Smithy

Over on the eGCI's Evaluating Wine class, I tried out three wines for one exercise: * Solaris Special Release Pinot Noir, 2003 * Cline Ancient Vines Mourvedre, 2002 * Alderbrook OVOC Dry Creek Zinfandel, 2000 The purpose of this particular exercise was to begin learning the characteristics of selected varietals, so we were supposed to pick wines that were true to type. Cline was recommended but the others that I picked weren't listed among the recommended vintners. I picked them anyway because we keep these particular wines around the house. The mourvedre and zinfandel are tried-and-true favorites, and the Solaris is something we keep sometimes. We're still trying to decide about it - it seems variable from one bottle to the next. My question to the assembled masses is, how true to type are these wines that I chose to evaluate? Cline mourvedre is pretty distinctive, but it's the only mourvedre I've ever tasted except in a blend. Would I know another unblended mourvedre if I tasted it? I'm particularly interested in someone's assessment of the Solaris because it's new, it seems a bit on the spotty side, and my poor grip on wines is even more meager when it comes to pinot noir. For those of you who are interested in learning about how to taste wines, and how to assess and describe what you taste, I highly recommend this course. It's well presented, and Rebel Rose is somehow making the time to provide thoughtful answers to exhaustive questions.

Last night I set out to do Assignment 3. I looked at the 6 wine bottles I've already opened this week - and flying solo on this class - and decided I'd better revisit them rather than open yet another bottle. This wasn't entirely a fair test, considering that the white wine bottles were by then on their 4th night open (although corked and in the refrigerator) and the reds had been open 1 night (corked and on the counter). Still, I thought I'd get something out of re-evaluating them. Beringer Chenic Blanc 2003: Maybe that's an under-ripe smell and flavor I'm getting. It seemed short, somehow (as in not full). I'll go with under-ripe. Still, it has an unctuous mouthfeel and seems honeyed. Those are two very useful words to add to my wine vocabulary. The semi-sweet character seems like honey rather than sugar. For my tastes it was overdone and tended to override the fruit flavor. In trying to decide just what fruit flavor I was getting, I broke out the aroma kit although that wasn't in the instructions. My best guess was apple, but it wasn't very distinct. I didn't get a hint of butter on the nose, so I'm guessing there was no malolactic conversion for this. By the way, this didn't make any legs, even on my good glassware. Does that mean this is a relatively low-alcohol (including glycerol) wine? Final question about this one: is that honey flavor from residual sugar? Rancho Zabaco Dancing Bull Sauvignon Blanc, 2000: I didn't like this on Monday night, and the few redeeming qualities it may have had were gone by last night. I couldn't taste a bit of fruit. The nose may have had a hint of lemon, but I'd call it the standard Eureka lemon rather than a Meyer. (I hasten to add that this wine had not turned detectably toward vinegar; it wasn't that far gone.) That high thin hot note I noted on the first night was worse. Does this indicate little to no residual sugar? Again, remembering that this had been opened several days before, my assessment might not be representative of the freshly opened bottle, but I wouldn't buy this wine again since I didn't like it the first night either. I like sauvignon blancs in general, and there are better ones available for the money. Beringer Founders Estate Chardonnay, 2003: Absolutely, positively butter on the nose. So this has had a malolactic conversion? How would I know whether it's full or partial? There was also a smell of honey and apples. The apples were unmistakeable once I compared to the aroma kit. Fuller mouthfeel than the others, a distinct oak, almost too much for my tastes. Then the surprise: as I tasted that wine, tasted the other whites, smelled against the aroma kits, and came back, I suddenly was tasting POPCORN with the oak! Once I tasted the popcorn, it was there, and I couldn't shake it. I liked it. This wine had more depth than I'd noticed the first night. I take that to be an indication of what I'm learning rather than the wine itself getting that much better. Overall I'm still not crazy about this particular wine - the honey starts to cloy - but it's better and more interesting than I thought at first. I still had tastebuds and energy left to try the two reds I'd opened the night before. I didn't bother with the Solaris, since it hadn't had much to say for itself the previous night without food, and because I was running out of steam. Alderbrook OVOC Dry Creek Zinfandel, 2000: No butter on the nose. None. So that means no malolactic conversion? How hard and fast is this correlation? The smell was fruity and the flavor was ripe. The wine wasn't as unctuous as the chardonnay had been. This wine has definite structure, but seemed less complex than the mourvedre. The aromas and flavors were all fruit, as near as I could make out. The closest thing in my aroma kit seemed to be peaches (not what I'd have expected). It didn't match the raspberries at all. I couldn't make out any pepper, any other spices, and herbs. There was no detectable oak. Cline Ancient Vines Mourvedre, 2002: It smells RIPE. Ripest of the bunch. The overwhelming smell was of grapes, good ripe grapes, and based on the writeup I'm guessing they were picked at exactly the right time, and came from a good season. There wasn't a trace of butter on the nose or oak on the tongue. There were some hints of something I couldn't quite identify, some herbs or spices; the closest match from the aroma kit were tarragon and cloves, but it wasn't dead certain. The tomacco and smoke notes were unmistakeable. Maybe there was chocolate, too? I tried some dark chocolate (anything for an excuse) and found that the wine and chocolate matched well - no surprise there - and that the chocolate smoothed out the rough edges of the wine. Back to the subtlety and manipulation point: again, I'd guess this didn't have a ML conversion. Based on the writeup, I'm guessing this does have some residual sugar, but it doesn't taste sweet. It does taste full. As always, comments and insights are welcome. Boy, this is fun!

