Monthly Archives: February 2008

Two new features.

Posted on February 25, 2008 | Leave a comment

Just pointing out that I’ve recently added a couple of pages.

The first, “What’s on Tap“, went up last week, and, in addition to telling you the ever captivating tale of what is in my kegerator (the point of which was to limit endless parentheticals on the “What am I drinking” page about what is in my kegerator), there is a bit of an essay on why we decided to add draft beer to our home, and how we went about doing it.  I’m happy to field questions from anyone who is looking to convert a fridge to a kegerator, as I did some pretty exhaustive research on the topic.

The second page, “Recommended Reading” went up earlier today, though I’ve been working on it for a month or so.  It’s a lovely little list of books I really enjoy on beer, wine and whisky.  As I say there, it’s not intended to be comprehensive, though some of the choices would certainly make most geek’s lists.  I’ll add to it as I come across (or remember) worthy books, but these are some of my absolute favorites.

As always, feedback and suggestions are more than welcome.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Egoistic BS, Prattle

Twenty Buck Luck, Chapter 2.

Posted on February 19, 2008 | 6 Comments

This edition sees three more red wines. The rules for those who missed chapter 1, are that I have to purchase the wines at a local grocery store, and that the total amount for the three bottles needs to be about $20, before tax.

I’ve gone with red wines again, as it’s cold out. Spring will bring white wine editions for sure. I added to the degree of difficulty this time by having my two kids with me at the store while I tried to pick out the wines. And it was Saturday lunchtime, so the store was packed. And my kids hadn’t eaten yet. And I’d just starting taking some serious cough medicine with hydrocodone in it. I’m impressed that I came within a dollar of the $20 limit. Actually, I’m impressed that I actually got the three bottle part right.

2006 Meridian Pinot Noir California ($7.99 – on sale) 13.8%

Why? Well, in my early graduate student days I used to drink a lot of Meridian Chardonnay which was decent and dirt cheap. Then, the label was based in California’s Central Coast, which has since become quite the hot bed for Pinot Noir. Of course, a lot of the early plantings of Pinot Noir were in the wrong place, resulting in underripe, vegetal wines. The label has probably been sold a couple of times since then, and I have no idea who owns it now, or where the grapes come from, but it was a bit of tangential nostalgia.

How is it? Pale, clear light ruby. I’ve honestly seen rosés that are darker, which is not necessarily good or bad. It just is. The nose has quite a bit of Pinot Noir character to it, albeit in a relatively slim, modest package. The core is bright, light tart cherry, supported by some warm clay and a bit of decaying leaves (sous bois sounds better, I admit). There’s not a lot there, but everything that is strikes me as a Pinot Noir-related aroma (U.S. federal wine law requires only 75% of the named grape to carry a varietal label – hat tip to Oregon, and some other states that require more) . With time a bit of oakiness comes out, but it never becomes obtrusive. I tried chilling this a bit, given its lightness, as that sometimes helps sharpen things up. This time, it only managed to accentuate the oak even more.

A bit bigger in the mouth, with a pleasant roundness that is offset initially by a somewhat creamy quality, but what happened to the fruit? It’s all texture and very little flavor, apart from some oak. There’s decent acidity and minimal tannin. There is a really unpleasant aftertaste that just lingers and lingers – sort of like that taste when you forget to close your mouth while spraying yourself with Off! or some other mosquito repellent. The chilling did nothing good for the palate either. The oak is amped up, the creaminess kind of rough, and there’s still no fruit. Absolutely dead on day two. Not recommended.

2004 Columbia Crest Two Vines Shiraz Columbia Valley Washington ($5.49 – on sale) 13.5%

Why? Again, it’s an old favorite label. I drank cases of their basic Chardonnay and Merlot in my early wine days, when they were about, oh, $5 on sale. Not much seems to have changed in the past 15 years. This brand was always good value, and the warm, dry climate of Washington state to the East of the Cascades where these grapes are grown limits the amount of vintage variation. I can’t recall having any wine from Columbia Crest in at least the past decade, so when I saw it on sale, I took the chance.

