Wine For Normal People Radio : Episode 024 The Grape Miniseries...Chardonnay

And finally, we tackle the big daddy of the whites: Chardonnay. So many styles, so little time. MC Ice steps in while Rick is on summer break!

Episode 24: The Grape Miniseries, Chardonnay

Here are the show notes...

• Some fun facts about the Chardonnay grape and why everyone loves it (this is the real dorky stuff and some surprising things about how boring the grape is on its own...)
• Typical profiles of the Old World v. New World Styles
• Major (and not so major) growing regions in the Old World: Burgundy (see the Primer if you want more info on this), Champagne, Northern Italy, Austria, Germany, Eastern Europe
• Major growing regions in the New World: South America, South Africa (see the picture below of me petting the lion cub, as mentioned! I didn't mention it was at a preserve, I didn't just hop out of the car and pet a wild one!), Australia, New Zealand California and some other spots
• A word on food and Chardonnay pairing...

Chardonnay is such a huge topic that we couldn't do anything but brush the surface. If you've got questions post them on Facebook or Tweet us @Normalwine

If you like the 'cast, please review us on iTunes and we'll give you a shout out!

Podcast Powered By Podbean

Readmore »»

A Very Worthwhile Taste of South African Wines

It's rare that my location in a beta wine market (let's face it, Atlanta is not exactly the most cosmopolitan place when it comes to wine) leads to a great on-the-ground contact, so I was really excited when I got an email from a local dude who found my blog/Facebook page and who wanted to taste me on some of his wines. I was even more excited when I found out that his portfolio was made up of wines from South Africa, a place near and dear to my heart after my trip there a few years back.

So after a month of trying to get it on the books, finally, on a Tuesday afternoon, I met with Tom Lynch, founder of Worthwhile Wine Company. He showed up in jeans and a Worthwhile Wine t-shirt and his warmth and enthusiasm were immediately apparent. He prefaced the meeting by saying that, even if I didn't dig his wines, from the blog/Facebook stuff I seemed like someone he'd like to hang out with. That won me over right away (ok, I'm pretty easy, but still -- I could tell it was going to be a nice hour together). Flattery will get you everywhere, apparently.

But I digress...

Tom is a sharp, very cool guy and his story was amazing. Almost 2 years ago, he left his big job working for a prestigious online ad agency following a trip that he and his teenage daughter took to South Africa. This wasn't the kind of trip I took when I went there -- all plush and full of tasty food and wine -- rather it was a 2-3 week excursion that involved staying in a ramshackle hut and doing community service in a small, impoverished village. Tom and his daughter were so personally moved by the trip that they decided to take action. Of her own volition, his 13 year old started a foundation to help this community and others like it. Tom gave her the support and help she needed (including allowing her to home school so she could focus more time on the foundation!) and it's still going strong.

What does all this have to do with wine? Well, while his daughter was working on her foundation, Tom took a stock of his life. He had grown weary of his Mad Men existence and sought to pursue a passion he had started over 20 years ago when he worked in the wine biz as a sales rep. Tying in with his daughter's new found passion, he launched a company to represent small, high quality, boutique producers of South African wines who needed a broker to bring them to the US. All the wines are sustainably made -- adhering to the triple bottom line: combining environmental and social responsibility with economic profit. You know, worthwhile wines...hence the name.

Although new to many of us, South Africa is old hat in the wine world. It has been making wine since 1655 when the Dutch East India Company set up settlements on the southern tip of Africa as restocking stations for ships traveling between Holland and India. Obviously, no seafaring people in their right mind would travel without wine, so the Dutch scouted out regions for vineyards and after some trial and error, made a good go of it. Over the centuries, they honed their techniques, made some great wines, and were famed for a sweet, Muscat-based wine called Constantia, which was enjoyed by the wealthy and elite set in Europe.

Today the grapes grown are from the International set -- the regular suspects, so to speak -- Chardonnay, Sauvignon Blanc, Cabernet Sauvignon, Merlot, Syrah, and Chenin Blanc (sometimes called Steen here). The novelty act that you may also have heard of is South Africa's own hybrid, Pinotage (Pee-NOH-taaahje), a cross between Pinot Noir and Cinsault that sometimes tastes like raspberry flavored dried paint chips (true story).

Before I get to the wines, there is one last weird thing about South Africa that I want to mention. Although they've been making wine for more than 350 years in this region (as compared to other New World regions where it's been less than 200 years), the region is still considered New World because:

a) it's not in Europe
b) the political and economic fallout from apartheid crushed the wine industry and the rebirth of the industry is New World in it's reliance on technology and techniques, and
c) the style is somewhere in between European and New World styles.

I'm not sure what wine gods decide these things, but I think there's a good argument that South Africa should be considered Old World...story for another post or over a drink sometime.

Ok, with that long-ass preface, here's the lineup:

Wine 1: Dornier Chenin Blanc

Where it's from: Stellenbosch (the most famous wine area of South Africa)
The Grape: 100% Chenin Blanc
Vintage: 2010
Price: About $13

Color: Chenin Blanc is the main grape in Vouvray of the Loire Valley and there it can be a rich yellow color because winemakers often leave a bit of sugar in the wine, which can darken it up, and in ripe vintages the skin can impart a golden hue to the appearance. Left to its own devices, however, Chenin Blanc is a very pale color and is deceptive in that it looks like it doesn't have a whole lot going on...which is why you smell and taste it.

Smell: Damn, this is an aromatic wine. Just swirling it on the table 2 feet away, the wine smelled like a bottle of really fragrant, floral shampoo. It was so distinctive, although I was a little frustrated that my usually very keen sniffer couldn't quite place the exact flowers and herbs I was smelling. All I can say is that it was smelled like a greenhouse of flowers. Add to that a bit of pistachio nut and I was hooked. Did it smell like Chenin Blancs I've had? No way. Was it delicious nonetheless? I was ready to try it.

Taste: The wine was much less floral and much more green with a good kick of mouthwatering acid than what I expected. It's a subtle wine, no doubt, and I think is one that would do best with some crackers and goat cheese. Alone, I thought it was soft, light, and a little like uncooked green herbs. Nothing stunning, but a nice porch wine for $13.

Drink or Down the Sink?: It's a good wine, but by no means the best that South Africa makes in terms of Chenin Blanc. I like its but I'm not going out of my way to seek this out. I'd rather have a dry Vouvray, with its nuttiness, peachy character, and floral depth for $6 more.

______________________________________________________________________
Wine 2: De Wetshof Limestone Hill Chardonnay
Where it's from: The Robertson District, kind of inland from the more popular regions of Stellenbosch and Franschoek, had previously been known for making crap bulk white wine, but it's now an up and comer for Chardonnay and Shiraz. I feel like the literature needs to be updated on this area, since most books I have all but say that this area is kind of a wine emporium de crap.

The Grape: 100% Chardonnay
Alcohol: 14.7%
Vintage: 2010
Price: About $18

Color: This looked similar to the Chenin Blanc in color, which I was happy to see in a Chardonnay, which can often be golden because of its time spent in big oak barrels. Tom explained that the wine is made by Danie de Wet, who learned winemaking in Germany, a place where the vineyard and the grape rule flavor in wine, not the winemakers decision to put the wine in an oak barrel or use other winemaking tricks to change what nature intended.

