Thief Wine Blog

Last week’s sparkling wine tasting drew a great crowd, which was especially encouraging given the snowfall. (Just like the week prior, when we had four people. This tasting we had 27. Go figure – I guess there’s a quick adjustment period!)

The tasting went really well – we did 7 wines from around the world, and each showed good regional and varietal typicity, with not a dog in the bunch. (I’d tasted all these several times before, though, so felt fairly confident in putting together the line-up.)

First wine was Cantine Riondo’s Prosecco. Prosecco is both the name of the grape and the region in northeast Italy. Made in the tank method (where the secondary fermentation occurs in a pressurized tank, as opposed to in the bottle as with Champagne), which results in frothier bubbles and less lees character. Prosecco is known for crisp, lemony flavors. It’s slightly sweeter than brut Champagne, at about 20-25 g/L residual sugar compared to 10-12. The Riondo has gread lemony fruit; it’s one of the most concentrated I’ve tried, and really nice balance. It was one of the more popular wines, with lots of people buying bottles.

Next up was Gran Sarao’s Cava. I had put it after the Prosecco because it’s got more depth and structure, but in retrospect, I should have put this one first, since it’s drier than the Prosecco and the sweetness of the Prosecco made this one taste a little more austere than it really does. The Sarao, like all Cava, is made in the methode Champenoise (secondary fermentation in bottle, extended lees aging), from native grapes Parellada, Xarel-lo, and Macabeo, with the addition of a little Chardonnay for fruitiness. It has 18 months lees contact (lees are the dead yeast cells and other solids left after fermentation, which gives richness and a yeasty, briochy character), so some structure and richness, though not as much as Champagne. Very clean and well-made, great everyday sparkling wine.

Third was Jaillance’s Cremant de Bourgogne. Cremant is the French term for sparkling wine not made in Champagne; this is from the non-Champagne region of Burgundy, so it shares the same grape varietals (in this case, 90% Chardonnay, 10% Pinot Noir).  From a warmer part of Burgundy than Champagne, so the acidity is a bit lower and there’s not as much time on the lees, but it’s a beautiful poor-man’s Champagne. Good introduction to French sparkling wine.

Domaine du Margalleau Vouvray Brut, France ($16.50)
Vouvray is a region in the Loire Valley in France, and is 100% Chenin. Chenin is a great grape – it’s one of the few in the world that makes world-class sparkling, still, and sweet wines. One reason it can do so is that it can get quite ripe yet still retain its high acidity; it’s also known for its honeyed, nutty flavors and rich mouthfeel. Made in the methode Champenoise, the Margallou still showed strong varietal character while also displaying the rich yeastiness of lees aging. This wine was divisive – some loved it, others not so much. Then again, that’s true with Chenin Blanc, which is a very distinctive grape. If you like Chenin, you’d like this wine; it’s a great example of sparkling Vouvray.

Moving on, next was Gloria Ferrer’s 1996 Carneros Cuvee, which is the most Champagne-like non-Champagne I’ve had.  From the 1996 vintage, this wine was disgorged in 2005, so it spent almost 8 years on its lees. Creamy, briochy, yeasty, toasted hazelnuts, rich and lush in the mouth. Just delicious. Very attractive bottle, too.

Sixth on the list was Montaudon Brut Champagne. The last two were true Champagne – I chose the Montaudon because it’s the best Brut I’ve found that retails for under $40, and I wanted to keep all the wines under that price point. Nothing sticks out about this wine, which is a good thing – it’s seamlessly integrated, rich yet smooth, which a long finish. A blend of 50% Pinot Noir, 30% Chardonnay, 20% Pinot Meunier, with three years aging on the lees. The red berry fruit comes through initially, with creamy yeastiness and a lemony finish.

Finally, we had the Charles Lafitte Rose Champagne, France
The best value on this list, (We loved it, bought it all, got a great deal. Normal retail would be about $10 more than its actual $34.95), and in my mind the best wine. A blend of 40% Chardonnay, 30% Pinot Noir, 30% Pinot Meunier, with 16% red base wine added in to create the rose color. It showed really well – creamy, rich, red fruits, amazingly long finish. I wish more people would try rose Champagne – people think of it like it’s white Zin and sweet, but it’s got all the good things of Champagnes with the addition of the red berry fruit flavors to add depth and complexity. Almost everyone at the tasting flipped over it, though, so that’s 20+ converts!

