Viva Appassimento!

001If you are not particularly up on Italian wine, you may be unaware of the appassimento revolution underway.

Appassimento is the process of making wine from dried grapes. (There is a great deal more to it than that, but as a consumer that’s all you need to know.) The most famous – justly – product of this system is Amarone, an intense, alcoholic, fruity wine that ages forever and drinks beautifully with absolutely anything. (An Italian waiter friend of mine says he’d “drink it with anything, with my morning scrambled eggs.”)

Veneto is, like California in the sweet growing spot for wine. They can grow pretty much any grape. Which they have, producing endless bottles of junk Merlot etc.. But when they blend them with Corvina, Rondinello use the appassimento process, magic occurs. Otherwise useless grapes produce gorgeous wines.

For my money these are the bargains of the wine bin at the moment. You will almost never cross $20 for an IGT Appassimento, but it will be four or more years old in the store, and taste like Napa wishes their wines tasted like.

The most interesting segement of the market for the certified cork dorks, is that the technique is being applied to white wine now. Masi, a market leader in the technology produces Masianco a Pinot Grigio/Verduzzo wine that is cheap and so gorgeously constructed as to make strong men weep.

If you’re on a budget and want real wine, look for the words “Appassimento”, “Passimento”, “Appaxximento”, this last a Masi construction for trademark purposes. These are tremendous wines that the rest of the world has yet to notice.

Posted in Wine | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Binary Choices

This post is not about wine. At least not obviously. It is a little bit. But you’re going to have to read for a while before you get there.

We all hate binary choices. We search out people who can break outside the box, and find that one brilliant unseen choice. We write acres of columns about them in two dimensional games like chess and bridge and poker.

When someone you loves die, you are left in a horrid binary choice back test. What if you had done something differently then? What if you had said the unsaid? done the undone? Maybe it would have all ended differently.

But it can’t end differently. We are all dying. Some of us at a faster pace than others. I have tops 30 years to go. Some folks out there have 30 days or even 30 minutes. Once you grasp this, when you are trying to help someone you love all you can hope is to adjust the glide path. Maybe if you say this or that, you will lift the slope a degree. Or even if you cannot change the slope maybe you can add some degree of comfort.

It’s all an unknown. And even if it is known, still you question your decisions. Was it all a mistake when you walked away from university? Were graduate degrees all that you had to do? Or maybe in the last 10 years, once you finally grasped what his problems were you could have been more attentive. Maybe there was one more visit neglected or one more phone call avoided. The reality that unfolds from a binary choice has an infinity of bad outcomes possible. Outcomes that were your mistakes.

All my life I’ve not been good enough. From Grade One on, I was told I could have tried harder, done more, made things better. And I regret this one time that I didn’t.

So this isn’t about wine. at least not really. Tomorrow when you consider this drink or that, you will be making a choice. The choice that matters isn’t a 92 point wine versus an 88; nor is it a pinot versus a chianti. It is a choice to face up to the fact that expressing love with symbols is rather inadequate. Screw having a drink. Tell somebody you love them, that you’ll miss them. And maybe, if they didn’t have a bad commute, and the boss wasn’t horrible, and it didn’t piss down rain during their run, They’ll actually hear you and believe it. And then, and only then can you use a symbol, and get off with a rose or a glass of champagne.

Posted in Wine | Leave a comment

Cellar Math

“[Cellars] only work for people who intend to drink just a handful of wines from excellent vintages.”

Some people disagree with the above statement I made. Here’s my reasoning.

Let’s assume you drink 5 bottles of wine a week 50 weeks of the year. That’s 250 bottles consumption.

Let’s further assume you want to lay down the following basic cellar
- a chardonnay/Chablis to age 10
- a Riesling to age 15
- some kind of sauvignon blanc/young white 0-3 years
- a rose for 3 years
- a good rose for 8 years
- vintage blanc de blanc champage for 10 years
- vintage rose/ b de noir champagne for 10 years
- young bubbly for 0-3 years
- a decent medium red for 10 years
- a big red for 15 years
- an easy drinking red for 0-3 years

Now let’s say you drink
- 24 bottles of champagne a year
- 24 bottles of aged white a year
- 24 easy whites a year
- 48 easy drinking red a year
- 96 medium red a year
- big red 36 bottles a year

I’m going to assume the young whites, young bubbly and easy reds don’t need to be cellared.

Now your cellar only has to hold
- 11 years of two cases champagne, 264
- 16 years of one case Riesling, 192
- 11 years Chablis (and this is likely to short) times one case, 132
- 11 years of medium red has eight cases, 1056
- 15 years of big red times three cases,540

This gets you in at a 2184 bottle cellar. (and BTW this more or less describes my consumption)

Even if you assume every case above equals a single label (e.g 8 different varieties of medium red) you are only drinking 15 different labels per year. Frankly very few of us would get the vintage variation without that kind of specialization. What’s more if you only cellar a single bottle of Screaming Eagle for 15 years you have no idea if that wine is better younger or older. And call me an old cynic but a relatively few people, should they cellar a mere dozen bottles of a single vintage will recall what the bottle they drank 2 years ago tasted like.

I WANT to drink a MUCH larger variety of wine than that. The only way I can cellar wine AND drink a big variety is to drink vastly more AND to give away or sell broken cases of wine. (Or just let it go bad and pour it down the drain, something I’ve seen done in a few cellars of deceased winos.)

If you want to cellar wine, I’m all for it but explain to me with real numbers
- how much you drink
- the quantity you cellar
- the time you cellar for.

Cheers.

Posted in Wine | 4 Comments

Wine Spectator Carefully Avoids Sugar Question

IF you read yesterday’s post and comment you will see that the Wine Spectator is becoming a little touchy about their scoring system. You will also note two things.

Although I did not give the score for a “classic” as awarded by the Spectator – 95 Mr. Matthews tells us – I apparently implied St. Hallet had one. Far as I know they don’t, but I don’t worry about scores of classics.

Mr. Matthews does not address the notion that sweet “dry table wines” score higher in their system. This of course is what the last paragraphs of yesterday’s post says clearly and what the headline promises the article says. But possibly Mr. Matthews was so incensed by my spelling error he merely forgot to clarify the magazines position on this issue.

So to give Mr. Matthews and his magazine something to address:
– I think the Wine Spectator taste tests are about as scientific as the Pepsi Challenge. (IF you wish to dispute this claim I suggest you read articles posted in the AAWE Journal of Wine Economics.)
– I think that wines of high viscocity (i.e. “thick mouth-feel”) and high sugar content are prone to higher scores.

If the Wine Spectator wishes to claim their scores are more valid than the Pepsi Challenge they need to implement a tasting regimen similar to that employed by the IVDP.

Finally I apologize to all readers for my erratic spelling particularly with French. Alas I am nowhere near bilingual and it shows just about every time I use French terms and names in my column. I also avoid diacritical marks (e.g. e-acute) because they do not carry well across international operating systems. I also avoid apostrophes for this reason though I find that slightly annoying as a writer.

So to properly answer Mr. Matthews sneer I suggest the Wine Spectator research testing systems that depend on rigour beyond brown paper bags.002

Posted in Wine | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

How to earn a “Classic” score from the Wine Spectator

Residual Sugar

Residual Sugar

Pictured on the right are four acuvin test strips for residual sugar.  

The top strip is Coudoulet de Beaucastel 2010, a wine of some repute. (15.5 by Jancis Robinson)  This particular version is low on Syrah, only 20%, which probably accounts for the slightly lowish score.  Robinson gave the ’11 a 16.

Ogier Heritages [corrected after comment see below], an inexpensive wine from a competent producer is next. 

Perrin Reserve another inexpensive and reliable Rhone is third. 

St. Hallet Gamekeeper’s is the bottom.

The color indicates the residual sugar levels.  Coudoulet had under 200 mg/L. Ogier maybe 600 to 700 mg/L.  Perrin Reserve about 500.  St. Hallet had between 1000 and 2000 mg. Three guesses which one scored a 91 from the ever so wise and sensitive palate of the International Wine Challenge Oct. 2013 [Corrected. See Below] …

If you want to be promoted by the WS better pick around 26 Brix and make sure your “dry red table wine” has as close as possible to half a teaspoon per bottle of sugar in it.  That way the typicity, terroir and finesse of the wine will be noticed by the blind tasting panel of the Spectator.

Posted in Musings, Wine | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments