Category Archives: Twenty Buck Luck

The value of a good wine merchant.

Posted on May 17, 2008 | 4 Comments

This is a post I should have done some time ago, especially with my silly “20 Buck Luck” experiment getting as many views as it does. I got a very thoughtful comment last night from an excellent local wine merchant, Paul Hayden, on the second installment of 20 Buck Luck. I am a regular customer of Paul’s store, and rely on him often for recommendations in wine areas that I don’t have enough experience in, or fall outside my normal taste preferences. Paul is an excellent wine merchant, his store stocks great stuff, and he’s single-handedly revitalized their beer selection from something that you glanced at if you were in the store for something else, to a beer destination.

We’re blessed in St. Louis to have other passionate, knowledgeable wine merchants too – Jake Hafner at 33, Andrew Traughber at Bon Vivant, John Nash and Simon Lehrer (who is THE cheese man too) at the Wine Merchant. I’ve stocked my cellar with their help, and the help of other great wine merchants like David Lillie and Jamie Wolff at Chambers St. Wine, Paul Wasserman when he was at Woodland Hills Wine Company, Bill Mayer at The Age of Riesling, and many more over the course of my fifteen years as a wine lover.

What does a good wine merchant do for you? First, they put together a nice selection in their store. They sift through the oceans of dull wines out there to find things that interest them. They find the quality. Now, not every merchant (nor should they be!) is into the same things, so you’re going to find variety as you go from store to store. Frankly, that’s enough of a relationship for some people right there – they trust that the wine on the shelf will be a good one and they explore on their own. For some, they’re loyal to one store, others need more to satisfy their vinious interests and desires.

For those willing to take a step further, from anonymous browser to interactive shopper, there are greater rewards to be had. A good wine merchant has the ability to learn your palate, and make thoughtful suggestions for wines that fit your tastes, and stretch your experience to encompass new tastes that you may also enjoy. In my early days of wine, this was critical. While I commend reading about wine, there is no substitute for drinking your way through various regions to bring the words to life. A good wine merchant can be your guide, and all the more so when you engage in an ongoing conversation about their recommendations with them.

My first experience with a good wine merchant was Brent at the Wine Merchant location in Clayton.  I was in my first year of graduate school, and didn’t have a lot of spare cash, but the Wine Merchant had (and still has) a fine selection of quality, but less expensive, wines from the South of France.  I struck up a conversation with Brent on my first visit, told him I was just beginning to really explore wine in earnest, and asked for recommendations within my budget.  When I returned, Brent asked what I had liked and not about his previous recommendations, and he made more based on that information.  From these conversations we worked out from the South of France, to explore every region well-represented in the store’s stock, with Brent guiding the selections based on my reports of what I had and had not liked about the earlier recommendations.  Brent helped make my exploration much more fruitful and pleasant than it otherwise would have been had I simply been selecting wines at random, or from book and magazine recommendations.

Another favorite wine experience was with David Lillie of Chambers St. Wines.  I had been a customer for several years, focusing largely on their outstanding selection of wines from the Loire, when I decided to make a special request of David.  I gave him a budget and asked for him to put together two cases of wine (this was back in the pre-kid, free-spending days . . .) from his current stock that I had not previously had, but that he thought would be interesting to me.  David more than ably jumped to the challenge, and I found several new producers, wines, even grapes that I had not previously sampled, but were very much in my palate’s wheelhouse.

Getting back to Paul’s comment on my 20 Buck Luck series.  The reason I decided to limit myself to grocery store wines was because, even with the $20 limit, it would be too easy to get three really good wines at your shop, or any of the other fine merchants around town.  I thought it would be a humorous experiment to unleash a wine geek (especially one with little to no tolerance for oak or high alcohol) into the grocery store wine aisle to see if he could find any inexpensive potable wines.  The quality I encountered frankly shocked me, and that is why I thought about abandoning the grocery stores for the wine shops, or even Trader Joe’s, (though there is significant crap shoot element there too).  In the end, my friends (apart from Carl, who has always thought this was just a waste of money and abuse of palate) convinced me to continue to tilt at the windmill of the grocery store wine aisle.

I’ll add a disclaimer to any future installments of 20 Buck Luck (I’ve still not recovered from the horror show that was the Pinot Evil) directing folks who truly want to learn about wine without wasting their cash to this post.  Thanks to Paul for pointing out that some clarification was needed:  20 Buck Luck is intended for entertainment purposes only.  It is not intended to represent a recommended method for actually exploring the world of wine.

For those of you really interested in exploring wine, find yourself a good wine merchant.  There are several in the “Places to Shop and Drink” links, or in this post.  The relationship will be a rewarding one, and you will be supporting people who are truly passionate about wine.

→ 4 Comments

Posted in 33, Carl, Prattle, Twenty Buck Luck, Wine

Tagged , , , , ,

Twenty Buck Luck, Chapter 3 – my Mother-in-Law visits

Posted on March 3, 2008 | Leave a comment

Well, my mother-in-law Sally is a wonderful person. And she loves wine. So, when she was in town recently, I decided to have her play along on the next edition of Twenty Buck Luck. Red wines again, all sourced from Schnuck’s. With the pressure of a guest taster, I managed to pick two of the best wines I’ve tasted during this exercise, but also the absolute worst bottle. This is also the first time I came in under $20, with a whopping $18.86 spent.

2004 Beaulieu Vineyards Coastal Estates Merlot California ($6.88 – on sale) no alcohol % stated on the label

Why? Well, I hadn’t had anything from this producer in a long time. I’m not a big enough fan of Cabernet Sauvignon to buy any of BV’s spendy offerings, which is what they’re best known for, but this was nicely marked down from about $10, so I gave it a spin. I continue to labor under the (perhaps delusional) idea that there are bargains to be found in Merlot these days, as the popularity of the grape has fallen after a period of greatly increased planting during the surge of popularity that Merlot experienced in the late 90s/early 00s. Are better grapes making it into these relatively low level bottlings? Let’s find out.

How was it? Clear full purple in color. The initial nose is plum and blackberries with a touch of supporting vanilla. Quite nice really. A bit lean in the mouth, with some tannins showing. After about 30 minutes, the oak seems too prominent, and it seems to fall apart a bit after being open for several hours, with a reduction in fruit and a slightly lactic quality to the palate. It’s still decent, but it was really nice there for a while. It does a bit of a Lazarus the next morning (My palate is fresher first thing in the morning. Really!), reintegrating into a somewhat slimmer but competent wine again that is well-balanced, and pretty nice. It was certainly the most “winey” of these three, and felt the most honest and least manufactured. I actually drank the whole bottle of this over the course of three days.

Sally had this wine in second place to the Pepperwood Grove, below. She thought it had nice fruit, but that there was more intensity than she preferred. She also picked up on a slightly sour aftertaste (I think this is the same as my “lactic” comment). When she tried it later that evening, she also noticed the drop in fruit.

2005 Pepperwood Grove Old Vine Zinfandel California ($6.49 – on sale) 13.5%

Why? In the past, I’ve had some surprisingly good bottles from this brand. They’ve gone upmarket a bit in packaging and price, but I thought this sale bottle represented potentially good value. I also wanted to try another bottling made up of (likely) Central Valley/Lodi Zin to see if was as good as the Mondavi Woodbridge bottling I had in the first installment.

How was it? Clear, medium red. Dusty, spicy fruit typical of Lodi Zinfandel. Relatively slender at first in the mouth, with a good dose of acidity, With a little air, this one gets going much better. The nose becomes a somewhat monolithic whack of ripe peppery raspberry, with some raisiny notes and the Lodi loaminess. Never gets going very well on the palate, where it remains somewhat short and simple, though the ample acidity makes it fine at washing away the food and providing some refreshment. Holds up well over time, being virtually the same on both day 2 and day 3. This is virtually identical wine to the Woodbridge Zin, though I give the Mondavi product a slight preference for a bit more complexity, combined with a cheaper price.

This one was Sally’s favorite. She liked the intensity of the fruit on both the nose and the palate, but enjoyed the fact that is was relatively light in the mouth. The combination of the ripe berries and peppery flavors was really pleasing to her.

NV Pinot Evil Pinot Noir VdP de l’Ile de Beaute, France ($5.49 – on sale) 12.5%

Lot No. L57000C

Why, oh why? Well, it was really marked down, from $8.99 to $5.49, and it had somewhat cute monkeys on the label, a “punny” name, and it was from a VdP that I’d not heard of before. Oh, and I needed to pick out a third wine quickly to make my doctor’s appointment on time. Of course, in retrospect, all of these should have been warnings, rather than invitations.

How was it? This is easily – easily – the WORST commercial wine I’ve ever tried that was not obviously flawed in some way (corked, too much brett., etc.). It’s a clear, somewhat iridescent pale pinkish red. It initially smells like Welch’s (no offense intended to the fine folks at Welch’s) grape jelly. Very confected and manufactured. It has a rather unpleasant chalky mouthfeel and absolutely no flavor at all (which may really have been a blessing). Unfortunately, with a bit of air, the fruit does eventually come out on the palate, and it is the same disgusting fake strawberry/grape crap as the nose. Honestly, if someone gave this to me blind, I don’t think I’d even think that it was wine. Flat Faygo (again, no offense) RedPop or Grape soda would likely be my guess. Sadly, this one remains the same throughout the night. As an extra bonus, it adds a swampy/sewer gas aroma the next day. Utterly atrocious.