Who knew people in Wisconsin would let a little snow affect their plans so much? After the great response for last week’s Bordeaux blanc tasting, I thought a California Cabernet tasting would be huge, but with light snow throughout the day (we ended up with only about 3-4 inches, though I think outlying areas got hit worse) the market was quiet during the day, and we got only 5 – that’s right, 5 – people for the tasting. Terry and Mary, Roger and Todd, and Richard, we thank you for braving the elements.

The theme was Napa vs. Sonoma – we did four wines 1 from each region at $15-$20, one at $50ish. I’ve always been biased towards Sonoma, finding them more elegant and balanced, and when tasting the wines Tuesday preferred both the Sonoma wines. (Of course, I liked the Napa wines as well; I’d tasted them and thought them each great exemplars for the style and a good value for the price, otherwise we wouldn’t carry them; they’re just not what I personally prefer drinking.). To be completely honest, though, I think California Cabernet is really boring. The wines showed well, and the Cinq Cepages was excellent, but none of them excited me. If I could get people to try high-end Spanish wine or Cab-based blends from Bolgheri in Tuscany, I’d happily cut down my Napa Cab section to a sliver. But it’s not about me, it’s about what people want and finding the best and most distinctive wines of that style.

The wines:

First was Pavilion’s 2006 Napa Valley Cab. Sauv ($13.95): As with just about all moderately priced Napa Cabs, this is sourced from several vineyards, depending on what’s available. Very easy drinking for a Cab, medium-bodied, brighter red fruit (as opposed to black fruit) than I’d expect, not a lot of tannins.  Good balance, a definite crowd-pleaser. Varietally correct enough for those who like Cab, accessible enough for those who dont.

Next was Hobo 2006 Alexander Valley Cab ($19.95). A definite step up. More structured and sophisticated, but with moderate alcohol and not a lot of overt wood. Rich, yet clean. We do well with this wine, and the quality shows. As far as I know, we’re the only place that has this wine: I’ve liked it since we opened, and when I found out the distributor was running low a few weeks ago I bought everything they had.

On the high end, we started with the Chateau St. Jean 2004 Cinq Cepages Cabernet from Sonoma County ($44.95). I got a great deal on this wine; normally I’d have to sell it for about $60 (the winery currently offers it for $75), but because we’ve got a tavern wine license (because of the wine bar) we have access torestaurant-only deals. This is a sneaky wine – on first sip it doesn’t overwhelm you, but it’s got a lot going on and keeps getting better in the glass. Dark fruit, licorice, spicy oak, a hint of leather, good acidity, and exquisite balance. In a comparative tasting, this might not show as well as the Faust because it doesn’t leap out in a crowd, but if I were going to share a bottle, I’d much rather have this. As I said, I don’t drink much CA Cab when I’m off the clock, but this is a very nice wine for its ilk.

Final wine: Faust 2005 Napa Valley Cab ($49.95). The second label of Quintessa, Faust is meant to be an expression of the grape (whereas Quintessa is an expresison of terroir, at more than twice the price). It’s full-throttle Napa Cab, with big dark black currant flavors, spicy oak, and a rich mouthfeel. Very well made for the style; if you want a big Napa Cab at $50, I think this one offers the most bang for the buck.

(And we’re really, really hoping that people  will still be wanting $50 wines, at least once in a while.)

Fairly light turnout last night, only 9 people participated. It worked out fine, though, as we had enough people to cover our bottle cost, and we got a few people who otherwise wouldn’t have been there on a Tuesday night. And most importantly, the people that were there had a good time and really enjoyed the wines.

As usual, I wish I had more time to put together materials for people. I always write up a couple of pages on the region / wines, but especially with this tasting, there’s so much information it’s hard to condense it down, and I’m so busy day-to-day that I always end up scrambling on Tuesday morning/afternoon to pull something together. Fortunately, Burgundy & CA Chardonnay is something I’ve had a fair amount of experience with so it seemed to turn out ok.

The theme was Burgundy vs. California Chardonnay, with one moderately priced example of each and one more expensive. It wasn’t meant to be comprehensive (that would have required a lot more time and many, many more wines), but an overview of the stylistic differences between the two regions, and quality levels within each.

The wines:

Olivier Merlin 2005 Macon-La Roche Vineuse ($19.95)
Merlin is one of the top producers in the Macon, and this wine showed off why. Very Burgundian in character, with fruit just one component of the wine as opposed to dominating. Lots of nut, cream, and lemon curd, yet still fresh and vibrant. Fairly subtle and nuanced; great food wine. Drinking well now, won’t improve. A nice start to the tasting.

