f22nickell
Posts: 1997
Joined: 7/13/2011
From: From CA, living in Maple Valley, WA.
Status: offline
|
(Sorry guys for taking so long)
Introduction
Once again, the "Seattle fellas" met in the Amaroso room at Wine Storage Bellevue for their monthly wine tasting (and recently evolved into) culinary event.
This month was Mike's turn to host. His theme choice was "Red wines from the Southern Hemisphere." Wide open options for this one.
As for food, we jokingly suggested Mike order pizzas so we could 'reset' the culinary part of the night to manageable status as the food at our events has evolved at a Logarithmic rate!
... Of course, Mike did no such thing ... He brought some wonderful homemade pork carnitas with Spanish rice and all the sides/fixins!
Unfortunately, no pics this time ... probably too busy eating the wonderful food
....
On to the aperitifs ...
Flight 1 - Wine with dinner
We had a nice assortment of wines to go with dinner. Henry brought a very interesting Amaroso, Freelon brought a nice Bordeaux, and Scott (me) opened a nice Oregon Pinot.
2004 Allegrini Amarone della Valpolicella Classico - 91 Points
Italy, Veneto, Valpolicella, Amarone della Valpolicella Classico
Henry brought this to the tasting as an Aperitif. I did not take detailed notes.
Nose: This wine does not smell flawed. Medium intensity. Primal fruit aroma of yellow raisins, dried cherries, and a hint of plum. Secondary notes of licorice, spice and a hint of chocolate. Later in evening it turned a bit vegetal with a strong sense of tomato paste. Some earth on the nose, in the form of a meatiness aura to it. Minor detection of new oak and there is some heat.
Palate: This wine is medium bodied, velvety. This wine has primary raisin fruit flavors. Secondary flavors include spice with some chocolate, cedar, and a hint of caramel. Again, the wine tastes a bit meaty without really having meaty flavors. Some use of new oak. Raisin and spice compete for flavor dominance, but the dance is complimentary.
Structure: This wine is dry. Acid is medium. Alcohol is medium plus. Tannins are medium. Finish is medium. Complexity is medium to medium-high.
Final Thoughts: This is well-made bottle of wine. The acid, alcohol, tannin, and flavors are all balanced. The bottle is classic Amarone; I finished the glass with a sense of “that was nice.” Nothing showed as out of place … Unfortunately, nothing really showed as memorable either. I didn’t get a sense of much depth, intrigue, or desire to explore it more. Perhaps that is as it should be … Just a very nice glass of wine.
2000 Chateau Marquis de Terme - 90 Points
France, Bordeaux, Médoc, Margaux
Setting: Freelon brought this to the tasting to go with Mike’s Carnitas dinner. I did not take detailed notes.
Nose: This wine does not smell flawed. Medium intensity. Primal fruit aromas of mixed blue and black fruit, blackberries primarily. Secondary notes of earth, lavender, and some herbes de provence. Definite earth on the nose, even a bit of chalky minerality. Minor detection of new oak, no real heat detected.
Palate: This wine is full bodied, velvety. This wine has primary black fruit flavors. Secondary flavors include cedar and textbook cigar box. Definite sense use of new oak, but not overbearing. A bit jammy, but that is probably due to the Merlot in the wine and my sensitivity to it..
Structure: This wine is dry. Acid is medium plus. Alcohol is medium. Tannins are medium and well integrated. Finish is medium to long. Complexity is medium-low.
Final Thoughts: Not very knowledgeable about Bordeaux wines, but this appeared to be a nicely made bottle of wine. The acid is a bit high, but at a good level to keep the jamminess in check. The alcohol, tannin, and flavors are well balanced. Not much more to say than this was another nice glass of wine for the evening.
2008 Amalie Robert Pinot Noir Estate - 92 Points
USA, Oregon, Willamette Valley
Setting: I brought this to the tasting to go with Mike’s Carnitas dinner. I did not take detailed notes.
Nose: This wine does not smell flawed. Aromas are of red fruit; cherries and cranberries specifically. Secondary notes of orange peel with hints of sous bois and forest floor. I pick up very little oak or heat on the nose.
Palate: This wine is medium bodied. This wine has flavors of cherry, strawberry, and a hint of cranberry. Lush mouthfeel, very silky.. Secondary flavors of orange peel and spice. The palate has a definite crispness. There are echoes of earthiness, but definitely more reserved on the palate than the nose. Trace of minerality, but no heat.
