AutoRSS Original Feed Admin

In July I found myself in Tucson with a few extra days on my hands, so naturally, the first thing I did was to find out how close the wineries were. Arizona has one AVA, Sonoita, which is located about an hour southeast of Tucson. The elevation slowly climbs in that direction, so that wine country is at about 4000 ft., and much cooler than Tucson. Scenic drive too. Clustered around the small town of Elgin are about 9 wineries, 3 of which were open on the Thursday I went there. The wineries charge a reasonable fee, $3 – 5, for tastings, but that includes the glass, and once you have a glass from one of the wineries, the cost for tasting at the others is discounted to $1 – 3. The wine industry is about 30 years old. Specialties, not surprisingly, are grapes from the hotter European climates. The potential of this region is massive, the wines reminding strongly of Tuscany, and the Sangiovese a ringer for Montalcino. And the capability (not just potential) for producing structured, long lived wines is there. This region deserves a reputation greater than Texas, but I suspect there just aren’t enough wineries for it to ever come to prominence. If wine lovers find themselves in the Tucson area, make this your number one destination.

Kief-Joshua Vineyards
My first stop simply because it was the first winery I came to that was open. Because their vines haven’t come to full maturity yet, they are currently getting their fruit from California. But clearly there is a good winemaker here, and a distinctive house style that will serve their Arizona fruit very well. Good future here, I think. Very nice tasting room.

Kief-Joshua Vineyards, Chenin Blanc, California 2007
Citrus, nectarine, grassy/herbal notes toward the finish. Pleasantly tart, with good body. 13.5% abv. Very Good / Excellent (86 – 88). [7/16/09]

Kief-Joshua Vineyards, Viognier, California 2007
Floral notes, citrus, tropical fruits. Nice aromatics. Lightish in body, and hides its alcohol (14.5% abv) well. Very Good / Excellent (86 – 88). [7/16/09]

Kief-Joshua Vineyards, Cabernet Franc, California 2005
Nice, clear, medium ruby. Excellent nose of savory red fruits and cedar. On the palate, tart cherry, currants, plum, perhaps a note of roses, and gentle cedar on the finish. Somewhat light in body. Should be very food friendly. Very Good / Excellent (86 – 88). [7/16/09]

Kief-Joshua Vineyards, Syrah, California 2005
Nearly opaque ruby/purple. Raspberry, plum, earth, spice. Nice finish. Medium-full bodied. Very Good / Excellent (86 – 88). [7/16/09]

Kief-Joshua Vineyards, Nebbiolo-Sangiovese-Tempranillo, California 2005
Nose of savory red fruits and a hint of forest floor. On the palate, tart, slightly savory red fruit. The fruit is very low-key. Lingering earthiness and french oak notes. Drink now or in the next 2 years. Very Good (85 – 87). [7/16/09]

Kief-Joshua Vineyards, Cabernet Sauvignon, Mendocino 2003
Medium, opaque ruby/garnet. Funky nose. Cherry, savory blackberry, spice, and oak. Needs plenty of breathing. Drink now or in the next 3 yrs. Very Good / Excellent (86 – 88). [7/16/09]

Village of Elgin Winery
A prolific winery, offering ~40 wines (perhaps more) under at least two different labels. Eclectic style here, with unusual blends and winemaking methods. Definitely a sense of humor and adventure here. Very competent winemaking, the wines quite at ease with their seeming lack of “conventional polish.” Fun wines to taste.

Village of Elgin Winery, Sangiovese, Sonoita [AVA] 2006
Medium ruby/garnet. Nice nose of cherry, smoke, and a hint of orange rind. Savory palate, with cherry, strawberry, plum, orange rind, smoke, herbs, and spice. Good acidity and body. Very good effort. Very Good / Excellent (86 – 88). [7/16/09]

Village of Elgin Winery, Old World Cuvee, Sonoita [AVA] NV
Sangiovese and Cabernet Sauvignon, aged in chesnut. Pure, medium ruby. Nose of cherry blackberry, and chesnut. On the palate, cherry, blackberry, and very prominent chesnut, with smoke, orange rind, and nutmeg. Nice but gentle grip to the acid and tannin. Good effort. Very Good / Excellent (86 – 88). [7/16/09]

The story on aging in chesnut is that the winemaker discovered in researching historical winemaking that chesnut was supposedly the first wood used for wine barrels.