Smell: This wine isn't called Limestone Hill for nothing -- it smells like minerals and limestone rock! It was slightly herbal, but the main impression was of a stream or waterfall. This wine is a perfect example of why I question the fact that South Africa is a New World region. This wine is much more like a European Chardonnay from Chablis or from the Languedoc area of Southern France. The land the grapes grow on produce this flavor that is so unique and distinctive -it's unlike any other New World wine region and unlike any other Old World one either.

Taste: The wine was fruitier than it smelled with green apple and lime flavors. Its mineral character was enhanced by a nuttiness and softened by the fact that the wine was aged sur lie (the yeast eats sugar and turns it to alcohol, and then the organisms die in the process, suicide machines that they are. They settle to the bottom of the tank and if the winemaker decides not to "clean up" the wine by moving it to a new barrel or tank, they can stir the dead yeast periodically, causing them to break up and release nutty, creamy flavors. Sounds gross, but the resulting flavors can be pretty damn good). The wine was light, and wasn't too textural either -- no strong acid or alcohol, just kind of middle-of-the-road.

Drink or Down the Sink?: Drink. I think this is a pretty unique Chardonnay. I liked the mineral and green apple notes. The subtlety of this wine was lovely and I think it would be great for fish, salads, or light appetizers. I'm really impressed that this kind of wine can come from South Africa, which I usually associate with oakier Chardonnay, and from a region I had previously thought of as jug wine/crap imitation Sherry country.
_______________________________________________________________________
Wine 3: Rupert & Rothschild, Baroness Nadine Chardonnay

Where it's from: When I was in South Africa a few years back, I actually went to this winery, which started in 1997 as a joint venture between a South African, Dr. Anton Rupert, and Baron Edmond de Rothschild or France, of the famous Bordeaux wine family (two of the best wines are produced by Rothschild Chateaux -- Château Mouton-Rothschild and Château Lafite Rothschild). It was an amazing place in one of South Africa's best kept secret in wine - the Francshoek area, which was settled by French Hugenots in the 17th century and is known in South Africa for having amazing quality that is often better than the famed region of Stellenbosch.
The Grape: 100% Chardonnay
Alcohol: 13.5%
Vintage: 2008
Price: About $25

Color: Yep, this was a blonde beauty of a Chardonnay: a golden, brassy, dark yellow wine with sexy legs. This stuff had been doing time building sugars on the vine (which leads to richer flavor and higher alcohol) and in oak barrels, which darkens a wine.

Smell: Burnt caramel, a fireplace with burnt logs, toast, and baked apple dominated my nose: A true mark that oak was taking center stage. This smelled more like a typical California Chardonnay than something from South Africa, which I always think of as having balance between mineral, fruit, and oak. I guess this is what happens when someone from Bordeaux, used to making red wines that benefit from lots of oak aging, makes a Chardonnay. The Rothschild part of the partnership stuck with what they knew and made an oak bomb. I was a little concerned, since this is patently not my style, but I went in with an open mind...

Taste: I was pleasantly surprised. This wine is pretty oaky and has strong apple flavors, but there is a fabulous acidity to it that makes it refreshing and not cloying. Tom explained that only 40% of the wine went through malo-lactic fermentation (a secondary fermentation that converts tart, green apple-like acidity into a smooth, buttery, creamy texture) so it was less creamy and mouth-filling and more refreshing than a wine that had gone through 100% malo-lactic. So we were spared the "I just drank half-and-half" sensation, but the oak was still overwhelming, so if you're not an oak lover, beware because you may be proverbially picking splinters out of your teeth after a sip of this.

Drink or Down the Sink?: It's a well made wine so I can't say down the sink, but I will say that for my palate it was just too oaky with not enough fruit or acid to balance out the burnt character. If you love oak, go for this wine -- it's interesting and high quality. My caveat to the haters of this style: try it with food. Rich creamy sauces on white meat, a butter or tartar sauce on fish, or creamy pasta could be great with this wine's acid and the burnt character could be mitigated by the flavors of the food.

________________________________________________________________________
Wine 4: 2006 Lammershoek 'Roulette'

Where it's from: This wine is from Swartland, an area on the West Coast near the Atlantic with fertile soils (usually bad for winegrapes). It's one of South Africa's bread baskets and most stuff I read about it regarding wine is that it's not an area with great potential, but I think that's a big lie. I reviewed a Syrah a while back from a Mullineux, a top producer in this region, and it was probably one of the best I've ever had, so as usual, I will be trusting my experience rather than that of jaded wine "gurus." Needless to say, was excited to try this Rhône blend from the same area.

The Grapes: 62% Syrah, 20% Carignan, 13% Grenache, 4% Mourvedre, 1% Viognier
Alcohol: 13.5%
Vintage: 2006
Price: About $28

Color: The wine was a ruby color that fanned out to a lovely rosy, watery rim. I expected a lighter style from this lighter colored wine.

Smell: Awesome nose! The wine was like baked plums sprinkled with cinnamon and nutmeg -- it was really delicious. Some mint, blackberry, and raspberry were hanging out in the background, with a little bit of licorice too. It was like a richer, more pungent

Côtes-du-Rhône.

Taste: The wine tasted like black cherry and candied raspberries with a good hit of cinnamon -- this was like a fruit compote, but lighter and less syrupy. There were light mouth-drying tannins and a very interesting, flavor of thyme or rosemary cooked in butter. The wine had a little bit of a barnyard/earthy flavor too. It was interesting but still light and would be a great food wine.

Drink or Down the Sink?: Drink. This was like a high quality Côtes-du-Rhône. This would be great for sipping or with food. This was my favorite of the day. Swartland seems to be my pick for South African Rhône-style wines these days.

____________________________________________________________________
Wine 5: 2010 Dark Lady of the Labyrinth

Where it's from: The wine is from Wellington, not too far from both famous areas of Stellenbosch and Franschoek. Pinotage, as I mentioned earlier, is a South African hybrid of Pinot Noir and Cinsault. It's generally very light in color and flavor and ranges, in my opinion, from an ok novelty, to a horror show that's like drinking paint chips.

The Grape: 100% Pinotage
Alcohol: 13.5%
Vintage: 2010
Price: About $19

Color: This is, by far, the darkest Pinotage I've ever encountered. Like black cherry juice, the wine held its color to the edge when I tilted it in the glass. It looked like prune juice in the glass. Very odd and un-Pinotage-like.

Smell: Ok, let's be clear: Most Pinotage is a red wine that's lighter in style and usually smells like red berries or lightly floral. So, I thought it completely bizarre that this wine smelled almost exactly like the oaky Rupert & Rothschild Chardonnay we tasted 10 minutes prior to this wine. The caramel, butterscotch, burnt smell mirrored the Chardonnay nearly to a T.

The only thing the Chardonnay had that the Pinotage lacked was a distinct minerality. Freakin' weird. Even Tom, the marketer and sales guy who sells and spins these wines all day long couldn't deny the similarity. This is the power of winemaking -- the grapes couldn't be more different, but in the hands of an oak enthusiast, the barrel was a great equalizer. Again, freakin' weird.

