The Vinorati Blog

Well, the theme chosen by Tim Elliot of WineCast for Wine Blogging Wednesday #30 turned out to be somewhat of a challenge/scavenger hunt for me. Tim asked us to choose a new world Syrah, i.e. not French to taste. He specifically mentioned the Rhone Valley as verboten, but I’m not sure if he intended to exclude Languedoc, Vin de Pays, or even Italian Syrahs, but I decided to obey the letter of the law - nothing European! Well in Saint-Emilion it’s difficult to find non-Libournais wines. In Bordeaux although it’s difficult to find anything from a non-Bordelais appellation. All of the wine growing regions tend to be fairly chauvinistic. Not surprisingly Paris, where they don’t grow grapes (the Sacre Coeur vines do not count!) is the best place to find international wines. Unfortunately I didn’t have time to get into Bordeaux, never mind Paris, for some wine shopping. I looked in some caves and large distribution stores in Saint-Emilion and Libourne for new world Syrahs, but was neither optimistic nor successful. (interestingly - there were more wines from North Africa than any other countries). I pretty much gave up when Frederic and I ventured up to Angers for the Salon des Vins de la Loire this week. Luckily this is where I finally found my Australian Shiraz. So, at the very last minute I am able to participate. Yeah!!

The wine that I bought in Angers was Thomas Mitchell Shiraz by Michelton Wines. At 7.50 Euros I was a little sceptical but I happily snapped up the last bottle regardless. This wine retails for $4.99 in the U.S. You can just imagine my anticipation when we had driven this bottle home over 3 hours from Angers and the stew was heating on the stove. Mmmm $5 Syrah from Australia. With no further ado…The first impression on the nose is definitely alcohol (even though it is a relatively low 13%). With determined sniffing I managed to find some fruit - blueberry jam, prune with spice, but a hint of some mustiness in the background (mushroom I think). The mouth is surprisingly not bad at all. The alcohol is still noticeably out of balance, but it has very nice fruity length, which becomes jammy after a while. The aftertaste really does go on and on. Good acidity, some tannins, enough to provide some structure but not at all dominant. Nicely in balance with the acidity. Not a “vin de garde” but more than decent for a Wednesday evening dinner wine. How they make it in Australia and get it to France for less than 8 Euros is beyond me.

As Tim anticipated the wine was not very food friendly. It did not pair well with the stew. However as I continued to finish my second glass after dinner I found that it made a perfectly good digestif. Some of the alcohol dissipated and the my tastebuds adjusted (or I just got tipsy), improving my impression of the wine.

I would like to understand Syrah better. I participated in some formal Syrah tastings at UC Davis and I often found the levels of alcohol disturbing. Often (as with the Thomas Mitchell Shiraz) the absolute percentage of alcohol was not high, but it was just very apparent and completely out of balance with the rest of the wine. What’s that about?
Thanks so much Tim for hosting and causing me to branch out beyond the usual French stuff!

Jack and Joanne at Fork & Bottle chose the theme of biodynamic wines for the 29th WBW event.

The theories of biodynamics are based on a lecture series by Austrian philosopher Rudolf Steiner in the early 1920’s. Although it predates the organic agriculture movement by some twenty years it has only recently started gaining widespread interest in the wine industry. Back in the 1920’s Steiner worried that the introduction of chemical farming was degrading the quality of food. However he did not believe this was only due to the chemical or biological properties of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, but also due to spiritual shortcomings in the whole chemical approach to farming. A central aspect of biodynamics is that the farm as a whole is seen as an organism, and therefore should be a closed self-nourishing system. Diseases of this organisms are not to be treated in isolation but to be understood a symptom of imbalance in the whole organism. Also adherents believe that by understanding the the rythms at which light of the sun, moon, planets and stars reach the earth one can optimally time ground preparation, sowing, cultivating and harvesting. Hence biodynamic treatments (such as burying a cow horn full of manure in your vineyard) are often performed at full moon, or high tide. Believe what you will but some very reputable winemakers swear that although they can’t explain why it works, it does work.

