Absence

Yeah. I've been a little 'absent'. It happens. I've been writing music instead of blog posts, and am leaving tomorrow for the big hunt of the year: calf moose. So more absence. I hope to post about heart, tongue, and general cutting preferences. We'll see if I get there...

South Okanagan 2009: BORDEAUX BLENDS/MERITAGE

BORDEAUX BLENDS/MERITAGE

I’m going to try to make this short. There’s a part of me that finds it quite funny that a good number of producers ditch the Meritage concept. Meritage is a brand name for ‘Bordeaux-style-blend’. My big beef is: what then is the non-France name to apply to the Syrah/Viognier blends? No ‘Hermi-Meri-tage’ brand name? How about the southern Rhone white blends? How about the Sauvignon Blanc/Semillon blends? Bah. Me, being one to hate on people who poop on ideas when no better idea is presented, offer the following: how about the region gets their collective act together and only rock what the terroir does best, and the world will know what that is and want to buy THEIR ‘where’ it’s from, just as in France or elsewhere. I’m patient. It’ll happen. I was a little startled how high some of these scores were, and how high the average scores were – although – it is the best foot forward for many of these producers, so one would hope they’d score higher than the standard merlots or cabs.

12 Wines, Mean Score: 88.7 Median Score: 89

2007 Fairview Cellars The Bear 92

Shot of anise. Good concentration, then soft and light wood. Tart fruit. WICKED texture for the area. Clearly a leader in texture. Red fruits, maybe a dash of blue fruits - all very nice quality. Cherry notes are super pure. Very happy with the mouthfeel of this wine, with good concentration, nice red and blue fruits = solid on paper and I liked it. I loved this wine second time around. [Scored the 2006 90]

2006 Road 13 5th Element 92

Round fruit, then woody/stemmy takes over, then hedonistic sexy fruit - of the black cherry nature. Round, v nice fruit, wood - but balanced with fruit. Nice structure, little hot. Chewy tannin on finish. Super opaque. 91-92+

2006 Fairview Cellars Madcap Red 91

Super PURE red fruits, and no oak whallop typical of the region. Clearly a different class. Medium concentration. Touch of pepper. Rich, fruity, tannic and dry. Nice structure without being ridiculous. Very, very nice. The purity of fruit puts this into the 90+ territory immediately. [scored the 2007 89]

2007 Cassini Cellars Maximus 91

Soft, nice fruit, nice soft oak, very jammy in a very postive way. Super intense, with an oak finish. Very nice wine, I swear I was tasting this finish for an hour or so afterwards.

2007 Twisted Tree Six Vines 90

Stylish, as always from this producer, with strawberry and pepper. Touch of leather? Fine. Poppy fruits, bubble gum vibe [but good], super-well styled. Longevity doesn't seem to be there ie there's no big structure. Hard to say how this would age. Very solid, dig the strawberry and pepper, and overall style. Very good.

2006 Inniskillin Meritage - Single Vineyard Series 90

Impressive. Subtle cassis and one of the nicest Bordeaux-style, merlot heavy Meritages I've had. It's not an oak bomb on the nose. Nice fruit, round, and supple - all rare descriptors for this region’s merlots and Meritage. Very dry, nicely concentrated. Not just good, it's into very good to excellent territory. Someone actually got it right, and it can be done. I was surprised to see the under $30 price point - can compete with the $35-40 range, therefore one of the best QPR Bordeaux-style blends around.

2006 NKMip Qwam Qwmt Meritage 88

Oak, wood, with touch of red fruits. 85-87 Again - great style, light structure, well mannered, very nice. Very good. Solid QPR. Not supermemorable, but well made.

2006 Tinhorn Creek Cabernet Merlot 88

Light, fruity, woody, with nice little pops of red fruit - strawberry and raspberry. Like that they were subtle as opposed to the syrupy approach I've seen. Solid. Well made, thin with structure and intensity. Really good - just not my style.

