2005 Cakebread Cellars Zinfandel – USA, California, North Coast, Red Hills Lake County (3/2/2010)
Agree with some other tasters… sort of boozy taste with alcohol out of balance with what would otherwise be a fairly laid back, nicely styled Zin. Too bad. Blackberry jelly and fig newtons. Plenty of life left. (83 pts.)

Posted from CellarTracker on GrapeStories.com

Answer: Cru Beaujolais, the highest rating of Beaujolais wines. According to Wikipedia, this term refers to wines produced within one of 10 designated areas within Beaujolais. Forgive me if you already knew this. I didn’t, but I’m learning. I’ve never held Beaujolais in high regard. Beaujolais, to me, referred to the insipid Beaujolais Nouveau that for some strange reason attracts buyers each year solely because it is the first wine of the year.
I’m told that the gamay grape and Beaujolais have more to offer so I ‘ve started shopping for wines in anticipation of the WineBerserkers.com Wine Exploration Week 3/21-28/2010: BEAUJOLAIS. I may not know much about Cru-Boo and other Bojos yet, but I’ve already started to sprech the lingo.

2003 Egelhoff Cabernet Sauvignon – USA, California, Napa Valley (3/4/2010)
Jubilant nose of raspberries and flowers. Flavors of red berries, maraschino cherries, cedar box, and thyme. Tannins are a bit course. I expect that they will smooth out a bit over the next 2 years but then drink up as this wine is not a long term ager. Very good wine and outstanding effort considering the tough vintage. Could eek out another point if those tannins resolve. (87 pts.)

Posted from CellarTracker on GrapeStories.com

Okay, so we don’t usually treat fine wines like the “punch” bowl at a frat house. (If you do, please click here.) Wine is a serious beverage containing a serious drug. And, unlike prescriptions the pharmacy fills, the size of the “dose” can vary greatly. I feel differently after having a couple of glasses of Napa Cab at 14.6% Alcohol By Volume (ABV) than I feel after a couple of glasses of <13% Pinot Gris. That little extra percentage point or two can sneak up on you hard.
In the March 31 issue of Wine Spectator Magazine, contributing editor Matt Kramer issues what he calls Manifesto 2010. (You’ll need to be either a subscriber of Wine Spectator Online or buy the print magazine to get the full text.) Basically, Mr Kramer’s point is that wineries need to be more forthcoming — a nice way of saying be more honest — with the information they put on wine labels, especially when it comes to ABV percentages.
All those in favor, say “Aye.”
“Aye!”
Opposed?
[sound of crickets chirping]
That is the sound of the wine industry sitting on their hands. Why do some wineries fudge on label ABV percentages?
The first thing one must understand when it comes to the regulation of the wine, and in fact, the whole alcoholic beverage industry, is it is all about taxes. The Feds and the states want to collect excise taxes and all the regulations are written so that the government gets its pound of flesh. Wines lower than 14% ABV are federally taxed at a rate of $1.07 / gal. Wines over 14% are taxed at $1.57 / gal. And they do keep track. Wineries must report monthly their separate inventories of wines above and below the 14% mark. This little 50 cents per gallon difference can equate to a lot of money for a large winery and isn’t chicken feed for us little guys.
HOWEVER, for the final label approval, the federal government allows a leeway of plus or minus 1 percent on wines declared to be above 14% ABV and an even greater leeway of 1.5% on wines declared to be less than 14%. You can see that this leaves A LOT of wiggle room for a winery.
This does not mean that a winery can fudge downward in order to save money on their taxes — at least it shouldn’t. According to my reading of the regulation concerning label approval as it pertains to alcohol content (27 CFR 4.36), the winery is not allowed to fudge past the separations of tax classes (<14%, 14%-21%, 21%-24%). That is, a wine that is really 14.9% ABV can be labeled 14%, but not 13.9%, even though 13.9% is within the 1% range. A 13.9% ABV wine would be a different tax class. Still, being able to say a 14.9% wine is just 14% is potentially a profitable “lie” for a winery. That number 14 is almost magical with a minority, but very vocal minority, of wine collectors. To them, it represents the difference between classic, Old World styled wines and the, as they call them, New World fruit and alcohol bombs. The truth is a wine can be unbalanced at any alcohol level.
Some wiggle room in reported ABV is necessary. Wineries obtain Certificates of Label Approvals (COLA) and print labels often several years in advance of bottling. At Match, we print labels two vintages at a time to get a volume pricing break. Labels are printed for wines that still have months or even a couple of years to sit in the barrel. While in the barrel, wine evaporates. ABV percentage is changing and we must guesstimate what it will be at bottling. I do believe that most wineries can get much closer on their labels than that legally allowed range.
It doesn’t make much economic sense for wineries to change their back labels each year to give exact vintage details to the public. Labels are expensive to change except for vintage date and alcohol class. I do agree with Mr. Kramer that wineries should be more open. However, I think the public’s “thirst” for knowledge can be sated by using our websites better. I’m going to work on that at Match.
The government should just get rid of that 14% dividing line and I don’t just say that because Match Cabernet tends to be above 14%. Heck, charge everyone the higher of the two tax rates. That dividing line is based on winemaking from years ago. Interestingly, if a wine is below 14% ABV, you don’t actually have to state a percentage of ABV on the label. You can just call it “Table Wine”. When these regulations were written, few if any wines were over 14% ABV. Now, it’s more the norm. At least it would be if we were all being honest.
I guess the Feds agree that wineries need to clean up their act when reporting ABV percentages. According to the engrossingly named TTB Circular 2010-1 Alcohol Beverage Sampling Programs Target Advertising, Labeling, and Contents Compliance , the government is going to be concentrating this year on sampling wines off retail shelves to see if the label accurately describes the product.
Are there going to be any surprises?

