With the days short, the nights long and with holiday bills to pay it’s easy to rely on old favorite wines during the winter. Gabriele and I can be guilty of that, but we try and make sure we’re trying new juice as well. Here are some winners we’ve found recently, enjoyed between digging out of the blizzards of 2010.
First up, a different type of Shiraz. We like Shiraz a lot, but it sometimes can be pretty predictable — big fruit forward, a little round and soft. So the last time we were at Total Wine, we asked for a recommendation. Eric at the Landmark store has impressed us with his wine knowledge and enthusiasm, and he recommended a 2006 Tyrells Rufus Stone Heathcote Shiraz.
It was a great pick and a very different Shiraz experience. It has a very interesting bouquet with elements of earth, alcohol and smoke. The taste is less fruit forward, with hints of leather and licorice. It has a more typical Shiraz body and texture, with a mild bite and nice finish. Honestly it’s hard to describe — give it a try the next time you want a Shiraz with a little complexity. It retails for $20 at Total Wine.
The next winner comes from the Rhone region of France. As readers of this blog know, I’ve become a big fan of GSMs — Grenache, Shiraz and Mourvedre blends, styled after the classic Rhone varietals. In fact they are so good that IMO the Australian and Californian GSMs are better values and more reliable than the French wines they are fashioned after. So it was fun to be introduced to a very good French Rhone while having dinner at Cheestique in Del Ray recently.
A 2007 Le Pigeoulet en Provence was recommended by our server, who was also a part-owner. It has a rich bouquet that actually is bigger than the taste, making the wine easy to drink. It was flavorful and very dry, a little herbal with a peppery twinge and a nice, clean finish. The wine is 80% Grenache, 10% Syrah, 5% Cinsault and 5% Carignan — whoops, the “M” fell off in this case! Looks like it retails for around $20 based on Internet searches. It was a super suggestion with the simple but delicious meal we enjoyed — I’d highly recommend the potato leek and prosciutto soup, the charcuterie board and the hot ham, turkey and swiss sammy.
Another wine we first had at Cheestique is the Edmeades 2007 Zinfandel. It’s a Californian from Mendocino County and we liked it very much. It was flavorful but not overpowering with fruit, with a touch of earthiness that worked for the wine. There was also a smoky quality to the wine that was very pleasant, with a finish that lingers. The review I link to above describes it as “juicy and dry,” which captures it well. We paid $22 for it at The Winery on South Washington Street — Jane the owner is almost always there, and always has helpful suggestions.
A reader recently asked me why I only talk about wines I liked. That’s a good question — it’s more fun of course to talk about an enjoyable experience, and how much detail do you need about a wine to avoid? Plus, I don’t like to bash growers who may have given their best effort, and I recognize the element of subjectivity in taste. But, it’s also true you need to kiss some frogs to find the princes, as my colleague Marc Hausman likes to say.
So in the interest of balance and keeping it real, here are some wines IMO to avoid. Some aren’t awful, but none of them are good or represent good value:
Chateau Mothe du Barry Bordeaux 2007; Jezebel 2008 Pinot Noir; Shoo-Fly 2008 Shiraz; Belguardo Serrata 2004; 2002 Chateau des Erles, Cuvee des Ardoises; Rosenblum Vintner Cuvee XXXI Zinfandel.
As always, please drop a comment with any feedback on the above — whether you agree or not!