I chose to taste two French wines - one from one of my favourite Champagne producers (Jacques Beaufort) and the other made by one of the most well-known biodynamic producers in the South of France but totally unknown to me (Domaine Gauby). Initially I was hoping to taste some biodynamic Bordeaux wines but even though I live in Bordeaux and went out armed with Jack and Joanne’s excellent list I had no success. Biodynamics and organics are still pretty rare here in Bordeaux compared to other appellations such as Burgundy, Alsace and Provence. Throughout France many biodynamic producers do not pay the fees for biodynamic certification, which makes it quite difficult to go out searching for “a” biodynamic wine.

The Champagne was an absolute requirement for this event because we were celebrating the return of my sister-in-law after a 4-month trip to the U.S. (I am so glad to have her back!) The bottle befitting the occasion was a 1989 Jacques Beaufort Polisy Demi-Sec. We enjoyed it as an aperitif before dinner. It was excellent: incredibly young and fresh both in the nose and mouth. At the same time the nutty age-related characters added beautifully to the complexity. Jacques Beaufort tends to make wines with lower levels of acidity and this one was no exception - creamy and smooth with a lovely finish. Truly an exceptional and adorable wine.

Jacques Beaufort stopped using synthetic chemicals in his vineyards in the 70’s after he had an extreme allergic reaction while spraying the vines for his father. Since then he has stopped even spraying with sulfur and uses aromatherapeutic oils and custom-designed homeopathic vineyard treatments. Although he is not fully biodynamic he shares much of the same philosophies and incorporates many of the practices. His wines are beautiful and complex but unfortunately somewhat inconsistent. 90% of the time we are delighted with the bottles we open but occasionally we run across a true dud.

The other wine that I tasted was a 2004 Domaine Gauby Les Calcinaires, a Cotes du Roussillon Village. The nose on this wine was disappointing after the vendor had so glowingly recommended the wine. It was slightly oxidized and quite rustic with aromas of toasted coffee beans, and alcohol followed up by cherry and blueberry. Despite the slight oxidation I would recommend decanting this wine as the aromas did seem to improve with time. The attack was surprisingly acidic but mellowed to finish very pleasantly. The acidity of the Gauby would make it an excellent food wine. To be honest it was probably unfair to taste these two wines together given their vast price differences (14Euros vs 45Euros).

Domaine Gauby was been extensively written about in the anglophone wine community, by the Wine Doctor and Jancis Robinson. It is managed by Gerard Gauby, a former Rugby player, and has been completely biodynamic since 2000. Since his transition to organics and biodynamics he makes wines which which just as flavourful but with more acidity and less alcohol and obvious sweetness than before. His wines are meant to be aged rather than consumed in their infancy, which is where I made my mistake. His flagship wine is the Muntada and promises to be fantastic but at 80Euros is not within my budget.

I am completely unqualified to make an overall conclusion about biodynamic wines however I can share what my impressions. In my limited experience these wines can often have an added complexity. This may come from the increased diversity of yeasts and bacteria that are left in the juice and wine. Unfortunately this may also be the source of the inconsistent quality that I have also found in organic and biodynamic wines. The decreased usage of sulfites during winemaking can also easily create an increased frequency of oxidized characteristics unless winemakers are very strict about the oxygen exposure their wines receive.
Many thanks to Jack and Joanne at Fork & Bottle for hosting this Wine Blogging Wednesday!

Thanks so much to Sam of Becks & Posh for organizing the 25th Wine Blogging Wednesday and picking Champagne! as the theme.

We were lucky in two ways for the Wine Blogging Wednesday’s Champagne theme. First: we were in Champagne a few weeks ago where we picked up some interesting wines and second: Frederic’s brother and his girlfriend, who are both winemakers in Bordeaux, were visiting us for the weekend. Hence they picked out a couple of bottles, we invited a few more friends and we made an evening of Champagne, appetizers (thanks to Picard!), oysters and goat cheese. I wonder if all this could be tax deductable?

We had the pleasure of tasting two non-vintage Champagnes one from Devaux and the other by Andre/Jacques Beaufort, a 1999 Ruinart, a 1998 Legras and a 1989 Jacques Beaufort. It turned out to be a great selection of wines. I didn’t dislike any of them, but we all had our favourites.

D de Devaux non-vintage 7.5/10; 28€
This was a clean fresh wine that would be a perfect start to a meal - palate-cleansing and refreshing.

• overall: delicious, clean, great aperitif
• appearance: pale lemon yellow
• nose: yeasty, lemon, citrus
• mouth: fine bubbles, nice acid, balanced, fresh, light
• eat with oysters, goat cheese

Andre Beaufort Brut Grand Cru Ambonnay Reserve non-vintage 8.0/10; 25€
As expected from a Jacques Beaufort wine, this Champagne had great character/personality and complexity. I loved it.

• beautiful, great character, interesting
• pale gold, straw
• green apple, nutty, celery
• citrus, lovely, delicious, medium length, light acid, creamy, smooth
• eat with ?

R&L Legras Brut Grand Cru 1998 6.5/10; 25€
This was my least favourite wine of the evening. It was a little too buttery for my tastes. On the other hand it went very well with the oysters!

• great character, interesting
• pale lemon yellow
• yeasty, bell pepper, butter
• short, light
• delicious with oysters! goat cheese

R de Ruinart Brut 1999 7.0/10; 44€
This was a nice wine, marred by slight notes of reduction on the nose. Fortunately the mouth was a very impressive improvement over the nose, and the reductive notes did diminish with time.

• crisp, bright
• pale
• yogurt, lemon, musky
• light, fresh, very nice, elegant
• delicious with chevre, oysters

Jacques Beaufort Grand Reserve Brut 1989 8.5/10; 44€
The highlight of the evening for me. Amazingly “young” wine for it’s 17(!) years. It was disgorged in May 2005 so 16 of those years were on it’s lees, which makes all the difference.

• beautiful, tasty, complex
• golden
• green apple, tropical fruit, fresh
• smooth, bite at end, great length
• delicious with aged goat cheese

Frederic’s brother brought a selection of goat cheeses, since that’s his most recent wine-food pairing revelation and I’m a complete convert. The aged chevre was a bit of a challenge but was perfect with the 1989 Beaufort. Of course the oysters were a classic but excellent accompaniment, particularly with the Legras. It’s such a treat to find new ways to enjoy les vins petillants de Champagne.

Should a critic publish a negative or unflattering critique? In my recent travels through wine blogging land I ran across a post by Cam Wheeler on his Australian wine blog, regarding a negative review that he published. In his original review he said this “I’m sorry to say this, but this was the most faulty wine I have ever tasted. Dominant onion skins, rubber, and some barnyard characters on the nose with the palate living up to the promise of the nose. 50/100″ It’s painful for me to read… I can’t even imagine what it was like for the winemaker. Well apparently he found it so painful he felt the need to consult a lawyer and send Cam Wheeler a letter threatening legal action if he doesn’t remove the review.
In my opinion, both sides of this debate have merit. I understand the argument that critics should use their power for good rather than evil. In long-ago discussions, regarding restaurant reviews, I have supported this point of view. I prefer to give entrepreneurs the benefit of the doubt and assume they are doing their best to make a good product. Regarding wine, maybe I tasted an off bottle that was stored incorrectly, maybe I was having a bad day. Why potentially damage someone’s business with your damning comments?

On the other hand, when I’m reading reviews on a website the first thing I look for is the negative comments. What is it people didn’t like? Do those things matter to me? I want the good, the bad and the ugly. I want the power to weigh as much information as possible and make a decision myself.

Today, the power wielded by an individual critic has been moderated by the internet. In pre-blog days I imagine a newspaper critic could truly make or break a fledgling restaurant. Now we can google pretty much any restaurant and expect to find a selection of sites with varying opinions of said restaurant. In addition individual sites that allow the general public to share their opinions of restaurants, or household products can yield a variety of opinions.

To stick to this blog’s topic… the applicability/advantage of wine tagging to the problem of negative wine reviews is clear. Here many people can share their opinion in the form of a numerical rating and tags. Others can then later see both the “positive” and “negative” tags of all taggers and draw their own conclusion based on their sensibilities. No one person’s voice dominates the others. Ahhh, the world is a beautiful place again.