Solex 2006 Chardonnay, California ($14.95)
The California appellation is misleading, as this wine gets its fruit from top Chardonnay regions of Sonoma County (49%), Monterey (28%), and Santa Barbara (23%). Aimee’s liked this wine for awhile; I only tasted it for the first time a couple of months ago, and it’s a steal. Very well made CA Chardonnay, with nice balance of acidity, oak, and fruit. Much more fruit forward than the Merlin, with tropical pineapple notes combined with the citrus flavors. Reading the tech sheet before the tasting, I got a clue why I liked the wine – it’s 75% barrel fermented and aged (25% stainless steel) and 60% malolactic fermentation. The numbers aren’t important; what mattered to me was that the winemaker cared about balance and proportion. He/she thought that all barrel aging would make the wine too oaky, and full ML would have made the wine too buttery and low-acid. Balance is all-important to me, and this wine has it.

Daniel Barraud 2006 Pouilly Fuisse “La Verchere” ($47.95)
The star of the night. This wine is absolutely amazing. I hadn’t had it before last night (one of the reasons I chose it, actually), and it was a show-stopper. Very rich and fleshy for a Pouilly Fuisse, yet the acidity and concentration despite moderate (13.5%) alcohol made it undisputably Burgundy. Ripe poached pear, lemon curd, spicy oak, lemon, minerality….this wine has it all. Still young; will be even better in about 3 years. The La Verchere is made from 50-year-old vines, and the depth shows through in the wine.

Flowers 2006 Sonoma Coast Chardonnay ($44.95)
In retrospect I should had put the Flowers before the Barraud in the tasting order – the wine tasted a little tigher than it should. I tried to pick wines that blurred New World/Old World lines, and these last two definitely did – the Barraud was the showier of the two, while the Flowers showcased minerality and taut concentration. It’s an absolutely beautiful wine, but one that shows its charms over time and with a meal; it’s not one that you take one sip of and are wowed by. Those kinds of wines are generally my favorites; in a comparative tasting, though, where you’re taking an instant snapshot and not savoring them over time, they don’t show as well. (Probably one reason why I disagree with the Wine Spectator and other magazines about their ratings so often; they rate wines based on initial impact only and in comparison with dozens of others; obviously the showiest will stand out the most.) Anyway, back to the wine. Long and concentrated; tightly wound, great acidity combined with a round mouthfeel; like the Barraud, needs a couple of years. Pretty, elegant, yet with a lot going on. Always one of my CA favorites.

We had a Champagne Taste-Off this past Tuesday, spurred in part by my ordering in a case of Veuve Clicquot after several customer requests. I’ve always thought Veuve was overrated, driven more by omnipresent advertising and a sophisticated marketing machine than by the actual quality in the bottle. But, I hadn’t tasted it in a while and thought it would be fun to compare it to a few Champagnes that I like at about the same price point – hence the taste-off. We had a nice turnout of about 20 people; I gave people the choice of doing it blind or knowing what the wines were; most people did it blind, which was fun. After they tasted all the wines, they rated the wines 1 through 4 with 1 being the favorite.

The wines were: Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin, Bollinger Special Cuvee (long my favorite of the big houses), Pierre Gimmonet 1er Cru Blanc de Blancs (a small grower Champagne), and Philipponat Royale Reserve (my current favorite at this price.

And the winner? Drumroll please……Philipponnat! I did the scores two ways: Adding up the points for each wine from 18 respondents, Philipponat far outpaced the pack with only 38 points (lower is better, since 1 point for 1st, 2 for 2nd, etc.), Bollinger came in second with 44 points, Gimonnet was third with 48, and Veuve was last with 52. Going by more of an Olympic scoring system of 5 points for a first place vote, 3 for second, 1 for third, and none for fourth, the results were the same but even more dramatic: Philipponnat led with 57 points, Bollinger 2nd with 41, Gimonnet had 35, and Veuve had 29.