Taste: The wine tasted much more in line with what I expected. A light cherry and plum flavor with a touch of oak kept this wine light and pleasant. There was a distinct potting soil note, which was interesting, and although the oak was prevalent, it wasn't as overwhelming on the palate as it was on the nose.

Drink or Down the Sink?: Down the sink. Although it tasted fine, the nose was so powerful that it ruined the wine before each sip. I know the producer was looking to elevate Pinotage to something better than what it usually is -- a watery, sometimes chemical tasting berry drink -- this was over the top. Although this goes down as the strangest wine I've ever had, I can't say I'm going to go seek it out again in the future.

__________________________________________________________________________

So that's it. Great tasting with some solid wines. I love Tom's company, his mission, and the fact that he's bringing great stuff to my market that I would never be able to experience otherwise. Great stuff and a big thanks to him!!!

Let me know if you've had any of these or other South African wines and your opinions on Facebook or in the comments below!
Readmore »»

A Word on Vintage (or Why Vintage and Al Roker Are Basically Synonymous)

So maybe you'll think I'm a nut, but I spend a lot of time thinking about Al Roker (for those of you who don't watch TV or aren't in the US, he's a weatherman on a major morning TV show here). Not in some untoward, weird, creepy way, but in terms of the dude's profession. Why? Because I think about, talk about, and write about vintage all the time and in case you didn't know, vintage is just the weather in a particular year.

I'm sure that wine snobs would gasp at the thought that their ultimate, snot-ace-in-the-hole -- trying to trip people up by casually throwing out vintage and discussing what a great year such and such was for Bordeaux or Burgundy -- can be boiled down to a jolly, formerly portly, bespectacled man who talks about clouds, sun, and rain all day long, but tough luck on them. I'm here to tell ya, that's all it is.

After all, wine is agriculture. There are specific things that determine quality -- some mainly fixed, some variable.

On the fixed side, in my mind, first and foremost is terroir. It's that indescribable French word that encompasses everything that's inherent in a vineyard. Soil, location, climate, sun exposure, slope of the land, proximity to water, and that special un-namable thing that makes the vineyard (if you want to know more about terroir, please listen to the Wine For Normal People podcast on it)

Also sort of fixed is the winemaking style. The winemaker can determine what the end product tastes like by choosing certain techniques to make the wine fuller and creamier (like malolactic fermentation and sur lie aging, where the wine sits on the dead yeast cells after fermentation which enriches the flavor), or give it new flavors by aging it in certain types of oak (new oak produces major flavor, older oak less so). The proportion of grapes used in a blend can also make a big difference.

Those factors are what they are. Because of that, I'd argue that the wine could potentially taste the same year after year if not for the x-factor. And that's where big Al comes into play.

Let me explain.

Some of you may live in a place where the weather is fairly consistent. It's a rare year where strange things happen and storms and unlikely weather events get meteorologists geeked up for their crowning moment of glory where they get hours of air time talking about lightening, wind, and rain. For example, I'd argue that much of California has this kind of climate.

Others of you live in places where weather dictates your life. I remember when I lived in Boston, snow and rain (for 9 months of the year) meant that some years we barely went outside for months at a time and in other years we were overjoyed that, even though it was 14 below with the windchill, we could brave the streets without snowshoes. The weather people got plenty of air time and they were minor celebrities (no coincidence that all the major US networks have weather people that originated in New York stations -- they have a ton of experience on-air).

So what does this have to grapes and vintage? EVERYTHING. Because in places that are located in active weather zones, each year is a wild card. You never know if you'll have horrible wind while the grapes are being formed that could rip the clusters off the vine and reduce your harvest, or if you'll have torrential rains that will bruise the grapes as they are ripening, or a massive drought that could mean your grapes get burned by the sun.

On a continent that is very far north and surrounded by seas to the north, south, and west, and mountains that form their own weather systems, you're bound to have tumultuous weather annually. And that means that sometimes you'll hit the jackpot and your crop will be amazing, but sometimes it will just suck and only the best winemakers will be able to make lemonade from those unsightly lemons. If you've ever vacationed here, you know that often whatever you packed is always the wrong thing for precisely these reasons: Welcome to Europe.

Elsewhere in the winemaking world, we have weather but it's just not quite as volatile. We've addressed California, but we can hit a few more now. Argentina's wine regions, located very high in the mountains, are dry and escape much of the rain and bad weather it would experience if closer to the coast. Australia is plagued by drought, so they don't have to worry much about rain (even with the recent rains, the wine regions were less affected). A lot is controlled by man through irrigation systems. New Zealand, although it has some funky weather, has placed its wine regions in areas that are protected from nasty sea storms that strike up and hit coastal regions. Chile and South Africa have a bit more variation but are still pretty consistent with weather....certainly more so than Europe.

But even with more consistency, Al Roker still has a role to play everywhere in the wine world. The fact remains that no 2 years are the same for agriculture, including for grapes. You may love a wine one year, only to find that it is horrible the next. Could be that they changed the blend or degraded the quality (a lot of big wineries do this 2 to 3 years after launch on their lower range products, BTW), but for established brands it's usually all about vintage.

You've got to pay attention to that number on the bottle and do a little poking around (I like Decanter's vintage charts)...especially if that wine is European.

I think I've effectively flogged the poor dead vintage horse, so now I'll move on to reviewing the latest release/newest vintage from a California winery that sent me their product last year as well -- Concannon. Let's see if my theory holds that vintage matters less in California...

I'm going to compare wines I reviewed last year with this year's version (which, in full disclosure, where sent to me by the Winery...but as you'll see that makes no difference in my review). Here's a link to the prior post for more info on these wines and my take on them last year.

Wine 1: Concannon Conservancy Chardonnay
Where It's From: Livermore Valley
The Grapes: 100% Chardonnay
Vintage: 2009
Alcohol: 13.5%
Price: $15.00

Color: A rich straw color...like the shimmer off a gold ring. Let's face it; oak has been here in a big way. Chardonnay doesn't get this dark without lots of time hanging out and ripening on a vine and then aging in some kind of oak to darken it up.

Nose: In contrast to last year, this nose was a lot closer to the taste of the wine. It was a tad peachy but the overall sensation was of limeade or lemonade -- a sweetened version of citrus. There was a touch of mineral/wet rock too and a little whiff of pretty jasmine tea or jasmine flowers. I liked it...but was also curious as to why it didn't smell like oak when clearly, from the color, it had been stored in some sort of oak.

Taste: Ah, and here it is...oak, vanilla, and caramel galore. There was a slight limeade flavor but oak ruled the day, once again. Pretty decent acid made my mouth water, but there really wasn't much to this wine except oak and lime.

Drink or down the sink?: Just like last year, I don't love it, but it's not a down the sink. It's just ok. It's funny because I feel like this is less typical of Livermore Chardonnay, which tends to be oaky and heavy like the 2008 was. 2009 was supposedly a better vintage than '08, which was a small vintage because there was a spring frost and then not a ton of rain (see how important Al Roker is?) so maybe the winemaker decided to rely less on oak (by aging it for a shorter time or using a smaller proportion of new oak, which tends to lend the wine bigger flavor than used oak) and let the fruit do it's thing more. Ironically, even with warmer, more consistent weather in '09, the wine seems less fruity and over-ripe than the '08. All around, I like it better, but if you like a big oaky style, this is more moderate.


