Clos du Marquis 1997

A "second growth" of the "super second" Chateau Leoville Las-Cases, this wine took at least an hour before it opened up. In that time, the sweet tobacco, herb, and cedar opened up to reveal cherries, currants and maybe even a touch of raspberries (please note, I had a stuffy nose while trying this wine). On the palate, the wine was wonderfully balanced with the tannins were almost a thing of the past and acidity that was perfect for an Italian-like meal . Three stars out of five, and I think I am going to pick up a bottle or two of the 2004 from the local wine store.

Chateau au Pont de Guitres Lalande-de-Pomerol 2003

The dark red color of the wine shows that it has a lot of life left in it -- and its nose and tasting-profile confirms that initial impression. Dark fruits and plum on the nose, with hints of milk chocolate and pine. The palate is rich and smooth, and has the body to age for a few more years. Very drinkable now, with a promise of greatness down the road. At $25 a bottle, this wine is a huge bargain (and even a Merlot-hater would enjoy this wine). Four out of five stars.

Clos du Val Cabernet Sauvignon 2004 and listening to yourself.

A few months ago I was given a bottle of the Clos du Val Cabernet Sauvignon 2004 by a guest to a wine party I threw. Now, I generally love wine as a gift -- but, I looked up a generally influential tasting note about the wine, and it described the wine as dusty and dank. Not a stellar endorsement. Needless to say, I was very reluctant to open the bottle based on that review (and even tempted to re-gift it, I am ashamed to say, if the opportunity presented itself).

But then my opinion started to change. First, as I developed a better grasp of the California wine scene, I realized that I had a very European palate. Probably a result of having been introduced to wine on the east coast, where French and Old World styles dominate (or, at the least, are as prevalent as California wines). Second, I saw reviews of this wine from Decanter -- a British wine publication that gave the Clos du Val a much better review (I tried to find the issue of the magazine for the exact review, but I think my copy went the way of the Dodo). Then, I saw a comment online in response to the earlier critic, asking a pointed question or two about the rating. Finally, after trying some wines that were highly rated by this same critic and discovering they did not suit my palate, I decided that I would give the Clos du Val a chance.

I could not be happier.

Dark berries, cedar and spiced olives on the nose, with decent tannins and acidity on the palate that suggest some life in the bottle. I do not think the wine needs to open up, but I could see it developing the secondary characteristics of leather and tobacco. Very un-California-like, in a good way. At about $30 a bottle, this makes for a great value. Three and a half out of five stars, especially for the price.

Two questions (and answers) as a result:

First, why the possible disparity of my tasting notes from those of the original critic? I can come up with three reasons. The first is that often multiple wines are rated at once, and those wines are compared within region. This wine could easily be lost in comparison to super-ripe and super-extracted Napa Valley cabs. By comparison, it would appear weak and its positive characteristics would be lost. A second possibility is that the critic had a "bad day" and could not enjoy all of the aspects of the wine (think about what a head cold might do to your sense of smell). Finally, even more so than in music or movies, a critic's personal tastes can have a profound impact on how they perceive and enjoy wine. Frankly, of these options, I suspect the first and third played a part -- after all, I enjoy a different style of wine, and I enjoyed this wine on its own.

Second, what does this mean? As a result of those diverging tastes, I was willing to ignore a very good wine because it did not obtain a positive review. This really is a cautionary tale -- one should not let the views of others unduly influence what one enjoys or could enjoy. Instead, find those whose tastes are similar to yours, and look to them for recommendations. But in the end, always look to yourself for what you could enjoy.

Seigneurs d'Aiguilhe 2004

A nice, basic wine that is the second wine of Chateau d'Aiguilhe. Perfectly red color with cherry, stones and herbs on the nose. Light to slightly-moderate tannins and light-to-medium bodied. A very refreshing red wine to drink now. While I am rating it two and a half stars out of five, that is mostly due to its inability to age. Drink and enjoy now!

Wine bars aren't fun?

James Suckling asks (in relation to "beer bars"):

Why can’t wine bars be so buzzy, fun and full of comradery?

Answer: (American?) wine culture is too pretentious to enjoy wine in a pub-type setting. Just check out the advertisements in either Wine Spectator or Wine Enthusiast to see what I mean....

Quinta do Crasto Douro "Old Vines" Reserva 2005

I like Portuguese reds, but I found this wine disappointing. Dark purple colors showed its youth. Overly extracted dark fruits and spice on the nose, along with the extra heat on the palate (I think the 14% on the label seemed a bit low), made me think this was a Zinfandel, and not a Touriga Nacional blend. Definitely not a fan of this style. Two stars out of five.

UPDATE: Based on the traffic surge in the past few days, a lot people are searching for info on this wine. That might have something to do with the fact it was named the 3rd best wine of 2008 by Wine Spectator. Nonetheless, I still stand by my position -- this wine was too powerful and too hot. But if overripeness is your thing, then enjoy!