My personal ratings were in line with the overall results. I did it blind, and Philipponnat was by far my favorite. Rich brioche yeasty character, creamy mouthfeel, red berry, lemon, and apple fruit, integrated acidity, nice balance and a long finish. Also had a distinctive nutty character that added depth; in general, it just seemed to have more going on than the others. It’s also the cheapest of the bunch at $44.95. Bollinger ($54.95) and Gimmonet ($49.95) were neck and neck for #2 for me; Bollinger was more intense and powerful, with great brioche character; the Gimmonet, being pure Chardonnay, was lighter, more elegant, with a lovely creamy apple mouthfeel. Lots of character. The Bollinger won by a nose. Veuve ($49.95) was simpler than the other three, with zingy lemon-lime fruit. Thinner mouthfeel for Champagne, and a shorter finish. If someone poured me a glass of this, would I enjoy it? Of course – it’s Champagne. But in my mind, it clearly wasn’t in the class of the other three.

A word ( or many) about grower Champagnes. When you’re buying Champagne, look closely at the small print on the front of the label; you’ll see either RM or NM followed by numbers. NM (Negociant Manipulant) is what you’ll see most of the time; it’s a producer that buys most of the grapes. RM (Recoltant Manipulant) is grower Champagne; those producers can buy only 5% of grapes for their total production. RM is worth seeking out; these are smaller, artisanally made Champagnes with true character. Are they better than NM? Not necessarily, for a variety of reasons, but they’ve got soul. (Note: you will also occasionally see CM; this is from a Cooperative, and can provide excellent value.)

We’ve got a few grower Champagnes in stock, and will be getting more soon – I’m going to Terry Thiese’s grower Champagne tasting in Chicago next week and will be bringing in the best of what I taste. He’s a fantastic importer who’s passionate about small growers – for a truly interesting and eye-opening read about the state of Champagne, check out his latest catalog

We held a tasting of four wines from Bordeaux’s Right Bank on Tuesday, which went really well. It was a casual drop-in style tasting, and we had about 15 people participate. The overall reaction was quite positive, so we’ll be repeating them often. (We’ll be doing one this Tuesday, actually – we had a disappointingly poor reaction to the seminar that was scheduled, so I’m changing it into another casual tasting. It’ll be a champagne taste-off; check our events page for details.)

The wines were:

2003 Chateau de Fontenay, Cotes de Castillon ($13.95)
2003 was a very hot vintage, but this wine displays none of the pruniness or overripeness that you might expect. Right-bank wines generally did better in ‘03 because there’s more clay soil as opposed to the gravel-dominated soil on the left bank, and since clay retains water better than free-draining gravel, when the heat hit the vines on clay soil had more water to help them make it through. The Fontenay is 90% Merlot, 5% Cab. Sauv., and 5% Cab. Franc. Good acidity, lots of fresh cherry and red plum flavors, nice balance, no overt oak influence. Not the most complex Bordeaux, but drinking well for the price. I think this would be a great food wine.

2005 Chateau Ste. Colombe, Cotes de Castillon ($21.95)
If I had to pick one of these wines to drink now, it would be this one. It’s lush and open, with a fuller body and darker fruit than the Fontenay, and some noticeable toasty oak that’s well integrated. Dark cherries and black plums, with a hint of chocolate. I think Cotes de Castillon is a very underrated AOC; it’s one of the “satellite” appellations of the Right Bank, but unlike most of them that have very little connection with the top two regions of Pomerol & St. Emilion, Cotes de Castillon is a logical extension of St. Emilion, with a very similar limestone / clay soil structure. Producers in St. Emilion are increasingly realizing its potential and buying chateaux and vineyards there – Ste. Colombe is owned by the owners of Chateau Pavie & Chateau Monbousquet, so it’s got a great pedigree.

2005 Chateau du Pressac, St. Emilion ($38.95)
Moving on to the heavy hitters. I decanted both this and the Destieu for about an hour and a half before the tasting, and they were still tight. I’d say lay them both down for another 6-8 years. That being said, the Pressac was the more accessible of the two. Great structure, with French oak and vibrant acidity framing the concentrated fruit. More of a red-fruit spectrum on this wine, with dark cherries and raspberries combining with minerality and that Bordeaux scorched earth character. It was even better the next day. This will be a beautiful wine; I thoroughly enjoyed both this and the Destieu, but if I had to pick one, it’d be the Pressac.

2005 Chateau Grand Destieu, St. Emilion ($41.50)
Tight as a drum, but you could see what’s there. This will end up being a bigger, more opulent wine than the Pressac, I think, with lush fruit and ample oak. More black fruit than the Pressac – black plums and currants, with a bit of black olive character as well. Again, great structure. 2005 was an ideal vintage – warm but not extremely hot, no rain, even ripening – and this wine will be a stunner in a half-dozen years.