon, Alexander Valley ($51.95): Classic Alexander Valley Cab by one of the modern pioneers there. A fair amount of oak, but it was smooth and integrated, and the wine could handle it. Nice fruit without being overextracted and overripe like so many high-end Cabs are – this was quite drinkable, yet rewarded savoring.

Charles Smith Wines 2007 “Boom Boom!” Syrah, Columbia Valley ($16.95): Very pretty, with lots of violets and raspberries on the nose, and dark smoky fruit on the palate. Though only an ‘07, this was drinking well already. Another crowd pleaser

Charles Smith Wines 2005 “Skull” Syrah, Columbia Valley ($99.95): The big difference between the two wines was richness, concentration, and power – both are from the cool Columbia Valley, but the Boom Boom! is 13.5% alcohol while the Skull achieved 15.5%. Very monolithic now, with massive fruit that’s somehow in balance, and layers of flavor and depth lurking underneath. This wine will be stunning in five years.

All in all, one of the more fun tastings we’ve done. I’ll repeat it at some point with old world wines.

Finally catching up on some tasting recaps…this one’s from the 1/27 tasting… we did a tasting of five Tuscan reds; I picked the wines to show how diverse the region can be, even though the main grape (Sangiovese) dominated four of the five wines. Good turnout, and the wines overall showed well (I was disappointed in one, but that was the favorite of a few people, which is the beauty and intrigue of wine (and art, literature, movies, etc.), how the same thing can elicit such different reactions. I love Italian wines – they haven’t by and large embraced international varietals, so they’ve got thousands of indigenous grapes grown nowhere else that have distinctive character and sense of place. Sangiovese is the poster child, being the most planted grape in Italy (by a wide margin), yet not successful anywhere else. Reasons for that are legion, but that should be another post (though knowing my output, it probably won’t happen).

The wines:

Renzo Masi 2004 Chianti Rufina Riserva: I thought this wine was stunning – I hadn’t had this vintage before the tasting and thought it was exactly what Chianti should be – minerally, dry, dusty, some integrated oak tannin, high acid, yet with juicy cherry fruit. Everything was balanced and integrated; just lovely. 2004 was a great year for Tuscany, and this is my value pick out of what we’ve got. Rufina is often undervalued – it’s a less-prestigious section of Chianti than Chianti Classico, but delivers great value. For me, the surprise of the night.

Fattoria Del Cerro 2006 Vino Nobile di Montepulciano: I had this wine a few months ago and thought it was great. del Cerro’s one of my two favorite VNdM producers (along with Avignonesi), but Tuesday it didn’t show particularly well after the Masi – softer, creamier, rounder, with less intensity. Not bad at all and something I’d certainly enjoy drinking, but with less definition than it had before. Some people loved it, though, so maybe the creaminess was a plus for them; to me, it seemed a distraction. Who knows, though; in a bit of time it might evolve further into something even better.

Agostina Pieri 2006 Rosso di Montalcino: Just lovely – great balance of fruit, acidity, and integrated oak. Modern style of Rosso – the winery’s only been around for less than 20 years – and so very clean, more fruit-forward than most, but with varietal character (dusty, cherry, good acidity, slight scorched earth) and true to type. This wine to me is everything Rosso should be; with the richness of fruit of Brunello but fresher and with less oak (and thus less complexity and depth, but accessible far sooner). A big hit with everyone at the tasting.

Castiglion del Bosco 2003 Brunello di Montalcino: It’s hard to find a Brunello I like for less than $40, but this fits the bill. By law, Brunello must age for a minimum of 2 years in barrel and 2 years in bottle, so the fruit needs to be concentrated and rich enough to stand up to that oak treatment and aging; the acidity also needs time to integrate with the fruit and wood. 2003 was a hot vintage throughout Europe, which I think will reduce the ageworthiness of this wine (probably at its peak in 3-5 years; normally good Brunello will peak at 15-20 years) but also makes it ready to drink sooner. It was a little tight initially, but really opened up during the tasting.  Good dark cherry fruit, scorched earth, spicy oak, rich long finish, lovely balance – a steal for the price.