2004 Bodega Asenjo & Manso Ribera del Duero Silvanus – Spain, Castilla y León, Ribera del Duero (2/13/2010)
Fruit and earth aromas explode from the glass. Extremely rich and sweet mouthfeel: dried cherries, ripe plums, bacon, cranberry(?), freshly-plowed wet earth. Liberal use of toasty oak but not off-putting in this package. Balanced. Just a touch of rustic character links a modern wine making style with simple vino tinto roots. Unfortunately wine-searcher doesn’t show any availability because this one would tempt me. About $60 from a pricey restaurant wine list but I’d say it would be worth that retail. Excellent with a wonderful future. 92+ (92 pts.)

Posted from CellarTracker on GrapeStories.com

2007 Green & Red Vineyards Zinfandel Chiles Canyon – USA, California, Napa Valley (2/15/2010)
This wine would have never been on my radar screen but I was about to pick another Zin from a restaurant wine list and the waiter recommended this one instead. He said it was drinking fantastically right now. He was right. Round sweet cherry with some wood smoke, bacon fat, a dash of pepper, and cloves. A fleshy, mouth filling wine without being heavy. Very understated for a Zin and excellent complement to the varied dishes around the table. About 50 bucks on the 350 Main (Park City) wine list seems like a deal. (90 pts.)

Posted from CellarTracker on GrapeStories.com

Now I’ll never get in. At least if anyone pays attention to Gayot.com (the self-proclaimed “Guide to the Good Life”) and MSN.com
Bardessano (Yountville) makes list of 10 Best New Restaurants in the US.
What is the best restaurant in your town?

I just finished a week trying some Loire Valley wines with fellow members of the wine board WineBerserkers.com. This was a virtual tasting. Board members around the country tried their Loire Valley wines during a one week period and wrote about them online.

If you want to increase your odds of buying wines that you will enjoy, get to know your local retailer and let them get to know you. Once he knows your tastes and budget, he should be able to help you navigate your options. If not, find another retailer. I didn’t know much about Loire Valley wines and had to go shopping to be able to participate in the tasting. On the recommendation of a staff member at Paul Marcus Wines (Oakland), I bought a Cab Franc (my 83 points), a “dry” Chenin Blanc (flawed), a Sauvignon Blanc (my 78 pts), and a sparkling wine — a very generalized sampling of the wines of the Loire. I’d never shopped at Paul Marcus so as a result, the staffer, who wanted to be helpful, didn’t know me and was just guessing on what I might like. Unfortunately, his guesses didn’t pan out.

Here is the third tasting note:
2007 Domaine Deletang Montlouis-sur-Loire Sec Les Batisses – France, Loire Valley, Touraine, Montlouis-sur-Loire (2/25/2010) Lemon furniture polish and watermelon bubblegum. Also a bit maderized. I originally panned this wine with a below average score but have thought more about that oxidation. Perhaps a damaged bottle. NR (flawed)
Posted from CellarTracker on GrapeStories.com

To say the Loire wines did not immediately sweep me off my feet would be an understatement. However, since they are relatively inexpensive, we can afford another date. I’ll need to retry the Cab Franc (2004 Clos Rougeard (Foucault) Saumur-Champigny) as apparently I didn’t give it enough air and it needed more cellar time. I was also expecting a bigger wine with more robust flavors. Apparently that was a false expectation. It would have been helpful if that salesman had made some serving recommendations along with the wine recommendations.
While Loire Valley wines are, in my opinion, under-the-radar of the general U.S. wine drinking public, they are popular and considered distinctive and a good value by wine enthusiasts. I won’t write them off as I am apparently missing something with this very limited exploration. As with any new wine region, the advice is to keep drinking. I still have to try that sparkler. I’ve got my fingers crossed.

Similar quality, but I only paid 12 bucks for the Carménère retail and paid $50 for the Cab off a restaurant wine list. BYOB is my friend.

2007 Viña Ventisquero Carménère Root:1 [The Original Ungrafted] – Chile, Central Valley, Rapel Valley, Colchagua Valley (2/18/2010)
Aromas of baked fruit, pepper, and violets but rather simple sour cherry flavors in the mouth. Still, quite pleasant and recommended at $11.99 retail. (84 pts.)

2007 Beringer Vineyards Cabernet Sauvignon Knights Valley – USA, California, Sonoma County, Knights Valley (2/14/2010)
Expressive cassis and tobacco flavors backed up by a healthy dose of sweet new oak, however it finishes very short and thin. Disappointing given the vintage. (82 pts.)

Posted from CellarTracker on GrapeStories.com