Wine 2: Concannon Conservancy Petite Sirah
I talk about Petite Sirah in last year's post, so check it out for details.

Where It's From: Livermore Valley
The Grapes: 100% Petite Sirah
Vintage: 2007
Alcohol: 13.5%
Price: $15.00

Color: True to Petite Sirah, this wine is black as night. It looks viscous and heavy -- like black cherry jello before it sets. It's so dark that if you swirl it around the glass the legs (which are just alcohol dripping down the glass after the water has dripped down -- the former is heavier so it takes a longer time to get back into the glass) are stained purple. I'd expect brawn from this wine.

Smell: This year's version was like black licorice, black cherry, and black plums. It had a menthol or medicinal note too and big arse oak -- like cedar chips in the closet. The alcohol wafted out of the glass too. Compared to my impressions of the '08, this was a lot less interesting to smell. It was simplistic and not very exciting.

Taste: Black cherry juice or jello came to mind immediately, followed by grape flavored bubble gum and that kids medicine, Dimetapp, that they sell here in the US. It was a touch bitter too. I know the alcohol was 13.5% which is moderately high but not over the top, but this wine hurt to drink. I don't know if it was the acid combined with the alcohol, but it burned from the back of my throat down my esophagus (no I don't have weird issues and no this doesn't normally happen with wine for me, so it was unique to this one!). The tannins were soft but the wine just didn't work. Like last year -- it had no gusto.

Drink or down the sink?: Down the sink. I felt like the wine lacked balance between the fruit and the acid and alcohol. It had little personality and the character it did show didn't do it for me. I've had a few Petite Sirahs in my day, and there are better ones than this for the money.

If you compare this vintage with my notes on the last for the Concannon wines, I think there are two conclusions to draw:

• Wines are constantly changing, however depending on the winery and region, they do have a common thread from year to year -- that's due to terroir and to the winemaking style
  
• My conclusion about California's consistency holds true with the Concannon wines. I'll need to do the same thing with Europe on the blog, because, although I've never documented it here, I can tell you it can be a wild ride from year to year on the same brand and region. Bordeaux from 2005 and from 2006 are a far cry from each other when you're talking affordable wine
• Al Roker is our wild card...and we're happy to have him around to keep things interesting in wine!

I'd love to hear from you! Please send questions and post comments! Readmore »»

Frank Family and Tres Sabores: Two Highs at the High...

I'm pretty lucky. Not in the Irish sense, but practically speaking. As a blogger and wine educator, I get to go to a lot of amazing wine events and try a ton of wines so I can share my opinions with you (although, as you probably know by now, that's not always a good thing for the wineries!). With that said, I hate sounding like a total ingrate and ass when I am critical of events I attend...but I gotta tell the truth.

So when I say that the biggest wine event that my current city, Atlanta, has -- the High Museum Wine Auction, which took place last week -- was a big snoozer for me, I hope you don't think I'm a jerk.

The annual auction is for an amazing organization and our best fine arts institution, so it's no knock on the cause. It's one of the highest grossing wine auctions in the US and each year they assemble a big assortment of very expensive, high-end wines for people to try and buy. But after three years of attending, I've noticed that the selection is the same year after year and fewer than 10% of the wine there is from outside of the US. For an adventuresome wine lover, hell, just even for someone who isn't particularly fond of high alcohol, very fruity, oaky, lower acid wines, this spells trouble. It's not a terribly interesting proposition to taste dozens of wines so similar and flavorful, and it's one that can make your mouth really tired after a while from tannin and too much fruit flavor building up on your cheeks.

At all wine events, you've got to have a strategy to tackle them. I always try first to survey the landscape and then figure out what I want to try. You can't taste it all (although I think some of the people there were attempting to do so, with bad results), and I'm all about discovering something new so I picked wineries that are well reputed but whose wines I haven't tried. I stayed away from those that I knew and have pretty good access to (either because they make wines under $20, which I can afford and get or because I see them on the shelf and know they're there if I want to spend more).

So this time I went to about 8 tables and am only going to tell you, in depth, about two of them. The rest were just blah to me. Not to be too bitchy, but I'll call a few out...for example, Ovid -- which showcased two wines (at $95 and $175 respectively) was just over the top. You couldn't possibly drink them with food -- they were food! Hawkes Winery, out of Sonoma, had a good Chardonnay, but their Merlot and Cabernet Sauvignon didn't have the interesting, multi-faceted flavors I want from those wines.

Although loved and lauded by so many, I thought Cliff Lede's wines were just meh. Although it smelled good, the Sauvignon Blanc's alcohol was so high that, for me, it burned my mouth and made the grapefruit and grass flavors taste like they'd be wrapped in sandpaper. Give me New Zealand Sauvignon Blanc any day over this one! Their $60 Stag's Leap District Cabernet Sauvignon had so much sweet oak and overwhelming blackcurrant, black plum, and blackberry fruit that it was a little much to take. That with the mouth-drying tannins had me scrambling for a few glasses of water and crackers so I could taste wines afterward. The Cab wasn't bad, but it was a little over the top.

So when I finally happened across Frank Family Vineyards, which I'd heard so much about but had never tried, and the wines of Tres Sabores, which I've seen so many times but had, (I'm now embarrassed to say) passed over, I was relieved and excited to have some good things to tell you about. I tried 7 wines, so below are shorter reviews but if you have questions on them post on the comments and I can elaborate.

First up for review, Frank Family Vineyards. Housed in the third oldest winery in Napa, way up north in Calistoga (which is where the fabled Chateau Montelena, another very old winery and a favorite of mine, is located), Frank Family makes sparkling and regular wine. I have to insert my snarky comment about how this Winery, like most in Napa, has the rich-former-executive-loves-wine-and-buys-winery pedigree, since Rich Frank is a former big-time Disney exec who earned bank in the corporate world before turning his big fortune in for a small one in wine (always the case for those of you considering buying a winery). But I'll hand it to the guy -- he's got the right talent on the job. Each wine was pretty spectacular and I'll be visiting them the next time I'm in Napa, for sure. Here's the lineup:

2008 Frank Family Chardonnay, $32.50
Color: From the looks of this wine, I was already liking it. Rather than a rich golden yellow that's typical of Napa Chardonnay because it's so ripe it has no acidity and has so much oak you're picking splinters out of your gums, this was the color of a bale of hay -- a medium straw color.

Smell: It smelled delicious -- like jasmine and gardenia flowers and the like a ripe bosc pear (the brown ones -- my favorite) and a golden delicious apple (sweet and a little tart at the same time). I didn't smell much oak -- maybe a little vanilla, even though the wine was aged in 100% new oak barrels, which should make the it ultra-vanillay and like licking a tree.

Taste: The taste was in line with a Chardonnay from the cooler southern area of Napa: Carneros, which is where the grapes for this originate. Pineapple and pear flavors with some sweet vanilla oak weren't overwhelming, because they were offset by the taste of savory herbs sauteed in butter and then a big hit of mouthwatering acid.

Drink or down the sink? Drink. I really loved this wine. Totally balanced, even for someone like me, who doesn't really like oak on her Chardonnay! I could have this with a cheese plate and be a happy girl.


2009 Frank Family Reserve Pinot Noir, $57.50
Color: I wasn't too encouraged by the very dark color of this Pinot. As I've mentioned in my posts on Burgundy, I'm a pretty firm believer that Pinot shouldn't be dark plum colored. It's a thin skinned grape and in its natural state generally light on color, so the hue kind of made me think it was going to be a heavy style of Pinot that I'm not crazy about.

Smell: Smelled like a typical Pinot Noir from the Carneros region -- plum, dried cherry, with a little earthy/minerally note.

Taste: Sour cherry with a touch of exotic spice (like chai tea) from the oak. The wine had pretty high acid and alcohol but it was just squeaky clean -- no earth, very crisp cherry flavors.

Drink or down the sink? Drink. This was good, but not great. Definitely the weakest of all the wines I tasted in their line, which is funny because it was also the most expensive (see price doesn't always dictate quality!)


2008 Frank Family Zinfandel, $36.75
This wine is 16% Petit Sirah and 84% Zinfandel (remember that the law in the US only requires that 75% of the grape be in the bottle for it to be labeled as such). I think the heavy, bold Petit Sirah added a real kick to the Zinfandel.
Color: This was super dark -- maroon and purple-y. Lots of color hopefully would mean lots of flavor, which is a plus in a Zin.

Smell: The backbone of black raspberries and ripe purple plums was overlaid with serious Indian spices -- like sandalwood and cardamom (Chai tea again). It was also kind of floral, like dried roses. It was unusual for a Zin, which is usually peppery, fruity, and less exotic.

Taste: Some prune flavor and then bold, mouth-drying tannins -- it was more textural than ripe and juicy than I would normally expect, which is definitely from the very tannic Petit Sirah addition. It also had a hot burn from the 14.9% alcohol (pretty high).

Drink or Down the Sink? Drink. This was a stunner. It was so ballsy and brazen -- just what I want out of a blend of two American grapes! There's nothing like an unabashed, full-flavored red every now and then and this fits that bill.


2006 Frank Family Napa Valley Cabernet Sauvignon, $45
Color: This was DARK. Blood red and so heavy in color that the legs on the sides of the glass were stained red. I expected lots of flavor.

Smell: The wine wasn't too fruity but more like dried flowers, cinnamon, and sauteed thyme and other cooking herbs. Totally interesting for a Cab.

Taste: Super tannic with a short finish and very stingy on the fruit -- like it was there but was a lot of flavor hiding behind the tannin...

Drink or Down the Sink? Need another category, which is HOLD. This wine is not ready to drink quite yet. It needs to chill out in a major way for a few years. When big, tannic wines like Cabernet are served too young they just don't live up to their potential. This wine will be amazing in another 2 years or so. All the elements are there to make it so, but right now -- not ready.

________________________________________________________________________
With my support of organic farming and admiration of female winemakers, I'm a little embarrassed that I haven't had the wines of Tres Sabores before. I've passed the sign for their winery when in Napa and never knew about the gems I'd find in the turnoff. I was fortunate enough to have an acquaintance point me in the direction of Julie Johnson, owner and winemaker, who was right next to Cliff Lede. Julie's unbelievably warm, open character...which, in my skeptical New Yorker way, I at first thought may be a screen for the fact that her wines weren't great...was an instant plus but more importantly, her wines really kicked ass.

This graduate of Columbia School of Nursing found a second career in wine and her caretaking skills translated to the vine and the land. These wines were surprising, innovative, and all around delicious. They're in pretty wide distribution, so you can actually get them, and the ones I tried were all less than $35, well worth the money! Here are quickie reviews of the three I sampled:

2009 Tres Sabores Sauvignon Blanc, $22
Color: Julie told me that the wine was fermented 2/3 in stainless steel and 1/3 in 4 year old, nearly flavorless barrels. With no oak and growing in a cooler climate, the wine was so pale it was almost colorless.

Smell: This was nice and subtle. It had some grapefruit and gardenia, but was so light and airy. A very different style of Sauvignon Blanc and atypical of Napa, which I was happy about. I'm not at all an advocate of putting Sauvignon Blanc in an oak barrel, which is common here and was happy to see someone letting the grape express itself.

Taste: Just like it smelled except with great acidity. I could have mistaken this for a very light style New Zealand Sauvignon Blanc. The grapes grow on a cool, Northeast facing slope, which spares them from too much sun and preserves acidity -- just what Sauv Blanc calls for.

Drink or Down the Sink? Drink. I'm not generally a Napa Sauvignon Blanc fan, but I loved the delicacy of this wine. Perfect for spring and simply delicious!


2008 Tres Sabores, Rutherford Estate Zinfandel, $35
In a place known for Cabernet Sauvignon, Rutherford (people usually talk about how the wines have a dusty, earthy flavor that's unique), I'm impressed that they'd give up the land to Zin, which they can less money for. But it's a good call in this case -- Zin apparently likes the unique soil of this area as much as Cabernet!

Color: Like a bowl of dried roses! It was a dark rose color -- so pretty and appetizing!

Smell: A subtle plum and cinnamon note with a hit of violets and dark-colored flowers. I loved that it wasn't overpowering, and that I couldn't smell alcohol (which feels like my nasal cilia are burning), which I often find with Zinfandel.

Taste: Fruit, black pepper, and cinnamon spice were wrapped in a creamy vanilla texture. The black cherry and plum were rich and jammy. Again, I loved that the alcohol was in check -- it didn't burn the sides of my mouth. There was great mouth-drying tannins and mouthwatering acid but nothing stuck out. It hung around in my mouth for a long time and that was just fine by me! The wine was very harmonious and just great for sipping.

Drink or Down the Sink? I love Zinfandel, but I've been a little disappointed lately with many that I've tried. I expect a bold style wine made out of this grape, which is so authentically California. This is one of the best Zins I've had in a year or more. Definitely my favorite of Tres Sabores, and a new fave in the world of Zins. Go Julie!


2008 ¿Porqué No? Red Blend, Napa Valley $25
Literally, ¿Porqué no? means 'why not?' in Spanish, but Julie explained that it also translates to an amorphous concept that challenges you to use your imagination. And that's what she did! This wine is like a good chef throwing something together. It's mainly Zinfandel (50%+) with Cabernet Sauvignon (about 30%), Petit Sirah, and Petit Verdot thrown in. The fruit is from Napa, Sonoma, and Lake Counties and it's a very interesting, if totally unorthodox, mix (Zin and Petit Sirah are common partners and Cab and Petit Verdot go together, but the double date isn't something you usually see).

Color: With the grapes blended in above, all thick skinned and robust, you better believe that this wine was super dark. I expected big, bold flavor -- dark color usually means big taste.

Smell: It wasn't too different from the Zinfandel -- plums, black cherry, and cinnamon spice were the leaders. There was a hint of some sort of thyme or tarragon too -- very cool

Taste: Immediately I thought of Christmas! It tasted piney or like one of those Christmas shops that smells like cinnamon sticks and balsam. This was rich, flavorful with fruit and nutmeg/cinnamon notes and super balanced. There was just a little bit of mouth-drying tannin, but it was easy drinking.