Tenuta Guado al Tasso 2006 Il Bruciate, Bolgheri: We ended with a Super Tuscan from the Bolgheri region in western Tuscany near the ocean. The term Super Tuscan was coined after Sassicaia was created in the late 1960s – 100% Cabernet, at the time it could only be called Vino de Tavola (table wine) because it didn’t fit into the classification system. The government subsequently created the IGT designation for wines made using non-traditional varietals, but Bolgheri now has its own DOC as well. This wine is a blend of Cab / Merlot / Syrah; I hadn’t tasted it before the evening but was blown away by how structured it was. It needed significant decanting and aeration, and even then was still tight. Loads of fruit and minerality; a little bit backwards and reductive right now compared to what it will be, but still very tasty. Great value, too – it tasted like it cost way more than $28. Several people at the tasting bought this wine, and they’ll be richly rewarded if they put it in the cellar and forget about it for five years.

Went to a wonderful Open That Bottle Night party at friends Mark and Julie Small’s house on Saturday night. (If you’re not familiar with the concept, it’s an idea started by Wall Street Journal wine writers John Brecher and Dorothy Gaiter several years back – they created a night for people to open that special bottle of wine they’d been saving for just the right occasion. Of course, the right occasion never comes up and most people hold onto the bottle forever; this idea gives people the excuse to open it up. Over the years, people have created parties around the theme.)

About 30 or so people brought wonderful bottles of wine (and great food to accompany them); Mark and Julie also were generous enough to raid their own cellar for some gems. I didn’t taste everything, but I got to most. My notes:

Cloudy Bay Sauv. Blanc, Marlborough New Zealand - I didn’t see the bottle on this one so not sure of the vintage, but it was quite fresh so I’d say ‘07, possibly ‘06.  Cloudy Bay is always a consistently great NZ Sauv. Blanc, and this was right up to par. Richer than most, this had almost a hint of sweetness and a lush, slightly creamy mouthfeel, yet still with characteristic zingy acidity and vibrant gooseberry / passionfruit flavors.

Williams-Selyem 1996 Hirsch Vineyard Pinot Noir, Sonoma Coast: Sonoma Coast is a large appellation, but Hirsch is in what’s called the “true” Sonoma Coast – literally in sight of the ocean, in a climate so cool that even Pinot struggles to fully ripen in some years. As such, the wines are elegant with If I had to critique it, I’d say the acidity was slightly out of whack with the fruit – the fruit has faded slightly while the acidity has come to the fore. Still, this is a wine I’d happily enjoy; it’d be even better with food.

Gagliole 1999 “Pecchia”, Toscana IGT: Absolutely wonderful. Rich and lush, yet unmistakeably Tuscan Sangiovese. Dark cherry and plum, woodsmoke, smooth spicy oak, full mouthfeel, dusty scorched earth, balanced acidity, exquisitely long finish.

Isole e Olena 2001 “Cepparello”, Toscana IGT: I should have had this before the Gagliole. Though both are Sangiovese (Cepparellos is 100%), the Gagliole is a much more muscular style, while the Cepparello is more elegant and restrained. I love this wine, but it suffered after the Gagliole, coming across as leaner than it really is. Still, wonderful notes of dark cherry, minerality, dustiness, smooth tannins. Acidity was pronounced and the fruit was still tight, so I think this will really shine in 3-4 years.

Lynch Bages 1998 Pauillac: Another winner – 1998 was a solid but not spectacular vintage (rain at harvest marred an otherwise promising year), but those are the vintages that are ready to drink sooner. At 10+ years, this is drinking beautifully; open black currant, tobacco, cigar box, and licorice flavors balanced with smooth tannins, a hint of earthiness, and vibrant acidity. Medium-bodied and elegant; quite a change from some of the CA Cabs that followed.

Chateau Talbot 1995 St. Julien: A leaker – the wine was badly oxidized

Chateau Talbot 1996 St. Julien: Also defective, but with brettanomyces, a spoilage yeast that depending on the strain imparts flavors and aromas akin to bandaid / pool-toy plastic (4-etholphenol strain) or barnyard / sweaty saddle (4-ethylguaiacol strain). This wine had strong bandaid / plastic diaper / hair permanent chemical flavors. Some people don’t mind brett; I’m very sensitive to it and didn’t enjoy this at all.

Ridge Vineyards 1997 Lytton Springs Zinfandel: One of the surprises of the night for me – I’m not a big Zin lover in general (though Ridge is among my favorites for the varietal), and also thought that at 12 years this would be showing its age. Not so – it was delightfully vibrant, with a tanginess on the palate that balanced the brambly blackberry / raspberry fruit very well. Some oak, but seamless. Overall, very nice.