Hester Creek Cabernet Merlot 87

Rosy, juniper = flowerbed. Raspberry concentrate, lighter oak than average in the area. Very solid. I can't say I dig the intensity of raspberry, but generally like this wine.

Desert Hills Mirage 85

Wood. Round fruit, intriguing. VERY dry, but lots going on. It's so dry it strips your mouth of all its senses. Most would hate the dryness alone. Becoming-ubiquitous style of blend that's still not my bag.

2005 Antelope Ridge Equilibrium 85

HUGE step up over their other reds. Crazy cassis/blueberry going on that is really nice. Dry. Okanagan-esque. Very nice nose, more average palate. Shockingly aromatic given the lack of quality elsewhere in their reds.

2007 Dunham & Froese Amicitia Red Blend 85

Stemmy nose but young and raw as suggested. Smelling popcorn. Cold and closed. Surprisingly nice fruits after their last couple wines. Dry. ~15% Petit Verdot. Very good - a serious wine, and for $28 is resepectable QPR.

South Okanagan 2009: PINOT NOIR

PINOT NOIR

Whereas some of the other red varietals don’t seem to step up to the international competition – Pinot Noir does for whatever reason. They have some Pinot Noir that is truly lovely, and at price points that are really hard to find elsewhere. Although none knocked it out of the park for me, there were memorable wines here, and I think there’s some potential for mid-90s wines down the road. It’s worth noting that I’m partial to Pinot Noir, and together with their propensity to make lovely Chardonnay, I’m very pleased to have our very own mini-Burgundy that I can drive to. Even if they ARE trying to be Bordeaux. And Rhone. And Loire. And, well, everything else.

9 Wines, Mean Score: 85.3 Median Score: 89

2007 Stoneboat Solo Pinotage 92

I’ve included Stoneboat’s Pinotages [cross (not blend) of Pinot Noir and Cinsault] as they’re related and noteworthy. Alluring, but more concentrated than their lesser pedigree pinotage. Rhone + pinot defined. Evergreeny, men's store leather+cologne. Big yet light, nice confident dryness. Shockingly stylish. Smooth. Spice box. Sticky light tannins on the teeth. Obviously a quality wine in a style I can get behind. It was a certain buy for me at $32, and a producer that I fell hard for and will long be a fan of.

2006 Le Vieux Pin Perigee Pinot Noir 91

Elegant, light red fruit [cherry], old world light. 94 Little disappointing fruit, super slick, with light dry finish. High 80s Stylish for certain, but lacks the wow that the nose promises. It’s too bad, as this had the promise of being exceptional. If they get that palate together, they’ll destroy everyone else. At $45, I’d generally defer to Stoneboat for lovely Pinots, but in the grand scheme of pricy Pinot Noir, it’s not unreasonable. I’ve had far more boring Burgundy that cost far more.

2007 Stoneboat Pinotage 90

Lots going on, yet light style. Implies lots in a style I like. Rhone-esque, super nice. Great style: light yet quality complexity. Extremely versatile. At $25, its big brother is quite step up for only a few extra $.

2007 Stoneboat Pinot Noir 90

Spicy and intense. Clearly a nice pinot. Dry finish, light and stylish. Very, very impressed. I'd like some time with a full bottle of this. 88-91 Possibly fantastic Pinot Noir QPR.

2007 NKMip Qwam Qwmt Pinot Noir 89

Burg-esque nose is very nice. Present but not over the top. Soft and pure strawberry/cherry. Watery, super fruity mid-palate. No structure, but well styled. Reminded me of Domaine Chassorney Auxey Duresses from the Cote de Beaune. Lost marks on the watery vibe.