How is it? Clear reddish purple. Dusty plum with quite a bit of vanilla, and a touch of clove. The vanilla dies down with time, and some black pepper develops. On day two, the nose is better, with tarter more Rhone-style Syrah notes of cranberry, and a bit of black olive. It’s surprisingly light on the palate, with little substance and a short finish. On day two, the palate is a bit more forthcoming, with some dark red fruits, sour acidity and sawdust flavors, but its still not very attractive. Still vaguely winey on day three (not a lot of incentive to finish any of these off quickly), but no miracle. Not recommended.

2006 Santa Rita 120 Cabernet Sauvignon Rapel Valley Chile ($7.49 – on sale) 14.1%

Why? Chilean wines can be decent value, and I’d not had one in a while. I was hoping for a Carmenere, but the grocery store only had one, and it was at full retail of $12.49. This wine wins our biggest “on sale” percentage at a whopping 25% off its regular retail price. The bottle is definitely a step up in classiness of labeling, but that’s hardly a reliable indicator.

How is it? Blech. The color is a nice clear medium purple. And that’s pretty much the highlight. The nose is incredibly green, but it’s not even an underripe Cabernet Sauvignon green bell pepper green, it’s just a vaguely vegetal green, with an odd sheen to it. Very creepy, actually. No berry, no plum, hell, no fruit flavors at all. Same on day two, I’m sad to report. Amazingly, it’s even worse in the mouth! Still no fruit, still very green, but also incredibly tannic. Mmmmm. Same story on day two. Highly not recommended.

Well, this was a depressing set of wines. It has caused me to revise my Twenty Buck Luck rules. I am no longer limiting myself to grocery store wines. I can now hit wine stores and specialty grocers (like Trader Joe’s, and our local Italian markets). I still have to make it out with three bottles for about $20, but I know I can do better than this dreck. Alright, I’ve been convinced to stay true to my original mission and stick to grocery store wines.  Look for the next chapter once I get the taste of that Santa Rita Cabernet Sauvignon out of my mouth.

→ 6 Comments

Posted in Cabernet Sauvignon, California, Chile, Pinot Noir, Syrah and Shiraz, Tasting Notes, Twenty Buck Luck, Washington, Wine

Tagged , ,

In praise of Dunkel

Posted on February 11, 2008 | 5 Comments

I love Dunkel lager. In fact, it’s one of my very favorite styles. There, I’ve said it. In public. I’m sure proceedings have begun to revoke my beer geek credentials.

What is Dunkel? It’s an old style, certainly, dating to the time before malt could be lightly kilned to produce pale styles such as Pilsner or Helles, but I don’t think there’s really that much in common between today’s dunkels, and those smoky pre-pale malt beers. Today, it is largely a German specialty, though the odd U.S. craft-brewed example exists (tip of the hat to Capital Brewery and their fine Munich Dark). Dunkels are a rich brown in color and have a nose dominated by the toasty goodness of a hearty whack (or a complete grainbill) of Munich malt. Hops are a bit player in the style, though noble German hops frequently add a spicy complexity.

Why do I love a good Dunkel? First, it’s the flavor and aroma. The good ones are richly malty, with an irresistible toasty edge that draws me in. The malt never veers to the cloying crystal malt sweetness that plagues many of the more analogous ale styles (Brown, of the English, North and South, and American varieties, and Amber ales). Good dunkels also have a lightness and snap to them that makes them an outstanding beer for a session. Warsteiner Dunkel, which I currently have a 50l keg of in my kegerator, is one of those magic beers that (when fresh) simply disappears from your glass. One minute it’s full, then suddenly it’s empty, leaving you with nothing but a smile. I revel in Dunkel’s satisfying simplicity. Finally, Dunkel is a fantastic food beer. It may be the most versatile style at the table, working with a vast variety of meats and cuisines. The subtle sweetness supports, while the toastiness, I’m convinced, works some umami synergy, then the acidity and slight bitterness arrive to cleanse and refresh. Mmmmm.

The key with Dunkel, as with the vast majority of beer, is to find examples that are fresh, and have not been abused. The Warsteiner Dunkel I have on draft is nice because it is widely available and the 12 packs (which do a better job of preventing the beer from becoming light struck) are dated (first two digits are the year, last three are the # of the day of the year – i.e. 07265 would be September 22 (the 265th day of a non-leap year), 2007). I also have had good success with Ayinger’s fine Altbairisch Dunkel, Capital’s Munich Dark, and Konig’s Ludwig Dunkel (which I haven’t seen in a while).