Structure: This wine is dry. Acid is medium plus. Alcohol is medium. Tannins are medium minus and well integrated. Finish is long. Complexity is medium.
Final Thoughts: This is really good bottle of wine. Flavors, tannins, alcohol and acid are in great balance. The acid, contrasted with the orange peel and earthy secondary flavors, speak well of this wine maturing over time. Wonderful now, worth keeping a bottle around to see what it becomes.
Very close call to the 2005 Craggy Range Sophia, but this was my WOTN
My last bottle ... DEFINITELY need to get some more.
Flight 2 - Southern Hemisphere Reds
Blind Tasting
2005 Craggy Range Sophia - 92 Points
New Zealand, North Island, Hawkes Bay, Gimblett Gravels
Red Bordeaux Blend – New Zealand/North Island
Setting: Bottle “A” in the blind tasting. Notes were taken before I knew the wine identity.
Sight: This wine is bright but a bit cloudy; no evidence of gas or particles. Color is garnet with ruby hues at the core with very little color variation or fading to the meniscus. Light concentration of color. Legs are thick and move slow down the glass.
Nose: This wine does not smell flawed. Medium Intensity. Strong aromas of black cherry, blackberry, and plum. The wine has secondary notes of dusty cocoa power, a hint of licorice, and a slight herbal character. Some hints of oak in the form of slight cedar and tobacco smells, but not overt. I pick up very little heat on the nose. This wine smells young.
Palate: This wine is medium bodied. The palate follows the nose but, unfortunately, the fruit is a bit muted. Hints of cocoa with traces of sweet blue/black fruit. Firm tannins and oak is a bit noticeable, suggests it still needs a few more years to integrate. Wine does open up a bit more on second go around.
Structure: This wine is dry. Acid is medium. Alcohol is medium. Tannins are medium plus and starting to integrate. Finish is long. Complexity is medium.
Conclusion: This wine is a Bordeaux Blend, heavy on Merlot and Cab Franc. Acid and alcohol are straight across medium, suggest this to be a fairly normal vintage. Quality producer.
Final thoughts: This is wine appears to be well made. I also believe this my offering, the 2005 Craggy Range Sophia; however, this wine tastes a bit younger than a 2005. Balance is good, but unsure if the fruit will last long enough for the tannins and oak to fully integrate. Not a quality indicator as many folks enjoy their older wines with little to no fruit and lots of secondary/tertiary flavors. Still, I really enjoyed this bottle of wine, especially on the second go around. Hard to differentiate on my notes, but still it improved. This was my WOTF. The group as whole agreed as no one ranked this lower than 2nd place.
My Ranking: 1st out of 6 bottles (Flawed bottle not included)
Group Ranking: 1st out of 6 bottles (Flawed bottle not included)
2011 Mollydooker Shiraz The Boxer - 83 Points
Australia, South Australia
Shiraz – South Australia
Setting: Bottle “B” in the blind tasting. Notes were taken before I knew the wine identity.
Sight: This wine is bright; no evidence of gas or particles. Color is light purple at the core with very little color variation or fading to the meniscus. Light concentration of color. Legs are thick and move slow down the glass.
Nose: This wine does not smell flawed. Medium Intensity. Candied raspberry/blackberry aromas. The wine has secondary notes of caramel, pepper, and cinnamon. Some hints of oak. I pick up a lot of heat on the nose. This wine smells very young.
Palate: This wine is medium bodied. This wine is a candied (alcoholic) fruit bomb; blueberry, blackberry, caramel, spice, and sugar. Secondary notes of pepper on the finish. Firm tannins and noticeable oak suggest this wine is very young. Lots of heat.
Structure: This wine is dry. Acid is medium minus. Alcohol is medium plus. Tannins are medium, not at all integrated. Finish is medium. Complexity is low.
Conclusion: This wine is a young Aussie fruit bomb Shiraz. This wine poorly balanced … Acid is low, alcohol is high, fruit low, oak high. Hot vintage or poor production? Supermarket quality wine; poor producer or mass production.
Final thoughts: This is wine appears to be poorly made. This wine is a very young, high alcohol, fruit bomb mess. Balance is way out of whack. Seems the group agreed as this wine came in dead last overall (save for the flawed bottle.)