Drink or Down the Sink? Drink. Although given the choice between this and the Zin, I'd pick the Zin, I really liked this wine. It's interesting, creative, and pretty cool. There's a balance between the bold fruit and the pine forest flavors that was very cool. A great wine and one to try for sure.
________________________________________________________________
So that's a wrap on this year's auction. I'll go next year (if they let me after this post!) but unless they expand the floor to a more international set of wines, I expect the results will be similar -- a 25% success rate for stuff I can tell you about. But hey, it's better than nothing! If you've tried these wines, let me know what you think! Readmore »»

Burgundy in Action: Greatest Hits from A Louis Latour Tasting

As a follow up to the post on Burgundy from earlier this week, I'm going to put that opus to use and talk about some stellar examples from the area and what the wines from three of the more prestigious places -- Chablis, the Côte de Beaune, and the Côte de Nuits -- actually taste like. I'll reference that post, but I'm not going to go into detail on the region -- this is a straight-up wine evaluation (I encourage you to read the other post because it's what you need to know about Burgundy to understand and appreciate these wines. Am I like a nagging mother now? Probably. Sorry.).

I recently had the rare and wonderful opportunity to attend a tasting of the 2009 vintage of some of Louis Latour's amazing vineyards, courtesy of Empire Distributors here in Atlanta.

Louis Latour is the oldest continuously family run wine merchant/producer in Burgundy -- it's on its 10th generation of family ownership. The Latours got their start as grape farmers in the 17th century and after a century and a half of straight-up growing and small time production, the Latours became negociants, compiling the best grapes from various farmers to make, age, and sell top red and white Burgundy. It took them another century before they started their own label, Louis Latour, launched in 1985.

It's no secret that even though I sometimes drink and review wines from big producers, I'm not a giant fan of the big dogs. But as cited in the Primer, you've got to go with negociants that you can trust and in the world of available, accessible, and solid quality, Latour ranks with the best. Generally speaking, you can rely on the Domaine (akin to Chateau in Bordeaux) to turn out a great product.

This is the second tasting of Latour's wines that I've attended. Both times, I've been blown away by their whites (Chardonnay) and how beautifully they show the terroir that I associate with Burgundy. This time around there were some that were lights-out amazing, and some that were just solid, but not one in the bunch that I disliked.

With the reds (Pinot Noir), it's a little more complicated . Maybe it's because these wines are like little babies and haven't developed their full personalities yet (they are all 2009) or maybe they are altered slightly for the American palate (something I suspect happens often from European larger producers), but all except the top tier lacked the earthy, spicy, minerally complexity that I expect from Burgundy. My notes on the reds say over and over again, "too clean," which could be a plus for some but for me, not so much.

One other note before I get to it: I had to remind myself that these are wine infants! Most Burgundies -- red and white -- are meant to be aged a minimum of about 5 years and up to 30 to 50 in some cases, so for the wines of the Côte d'Or, this was more like the IOWA tests in elementary school (do they still have those?) -- a test of longer term potential. But just like those tests, I think some of these were smarter than others...

Ok, so with that said, there are a ton of wines, so let's start with Chablis (all 100% Chardonnay) from Simonnet-Febvre, which is owned by Latour but run in a very hands-off manner, which makes sense given that they've been making wine quite successfully on their own since 1840.

Wine 1: 2009 Simonnet-Febvre Chablis
The Grape: 100% Chardonnay
Price: About $16.00
Typical Chablis is: Dry, super-acidic, with a little citrus and green apple fruit and a steel-like flavor.

Color: Almost a white or platinum color, this wine was pale, just as it should be coming from a cool climate like Chablis. The lighter color also tipped me off that there was no oak aging on this wine, for which I was thankful (a debate rages in Chablis about the use of oak -- traditional producers are completely against it because it takes away from the mineral-acid quality of the wine. I'm against it too...drink something else if you don't like the damn fine acidity!).

Smell: To my nose, this was a perfect Chablis. No fruit -- just a whiff of chalk, wet rocks near a waterfall, and a little bit of saltiness (like salt water smell. All of this makes sense since the soil type is chalky and you can smell the terroir in the wine). For a Chablis at this price, this wine was hitting on all cylinders in terms of what I want and expect.

Taste: Just like it smelled but with some bonuses. The wine was mouth-watering -- like sucking on a lemon -- from all the acidity. It was metallic (think of licking a butter knife) and minerally but so clean and pure in flavor. This all may sound very horrible and harsh, but layered on top of all the textures were jasmine and gardenia aromas that softened up the wine and made it so damn delicious.

Drink or Down the Sink?: Probably going to be my house wine all summer, so DRINK! I will say that this wine is not for your porch but for your cheese plate. What an amazing food wine -- especially for buttery scallops or white fish, and creamy cheeses. For the price, this is a huge thumbs up for those of us who love acidic, minerally wines.


Wine 2: 2009 Chablis Premier Cru "Vaillons"
The Grape: 100% Chardonnay
Price: About $27
Typical Premier Cru Chablis is: Heavier than standard Chablis -- with more fruit flavor and mineral components. They can age for longer and be a little more complex in flavors.

Color: This wine was a little darker than the basic Chablis. It makes sense -- for 10 to 12 months the wine sits on the dead yeast cells that converted the sugars into alcohol (during fermentation). As they decompose, they lend a little color to the wine (and some nutty flavors too! I know it sounds disgusting but this is a good thing, so go with it.).

Smell: This was like the basic Chablis, but on steroids. Lemon, lime, and jasmine flowers jumped out of the glass. The wine was like a lightly scented bouquet of white flowers. And there was a little hint of saltiness or oysters right out of the net hanging around too (that's, again, from the chalky soil type). Great contrast and combo of all this stuff. I had high hopes for the taste.

Taste: Tart, green apples, a little unripe pear flavor, and a jasmine smell/flavor were so delicious against the contrast of super-high acid, a strong mineral/wet rock thing, and a salt-water like taste (although the wine wasn't salty so you have to kind of stretch your imagination).

Drink or Down the Sink?: This wine is absolutely beautiful. Vaillons has a soil profile similar to many of the highest tier Grand Cru vineyards of Chablis, and it makes a wine about as unreal. Much fuller and softer than the basic Chablis, this wine would probably be more suitable for sipping than the first one, but its acidity and mineral profile still make it ideal for food. This was my favorite of the three Chablis I had. Awesome and totally typical of what Chablis should taste like, in my opinion.

Wine 3: 2008 Chablis Grand Cru, Les Clos
The Grape: 100% Chardonnay
Price: About $60 (it's a Grand Cru and they're in limited quantity, hence the price!)
Typical Chablis Les Clos Grand Cru is: The fattest and most luscious of all the Grand Cru Vineyards, this one is usually rich with fruit but still has a good mineral character.

Color: This wine was more similar in color to the basic Chablis than the Vaillons -- very pale and almost platinum -- which is kind of deceiving given that the wine sat on the dead yeast cells (called sur lie, by the way) AND 50% of it was fermented in oak barrels for over a year. Those processes tend to darken up a wine, as would an extra year of age, which this one has over the Premier Cru. But not here. Sight is the most deceiving of the senses in wine, so I've discovered!

