Sorry to fall behind on the wines. Definitely looking for Educated Guess.

I can't complain.

champion. take me to vegas. take me there.

With cocaine.

I found where it was supposed to be, but they were out of it. I also found 7 deadly zins for $11 after paying $19 last time.

Very nice. That's a good deal, then add in the case discount.

No case discount, but I should probably get a case anyway.

Sadly, only three bottles of the '09 Donum remained, but they are safely residing with me. I did find some other potentially interesting wines that I'll review between Saturday and Tuesday since the wife is leaving with the stepson for Spring Break on Saturday and I don't fly out to AZ until Wednesday.

That's today, right?

Have you ever tried Apothic Red? My wife was at the K&H at Costco getting a couple bottles of Maitre D and the 7 Deadly Zins, and the guy behind the counter asked her about them. She said she was getting them for me, and he opined that if I liked those I'd really like the Apothic. When she got home with it, I was thinking he was a jerk for up selling her. With our steaks last week, I'd have to say I was happily surprised. It went for less than the Zins, and it was really good. No longer mad at the guy. We had the 2012.

It made me wonder, The blend is Zinfandel, Syrah, Cabernet Sauvignon and Merlot. Some of those age considerably better in the bottle than others, right? How do you determine how long to keep or to wait on a blend? Once you blend, do you even care?

Leo doc is the expert, but AFAIK basically every economically priced bottle is meant to be drunk in the first year or two. I haven't found that aging cheap wine helps, actually in most cases where I kept them like 4 years+ they got noticeably worse. $15 cabs might do OK for a few years, but I don't think setting them down for 7-10+ years is going to be beneficial.

I could be totally wrong on this, but...

Here is an article posted today on facebook by 3 buddies of mine who I grew up with who own winestyr and are basically breaking through and doing what Pandora and Spotify did for music except they are doing it for wines. And making some better wines available that otherwise wouldn't be available for consumption nationally.

http://www.tcwmag.com/winestyr-com/

Beckmen Ganache is great. $20-$30

My wife loves La Marca Prosecco $11 at Costco

Any non-chard awesome whites???

Mollydooker's The Violinist is very good. I'd rate it 9.2 and value it .

From the article:

Tell your pals I'd be willing to help them with the bolded part.

You're certainly not totally wrong on this and, for the most part, you're correct. Here's the "Reader's Digest" version of why:

Back in 70s and 80s, a number of the CA vintners wanted to make their wines approachable more quickly than what had traditionally been the norm, but they didn't want to surrender the quality or complexity of the wine in doing so. (And since time is money, they also wanted to decrease their time-to-market.) I mean everyone pretty much knew that you could reduce the tannins or stop the fermentation a bit early- thereby leaving a bit of the sugar in the wine- and have a wine that's "drinkable" pretty quick. And, in fact, that's exactly what a lot of the producers of "cheap" wine did.

But for the guys making really good wines (Phelps, Mondavi, BV, etc.), the quest became one of preserving the quality and bringing the wine to its apogee within a few years of bottling. Until then, winemaking was largely an art and little had materially changed for centuries.

Enter the School of Viticulture and Enology at UC Davis. While they date their origins back to 1880, it wasn't until 1935 that their current department was established. (Prohibition had put a damper on the department's activities.) From their website:

It was this "later research" that put science into the art of winemaking thanks to some dedicated guys like Calli doing what I considered the Lord's Work in enology. And that research- largely fundedd by the CA wine industry- has fundamentally changed winemaking worldwide. The program has also produced some of today's top winemakers.

So Cap'n, you're right that many of the less expensive wines are meant for early consumption and, generally, don't benefit much from additional aging and can decline over time. But the primary reason that more expensive wines will hold/improve their flavor has more to do with the quality of the grape(s) used to make it. Economically produced wines often buy their grapes as surplus inventory from many growers. (Iow, they're using the left-overs.) Sure, modern winemaking- thanks to UC Davis- allows some of these wines to be well-crafted and very enjoyable.

But the very best are still made with the best grapes and those aren't cheap, nor are they comparatively plentiful. And, also thanks to UC Davis, we can enjoy them a lot sooner than in years past.

I was fortunate that my wine education began about the time that this "later research" was really beginning to impact the wine industry. It's been a fun and rewarding experience.

Here's one I had last night:




And it was a very respectable wine. The nose was a good, clean Merlot-ish kind of thing. It didn't pass the "no see 'um" test", but that was OK. Solid fruit and a hint that the finish was gonna be good. Unfortunately, the tannin reared its head at the last moment an made an unwelcome entry in the tasting experience. A pity really, because I'd have rated this wine higher without the last-minute astringency.

Taste: 8.7/10

Value:

WE: + 1/2

hmmm....from the tasting notes:

"It is said in our business that the true test of a winery is the ability to produce an excellent wine in a difficult vintage. Make no mistake, the 2011 vintage was one that we will all remember as, quite possibly, the most challenging in the last 35 years; especially when it came to Merlot. Given those challenges we are proud to have succeeded in producing a wine that is both charming now and will have a place in our cellars for decades to come."

Well, it's halftime during the UK-UConn game so I thought I'd post another wine.



Overall, I'm pretty impressed for an $18 wine. There was an annoying mustiness on the front end of this wine (as is common with a bunch of the Argentinean wines), but it dissipated after about 30 minutes. Color was inky and dense and it agreed with me.

The nose was standard and not special. It also didn't improve with time.

The initial pour had the promise of big fruit and old tennis shoe. Twenty minutes later, it improved considerably. Plenty of backbone and structure to this very masculine wine. Drink it with something of substance like lasagna or some other Italian food that the Argentineans might naturally compete with.

Taste: 8.8/10

Value:

WE: + 1/2

Was gonna do reviews of the 07 RunRig and the Trefethon chard but unable to get pix from my phone to the iPad. We'll be drinking (at least) six wines tonight and I hope Jesse can help me get this picture business sorted out so the reviews can flow.

Champion

Supreme?????

There are two world-class wines in that group. Anybody wanna guess which two.

Obviously the velvet glove, and then maybe the fifth from left whose name I can't read?

The Mollydooker was really good and luscious and was the favorite of some folks. The Ovid, however, was truly magnificent and I cannot think of a better wine that I've had in at least five years.

What about the Pride? I have a bottle waiting to be opened.