My Ranking: 5th out of 6 bottles (Flawed bottle not included)
Group Ranking: 6th out of 6 bottles (Flawed bottle not included)
2011 Southern Right Pinotage - 79 Points
South Africa, Walker Bay
Pinotage – South Africa/Walker Bay
Setting: Bottle “C” in the blind tasting. Notes were taken before I knew the wine identity.
Sight: This wine is star bright; Some evidence of gas, but no particles. Color is light ruby at the core with very little color variation or fading to the meniscus. Light concentration of color. Legs are thin and move very fast down the glass.
Nose: This wine does not smell flawed. Light intensity. Primary fruit aromas of red fruit and dark cherry. The wine has strong secondary notes of smoke. No hints of oak. I do not pick up any heat on the nose. This wine smells very young.
Palate: This wine is light bodied and very insipid; tastes almost like it was watered-down. No real fruit flavors, just strong smoky, bramble, and earthy flavors. A hint of soy and meat as well. Very little tannins. Very little to see here.
Structure: This wine is dry. Acid is medium. Alcohol is low. Tannins are low. Finish is very short. Complexity is low.
Conclusion: I assume this must be a Pinotage as the aroma is the tell-tale smokiness. Being a southern hemisphere wine tasting event, I feel confident this to be a Pinotage from South Africa.
Final thoughts: This was my first Pinotage so not able to compare against any baseline. Comparing it to other red wines, it really comes across like it was watered down, almost half-n-half water/wine. The acids came across as the primary driver of this wine, but only because everything else was so insipid.
I do not like this wine. Others appeared to enjoy it or have had others in which to compare this bottle.
My Ranking: 6th out of 6 bottles (Flawed bottle not included)
Group Ranking: 4th out of 6 bottles (Flawed bottle not included)
2008 Bodega Catena Zapata Cabernet Sauvignon Catena Alta - 91 Points
Argentina, Mendoza
Cabernet/Malbec – Argentina/Mendoza
Setting: Bottle “D” in the blind tasting. Notes were taken before I knew the wine identity.
Sight: This wine is bright; No evidence of gas or particles. Color is dark violet at the core with very little color variation or fading to the meniscus. Deep concentration of color. Legs are medium and move slowly down the glass.
Nose: This wine does not smell flawed. Strong intensity. Primary fruit aromas of blue and black fruit, mainly black cherry. The wine has secondary notes of dark chocolate, licorice, violet, pepper, and some herbs. Strong oak on this wine, but it was mature and unobtrusive. I do not pick up any heat on the nose. This wine smells very ripe, suggest is a bit young.
Palate: This wine is medium bodied and a bit lush in the mouth. Primary fruit flavors of currants. Secondary vegetal and brambly notes. Lots of mineral flavor. Tannins are unobtrusive.
Structure: This wine is dry. Acid is medium. Alcohol is medium.
Tannins are medium, but well integrated to feel almost low. Finish is medium. Complexity is low to medium.
Conclusion: My guess is this is an Aussie Shiraz from a good quality producer. There are strong Cab Sauvignon indicators, but the fruit forward pepper leads me more towards the Shiraz. The wine is well balanced, but the complexity is a bit low.
Final thoughts: This was a nice bottle of wine. It had a nice structure, good mouthfeel, wonderful nose, and a decent finish. The only downside was it just flowed from start to finish without any changes or wow factors. It was sort of “just there.” Still, it was well made, enjoyable wine. This wine was a close second for me in the rankings behind bottle “A.” The rest of the guys, collectively, voted it #2 as well, but the votes were a bit more scattered.
My Ranking: 2nd out of 6 bottles (Flawed bottle not included)
Group Ranking: 2nd out of 6 bottles (Flawed bottle not included)
2001 Elderton Shiraz Single Vineyard Command - 90 Points
Australia, South Australia, Barossa
Shiraz – Barossa
Setting: Bottle “E” in the blind tasting. Notes were taken before I knew the wine identity.
Sight: This wine is bright; No evidence of gas or particles. Color is light purple at the core fading to garnet about 1/8” from the meniscus. Light concentration of color. Legs are thin and move quickly down the glass.
Nose: This wine does not smell flawed. medium intensity. Primary fruit aromas of blueberries and blackberries. The wine has secondary notes of menthol, with a hint of chocolate. Detectable oak on this wine, but it was unobtrusive. I picked up some heat on the nose.
