Vasco Sassetti Brunello di Montalcino 2001

The first Brunello I've ever opened, and it was delicious. Red fruits -- definite cherry -- along with tobacco and some tar. While young and fruitful, it was also balanced and made me think of it as a cross between a Pinot noir and an aged Cabernet. Three out of five stars.

Marques de Riscal Rioja Reserva 2001

Awful. The nose smells, at best, of mushrooms. There is no texture to the wine -- it tastes flat, with no fruit or any other positive flavors. I suspect it's tainted. Drink only to get drunk. One star out of five. No regrets over opening this bottle, as it clears out my space for other selections.

Sorry for the hiatus.

I have been terrible, and have not posted anything in the past week or so. Unfortunately, I've been busy sorting out some things -- including making some career plans that will involve a very fundamental change in the next few years. I hope to post more in the coming week, including more tasting notes. Also, expect a deluge of notes sometime after March 17 -- I plan to try at least three or fourCabernets that day!

UPDATED (3/26/2007): Ok, I had a wine party on March 17, but I was too busy socializing to put down all of my notes. Anyway, the wines tried that night included: (1) Lake Sonoma Winery Cabernet Sauvignon 2003; (2) Martin Ray Cabernet Sauvignon 2003; (3) Berringer Private Reserve Cabernet Sauvignon 1999; (3) Leoville-Barton 1998; and (4) Warre's Vintage Port 1985. The Lake Sonoma and Martin Ray were enjoyable, but nothing special (two and a half to three stars, each, with maybe another half-star for value). TheBerriner seemed bitter (three stars, with maybe an additional knock down for lack of value), but I thoroughly enjoyed the Leoville-Barton (easily three and a half stars). And the Warre's? The nose smelled of licorice candies and walnuts. A delightful end of the evening drink. Easily four stars out of five.

Elitism of wine.

The good professor raises the "sad commentary on the role of wine in American class warfare." The only sad thing about this commentary is that it's a role that the wine industry and the wine consumer class have self-imposed. I admit it -- I am very fortunate to have a significant income stream. However, even I look on a $1479 auction price for a 1999 Screaming Eagle Cabernet Sauvignon as obscene. But never mind the higher end of the wine market -- walk into a wine merchant, and an average consumer would see $50 prices for many bottles of Cabernets, $20 to $50 prices for Chardonnays and even prices upwards of $60 for Merlots. And that's without considering the French wines.... For someone making about $40,000 a year, any one of those bottles could cost about 10% of a weekly take home pay -- a luxury that many people can afford only for the most special occasions. And if one can only consume wine on a special occassion, how does one view someone who can afford to consume wine for less-than-special occasions or in large gatherings? So, is wine a sign of elitism? The answer, unfortunately, is yes.

Ratings system.

It is time to explain my ratings. First, I decided to use a five-star rating system to help me keep track of wines that I really enjoyed – but it is purely arbitrary and will depend on whatever my whims are on a given day. I am also using a five-star system instead of a 100-point system because I think the 100-point system is misleading – I would applaud anyone who can tell the difference between 90, 91 and 92 point wines. Instead, I prefer smaller groupings, which I think the five-star system (with half-star increments) allows.

Second, a wine's rating will be based on three factors: (1) quality; (2) aging potential and (3) value. In particular, I emphasize quality and value – if a wine is strong in both of those factors, that may account for up to a 1-star adjustment (where an adjustment occurs due to quality and value, I will note so in the description). Further, while a wine's aging potential is important, that is a relatively minor factor for most consumers. Thus, a wine's aging potential – while important – will account for at most an extra half-star.

With that explained, it should be obvious that I would avoid a 1-star wine – for the record, I've only ever had one wine that would warrant a 1-star (though that was probably corked). A three-star wine should be average –either of average quality and price, or good quality but excessive price. I strongly doubt that I will ever identify a five-star wine – such a rating would require a wine to be fantastic in quality, have excellent aging potential and be a great value. I'd love to find a wine that meets those standards – however, the secondary market has probably foreclosed such a thing from happening for the foreseeable future.

Crozes-Hermitage Paul Jaboulet Aine "Thalabert" 2003

A working trip to NY lead to having dinner at Sparks -- and an excellent wine for a very good price.

Sparks is an absolutely delicious steakhouse to eat at. The steaks are sooo juicy and tender that they can be cut with a butter knife. A strip steak and a baked potato will leave one full for hours – and the price is great for the quality of the meat.

But since this is a wine blog, I felt I would do a disservice to any of my readers (if they exist) if I did not review the wine list. What can I say? The selection was fantastic and the prices were very fair. In fact, I spotted a number of bottles that had a 50% mark-up, at most -- a great rate for a restaurant of this caliber, given that many high-end places will inflate the prices by up to 300%.

The wine I picked for dinner was a Crozes-Hermitage Paul Jaboulet Aine "Thalabert" 2003. The Thalabert is a 100% Syrah wine. Deep purple in color showing its youth, yet it had the structure of an older wine. Definite fruit on the nose with a distinct earthiness underneath. The palate was dark berries, and iron notes were also identifiable and strong. Very drinkable, and great with the steak. I'd rate this at four out of five stars based on the quality to value ratio alone.

Something fishy?

Does anyone else find the details of this theft to be suspicious? In particular, the fact that "[t]he perpetrator had a discerning palate, leaving behind lesser vintages."

WillaKenzie Aliette 2001

A delightful Pinot noir. The aroma was glowing with fruit, and the palate was a delightful combination of cherry, dark fruits and eathiness (more soil than moss). Very enjoyable, though there was probably more alcohol in the wine than the label's indicated 13.9%. Three-and-a-half out of five stars. I'd buy another bottle, if it weren't for all of the other bottles I want to try, first!

Glasses, pt. 2

Harvey Steiman has started an interesting discussion regarding a new Riedel glass designed just for Oregon Pinot noir. In light of my recent post on the subject, I decided to add my two cents.

First, if there is any wine that justifies variations for different terrior, I'd have to go with Pinot noir. It's a grape that -- even to my relatively untrained palate -- varies greatly by where it is grown. Thus, a Riedel Burgundy glass may not do an Oregon Pinot noir full justice. That being said, I won't buy one of these glasses -- even though I love Oregon Pinot noirs. As a sampling done last night confirmed (notes on that to come), the Burgundy glasses do improve great wine. I'll be happy to use them for Burgundy-cousins, and let other, more profligate spenders buy these glasses.

Second, I wonder if having too large a collection of Sommeliers series glasses is to Riedel's benefit? Is this an example of trying to be an innovator, ahead of the curve? Or is this pushing that curve too far, and diluting Riedel's market? Right now, my money's on the latter -- unless there is a demand for New World glasses that highlight the fruit-forward nature of New World wines.