Village of Elgin Winery, Barbera, Sonoita [AVA] 2006
Light garnet. Very pleasant nosee of sweet red fruit, a touch of smoke, and oragne rind. Sweet cherry on the palate, with savory herbs, and hints of smoke and orange rind. Chalky tannis. Very Good (85 – 87). [7/16/09]

Village of Elgin Winery, Bella, Sonoita [AVA] NV
Moscato and Colombard. Light, clean, sparkly silver-yellow. Orange, peach, melon, and a barest hint of sweet nettle. Off-dry. Pleasant picnic wine. Very Good (85 – 87). [7/16/09]

Village of Elgin Winery, Vino della Primavera, Sonoita[AVA] NV
A blend of six different grapes. Cherry, banana, nectarine, leather, and sweet greeness. Good acid and body. Strange, but suprisingly good. Excellent (87 – 90). [7/16/09].

Sonoita Winery
The oldest winery in the state. Potentially world-class wines, confident winemaking, and a very high standard of quality. Apparently started as an agricultural experiment, the founder having researched the location, climate, etc., and determined that it was ideal for winemaking. Their flagship wine is their Pinot Noir, which was unfortunately not available for tasting, but I can only imagine that it would be a very excellent wine. In addition, here is a winery that could make long lived wines, as evidenced by the available library releases of their Cab. Sauv., including the 1984, a wine they say is drinking quite well. They deserve some respect and attention!

Sonoita Winery, Colombard, Cochise County, Arizona NV
Light golden. Bright citrus, green apple, and melon. Refreshing but rich, with great body. Excellent (87 – 90). [7/16/09]

Sonoita Winery, Sonoita Fume, Sonoita [AVA] NV
Prominent smoke and flint on the nose. Citrus and green apple on the palate, with good focus, mouth-puckering acidity, and lots of flinty mineral. Good body. Excellent (87 – 90). [7/16/09]

Sonoita Winery, Sonora Rossa, Sonoita [AVA] NV
Merlot, Cab. Sauv., and Colombard. Dark salmon/ruby. Nice, aromatic nose. Cherry and blackberry, with Colombard’s citrus and apple on the rear palate. Very interesting. Very Good (85 – 87). [7/16/09]

Sonoita Winery, Sangiovese, Sonoita [AVA] 2007
Medium ruby/garnet. Cherry, black raspberry, a touch of strawberry, hints of savory herbs, and orange rind, with oak giving it great body. Almost like a Rosso di Montalcino. Sangiovese like this could put Arizona on the map. Should drink well for another 5 years, perhaps longer. Excellent (87 – 90). [7/16/09]

Sonoita Winery, MeCaSah, Sonoita [AVA] 2006
Merlot, Cab. Sauv., and Syrah. Medium garnet. Good nose. Cherry, blackberry, and currant. Toward the finish, a good, savory quality, with a hint of orange rind. Relatively closed at this stage. A wine of good quality. Having tasted this, one can certainly see how in a good year, their wines could age very well (they reported that their library release 1984 Cabernet Sauvignon is drinking nicely). Will improve over the next 5 – 10 years. Excellent (87 – 90). [7/16/09]

Sonoita Winery, Desert Zin, Arizona 2008
I’d always heard that Zinfandel could produce a port-style wine from natural sugar content, and yea verily, here is one, with 16.5% abv, and 6% RS. Deep ruby towards black. Concentrated black cherry and black raspberry, a savory touch, orange rind, and tabacco. Very intense – has some punch to it! Great stuff. Excellent (87 – 90). [7/16/09]