Spring Mountain 1997 “Miravelle / La Perla / Chevalier” Red Wine: Badly, and I mean badly, corked. No one at the party knew about the saran wrap trick, so I did a demonstration. For whatever chemical reason, saran wrap absorbs TCA; if you wad up a ball and put it in the glass or a decanter for a few minutes with the wine, it will dramatically reduce the TCA. In a wine this badly corked, the TCA was still strong, but the fruit came through a lot more after the saran wrap. In a wine only lightly corked, the saran wrap will make it actually pleasant to drink.

Stag’s Leap Wine Cellars 2006 “Artemis” Cabernet Sauvignon, Napa Valley: Very nice – Stag’s Leap has always gone for elegance instead of power, and this wine was nicely balanced at 13.8% alcohol. Still young and tight, but showed good fruit and structure. A pleasure now, but will be better in about 5 years.

St. Supery 1994 Dollarhide Vineyard Cabernet Sauvignon, Napa Valley: Drinking well; very refined, just a hint of brett but not enough to mar the wine. Very well integrated after 15 years, with smooth tannins, dark fruit, cassis, cigar box; good structure.

Far Niente 1999 Cabernet Sauvignon, Napa Valley: A beautiful nose of blueberry, spice, mushrooms and licorice; slightly lean on the palate, with oak dominating. Pleasant, but I think it would have been better a couple of years ago; the wood lasted longer than the fruit.

Beringer 1994 Cabernet Sauvignon, Knights Valley (Sonoma): Really, really nice – a pleasant surprise. I often prefer moderately priced California Cabs over more expensive ones because the expensive wine are made to taste expensive – very extracted, ripe fruit; high alcohol; lots of expensive new French oak – and are too over-the-top and not balanced enough for my taste. This wine was a great example- not hideously expensive, but balanced and elegant – good acidity, black currant fruit, tobacco, licorice, a little bit of oak, but not too much, all integrated with the passage of time. This wine is drinking beautifully right now.

Pride Mountain Vineyards 2002 Reserve Cabernet Sauvignon, Napa / Sonoma: The opposite of the Beringer. At least 15% alcohol, and you could taste it. Concentrated, rich fruit, lots of oak. Still a baby – all the elements are there, but the fruit, wood, and alcohol need time to integrate. Well-made for the style, but too rich for me to drink much of.

Wolf Blass 1998 Black Label Cabernet Sauvignon, Barossa Valley: Australian producers use a fair amount of American oak, which is less nuanced then French oak – it gives more vanilla / dill / coconut flavors as opposed to the spiciness of French oak. This wine had a lavish helping – lots of vanilla and coconut, some mintiness, cassis, very creamy mouthfeel. Probably a year or two past its ideal drinking time, but still lush.

Cesari 1998 “Brosan” Amarone della Valpolicella: Amarone is made from grapes that have been dried, so you get a high-alcohol wine redolent of dried fruits. The Brosan was rich, smooth, and velvety; clean and well-made, with a long finish. It was much juicier than most Amarones, but was missing the herbal quality and pleasant bitterness that I get out of many. Not as complex as it could be, but very pleasant.

Chateau de l’Echarderie 1985 Quarts de Chaume: Sweet Chenin Blanc is among the world’s most underrated dessert wines – honeysuckle, nuttiness, lanolin, beeswax, truffles, and great acidity. Quarts de Chaume in the Loire Valley is the top region for it; the wines are hard to find, but they’re worth it. This wine was oxidized a bit, so it was about 80% of what it ideally could be – some aldehydic bruised apple flavors marred the wine, but even at 80%, it was delicious.

Fonseca 1934 Setubal: My favorite wine of the night, and a great way to end. Setubal is a fortified wine from Portugal made primarily or entirely from Moscatel (Muscat); after fortification, the wine is left in contact with the skins for six months or so, which gives the wine intense aromatics and good phenolic character. It’s usually aged in casks for 5-6 years, but good examples such as this spend up to twenty years. The wine tasted very similar to a Malmsey Madeira but with lower acid – loads of hazelnuts, toffee, and caramel, sweet but not cloying, and still very fresh. Rich mouthfeel, very long finish. You don’t see much Setubal around, and definitely not one this old, so it was a real treat.

Overall, a wonderful evening – thanks again Julie & Mark!

Aimee & I celebrated Valentine’s Day yesterday (Saturday night I was at the shop till after 11 – popular game night! – so we postponed it a day) and went to dinner at the Capital Grille. Why the Capital Grille, you ask, given that we generally favor local independents? 1) it was Sunday night, and just about every restaurant in Milwaukee is closed on Sunday; and 2) we had a gift certificate.