Great food matches? Try beef and barley soup, an upscale grilled cheese using artisinal bread and cheese, mushroom risotto, miso soup, just about any roasted pork dish, though a simple roast chicken is brilliant too. Want more ideas? Let me know.

→ 5 Comments

Posted in Beer, Germany

Tagged , , ,

Cameron Hughes

Posted on February 10, 2008 | Leave a comment

On the U.S. wine scene, Cameron Hughes has a pretty unique operation. Basically, he buys lots of wine from producers (now around the world, including France, Australia and Germany) and sells them under his own label. No vineyards, no grapes, no winery.  These lots may not have fit into a producer’s blend, were excess production for a small producer, or the producer was willing to sell them to Hughes for some other reason. A lot of the Cameron Hughes wines are sold through Costco, particularly in California, but his distribution is expanding, and he sells directly to consumers in states that allow shipment. I’d been intrigued by the model, and, frankly, the prices, and took advantage of a free shipping offer around the holidays to test drive a set of four wines.

2005 Cameron Hughes Lot 41 McClaren Vale Shiraz ($12)

Now, I’ll admit to not having a lot of experience with Australian wine, at least recently.  I think the last vintage I bought more than a single bottle here or there was 1996, and most of what I’ve bought recently was Riesling from Grosset, but Cameron Hughes had two bottlings that sounded interesting (the man does have a gift for wine sales prose at the very least), so I bit.

This was a much bigger wine than I usually drink, but it certainly wasn’t over the top.  Virtually black in the glass with a big berry nose.  The fruit backs off with some air, and there are some nice Syrah elements – a bit of gaminess and some herbal notes, but the rich dark fruit is the star here.  There’s enough acidity to balance and this has oodles more class than most wines in this price category.  Screwcap closure to boot.

1998 Cameron Hughes Lot 28, Carneros Sparkling Wine ($21)

This bottle was drinking really well on New Year’s Eve. A bit fuller gold than a lot of sparkling wine, but we are dealing with a ten year old wine. There is a richness to the fruit that certainly speaks to California, but there is enough acidity to keep it balanced. The only real sign of its age is the somewhat reticent carbonation. Certainly hangs with most California upmarket bubbly, and was quickly, and appreciatively drained by me and my in-laws.

2005 Cameron Hughes Lot 36 Cabernet Sauvignon Rutherford ($14)

Well, as a lover of Loire reds and general detractor of Napa Cab, I gave this one a shot despite numerous comments on CellarTracker about it being on the green/vegetal side of things. I ended up liking it quite a bit.

There’s plenty of fruit for me, and while there is an herbaceous element, my bottle had no green pepper or vegetal elements. It definitely filled out over the course of an hour, but there are very substantial tannins here. I’ll either give my other bottle quite a bit of time in hopes that they settle down (though I’m not confident there is enough fruit to outlive the tannins), or pair this with some grilled lamb, where the fat will counter the tannins, and the herbaceous flavor will match nicely with the gaminess of the meat.

2005 Cameron Hughes Lot 40 McClaren Vale Cabernet Sauvignon ($12)

This was probably (and surprising to me) my pick of the four wines, just edging the sparkling wine.  Again, it was a bit on the large size compared to what I usually drink, but it was quite well-balanced with good varietal characteristics.  There was good, but not forced, concentration, with enough acidity to keep this food-friendly (well, to the limited extent a big Cabernet Sauvignon can be food-friendly).  There was a touch of creaminess to the palate that I always find somewhat disturbing, but that element was gone on day 2, leaving quite a nice bottle.  Screwcap.

Overall, I was quite happy with the price/quality ratio here.  Unfortunately, Mr. Hughes doesn’t release a lot of wines that are to my palate preference, but I’ll be inclined to order those that do.  I was also relieved to find a high degree of accuracy to his descriptions.  One always wonders with these interested-party descriptions how much is an attempt at honest description versus puffery, but, at least for my palate and the bottles I sampled, Mr. Hughes’ came quite close to the mark.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Australia, Cabernet Sauvignon, California, Sparkling Wine, Syrah and Shiraz, Tasting Notes

Tagged