Sonoita Winery, Arizona Sparkles, Brut, Sonoita [AVA] NV
Colombard and Muscat. Citrus, apple, and melon; like their still Colombard, with the addition of bubbles. Not quite as good though, its balance a bit lacking. Very Good (85 – 87). [7/16/09]

read on tastingwines.blogspot.com

AutoRSS Original Feed Admin

I have a favorite wine shop in Wichita (KS), Anton’s Vintage Wine & Spirits (highly recommended), and the owner has become a friend over the past few years. But we had never had the chance to taste wines together. So, we got together the day after Christmas. He was interested in tasting an Israeli Cab, so I brought one, and he provided some other Cabernet based wines. He enjoyed the Israeli, and the wines he provided were quite a treat!

Galil Mountain, Cabernet Sauvignon, Galilee 2003
Medium ruby toward garnet. Love the nose – sweet, and very aromatic, with raspberry, marmalade, and roses – not quite heady, but rich. On the palate, sweet cherry upfront with overtones of cassis, followed by a midpalate of sweet raspberry, orange rind, and roses. Finish drops off, however. Medium bodied, with nice aromatics. Fills the senses (even with the short finish). Seems to be holding nicely – for drinking soon, but without fear. Lovely wine. Kosher. Excellent (87 – 90). [12/26/08].

Chateau La Louviere, Pessac-Leognan 2005
Nice color – deep ruby with a touch of purple. Awesome nose of earth, black fruit, and tobacco – but subtle and reserved at this stage, and not as good as it will be in time! Similar notes on the palate, but very tight at this stage. Full bodied. Very impressive – a great wine. I’d give it 10 more years, and I’ll guess it will last for 10 – 20 years after that. Should be something really special in time. Love it! Exceptional (90 – 93), and potentially Extraordinary (93 – 95) with time. [12/26/08]

Paul Hobbs, Cabernet Sauvignon, Napa Valley 2005
Last glass from a bottle opened the day before, but kept under inert gas. Nice color – deep ruby with a touch of purple. Big, rich, heady, Napa nose of cassis, earth, and tobacco. On the palate, cherry, cassis, tobacco, and earth. Big but not huge. Great fruit! Not a wine to evaluate, but one to sit back and enjoy. Should last another 10 – 15 years. Can’t decided whether this or the Beringer Private Reserve 1997 tasted after it is the best California Cabernet I’ve had, although they are in very different styles. Extraordinary (93 – 95). [12/26/08]

Beringer, Cabernet Sauvignon, Private Reserve, Napa Valley 1997
Impressive color – deep, youthful ruby, going to pink with a touch of brown at the edge (but notably, no garnet). Funky, candied nose at first, but after that blows off, red and black currants, with Graves-like earthiness, a hint of tobacco, and a touch of espresso – a great nose! On the palate, cherry, red currant, cassis, raspberry, orange rind, and espresso. Touch of earthiness on the finish. Full bodied, with good balance. Somewhat Bordelais in style. A very high quality wine. In its prime, and should hold there for another 5 years, but probably won’t improve any further. This would be the best California Cabernet I’ve had if not for the Paul Hobbs Napa 2005 tasted just before it – can’t really decided between the two, although I’d say the this one has the edge, although in a very different style. Extraordinary (93 – 95). [12/26/08]

read on tastingwines.blogspot.com

AutoRSS Original Feed Admin

I organized a Pinot Noir tasting at my place, which took place on Nov 21 (two weeks ago today). I had always wanted to do something like this, and for me the main interest was to put some New World PNs head-to-head with red Burgs, so as to answer the eternal questions: (1) are red Burgs any better than New World PNs, and (2) do New World PNs actually taste like PN? I also had always wanted to put Nuits against Beaune, Oregon against California, and hot climate against cool climate. In short, the overall quality was high, we all learned a lot, and there were a number of [mostly pleasant] surprises. All wines were served immediately after opening.

First the notes, then some reflections.