Sally was of a similar mind here. She identified the nose as Grape KoolAid, and also found the taste lacking any identifiable flavors, apart from a vague sweet/sour Sweetart-like taste. Since she was not honor-bound as I am to subject herself to the abuse of retasting over time, she politely (and wisely) abandoned this one in reliance on my representations that it was still atrocious.

Sally tends to downplay her ability to taste, often remarking that good wines are “wasted” on her. The biggest positive to be taken from this tasting was that she no longer believes that. Especially when we pulled out the remainder of the 2002 St. Innocent Pinot Noir Villages Cuvee, Wilamette Valley that we had with dinner the night before, and the remains of a Cameron Hughes Lot 41 McClaren Vale Shiraz. It was abundantly clear to Sally then that she could, in fact, taste the difference between “good” and “bad” wine, and that she preferred the former.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in California, France, Merlot, Pinot Noir, Tasting Notes, Twenty Buck Luck, Wine, Zinfandel

Tagged , , , , , ,

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 , ,

Twenty Buck Luck, Chapter 1

Posted on January 10, 2008 | 2 Comments

Thanks to Carl for the great idea on the name for this new feature!

Our first three contenders from my local Schnuck’s have been sniffed, tasted, sampled and spit, and here are the results:

(1) 2005 Mondavi Woodbridge Zinfandel California ($5.99) – 13.5% per label

Why did I pick this wine? I have a soft spot for Zinfandel. Always have. Something about that spicy fruit. And some serious respect for Lodi Zin after reading Rhoda Stewart’s interesting (if a bit fawning) A Zinfandel Odyssey, particularly for those who grow for the Mondavi Woodbridge operation. I figured it would be a solid wine, and it was. It actually turned out to be my favorite of this batch.

Clear medium ruby. The initial nose offers somewhat confected overripe strawberry, mixed with that distinctive Lodi earthiness – sort of a wet, leaf-heavy loam. The nose eventually comes together more compactly still led by strawberry, but it’s more restrained and simple, but pleasant. Pretty slim in the mouth where a dried mushroom note leads the way, well (if modestly) supported by slightly spicy fruit. Good length, and just a scratch of tannin at the death. This bottle held up the best of the three on day 2. In fact, it was virtually unchanged. Ditto on day 3.

(2) 2006 Robert Mondavi Private Selection Cabernet Sauvignon California ($8.77) – 13.5% per label

I chose this one since it was marked down from $13.99 to $8.77 – a whopping 37% off. Why? I just had to know.

Much deeper color – bordering on a full purple. The initial nose is a pretty classy mix of ripe plum and raspberry. It’s all fruit, but it’s nice fruit and not overdone. Medium-bodied in the mouth, with not a lot of complexity. Raspberry leads a linear, somewhat compacted palate. There is a slight creaminess to the mouthfeel, and a decent bit of tannin. Over time though, this really falls apart. After a couple of hours of air, the nose is pretty much gone, and the palate reduced to a wet tannin delivery system. The tannins aren’t out of line, but when that’s all there is . . . . No improvement on day two.

(3) 2006 the Little Penguin Shiraz Southeast Australia ($6.49) – 13.5% (yeah, right) per label

Why? I don’t know. Well, yes I do. I have a somewhat morbid fascination with the “critter” wines that populate so much of the grocery store wine section. Grape Radio, an excellent wine podcast, did a two part (I, II) interview with the managing partner of Yellow Tail, that I found fascinating. I tried a couple of their wines as a result. I didn’t like them, but I understood what they were shooting for, and it certainly manifested itself in the glass. Since the success of that brand, seemingly countless pretenders have sprung up. The Little Penguin seems to garner significant shelf space and was on sale, so I thought I’d give it a go. Oops.

Light bright purple/pink in the glass. It almost seems iridescent. Super fruity in the glass – like someone fermented Luden’s cherry cough drops. There’s a slight menthol-y herbal note in the background, but this soon surrenders to the avalanche of fake fruit. The only thing I can compare it to is Yellow Tail, but this seems even more forced (although I grant that the bottle of YT was over a year ago, and it might be just as offensive – maybe it will be on sale soon). Thick and downright sweet in the mouth with significant rough tannins and very apparent alcohol. This is really unpleasant stuff. Time does it no favors, apart from some diminution in the offensive fruit aromas – they’re still there, but they no longer fill the room on day two. Tannins are even more obtrusive and now somewhat bitter to boot. It was a satisfying act of revenge to pour two-thirds of the bottle down the drain (sorry, drain) – though not as satsifying as getting my $6.50 back would have been . . . .

So, there it is, the first chapter is complete. I’ll be drinking some better, less random stuff to recover, but I look forward to the next installment of Twenty Buck Luck.

→ 2 Comments

Posted in Australia, Cabernet Sauvignon, California, Carl, Syrah and Shiraz, Tasting Notes, Twenty Buck Luck, Wine, Zinfandel

Tagged , ,