Smell: This wine had less of the typical traits I associate with Chablis -- the mineral, salty, chalky, and citrus notes. It smelled like an Asian pear (which I call a papple because I think it's a cross between a pear and an apple...or at least that's what it looks and tastes like!) and there was a good dose of oak on the nose too, which I think overshadowed the more delicate stuff that I love so much. Wines from Les Clos are supposed to be the most aromatic and heavy of all the Chablis Grand Cru, which I think would be great if not for the use of wood here. I really am a hater on oak for Chablis -- it rained on my smell parade here and disguised all the stuff I like.

Taste: Although I still preferred the Vaillons (I guess I'm a cheaper date), I didn't dislike the wine. It certainly had the caramel, toasty, oaky, vanilla-y flavor that you'd expect from being popped in an oak barrel, but there was still an acid and mineral component to the taste that balanced things out. The fruit was hard to find here, but there were some apple and pear notes.

Drink or Down the Sink?: This is a great wine, and certainly not something to pour down the sink, but I have to admit that I was really disappointed. The thing that I treasure in Chablis is the citrus fruit and the tense acidity of the wine. It's kind of like a thrill ride for your mouth. Using oak on grapes that I'm sure would have made an awesome wine without it really marred the flavors. The oak was an unwelcome distraction from the real star of the show -- the fruit. I say leave the oak to the wines we're about to talk about from the Côte de Beaune -- that's where wood is a good friend to fruit!
_______________________________________________________________________

As a quick aside, all the wines that follow are from the excellent 2009 vintage. Mother Nature was kind to Burgundy so these wines all started off with the best advantages in life. They will get better with age, so I'll reiterate that I tried to review them with the elementary school teacher hat on and let you know who made the gifted and talented program.

White Wines From the Côte de Beaune
So I tried 7 whites from the Côte de Beaune and I don't want to go into detail on every single one. I'll review four in quick format and then elaborate on the three stunners.

Quickie Review #1: 2009 Louis Latour, Beaune Blanc (100% Chardonnay, Around $28) Even with a year in a barrel and a secondary, malolactic fermentation to make the wine creamy, it was light straw in color. I loved the floral nose -- gardenia, jasmine, begonia -- nice spring floral bouquet and a good hit of oaky vanilla that made the wine feminine and soft. Although the wine had some mineral notes, which I'd expect from a Burgundy and a touch of nice apricot fruit, it's finished was like a bad break-up -- they just never called again and you've got no choice but to forget them. White Burgundy tends to hang out a little longer in your mouth and keep on giving more yumminess, not so here. Needless to say, not as elegant as I'd hoped. For the aroma and acid it's still a good wine...just not the best when you compare it to the others.

Quickie Review #2: 2009 Louis Latour, Meursault Premier Cru "Chateau de Blagny" (100% Chardonnay, Around $60) Meursault is the closest style to the fat, oaky California Chardonnay that are typical of Sonoma and Napa. It's still a far cry from all but a few producers (Chateau Montelena being the first that comes to mind, hence why they won the Judgment of Paris in 1976). With riper fruit than the wine above and full oak aging, the wine is a lot darker in color -- almost a yellow. The smell was pretty fab -- there was a salt, mineral, and smoky combo (there's that terroir again) that offset the baked caramel apple notes (from fruit and oak) wafting out of the glass. It tasted like it smelled -- a caramel apple with some sea salt on it! There was great acid, and it stuck around in my mouth for a long time, making it water for ages. A great wine -- it was soft and creamy but still acidic. Definitely would have been even better with food.

Quickie Review #3: 2009 Louis Latour Puligny-Montrachet Premier Cru "Les Truffieres" (100% Chardonnay, About $65) This vineyard was apparently once a truffle bed, hence the name Les Truffieres...talk about soaking in a specific kind of terroir! At this young age, the wine is super light in color, and I thought it was kind of stinky -- salt water is ok, the kind of fishy/old truffle-y smell I detected, a little less good. There was some jasmine flower in the smell too, but I was tentative in popping this in mouth, to be frank. I'm all for terroir stink, but this was a little much. Thankfully, it tasted way better than it smelled. The wine was super delicate -- just a light green apple flavor with some jasmine, and solid, mouth-watering acid. I have a strong suspicion that this wine needs about 5 more years in the bottle before its ready to drink. It was cracked open before it's time -- those stinky scents are going to mellow into something more elegant with time and those lighter flavors will get bolder and more pronounced. I'd like to try this again in a few years, when I bet it will be an outstanding example of how terroir influences flavor.

Quickie Review #4: 2009 Louis Latour Puligny-Montrachet "Sous le Puits" (100% Chardonnay, About $60) A very lovely wine -- light in color and, again, like pretty white flowers -- maybe more like spring bulb flowers (freesia and hyacinth if you know what those are). There was a very light oak note to it -- nothing too bold. Amazing acidity balanced out the rich caramel apple and vanilla oak flavors. Another wine I think could stand about 5 years in the bottle to develop from a light, delicate wine to something with more serious flavors. Amazing what a little aging can do -- it will add weight and more intense, interesting aromas and flavors.

And now my top three whites:

Wine #5: Louis Latour, Chassagne-Montrachet Premier Cru, "les Caillerets"
Where It's From: The town of Chassagne-Montrachet in the Côte de Beaune
The Grape: 100% Chardonnay
Price: Around $60
A Typical Premier Cru from the les Caillerets vineyard in Chassagne-Montrachet is: Floral, creamy, spicy, and nutty with a good balance of oak and fruit, and always a hit of acid to keep the wine lively.

Color: No big surprises: it's a young wine and it was a light golden color.

Smell: Like some of the other wines, this had the green apple and caramel smells but there was a pronounced waterfall-running-on-rocks smell on this one and then some very subtle citrus and almost metallic smells that got my interest.

Taste: Just a little bit of green apple and then a full array of mineral, chalk, and wet rock-like flavors. But this wasn't like Chablis, which is sharp, this had a fuller, softer feel to it -- it was creamy, with a really great balance of oak. Perfect example of terroir from this vineyard in Chassagne-Montrachet, which churns out wines that are minerally yet fruity and full.

Drink or Down the Sink?: Like the others, it could stand some time to develop in the bottle, but this wine is insanely good, even now. It was so well balanced between acid and fruit, minerals and creaminess that I just couldn't get enough. I would love to have this with a meal. What a wine. I'm a huge fan of Chassagne-Montrachet (even the $25 bottle of the stuff is great, BTW) and this is just about as typical and delicious as they come!


Wine #6: Louis Latour Bâtard-Montrachet Grand Cru
Where It's From: Between the villages of Puligny-Montrachet and Chassagne-Montrachet in the Côte de Beaune
The Grape: 100% Chardonnay
Price: $200+
Typical Batard Montrachet is: Full-bodied, rich, with a nut and honey character. Very creamy and toasty.

Color: A pale yellow color -- a little richer than the previous wines, but still light.

Smell: The white flowers and apple were here, but with riper fruits like peach and pear thrown in. What made this a standout was the nutty, honeyed notes that were kind of in the background of the wine. It was totally intoxicating. I could smell this all day long. The salty mineral earth was prevalent and delicious, and once again, spot on for what I would expect a white Burgundy to smell like. These are never fruit bombs, but always a delicate balance of rocks and fruit (again, terroir is KING!).

Taste: Similar to how it smelled, but even better. Adding to the apples and honey, was a vanilla bean spiciness. There was a slight, really pleasant bite of acid but the wine was still silky and creamy. Totally complex and beautiful.

Drink or Down the Sink?: This is such an expensive wine and is worth every penny. AMAZING. The wine is subtle but bold, spicy yet gentle all at the same time. This is a serious show stopper -- not because it's bursting with flavor, but because it's just so representative of where its from and is intense without being obtuse and obvious with flavors. Subtlety is important in a white, and this wine has mastered it!

Wine #7: Louis Latour Corton-Charlemagne, Grand Cru
Where It's From: The town of Aloxe-Corton in the Côte de Beaune
The Grape: 100% Chardonnay
Price: About $95
Typical Corton-Charlemagne is: Buttery, fruity, and honeyed with vanilla notes and a good hit of acid and minerals.

Color: A little darker straw color than the previous wines, but still light. These are all so young!

Smell: Totally different from the previous wines, this was much more herbal. There was a tarragon or maybe even green pepper note to the wine that was really pleasant and not overwhelming. Baked bread or a croissant came to mind and the oak was kickin' big time -- vanilla and caramel stood up and said hello to my nose! A lot to smell and really interesting.

Taste: You could really taste the earth here -- minerals with fresh cut green herbs made this so fresh, but then the spicy oak character gave the wine a real richness that was full and warm in my mouth. There was great acid, but the wine was creamy and mouth-coating. It stayed around for ages -- LONG finish.

Drink or Down the Sink?: This is an unreal wine. So different from the Batard Montrachet in that it was richer and fuller and more herbal, and so great. Latour's home base is in the town of Aloxe-Corton and they own a big portion of this vineyard. I think is probably the greatest of their wines and definitely one of the best white Burgundies out there. Latour is such a master of whites and this wine is proof positive of that. Worth it.

____________________________________________________________

The Reds... As I said before, I had to judge potential in these wines. But I've had Latour's reds before and as I said previously, all but the top tier usually don't work for me.

I started with both the 2009 Pommard and the Beaune Premier Cru "les Vignes Franches," both from the Côte de Beaune. They had beautiful cherry, raspberry, and strawberry smells and a huge aroma of spicy and almost a sandalwood/Indian spice quality but the taste left so much to be desired in both. They lack a sense of place -- the terroir -- that I love in a red Burgundy. Some earthiness, some idea that the grapes grew in the land is the secret sauce of red Burgundy and what makes it so amazing and different from Pinot grown elsewhere.

I don't know if Latour cleans up these wines for the American palate (we don't tend to like dirty wines here, let's face it) or if this is just their style, but for my $60 I want a Burgundy that has the aromas these had but with a silky, yet earthy character that is totally distinctive. I've had Pinot from Sonoma that I think is more Burgundian in style than these!

So that's for those wines...but, oh the top tier. The two Grand Cru wines that I tried were unbelievable examples of what Burgundy has to offer. They were on different ends of the spectrum and each pinnacles of Pinot. I can't imagine what they'll be with 10 years of cellaring...something great for sure.

Wine 1: 2009 Louis Latour Chambertin Cuvee Hertiers Latour, Grand Cru
Where It's From: The town of Gevry-Chambertin in the Côte de Nuits
The Grape: 100% Pinot Noir
Price: About $190
Typical Chambertin is: Full, rich, and earthy with a balance of spice and fruit and a texture like liquid velvet.

Color: This is what I think Pinot Noir should look like. A light, pale ruby color with just a little bit of brick/brown-red. Pinot is not, in my opinion, meant to be a dark, deep color. That's just not the grape's style and soaking it in a cold water vat to make it look dark (called a cold soak or aqueous soak) is just for the beauty pageant...something I think Pinot can win without the fancy color.

Smell: Ah, finally. This is the wine that I was expecting out of a red Burgundy tasting. Forget the glycerin, clean flavors of the wines I mentioned above -- THIS is Burgundy in my opinion. A little raspberry and maraschino cherry but then this very pronounced smell of soil and minerals. I've never been to the Chambertin vineyard, but I bet it smells exactly like this wine. I felt like I was smelling the limestone in this glass and the chalk topsoil. For me, this is what Burgundy is all about -- terroir. I was so excited to taste this.

Taste: "What a pretty wine," exclaimed my brilliant friend and fellow wine dork, MO'C, who works with Empire. SPOT ON!!! With just a little over a year in bottle (and Chambertin can age for decades so this is an infant!), this wine already had all the components it's going to need to evolve into a wine paradise in about 10 years. The raspberry and earth were strong, but there was this insane sweet spice like chai tea, and a vanilla bean component that made this wine delicious. The acid was there, but not overwhelming and the wine stuck around in my mouth for a few minutes.

Drink or Down the Sink?: Not a chance this is going down the sink. That said, if I had a bottle, I'd be storing it for a long time. It's wonderful now, but it is going to be so much better in years to come, that I'd delay for the joy of drinking it in the future. It's like the difference between eating a pear that's almost ripe and one that is awesome and is so dripping with juice that you need to eat it over the sink. I'd go for the latter any day, even if it meant waiting!

Wine #2: Louis Latour Chateau Corton Grancey Grand Cru
Where It's From: The town of Aloxe-Corton in the Côte de Beaune
The Grape: 100% Pinot Noir
Price: About $100
Typical Corton Grand Cru is: Red and black fruit abound but when this wine is bottled, it's usually known to be a little tannic and rustic tasting. With age it develops softer flavors and textures.

Color: A much deeper color than the Chambertin above, this was the darkest wine of the day, but still what I would consider the 'right' color for Pinot Noir. It was ruby red, but still transparent in the glass. Very pretty.

Smell: Much lighter in aroma than the Chambertin, this wine was delicate and so lovely. It was like roses and light cinnamon spice with a little bit of earth thrown in. Another one I think has the perfect components to be a kick-ass wine with some time in the bottle.

Taste: This surprised me! What it lacked in aroma, it made up for on the palate. According to the Latour web site, this wine is only made in years when the grapes hit perfect ripeness. Clearly, 2009 was that year. This had a cooked berry or warm, baked berry cobbler taste that was savory and delicious. There was a sweet nutmeg flavor too. It was a mouthfull, but the acidity was still great to balance out the fruit. It would be awesome with food.

Drink or Down the Sink?: I'm going to say the same here that I said for the Chambertin, although I think this wine may be ready to drink a little sooner than the other. Still, with a few years to hang out, mellow, and meld together, in about 8 years this wine will be a complete knockout -- especially if you like more ripe fruit flavors and less earth in your Pinot.


_____________________________________________________________________

So that's the Latour/Burgundy round up. I hope at least some of it gives you an idea of how terroir expresses itself in the wines and how differently the wines of Burgundy can taste, even if they are from vineyards that are within miles of one another!

The real lesson: keep buying and trying...within the two main grapes, variety is the name of the game here! Readmore »»