We brought our wine, of course (for a hefty $25 corkage fee) – a 2004 Sea Smoke “Southing” Pinot Noir from Sta. Rita Hills (the AVA formerly known as Santa Rita Hills, but the winery of the same name in Chile sued to have it changed) in Santa Barbara that our friend Peg gave me a while back. It was stunning – rich and full (14.7% alc.), but with great depth, varietal character, and acidity. Loads of dark cherry fruit, so concentrated you’d think it’d be syrupy, but it wasn’t; the acidity kept everything in check, and the fruit was complemented by integrated oak tannins and earthy, mushroomy undertones. Food friendly, too -Big enough to work with Aimee’s filet, elegant enough not to overpower my rare ahi; also worked surprisingly well with the chunks of blue cheese that were in our salads.

Great meal, excellent wine, wonderful night.

Last Tuesday we tasted through 5 ports:

Port is fortified wine from Portugal; it takes its name from the city of Oporto, where the wine is made and stored (although the grapes come from futher inland in the Douro region). Like Champagne, only the wine from that region can be called Port; everything else is just fortified wine made in the style of Port.

All Port is made in basically the same way – neutral grape spirits or brandy is added during fermentation; the alcohol kills the yeasts and stops fermentation, leaving residual sugar, and also adds alcoholic strength. The result is a strong (about 20% alcohol), sweet wine. From there, there are several categories:

Ruby: A blend from multiple vintages; usually doesn’t see much if any time in oak. At its best, it’s simple, fruity, and a good introduction to Port. (Lesser-quality Ruby is often pasteurized for stability, resulting in stewed flavors.)

Late-Bottled Vintage: A significant step up from Ruby. The grapes come from a single vintage, and the wine spends 4-6 years in oak (hence the term “late-bottled” – vintage port only spends 18-20 months in oak). They’re ready to drink sooner than vintage port because the extended oak aging softens and smooths the wine. Generally they don’t improve in bottle as much as vintage port. The best LBVs are unfiltered (look for it on the label); they do have the potential to improve somewhat in bottle.

Vintage: Also from a single year, using the best grapes from the vintage (LBV gets the grapes that don’t make the cut). Generally vintages are declared only in excellent years, but it’s at the discretion of each winery. Because the wine only spends 18-20 months in barrel, it needs extended bottle aging to soften up and will improve significantly in bottle.

Tawny: Port from a blend of vintages that’s been aged in barrel for an extended period, giving it a tawny color and nutty flavor. There’s a lot of bad artificial tawny made; look for wines with an age designation. Tawny generally starts getting good at 10 years (the age designation refers to the average time the wine has spent in barrel); there are also 20, 30, and 40 year versions, plus colheita tawnies, which are from a single vintage.

The first wine we tried was Ferreira’s Ruby Port ($16.50). Exactly what ruby should be – grapey, juicy, fruity, with a kick, but everything in balance. Not complicated, but very well made.

Next was Quinta do Noval’s 2003 LBV, unfiltered ($21.95). A nice step up from the Ruby. I think good LBV is the best value in port – almost as good as vintage but at a fraction of the price. The Noval was exceptionally smooth, with licorice, dark fruit, integrated spicy oak, nice balance.

We moved onto vintage for the third wine, starting off with the 1995 Smith Woodhouse “Madalena” ($39.95). 1995 was a mediocre year for port, and most producers didn’t declare a vintage. Smith Woodhouse did, but used the Madalena designation, which is its line of “lighter” vintage ports from lesser vintages. The upside to vintage port in off years is that although it’s not as concentrated and won’t age as well, it is ready to drink sooner and is significantly less expenseive. At 13 years in, this wine is drinking beautifully now – very elegant and refined, with more depth and intensity than the LBV.

Fourth was the 2000 Warre’s vintage ($61.95). Unlike 1995, 2000 was a great year for port and every producer declared the vintage. This wine is simply awesome; it’s a baby right now and will be ideal in 10-15 years, but was still delicious. Much more concentrated and richer than the Smith Woodhouse, with layers and layers of flavors. Fruit is still tight, but there’s enough there now to justify cracking open a bottle. Black currant, anise, black cherry, dried herbs, spice, minerality. Just wonderful.

We finished off with the Quinta do Noval 10-year tawny. Unlike the first four ports that have more red and black fruit flavors, tawny is much more nutty and cararmely. The Noval is a great example of 10-year tawny. Hazelnuts, a bit of orange peel, caramel, toasty oak, exceptionally long finish. A great way to end the tasting (or any evening).