2007 Road 13 Jackpot Pinot Noir 87

Stylish, fruitier than some of the spicy pinot around, and lacking a little of the spice. The fruit is quite well articulated cherry. Hot and spicy, bold and tad boozy. Less stylish than Stoneboat, but instead gruff/masculine on the palate. A fruity-on-the-nose then gruff/masculine on the palate pinot. Very solid, but missing the mark for me.87-88

2007 Tinhorn Creek Pinot Noir 80

Pinot nose, no question. Little flat in intensity relative to stoneboat. Initital hit and finsh are 'okay', mid hit of fruit is nice. A little average, but still good.

Gehringer Brothers Optimum Pinot Noir 79

More concentrated funk/mineral. Raspberry and dry. Decent. Average to good.

Gehringer Brothers Private Reserve Pinot Noir 70

Soft, non descript. Innocuous. Super average

Q&A about 4 Wines & A Plate

I generally just post a summary of our 4 Wines & A Plate nights for the folks involved, assuming it would be of little interest to others. But I got a great comment from Rhonda that made me reflect on how many things I learned the hard way, that might actually be useful to share if you wish to start your own wine tastings.

First, Rhonda’s comment:

"Hi! I really enjoy your 4 wines and a plate reviews. Have been thinking of doing this with some of our friends. Not sure if we're really "wine educated" enough,though. Do you research first then go out to purchase or just randomly pick out four bottles that look appealing? Also for the food, do you spend alot of time thinking up a menu or trial and error it? Do you serve all the wines first without food then bring out your meal and serve the remainder of the wine? Thanks for any info."

Not "wine educated" enough

Wine education is certainly not a requirement. Not only that, the only real way to learn is to get tasting a whole lot of wine. Being open minded doesn't hurt either. We often have newbies at the table, and I enjoy it as they often bring a fresh or unique perspective to the discussion. I think if you can determine 'like/don't like' and be open to free association - spitting out anything that comes to mind, you'll do great.

How do you go about picking which wines you are serving?

Lots and lots of homework - although there a few simple and broad items that always apply:

QPR - We do a buy-in format, now $30 a head, and I want to spend our money wisely. I'm always on the lookout for high Quality/Price Ratios [QPR] – trying to find some of the best wines in the price points I can.

Seasonality/the weather - I used to simply buy what interested me at the time, but found it to be a weak approach. For one, I found red wines were far less enjoyed in the summer. So the varietal choice is driven by season. Whites in the summer, leading into light reds in the fall, followed by bigger reds as the winter progresses, lighter reds and rosé in the spring.

The Ringer, The Heavy Hitter, and the Value Plays: I strongly believe in having a ringer in the flight. At first, the problem: If you have 4 $50 wines, someone will like one more than the other and think the one they like less is cheap and crap – they lack a point of reference for quality. I find that now the ringer is not only a good control, but an opportunity to find shockingly good QPR if you're lucky.

I also strongly believe in having a heavy hitter. A big boy. A wine that will give you a point of reference for what is excellent in that particular varietal. Exceptional wines are often memorable ones – often showing funky, unusual characteristics that can be off-putting to some palates. But the effort and education pays off in spades in the end.

The middle two bottles are in the $20-40 price range. I feel that this is where some exceptional value can be found. With lots of homework, you can find superior wines at a fraction of the cost of similar, but perhaps more known/revered/collectible big hitters.

Also for the food, do you spend alot of time thinking up a menu or trial and error it?

I’ve done a fair bit of homework on food and wine pairings. I’m a huge fan of the book ‘What to eat with what you drink’ – I think anyone into wine and food should own it. Although I agree with Robert Parker that ‘good food, good wine, and good company’ is the basis of good pairing – I also believe there are some natural affinities that necessitate exploring. So I generally pick the classic pairings. I’ve gone so far as trying to pair a dish to a wine I knew [which is fun] – but wouldn’t do so for a party where the wines are unknown. All you can do is pair to varietal/style and learn what works and what doesn’t. That learning one of the best parts! Lately, I’ve been leaning towards more than one dish to taste, as it’s hard to say which dish [if any] will really knock it out of the park with the wines.

Do you serve all the wines first without food then bring out your meal and serve the remainder of the wine?

Yes. With most of the food prep being done, we pour the wines [we decant for 1-2 hrs or so prior for reds], then as a group go through the nose. Smell the heck out of them, one at a time, batting around ideas, taking notes, debating what we’re getting on the nose, etc. It’s fun. Once we’ve talked about the nose roughly twice through, we start tasting them, and having the same banter and discussion about the palate. Once we’ve been through that a couple times, then comes the food. More discussion about what’s working, what’s not. Certainly not rules, but we’ve found this routine is helpful in getting everyone talking about the same thing at the same time – which is simply more fun.

A few Unasked items:

Why 4 bottles? I started at 14. Too much booze, too many people, too much drinking and not enough wine geekness is what it boiled down to. I now limit the guest list to 6-8, and just over half as many wines. For our group, this works, keeping the buy-in affordable while maintaining the budget focus for the price points I feel are important to explore.

Spitting. I highly encourage spitting. I’ve nearly gone to the use of a breathalyzer, and may end up there yet. Spitting keeps you sober for safety of everyone, but also so that you can actually taste the wine after a few tastes. I think most wine snobs would agree that your ability to discern nuance is a whole lot better on a sober palate.

Blind. The wines are served blind, in brown bags, tied with kitchen string, lettered A through D. I have tasting sheets that I’d be happy to share if you are motivated enough to ask, that allow people to take notes and score the wines. Blindness is key. It teaches you loads about experiencing a wine without pre-conceived notions. Even knowing what the wines were since I purchased them, I've never guessed all the wines right blind. Parly frustrating and ego-bruising, but also humbling and tremendously important in developing trust in your palate.

Why have a tasting group? Education & comraderie. By far. Lagging behind is being able to try wines that you wouldn’t normally splurge to try – which half falls under the education banner.

Hope this helps Rhonda - thanks for asking!!!

South Okanagan 2009: MERLOT

MERLOT

Merlot is high on my list of favorite varietals – I’m a big fan of right-bank Bordeaux. Because it’s the most broadly planted red grape here, I figured my palate would be a shoe-in to be praising the merlots. Not so much. Barring a few exceptions, I found them very thin, very heavy-handedly oaked, and lacking complexity. And at a common asking price in the high $20’s to $30, the poor versions of Merlot proved to be some of the worst QPR in the South Okanagan. These are my notes, love them or hate them, from my tasting room visits of the vast majority of wineries in the region. They are ranked in descending order of score.

17 Wines, Mean Score: 84.2 Median Score: 86

2006 La Stella La Stella 92

Bumbleberry pie, baked, prune jam. Low-mid 90s – 93 Bloody awesome. Strawberry, tannic, dark finish, heavy. A monster of a wine, and shockingly so for this region. Interesting that they set out to make this in this price point, and seem to have achieved their goal. I'd never buy it at that price, but it likely would cellar a treat. I'm keen to follow this one.

2006 Fairview Cellars Madcap Red 91

Although a merlot blend, it would be a shame to exclude this wine from the merlot list. Super PURE red fruits, and no oak whallop typical of the region. Clearly a different class. Medium concentration, touch of pepper. Rich, fruity, tannic, and dry. Nice structure without being ridiculous. Very, very nice. The purity of fruit puts this into the 90+ territory immediately.

2006 La Stella Allegreto Merlot 89

Wood. Tight. Intersted to try in 5 years. High 80s? Shut down, nice structure, nice tannins, lack of fruit - those that are there are cooked in style. 2005 Bordeaux-esque. Really closed, suggesting cool plummy fruits, but tucked in hard. 90+. 2nd pour, more fruit showed up in general. I'm REALLY curious to see where these people takes these wines moving forward. At $38, I've purchased some solid Bordeaux for less.