Palate: This wine is medium bodied and a bit lush in the mouth, great mouthcoating. Primary fruit flavors of blackberries and some cherry; very fruit forward; a bit jammy even. Minimal secondary notes; maybe a hint of chocolate and spice. No detectable earth or minerals. Tannins and oak are well integrated, almost undetectable. You can taste the alcohol, but it doesn’t come across as high or excessive.
Structure: This wine is dry. Acid is low. Alcohol is medium to medium plus. Tannins are medium, but well integrated. Finish is medium. Complexity is low.
Conclusion: My guess is this is an Aussie Shiraz from a decent quality producer. The wine is fruit forward, but the well integrated tannins and color lead me to believe this wine has some age. The fruit and alcohol with low acid suggest this is a warmer than normal vintage.
Final thoughts: This was a nice bottle of wine. It had a great, lush mouthfeel, but it was fairly one dimensional. This wine was saying “I can really only give you one thing, but I do it pretty well.” Different flavor profile, but similar experience to the previous wine, the 2008 Cantena. The off balanced acid/fruit profile dropped this #3 for me. The rest of guys voted it #3 as well, but a pretty wide spread in the voting.
My Ranking: 3rd out of 6 bottles (Flawed bottle not included)
Group Ranking: 3rd out of 6 bottles (Flawed bottle not included)
2004 Henry's Drive Shiraz - 87 Points
Australia, South Australia, Limestone Coast, Padthaway
Shiraz – Pathadway, Limestone Coast, South Australia
Setting: Bottle “F” in the blind tasting. Notes were taken before I knew the wine identity.
Sight: This wine is bright; No evidence of gas or particles. Color is medium purple at the core fading to ruby about 1/8” from the meniscus. Medium concentration of color. Legs are thick and move slowly down the glass.
Nose: This wine does not smell flawed. Strong intensity. Primary black fruit aromas, a hint of cherry syrup. The wine has secondary notes of violet and rose petals, with some eucalyptus traces. No detectable oak on this wine. I picked up some significant heat on the nose.
Palate: This wine is heavy bodied with a great mouthfeel; almost as nice as the Elderton Shiraz. Primary fruit flavors of ripe blueberries and blackberries; very fruit forward. Secondary flavors of menthol with some traces of talc on the tongue. Side notes of cedar, spice, and mocha are noted. Tannins are silky and the oak is well integrated. You can taste the alcohol, but it doesn’t come across as high or excessive.
Structure: This wine is dry. Acid is medium minus. Alcohol is medium to medium plus. Tannins are medium. Finish is long. Complexity is medium.
Conclusion: My guess is this is an Aussie Shiraz from a high quality producer. The wine is fruit forward, but the silky tannins suggest this wine has around 8-10 years on it. The balance suggests this wine comes from a standard vintage.
Final thoughts: This was an all-around, made by numbers, kind of wine. Everything had its “check in the box,” but no real soul; nothing memorable. Although, when broken down to its elements, each part comes across as well made and full of character, this time the “sum whole is NOT greater than its parts. To me, the overall product ranked pretty low for me in this grouping. For the fellas, it ranked even lower still.
My Ranking: 4th out of 6 bottles (Flawed bottle not included)
Group Ranking: 5th out of 6 bottles (Flawed bottle not included)
2006 Achaval-Ferrer Quimera - Flawed
Argentina, Mendoza, Lujan de Cuyo
Ugh ... Soggy cardboard.
Closing
This was an interesting tasting. We didn't have a lot of wild swings in the ratings this month. For the most part, the group voted very similar on most wines. We had a few outliers on some wines, but these were more in the lower ranked wines. For the most part, we were all very close in our ranking of our #1, #2, and #3 wines.
For me personally, a couple of observations ...
1) Who knew a Bordeaux blend from New Zealand, North Island, could taste so good?
2) I still don't like Pinotage ... at all :-)
_____________________________
“ Go, eat your food with gladness, and drink your wine with a joyful heart, for it is now that God favors what you do. ”
— Ecclesiastes 9:7
F22nickell on CT ...
S_Nickell on WB ...
|
Printable Version
SEA Wine Tasting Group - Oct 2013 - Theme: Sourthern He... - 
) Being kind and giving myself 1/2 point for having South Africa on my paper for the pinotage, guessed the country correctly 3 1/2 out of six. Did better than I thought I would going into it. 
... but we need to stop telling people about it!
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread