Expensive Chardonnay From Lioco

This posting considers the following two rather expensive California offerings: a

Lioco 2006 "Charles Heintz" Chardonnay ($45) and a

Lioco 2006 "Durell" Chardonnay ($40).

Lioco, a "virtually winery" in the sense that it doesn't own vineyards or wine-making facilities, specializes in un0aked chardonnay and pinot noir.  Most of its offerings are made in small lots from grapes grown in specific, somewhat exotic vineyards, and in consequence, they tend to be rather expensive.  Whether they are worth it is largely a matter of personal taste since these wines tend to stand apart in one way or another from most of the competition.

If you are interested in exploring all the facets of chardonnay, Lioco is an essential stop on your journey. On the other hand, if you are looking for something safe and conventional, don't bother.

Here's the quick bottom line on these two offerings:  our latest panel, after blind tasting these wines with and without food, voted 3-0 in favor of the "Durell." We all felt it was the much better balanced of the two. As such, it is Worth Considering if cost is not an issue and if you are interested in experiencing something different.

The "Durell" has nice soft, delicate fruit flavors, but what sets it apart is the non-fruit component of the wine. Lioco says it has a chalky or talc aspect. To me, it seemed a little minerally, but not in the same fashion as a French chablis. I found it hard to describe, but I liked it.

Lioco recommends pairing the "Durell" with sauteed scallops, sea bass or cheeses with washed rinds. I think it can successfully accompany a wider range of fare as long as the flavors of the food aren't too pronounced.

We tried the 2006 "Charles Heinz" before in an earlier comparative tasting and found it to be Problematic. This time around, it deserves the same rating.

The main problem with this wine is that the flavor of butterscotch is too strong, both in the bouquet and on the palate. It simply overwhelms whatever else the wine might have going for it. Like the "Durell," the "Charles Heinz" is neither finned nor filtered (i.e., not clarified), but whereas the "Durell" is only slightly cloudy, the "Charles Heinz" is very cloudy. There's nothing wrong with that, but some consumers might find it rather disconcerting and I would not recommend serving this wine to guests unfamiliar with this approach. They might consider it "something special" in the wrong way.

Don't be surprised to find things that look like little crystals in the bottom of both bottles, or in the last glass poured. They are harmless -- an aspect of not clarifying the wine -- but some people might not like them. One of our panelists didn't.

What to serve with the "Charles Heinz?" Lioco recommends lobster, among other things, and that might work. In general, I think it would best accompany something rather rich, maybe in terms of its sauce, but you would have to experiment. On the other hand, it's tough to experiment when a wine costs $45 a bottle.

For the record, the "Durell" is made from grapes grown in California's Sonoma Valley appellation while the "Charles Heinz" is sourced from a vineyard in the near-by Sonoma Coast region.

Interestingly, the color of the labels on these two bottles of wines provide a very good representation of what the wine will look like in the glass -- butterscotch tan for the "Charles Heinz" and a greenish yellow for the "Durrell".

Both wines are listed as being just over 14% alcohol by volume.

Useful link:

Recommended Unoaked and Lightly Oaked Chardonnay

Resources:

Lioco

Lucia, Tony Soter: In The Pink

This post considers two rosé wines of the 2008 vintage that are made mostly or entirely from pinot noir grapes. They are a:

Lucy 2008 Rosé of Pinot Noir ($18) and a

North Valley 2008 Rosé ($23).

The Lucy is made by Lucia Vineyards and Winery, of Santa Rosa, California, from grapes grown mainly in the well-regarded Pisoni and Gary's vineyards, both located in the Santa Lucia Highlands.

The North Valley is made by Soter Vineyards from pinot noir, pinot gris and chardonnay grapes grown in Oregon's Willamette Valley.

Both wineries are  known primarily for producing high-end pinot noir.

As usual, our latest panel tried these wines over a two-day period, with and without food and we greatly enjoyed both of them. As such, both are Recommended.

There are two different ways to make rosé (and almost a third).  The first is to make it as a by-product of producing red wine -- some of the juice is bled off -- and the second is to use whole grapes. Soter uses the whole-grape method and from the material on its website, it appears Lucia does as well.

The European Community recently came close to permitting winemakers to also make rosé by simply blending red and white wine, but backed off in the face of considerable protest.

There is no mistaking these two wines in the glass: the Lucy is a beautifully translucent pinkish red while the North Valley is a lighter pink with a tint of orange -- sort of a salmon color.

On the first day, the North Valley rosé was the more reticent of the two: it came across as elegant in a subtle, delicate manner. Interestingly, after exposure to more oxygen (the partially consumed bottle was resealed and refrigerated overnight), this wine opened up and exhibited both more intensity and a broader range of flavors. As such, I would recommend opening it and allowing it to breathe well before consumption.

In contrast, the Lucy was intense and flavorful -- but commendably very dry given the presence of a lot of fruit -- right from the start. It had neither improved nor deteriorated a day later -- one mark of a sturdy, well-made wine.

Both of these offerings finish in a crisp, refreshing, flavorful manner. Frankly, it is very hard to stop drinking either one of them.

Neither of the two of us who tried these two wines had a favorite, but we agreed on one thing: if you are serving food that is relatively strongly flavored, go for the Lucy. It will stand up to it. On the other hand, if you favor blander food, or fare with subtle flavors, the North Valley would be a better choice.

For the record, the Lucy is listed as being 14.1% alcohol by volume while the North Valley checks in at a considerably more modest 13%.

Resources:

Comments about all rosé wines mentioned on this blog

Lucia Vineyards and Winery

Soter Vineyards

Affordable Pinots from Bearboat, Alpen Cellars

This posting considers the following two affordable pinot noir from Northern California: an

Alpen Cellars 2006 "Trinity County" Pinot Noir ($17) and a

Bearboat 2006 "Russian River Valley" Pinot Noir ($18).

Here's the quick bottom line: both of these wines are Recommended as reasonably priced offerings that deliver more interesting aromas and flavors than most mass-market pinots in the same price range. They are both well worth trying to see whether or not you like them.

Bearboat, which sports a front label depicting a couple of bears in a rowboat and which once  featured a back label written in Russian, appears to be a somewhat quirky offering. It isn't. On the other hand, Alpen Cellars, which looks like a totally conventional pinot noir, is in fact somewhat off-beat, mainly because of where it comes from.

First, what are these two wines like?

In the glass, the Bearboat is ruby-red and somewhat translucent whereas the Alpen Cellars is a darker, more maroon wine.

When I initially uncorked the Alpen Cellars pinot, poured it into a glass and sniffed the bouquet, it seemed to have aromas of a pine forest co-mingled with some sort of dark spice. Later, I couldn't detect the piney aromas any more, which made me wonder if I had been making that up. In contrast, the aroma of the Bearboat pinot was more conventional: something akin to pie cherry.

In terms of body weight, the Bearboat was noticeably light without tasting thin or watery while the Alpen Cellars was slightly heavier.

On the palate, the Bearboat came across as very red-fruit focused -- strawberry, cherry, red plums -- while the Alpen Cellars offering was darker focused -- black cherries, black plums -- and it seemed a little bit resinous (the winery says smokey).

As for finish, that of the Bearboat was pleasant if a little thin while that of the Alpen Cellars was notable for a touch of tannin.

Overall, while the styles of these two wines are different, the quality is about the same.

Bearboat is made by Piper-Sonoma, a prominent California maker of sparkling wines and a subsidiary of  Remy Cointreau, a major French wine and spirits producer. Piper-Sonoma procures a lot of pinot noir grapes for the purpose of making its champagne-like offerings and some of that fruit is used to make Bearboat.

The bears, and the original Russian text, are humorous references to California's Russian River Valley, where the grapes are grown. For readers unfamiliar with it, the valley -- a very prominent source of pinot noir -- is located in Sonoma County, just north of San Francisco. Bearboat thus might be described as an artisnal-type pinot made within the fold of a major corporation.

Alpen Cellars, on the other hand, is the product of a family vineyard and winery located well off the beaten path -- deep in a mountain valley in one of California's least populated regions. The Trinity Alps lie south of the Siskiyou Mountains, which separate California from Oregon, and west of Mount Shasta, a splendid volcano just off Interstate 5.

Pinot noir and other wine grapes can be successfully grown in this most unexpected location because of a favorable microclimate, the winery explains. Alpen Cellars welcomes visitors, but warns against following the directions provided by Google Maps. That route is "very dangerous," the winery's website says. Make sure you have plenty of gas in your car, good weather and lots of time because it is a long  trip to a very remote location.

Resources:

Alpen Cellars

(There does not appear to be a producer website for Bearboat)

Useful Link:

Affordable Pinot Noir

California Pinot Noir From Marimar, Morgan

This posting considers the following: a

Marimar Estate 2005 "Don Miguel Vineyard" Pinot Noir ($45) and a

Morgan 2006 "Twelve Clones" Pinot Noir ($32).

Here's the quick bottom line: the Morgan is Recommended and the Marimar is Worth Considering if Price is Not a Consideration and if you prefer a wine with a bit of perceptible tannin.

These wines differ in several respects: one is from the 2005 vintage and the other from 2006: the Morgan is a blend of grapes from several vineyards while the Marimar is a blend of different clones from a single vineyard; the Morgan is from the Santa Lucia Highlands in California's Central Coast region while the Marimar is from the considerably more northerly Russian River Valley;  the Marimar is about 40% more expensive than the Morgan and, finally, the Morgan is far more readily available.

Morgan, a widely distributed up-scale label, makes several fairly expensive vineyard-designate pinot noir as well as the "Twelve Clones," an offering consumers are likely to encounter on restaurant wine lists if not always  in their local retail stores. Compared to the 2005 version of this wine, which was reviewed here, the 2006 is better balanced between fruit and acidity. It's a very pleasant, easy drinking, medium-bodied, red-fruit focused pinot with just enough complexity to be worth about $30 a bottle and with just enough spice to keep it interesting.

Our latest panel blind-tasted these two wines and preferred the Morgan by a margin of 4-0. If you are puzzling over what to order in a restaurant, this is a safe choice that should please a wide range of family members, friends and acquaintances.

In contrast to the Morgan, the considerably more expensive Marimar is noticeably darker in color in the glass, but about the same body weight. The flavor of the fruit is darker and there are some non-fruit flavors. While the tannins in the Morgan are extremely soft and not noticeable, the Marimar's tannins are drier and more perceptible, particularly in the finish. All in all, this wine didn't seem as well balanced as the Morgan and the flavors, while interesting, were not as pleasing.

It is possible that the Marimar "Don Miguel Vineyard" will improve over time, but I'm not sure that will be the case. So for now, I would have to say that this wine is more suitable for pinot enthusiasts anxious to explore the various approaches to this grape than to consumers simply looking for a wine that will properly accompany a meal and give them a sense of well being at a fair price.

Resources

Marimar Estate

Morgan Winery

A to Z 2007 Pinot Noir: Contrary Views

New York Times wine critic Eric Asimov, in a recent column, said he "loved" the A to Z 2007 "Oregon" Pinot Noir ($19.99 where he bought it and $18 where I bought it), terming it "earthy and restrained, with delicate cherry and herbal flavors."

The NYT article listed the wine as one of a dozen "American treasures," or great wines under $20 a bottle that are made in this country.

In contrast, I found the 2007 A to Z to have inadequate fruit to properly balance its tannins and to both smell and taste too strongly of cloves. You can check my review, in which the A to Z offering was compared to three other relatively inexpensive Oregon pinots, here. I considered it Not Recommended.

Potential consumers of this widely available wine might also want consider the comments of my fellow Seattle wine blogger Thad Westhusing (Beyond the Bottle). He comes down somewhere in the middle, saying that while he felt the 2007 A to Z came up short compared with various other 2007 Oregon pinots he had sampled, he was willing to give it another try in six to 12 months to see how it was evolving.

Asimov, as readers of both this blog and Asimov's own NYT columns probably know, is not a fan of pinot noir made in Oregon and California. In fact, with one or two exceptions, he has branded the entire output of those two states to be too fruity and sweet to properly accompany a meal and generally indistinguishable from one another in terms of how they taste.

Bearing that in mind, and given my own experience, Asimov's assessment of the A to Z pinot as "restrained" and "delicate" might actually translate into "not much fruit;"  his assessment of it as "earthy" might translate into "without much fruit, non-fruit flavors come to the fore" (I would say you mainly taste a mixture of tannin and cloves) and his remark that it is "herbal" could refer to all those cloves, which I would argue are in no way "delicate."

But, as I have observed on many occasions, views on wine vary dramatically (See the preceding posting on various vintages of a Scott Paul Oregon pinot as an example).