2007 Burrowing Owl Merlot 89

Very nice fruits, dynamic - 3 different vibes in 3 sniffs. Plum, wood. Fine tannin. Solid. Very nice. Mid-palate suppleness only issue. Like the fruit, like the tannin.

2008 Hester Creek Merlot 88

Stink. But good. Clearly articulated. Spice, evergreen. Concentrated, funk evergreen, odd but round and good. Good - funky, intense merlot. Big marks for intense, big marks for cool funk.

2007 Road 13 Merlot 87

Really obvious fruit, then juniperesque wood. Very nice and pleasant. Lacking the intangible to make it a memorable wine, but certainly is a solid effort. Solid, very nice fruit on the nose, but a tad forgettable for some reason.

2006 NKMip Merlot 87

Classic Okanagan with serious bead of strawberry, no oak smash. Strawberry, light, VERY reminiscent of a good beaujolais - which is odd. Slick oak tucked behind nicely. Dig the strawberry, the beaujolais vibe was striking. Not a bad value at $20.

2005 Hester Creek Reserve Merlot 87

Graphity mineral. Very nice. Stylish.

Raspberry - super intense, very good, but not my thing really. More stlyed than the non-reserve. Quick and dry finish - disappointingly so. Thin. Loved the mineral nose, hated on the texture and finish. Aging? This one?

2005 Tinhorn Creek Oldfield Series Merlot 86

Tight, light cassis, nice, but forgettable. Neat spicy texture, lack of mid palate as normal, very dry, but very sleek. Interesting finish. Lacks fruit intensity, either shut down or it's already too old, which would be shocking. Watery, typical Okanagan structure.

2007 Twisted Tree Merlot 86

Ashtray - in a not-good way. Fruit, pepper. Present and stylish. Cherry, light dry. Very stylish for this area's merlot. Misses the mark for me. Nice. It's good. But not as good and compelling as the other reds here. For that reason, not as good a QPR as the others.

2006 Tinhorn Creek Merlot 2006 85

Insta-sexy, but then a whallop of oak, oak, oak. Dry, oaky, stylistically not for me, but a well made wine. Oak, dry, thin - classic Okanagan merlot apparently. Really dry finish and a long one at that.

2006 Inniskillin Merlot 85

Cologne? Lovely rich raspberry, wood/stem. Really nice, dry. Lacks concentration but otherwise like the fruit and oak. Half the price of some of the other merlots around, and quite good.

2007 Cassini Cellars Merlot 83

Veggie nose! Aromatically challenged though. Rosy floral and interesting. Dry. Not super oaky. Super extracted. Might get a considerably better score if it wasn't served in the worst glassware I can imagine.

2007 Oliver Twist Proprietor's Reserve Merlot 80

Black licorice, in an intensity and focus that I've never seen before. Ever. Evergreens in the highs. Concentrated anise, with a SUPER dry finish that would put most people off. Awkward as hell wine - esp for a merlot??

2007 Oliver Twist Merlot 76

Oak. Nice fruit, but a little to tight. Aromatically challenged. Not a fan of structure Average at best, terrible QPR.

Gehringer Brothers Dry Rock Merlot 72

Little odd. Raspberry syrup tucked in. No oak over the head, thankfully. Average.

2006 Antelope Ridge Merlot 68

Flat. Dry, tannic, mouth stripping. Okay otherwise, typical, but in a med more generic style. Below average, poor aromatics on nose.

4 Wines & A Plate - Cabernet Sauvignon

Texture was the hot topic of conversation – where on the mouth it stripped you of saliva, stuffed your face full of cotton balls, or made your teeth feel like they were dissolving. Loads of fruit, loads of odd-ball descriptors, and overall high average scores. The ringer was a pleaser, offering tremendous QPR. Buy it. Preferences were all over the map, so my scores and preferences didn’t highly correlate with the group rankings and scores. And last but not least: a Canadian wine took the top group rank score award!!!!