Flight 1. The Classics: Europe

Joseph Drouhin, Chorey-Les-Beaune 2006
Light ruby. Lovely, aromatic nose that practically fills the room. Cherry and a touch of dark raspberry on the palate, the fruit having the lovely, vibrant, accentuated style that is typically associated with the Cote-de-Beaune. Nice finish and body. Should last another 5 years or so. At around $20, the best value in red Burgundy I’ve had. Excellent (87 – 90).

Nicolas Potel, Cote de Nuits-Villages, Vieilles Vignes 2006
A somewhat darker ruby (compared to the Chorey-Les-Beaune tasted before it), but still clear. Nice nose of leather. On the palate, cherry, blackberry, leather, and spice. Does have a touch of the meatiness that is associated with the Cote-de-Nuits. Not all that impressive at first but gets better and better as it opens. Too young, I think – needs another 5 years, and should last for 10, but when it hits its prime it should be something special, and I imagine it will justify its almost $40 price tag as well. Decanting or breathing for an hour might do the trick as well. Excellent (87 – 90), and potentially Exceptional (90 – 93) with time.

August Ziegler, Pinot Noir Spatlese (trocken), Cuvee August, Pfalz 2005
Dark ruby, with a touch of purple. Nice nose. Cherry and mixed berries on the palate. Nice acidity, and the high alcohol (14%) gives it richness without making it unbalanced. Tastes like its seen a moderate amount of oak, which doesn’t seem necessary. A ripe, attractive style that is very pleasing initially, but doesn’t have any underpinnings to contrast, and so may just have a bit too much fruit for its own good. Still, an excellent and well-made wine, but not quite my style. Should last another 5 years. About $20, which is a fair price. Excellent (87 – 90).

Flight 2. The Challengers: United States

Willamette Valley Vineyards, Pinot Noir, “Whole Cluster Fermented,” Willamette Valley 2007
Ruby / purple. Sweet strawberry, cherry, and a touch of blueberry. Attractive, accentuated fruit, and in some ways very similar to the Chorey-Les-Beaune tasted earlier in the evening. Classic Oregon PN. Very nice. Drink in the next 3 – 5 years, I think. Around $15, and a good value. Excellent (87 – 90).

Angeline, Pinot Noir, Russian River Valley 2006
Ruby / purple. Cherry, and rich blackberry. Wonderful, pure fruit. Californian in style but still has the finesse and grace that PN should have. Very, very nice. The best California PN I’ve had, and at a mere $15 a bottle, the best value in Pinot Noir I’ve encountered. Drink in the 4 – 6 years. Excellent / Exceptional (89 – 91).

Crescendo, Pinot Noir, Napa Valley 2005
Deep garnet. Nice nose. Black cherry, liqueur-like blackberry, and a touch of blueberry, with nice vegetal/wood/tea undertones. Great body. For me, a big surprise, as I didn’t expect a PN from such a hot climate to taste like PN, or even work as a wine – yet this is a reasonably faithful PN in style, and yet also very distinctly Napa. Should last another 5 – 7 years. I’m not completely certain, but I think this is around $15, which makes it a great value (although the comparable Russian River Valley PN tasted before it is just a touch better). Wonderful stuff. Excellent / Exceptional (89 – 91).

Flight 3. The Up-and-Coming: Southern Hemisphere

Kim Crawford, Pinot Noir, Marlborough 2007
Dark ruby / purple. Lovely nose of red berries (with a note cranberry in particular) and earth (although the nose is a little unusual, perhaps even a bit funky, initially). On the palate, cranberry, cherry, strawberry, and a touch of darker fruits, with nice touch of black tea and vegetal tones. Cool, pure, juicy fruit – practically screams Marlborough. Just a bit earthy (in the most pleasant of ways), and with great body. The best Pinot Noir I’ve had (a mild but most pleasant surprise). Should last another 4 – 6 years. Just under $20, and a tremendous value. Exceptional (90 – 93).

Matetic, Equilibrio, Pinot Noir, San Antonio 2005 (Chile)
My first Chilean PN. Light, reddish purple. Nice but a bit funky nose that reminds one, oddly enough, of buttered popcorn. On the palate, cranberry, cherry, and dark fruits, with great warmth and spice. Very ripe. Nice, but a blockbuster sort of wine, and a bit too much for me. Has a touch of the soft red fruits of PN, but otherwise behaves like a lighter-bodied Cabernet. As a friend put it “Everything this does, a Chilean Cab does better.” Drink in the next 3 – 5 years. A very excellent wine, but to my palate, not a very good PN. Not unreasonably priced at around $25. Exceptional (90 – 93), but not my style.

Now my reflections: 1. It is nice (or perhaps I just got lucky) to have a pair a red Burgs that demonstrate the differences between Cote de Beaune and Cotes de Nuits. I must confess, although I was still very pleased, that perhaps I was expecting the Burgs to be a bit more impressive – on the whole they were blown out of the water by the New Worlds, although stylistically I preferred them to most of the New Worlds. 2. Although I haven’t had very many, I’m beginning to think that maybe I don’t care for German Pinot (aka Spatburgunder) – they have an attractive style, but no real underpinnings (no earth, vegetal tones, spice, etc), to lend them contrast and interest. 3. I’ve been in the habit of saying that Oregon tastes more like Burgundy, but it’s nice to have that confirmed in a head-to-head (although, once again, maybe I got lucky on the selection). Based on this and the other Oregons I’ve had, it seems maybe that they lean specifically toward the Beaun-ish side. 4. I was impressed and surprised by the Calis – I’ve been complaining for years that Cali Pinot often doesn’t taste like Pinot, but these two overturned that conception, and more or less killed the Burgs for quality. As I noted above, the Napa Pinot was a big surprise. 5. As much as I love Marlborough, the fact that it has produced the best PN I’ve tasted was a unlooked-for but delightful surprise. And, as I’ve noted in the past, you can sense in Marlborough PN the same, cool, juicy, pure fruit as in the Sauv Blancs. 6. I had heard very promising things about Chilean PN, but now I question that, because if this was a typical example, then I’m not all that interested in tasting any others. One would think that high-altitude and thus cooler conditions would produce more balanced, more graceful PN.

read on tastingwines.blogspot.com

AutoRSS Original Feed Admin

I gather from some people I’ve talked to that Rosenblum has a “love it or hate it” style. The wines are certainly archtypically Californian – ripe, extracted fruit and high alcohol. But, to my Old World tuned palate, they offer something more. Most of their reds have great character, with lots of nice undertones – earth, spice, minerals – that throw the ripe fruit into relief, and make for a complex and satisfying package. I tasting the following wines at the local wine shop last month. I should also add that their Black Muscat, a fortified dessert-style wine, is excellent as well, and a great value at around $10 per half bottle. Some notes for other Rosenblum wines I’ve tasted in the past are also posted after this recent batch.

Rosenblum, Viognier, Appellation Series, Kathy’s Cuvee, California 2006
Citrus and wonderful, ripe, sweet peach and tropical fruits, with creamy vanilla. Lots of character. Wow. This is the best Viognier I’ve had to date. This can be had for under $15, and at that price a tremendous value. Excellent / Exceptional (89 – 91). [9/6/08]

Rosenblum, Mourvedre, Appelation Series, San Francisco Bay 2004
Nice, interesting nose. On the palate, cherry, plum, violets, smoke, and spice. Frim finish. Very fruity and aromatic for Mourvedre. Lots of character. Great wine. Around $15, and a good value. Excellent / Exceptional (89 – 91). [9/6/08]

Rosenblum, Syrah, Rominger Vineyard, Yolo County 2006
Dark berries, earthy herbs, spice, and a touch of mineral. Very nice, but not nearly as interesting as the Mourvedre. If you can find this for $15, it’s worth trying, but the price online seems to be around $20, and at that price I’d pass. Excellent (87 – 90). [9/6/08]

Rosenblum, Zinfandel, Appellation Series, Paso Robles 2006
Softish cherry with a touch of raspberry upfront, then blackberry, and a spicy finish. Quite good, but more or less ‘just another’ California Zin, and for around $15, not all that exciting (although it’s not an unfair price). Excellent (87 – 90), but only merely. [9/6/08]

And now a round up of my older notes for their wines:

Rosenblum Cellars, Black Muscat, Gallagher Reserve, Central Valley 2005
A sweet, fortified red. Cherry/stawberry upfront, followed by dark berries, with almost tarry notes, and chocolate. Great stuff. Exceptional (90 – 93) [9/30/07].

Rosenblum Cellars, Petite Sirah, Appelation Series, Heritage Clones, San Fransisco Bay 2005
Dark purple. Blueberry, blackberry, mint, and juniper. Very rich. Textbook Petite Sirah, but has some pretty distinct character. Big finish. Could have a hair better balance. Worth trying, although perhaps a bit pricey at $20. Excellent (87 – 90) [7/28/07]

Rosenblum, Syrah, Vintners Cuvee, California 2004
Sweet cherry and plum, with minty herbs, mild earthiness and spice, and a hint of wildberries toward the finish. Suprisingly good. Very Good / Excellent (86 – 88) [2/17/07]

Rosenblum, Mourvedre, Appellation Series, San Francisco Bay 2004
Sweet cherry, with mineral/smoke, violet, and spice. Driven more by its undertones than its fruit. A formidible, even brooding wine that fills the senses from pour to finish. Parker would love this one. Excellent / Exceptional (89 – 91) [7/17/07]

read on tastingwines.blogspot.com

AutoRSS Original Feed Admin

Winemaking in the American Midwest, although appreciated and respected by those ‘in the know,’ has a supprisingly low profile given its historical significance. Missouri was the most significant wine producing state before Prohibition. Happily, Missouri has slowly been rebuilding its reputation, and it’s star grape, Norton, has an international following. However, the home of the first commercial wine industry in the US has remained relatively obscure: Indiana.

Since I currently live in Indiana, I’ve had the chance to taste wine from the more significant wineries on many occasions. In fact, in my current home of Bloomington, we have not one but two wineries. Oliver Winery is the oldest and largest winery in Indiana. They grow mostly hybrids, plus Concord, Niagara, and Catawba, and even produce a few locally grown vinifera wines. They also purchase west coast fruit, and it is those wines that to some extent dominate their tasting room. Oliver is a more polished operation, producing wines in an international style. It should be noted that the winery grounds have beautifully gardens, and they sell cheeses, meats, breads, crackers, etc. for picnics. Interestingly enough, the Wall Street Journal listed Oliver as one of 12 wineries to visit in the US. It is certainly worth a visit.

The second and smaller of the Bloomington wineries is Butler Winery. They grow almost exclusively hybrids. Their in-town tasting room in Bloomington might be better known for its wine and beer making supplies. But anybody who ventures out to the winery is in for an unexpected treat. The grounds are very charming, and rather than simply a cooler with sandwhiches and such, they have made to order sandwhiches, appetizers, and such, served in cafe style. And the food is rather good too! Butler is more charmingly and authentically Midwestern than Oliver, and although I was not at first impressed, My appreciation and enjoyment of their wines and winery has grown considerably over time. And although some people might not find it as ‘impressive’ as Oliver, I actually recommend it with equal enthusiasm, although for entirely different reasons. This past weekend I went to their in-town tasting room to buy wine-making supplies, and took the opportunity to taste a few of their wines.

Before the notes, a special focus on a particular grape. Most of Butler’s red wines focus on the hybrid Chambourcin. Chambourcin is among my favorite grapes, no allowance for its hybrid status necesary. In fact, although it is a ‘hybrid,’ about 60% of its paretage is actually vinifera, although which vinifera has been a matter of debate – the once common misconception is that it was none other than Pinot Noir, but it turns out to be a rather obscure vinifera called Black Hambourg. But who cares? Unique among hybrids, it truly does have the refinement of true vinifera, without a trace of ‘hybrid funk.’ It is among the most charming of grape varieties, fruity, aromatic, and the best examples are not unlike a decent Cru Beaujolais. For the record, my standard for Chambourcin is made by Pirtle Winery, in Weston, Missouri (another winery I recommend visiting).

Butler Winery, Chardonel, Indiana 2005
Lemon, perhaps a bit of coconut, a touch of tropical fruits, and a bit of oak. A reasonably succesful Chardonel, and while I must admit that Chardonel has grown on me, I’m still not a big fan. Pleasant / Good (82 – 84). [8/9/08]
(Chardonel is a hybrid of Chardonnay and the hybrid Seyval Blanc.)

Butler Winery, Chambourcin, Indiana 2004
Nice nose of berries, blueberry in particular. On the palate, cherry and raspberry, but with generous
blueberry. Fruity and aromatic. Quite nice! Drinking very nicely now, but should keep it charms for
another year or so. Very Good (85 – 87). [8/9/08]

Butler Winery, Chambourcin, Indiana 2005
Not as forward as the 2004, but with the same character and components (fruity, aromatic red berries and blueberries), and more structure. Needs another year for that delightful fruit to express itself, but
should still retain its more impressive structure. Drink in the next year after that. Very Good (85 – 87). [8/9/08]

Butler Winery, Indiana White, Indiana NV
Almost every Midwestern winery produces a semi-sweet, non-vintage white, and an accompanying red. Made from Vignoles, which is actually a nice little grape, producing wines that can have a passing resemblance to late-harvest Riesling. Semi-sweet, with fresh peach and nectarine. Nice. Very Good (85 – 87). [8/9/08]
(Vignoles is hybrid of one of the many Seibel hybrids with “Pinot de Corton,” which might or might not be related to Pinot Noir.)

Butler Winery, Chambourcin Rose, Indiana 2007
Semi-sweet. Fruity berries, with a touch of nectarine. Nice. Good (83 – 85). [8/9/08]

Butler Winery, Late Harvest Vignoles, Indiana 2007
Sweet but not extremely sweet. Simple but nice character of pear and peach. Worth noting that the 2004
(which I had in December 2007) could have passed for a decent Riesling Spatlese. Very Good (85 – 87). [8/9/08]

Butler Winery, Ruby Port, Indiana 2005
Made from Chambourcin. Fruity red berry and blueberry, with the fortification providing additional
structure. Very Good (85 – 87). [8/9/08]

read on tastingwines.blogspot.com

AutoRSS Original Feed Admin

The stage for a great wine must be the right thing. Well, what can go wrong when you go to Tel Aviv’s trendiest restaurant – Montefiore – to celebrate 13 years with my wife? Nothing went wrong. The company was great, the food was very good and the service was excellent. This is a fusion restaurant, which means a selection of Korean, Vietnamese and French dishes – all are very good to excellent. The ambiance is informal colonial decor and the service is upscale Israeli. Our first dishes were were leaning towards the far eastern side and didn’t go to well with the wine (not a surprise). The main dishes were selected to match the wine: White grouper on Okra & tomato sauce for my wife and sirloin steak with mushroom sauce for me. Both were excellent, I like fusion restaurants that don’t try to be too creative. We will get to the wine in a second. The evening ended by “climbing” to floors to our room in the Hotel just above the restaurant. The Hotel shares the same design as the restaurant and provides a very comfortable place to sleep. One major disadvantage is the noise: both from the restaurant and the street.

Chateau St. Jean Cinq Cépages C.S. 1997 is the best Californian wine I’ve had and a great wine by any standard.
This is a very rich and elegant wine. Deep purple/brick color, full bodied wine, showing a very distinct blueberries and black fruit aromas. This is accompanied by tobacco, a bit caramel, chocolate and a touch of smoky and herbal flavors. Very balanced and smooth. Very long finish. Extraordinary 95