So my point here is that wine reviews -- Asimov's, mine, or any others, should be viewed not as the gospel, but rather as a jumping off point for consumers interested in finding out what they like and what they don't -- and why. You should compare your own views against ours -- and please give us your feedback.

Asimov, by the way, also included the  Ponzi 2007 Pinot Gris in his list of American treasures. There, we are in complete agreement.

This wine, also made in Oregon, cost $17.99 a bottle where he bought it in New York and $15 where I bought it in Seattle.

"Personally, I think Oregon pinot gris is a wonderful source of good wine values," Asimov said -- and I couldn't agree more. He described the 2007 Ponzi as "dry and refreshing with aromas of flowers, lime and minerals."

Interested readers can take a look at my assessment, where I gave this wine a Recommended rating, here.

Interestingly, Asimov's list of a dozen American treasures also contains another Oregon pinot gris --a King Estate 2007 "Signature Collection," which the NYT critic describes as "tangy and delicious with flavors of grapefruit, minerals and almonds."

I haven't tried this wine, but Thad Westhusing, of Beyond the Bottle, has and you can read his very favorable review here.

One last note: Asimov, at the very end of his column, talks about how an increasing number of lower cost American wines are now sealed with a metal screwcap. "This is great news," he says. "If you've found a wine you really like, at least it won't be corked."

That it won't be "corked" is true more or less by definition, but just because it has a screwcap doesn't mean it won't be spoiled by means of an improper or failed seal.  I recently had a bottle of pinot noir topped with a screwcap that was totally undrinkable -- it smelled and tasted rather violently of nail polish remover -- and was told that the wine had probably become spoiled because the screwcap hadn't been properly crimped to the neck of the bottle.

I, too, like screwcaps, but Asimov's unqualified enthusiasm for them is unwarranted.

Scott Paul Pinot: And The Winner Is ???

Here's an event to savor: the annual Copper River salmon catch and a group of "ordinary consumers" eager to blind taste some presumably good wine along with the fish.

"Ordinary consumers," for readers unfamiliar with this blog, are people who like wine and drink it regularly, but don't make a fetish of it and don't consider themselves experts. In my view, their opinions count far more than people at publications such as The Wine Spectator who take a couple of sips and pronounce a wine an "87" (as opposed to, say, an "86") and leave it at that, even though wines are constantly evolving , for better or for worse, in the bottle. Anyone who buys wine on the basis of numerical ratings is seriously misguided, but, human nature being what it is, many, many people do -- and winemakers love to tout favorable numbers.

Unless you're awash in money, Copper River Salmon is a special occasion dish that you have rarely, but when you do, you want to go for the best: the King -- at $37 a pound when I recently purchased it for the event described here.

A couple things to keep in mind: don't degrade the flavor of this magnificent fish with a sauce of any description, don't overcook it and pick the right wine: a wine that complements the fish -- not one that competes with it.

(Preparation: no matter how you cook it, the fish will be perfect if a thermometer reads no less than 125 degrees F and no more than 135 degrees F when inserted into the thickest part of the fillet or steak.)

Although various white and rosé wines would certainly go nicely with Copper River salmon, the right sort of pinot noir is also a great choice. What is the right sort? It is a pinot that is red-fruit focused, relatively light in body and nicely balanced between fruit and acidity. The wrong kind is a full-bodied, dark, somewhat extracted pinot that, if sourced from the U.S. west coast, is likely to be somewhat sweet as a result of all that fruit.

An excellent and  relatively affordable choice, in my humble opinion, is Oregon winemaker Scott Paul Wright's entry-level pinot noir: the

Scott Paul "Cuveé Martha Pirrie" (about $25 a bottle) 

Along with grilled Copper River salmon, green beans, corn on the cob and a salad, six of us blind tasted three vintages of the Cuveé Martha Pirrie: a 2003, a 2005 and the current release, a 2007.

The outcome was interesting -- certainly a result to confound the "experts."  If three points is awarded for a first place finish, two points for second and one point for third, the three vintages finished in a dead heat: 12 points apiece.

But there is another way of looking at it: first-place finishes only.

On that basis, the '03 won with three first place awards. The '07 came in second with two and the '05 came in last with one.

It take a fair amount of time and effort to write this blog, but the reward is that, for better or for worse, I get the final word. (Aside from drinking the wine, that's the only reward, by the way!)

I was the only member of the panel who put the '05 first (and had no hesitation in doing so) because I felt it was the most  complex and best balanced of the three vintages.  While the '03 was good, I thought it was just a bit t0o sweet at this point in its life. As for the '07 , there was some flavor in the finish, or aftertaste, that I found somewhat unappealing, especially compared with the really nice finish of the '05.

But, as per the results above, mine was a minority view.

The bottom line: this was a great event with a fascinating outcome and we all had a wonderful time. And, yes, you too can try this in your very own home.

Finally, I hope Mr. Wright will not be too upset if I confess that despite all the talk about his wine, the star attraction was the salmon.

Resources:

Scott Paul Wines

Merry Edwards Sauvignon Blanc: 2008 vs 2007

When you choose a sauvignon blanc, what are you looking for:

1) Something you think might be similar to a chardonnay, but less expensive and maybe a little lighter?

2) Something assertively zesty with vibrant flavors of grapefruit or gooseberry -- a sauvignon blanc from New Zealand?

3) Something clean, crisp and flinty to go with oysters on the half shell -- like a Sancerre from the Loire region of France?

4) No style in particular -- just a flavorful, memorable white wine?

Sauvignon blanc seems to be the most protean of varietals -- a shape changer, if you will  -- depending on the soil and the traditions where it is grown,  and, of course, upon the approach taken by individual winemakers.

The first time I tried a Merry Edwards Sauvignon Blanc, not knowing what to expect, I pitted it against a Cloudy Bay offering from New Zealand.  It may have been an unfortunate choice because these two wines are so different. Drinking them at the same time served to emphasize the relative oakiness  of the Merry Edwards offering -- too much oak, I thought -- and I labeled it problematic. You can read about the comparison here if you wish.

That rating earned me the following rebuke from an anonymous commentator: "Merry Edwards S.B..."Problematic"? You have no clue!"

I assume he or she has not been back, having probably concluded I don't have a clue about much of anything.

Even though the content of the comment was not all that helpful, I took it seriously. Thus, with the recent release of the 2008 version of Merry Edwards' Sauvignon Blanc, I decided to take this wine on its own terms and instead of comparing it against something presumably similar from another winery, to compare it against the same thing a year earlier.

So this posting considers a:

Merry Edwards 2008 "Russian River Valley" Sauvignon Blanc ($30) and a

Merry Edwards 2007 "Russian River Valley" Sauvignon Blanc ($29).

In a nutshell, these are very similar wines. The 2007, having had a year in the cellar to mature, is now somewhat smoother, more intense, slightly heavier and a little fuller flavored than its younger sibling.  The 2008, at this point in its life, is slightly lighter, a touch more acidic and a little "fresher" tasting overall.  But these are subtleties: the flavors of these wines are almost identical.

This time I won't complain about the oak: all I will say is that in contrast to sauvignon blancs from New Zealand and the Loire (not to mention most insipid U.S. "wine by the glass" offerings), these are BIG white wines.

"Too floral," one of our regular panelists said. Indeed, give these wines a bit of oxygen and aromas, floral and fruity, start rising out of the glass.

"Not a fish wine," someone else said. I would agree, unless you are serving a rather rich fish dish -- lobster Newberg? A wide variety of chicken dishes would be good companions, however.

By the standards of a lot of very good, but far more crisp sauvignon blancs, there is a ton of fruit in Merry Edwards' offering. That, plus 100% French oak fermentation (18% new) undoubtedly contributes to the high cost of this wine. All that fruit also gives it a bit more sweetness than one might expect.

The winery talks about "tempting layers" unfolding and I would agree that this wine does have layers of flavor -- the 2007 after a year in the cellar more so than the 2008.  But, after similar aging, I sure the 2008 will get there, too.

So, in deference to a second tasting and to my caustic friend, I will drop the "problematic" rating and supplant it with Worth Considering for both the 2007 and 2008 versions. These wines are worth considering if your budget permits and if you like big, flavorful, somewhat buttery, somewhat oaky white wines.

But if you are looking for a good raw bar wine, forget it. Stick to the Sancerres first and the sauvignon blancs from New Zealand second.

Resources:

Merry Edwards Winery

Characteristics of Sauvignon Blanc