THE WINES

A: 2004 Torres Mas La Plana Cabernet Sauvignon

$50 Penedes, Spain

Group Score: 83.3 Rank tied for 2/3

Jammy, nutty, delicious, fruit, and lavender on the nose. Also had a really cool Indian spice character. A tannic mouth stripper with a lemon rind finish that was offputting at first – but with food was a complete non-issue. Good concentration, big bold style that’s yummy. 91+

B: 2005 Mitolo Serpico Cabernet Sauvignon

$63 McLaren Vale, Australia

Group Score: 81.8, Rank 4 [Robert Parker: 94]

Corky, leathery, blue and red fruits, sweet & sour Chinese food, toner, horsebarn-esque odd, and awkward on the nose. Palate showed more odd items like fish and ink. Tart long finish of apple core. Points in my books for cool descriptors, points against for not really enjoying them. 88+

C: 2007 Fairview Cellars Cabernet Sauvignon

$40 South Okanagan, Canada

Group Score: 88.6, Rank 1

Floral, perfumy, ivory soap, wood, Hawaiian tropics sunblock. I’m a sucker for floral, perfumy wines. Others detest them. This wine was by far the most supple and finesse-y, and also was the lightest wine. 92

D: 2007 The Show

$15 California, USA

Group Score: 89.1, Rank tied for 2/3

It smelled like cleaning a gun – gunmetal and solvent. Also a very present raisin component with a deep bumbleberry fruit bomby-ness. Good concentration, ended up going the direction of a berry juicebox. A superb value. 87

THE FOOD

It had long been decided that Cabernet Sauvignon would be paired with fatty beef. 5-6 hr beef shoulder from Ben’s Meats, garden mash potatoes, charred kale, beef gravy, and a touch of soy and horseradish. All of the wines, with the possible exception of the top ranking C, was clearly improved when taken with food. All the texture issues that were keeping scores down faded and some erasing and re-visiting of scoring on the mouthfeel/texture side was going on. A classic and clearly wonderful pairing.

Saskatoon Wine - 2009 Batch 2

Batch 1 Update: has been hangin' with medium plus toast american oak for a week now, and is showing enough wood to come off in the next few days for this batch. I think. Reality is that I have no guidelines to work with. The infusion spirals are fully extracted at 6 weeks. Where prior to that is a good balance for this particular batch of juneberry wine is completly up to winemaking style and taste. What I can say is that the oak has greatly aided the wine, bringing all kinds of aromatics and texture to the party - far more than I'd expected. I'm trying to allow those synergies to exist without overpowering the fruit with wood. A learning experience to say the least.

BATCH 2

Chemistry
30L of must, TA 0.4, SG 1.050, and pH 3.85 was the original situation. Due to my previous success reducing the water/must ratio from 150% in traditional recipes to 37% in Batch 1, I pushed it further to 19% this time. Pre-fermentation post-tweaking chemistry: 32L, TA 0.7, SG 1.113, pH 3.66.

Crushing
I also used my fruit crusher on this batch - which worked fantastically. The hope was that the crusher would allow more juice to be extracted right off the bat. Not so sure that's the case. Seems it made a fine puree, and only a few days into fermentation did significant amounts of juice start to separate from the pulp.

Fermentation
Yeast: Lalvin RC212. The cap is seriously 90%+ of the depth of the must. I'm sure there are some inherent dangers with a cap that deep, but it has to be tried. I'm punching down every 2-3 hrs during the day if I can. I cold soaked each pail - one for 2 days, one for 4, with this technique. Fermentation temperatures have been lower than Batch 1 - simply due to the ambient temperatures. I'm going to have to intervene at some point to get the must temp up again into the high 20sC. Post fermentation I intend on doing an extended maceration using the same technique.

This wine should, in theory, be more concentrated [less water, cold soak, extended maceration], higher alcohol [higher SG], more complex in oak [it will see 2 toasts of oak], and generally 'better'. Only time will tell...