read on tastingwines.blogspot.com

AutoRSS Original Feed Admin

The Louis M Martini winery was founded in 1933, although its roots go back to 1899. Martini is considered to be one of the patriarchs of California winemaking, and the legacy of Martini has always commanded respect. This winery makes my favorite California Cabernet – very much in the old world claret style, with some influence from their Italian immigrant heritage, but not lacking in Californian richness. The hallmark and legacy of these wines is that although they are very drinkable on release, they have such superb balance that Martini’s basic Cabernets from the 1970′s still drink well today; I also recently saw reports that their best Pinot Noirs from the 1960′s are still in nice shape as well. And yet, for reasons I don’t understand, there is a general feeling that Martini’s wines are not what they used to be. There is no doubt that when Gallo purchased Martini in 2002 (although the Martini family still runs the winery and makes the wines), the financial investment was much needed, and has helped to restore their image. But even so, they have always had big fans amoung consumers and critics. To paraphrase one professional reviewer, ‘Martini’s wines always taste more expensive than they are.’ And that is one of things I love about them – they offer tremendous class and elegance for the price. Maybe class and elegance are considered outdated by the fruit bomb generation, but it is worth noting that Robert Parker’s Wine Advocate is one of the fans.

The first Martini Cabernet I tasted was the 1981 La Loma Vineyard Selection Napa Valley Cabernet Sauvignon, tasted in 2004. At 23 years, it was a classic example of Martini’s hallmark grace and balance, and not without the vitallity to age a few more years. Some people have suggested that this wine was made at the very end of Martini’s glory days. And yet, when I first tasted their 2001 Sonoma Cabernet Sauvignon later in 2004, I daresay I found all of the hallmark grace, balance, and potential longevity still very much alive. Even the 2002 Sonoma Cabernet, which was less succesful in overall quality still had the class of a more expensive wine, and very nearly the same aging potential as the truly excellent 2001.

I happened to have the opportunity to try a glass of the 2004 Napa Valley Reserve Cabernet Sauvignon at a restaurant a few weeks ago, and having tasted that, could not resist trying a bottle of the 2003 Napa Valley Reserve Cabernet the next week. As far as I’m concerned, these two wines should prove once and for all that the Martini legacy is alive and well!

Louis M Martini Cabernet Sauvignon Napa Valley Reserve 2004
Backwards and only suggesting the dark cherry and cassis that will emerge with time, with a touch of slightly savory herbs toward the finish, and an almost leathery earthiness. The herbs even suggest a bit of Italian influence, but still it proudly asserts its Napa provenance. Backwards and very old world in style, but even at this stage showing the promise of tremendous elegance to come. In short. a classic Martini Cabernet. This should age well for 15 more years, and very possibly longer (might be interesting to see what it’s like in 20 years), but needs 5 or maybe even 10 years to resolve all its elements – but then it will sing! Excellent (87 – 90), but will be Exceptional (90 – 93) with time.

Louis M Martini Cabernet Sauvignon Napa Valley Reserve 2003
Nice, rich nose of tobacco and cassis. Glides onto the palate with dark, firm raspberry, perhaps with a touch of blackberry, then goes to cassis, then a finish of tobacco with minty and slighty savory herbs and minerals. Deceptively rich but not overstated, with seemless balance, and exceptional elegance. Every sip of this wine is completely satisfying – this is one to savor. Once again a classic, old world Martini Cabernet, perhaps calling to mind a good Graves. Much farther along than the 2004, despite only a one year difference. This is just barely approachable, and would benefit from another 5 years, and will easily last 5 years, perhaps more, after that. Excellent (87 – 90)

Between the two, the 2003 is much more enjoyable now, but the 2004 has much greater potential. I have a mind to get four bottles of the 2004 and open one every five years. Also, snap up any remaining bottles of the 2001 Sonoma Cab if you can! As suggested above Martini wines are very good values – the Sonoma Cab runs about $12, and the Napa Reserve about $20. Their flagship wine is their Monte Rosso Cabernet (they were the first winery to buy land in Monte Rosso), which goes for about $50. Wine Spectator (who had given very poor reviews to some previous Martini wines) gave the 2003 a nice review. They also just released a single lot Napa Cab that goes for $80. Too pricey for me, but Parker liked it quite a bit.

read on tastingwines.blogspot.com