It is! I've never been a fan of barbecue sauce, but my husband loves it and tends to use it in his slow-cooker recipes. I've gone from accepting it to actively liking some of it (Famous Dave's Hot 'n' Spicy is the current fave). After the eGCI braising lab I was on a roll, thoroughly sick of bottom round roast but ready to try braising ribs, and with a sudden windfall of cheap baby back ribs. (Those ribs were so cheap I keep wondering whether those cows were mad as hatters, but the deed is done now.) After browning the ribs I deglazed with beef stock or wine, depending on what was handy, and then added a bunch of the sauce from the jar. It was very, very good. Go for it!

Wow, thank you for all that! For the moment I just have one question (I'm still absorbing): What do you mean by the statement I highlighted in bold text below? I'm not quite sure I'm following this part. Are you saying that the "legs" won't be visible unless the glycerol reaches 28 g/l, or that the sum of all the alcohol has to reach that point? Do my mourvedre legs tell me there's more glycerol, hence a more perceived sweetness, or that there's a higher overall alcohol content? Sorry to seem thick on that part. The rest is clear, very helpful, and gives me a lot to ponder.

I assume your All-Clad SS soup pot has metal handles? If so, your soup pot will do just fine in the oven, as well as on the stove top, and you don't need to worry about going from one to the other. I used to do that all the time with my Revere stainless steel stock pot (aluminum disk bottom) with no ill effect.

For Lab 2, I assessed the following: * Solaris Special Release Pinot Noir, 2003, 13.6% alcohol * Cline Ancient Vines Mourvedre, 2002, 14.5% alcohol * Alderbrook OVOC Dry Creek Zinfandel, 2000 (% alcohol not listed) The Solaris and Alderbrook weren't among those you recommended, but these are all wines we keep on hand because we like them. Well, the Solaris is new and on probation, so to speak; the quality seems spotty. But it's inexpensive, and has generally been good. This bottle didn't seem to be as good as some. Appearance: all a pleasant deep red, of course. The zinfandel had a tinge of orange; the mourvedre and pinot noir were more on the purple side. Legs: well formed for all three. The pinot noir was slowest to form legs. The zinfandel had the least distinct legs. The mourvedre had viscous legs that were spaced farther apart than in the other two. Interesting. What does it mean? Nose: here, it really was most useful to compare and contrast the three. At first sniff, all smelled pleasantly like wine but without any distinctive odors - no strong alcohol, for instance. None had detectable oaks or butter notes. As I sniffed back and forth, I could start to tell differences. Pinot noir: lightest aroma of the three. Smelled vaguely floral. Mourvedre: reminded me more of unfermented grape juice than of wine Zinfandel: fruit and alcohol. After sniffing the others and coming back, there was a detectable spice note. Then the sipping began. Pinot Noir: mouthfeel was thin, astringent. The wine was pleasant but rather nondescript; I really couldn't come up with anything to say about it beyond "nice finish". It didn't change much as I rolled and tasted the mouthful. To be fair, this bottle had been open a night already and may have suffered. Mourvedre: mouthfeel fuller, still astringent. I think it had noticeable tannins. It definitely had structure, changing as I held it, and...ahhh, a smoky finish. I got cigar tobacco! THAT's what people are talking about! Zinfandel: fullest mouthfeel. I didn't write any notes at this stage; I love this zin but tonight couldn't come up with anything to describe here either: brambles, blackberries, whatever. By this time I was getting hungy and it was time for food. Food compatability: a real eye-opener. For reasons related more to cooking what needed to be cooked than compatability, dinner was some "Tunisian" sausage of lamb and beef with harissa, garlic, and other spices, braised in beer, and potatoes dauphinois. (Each dish was good, but I don't recommend pairing them.) The zinfandel really sang with the sausage. The wine seemed to gain spice and complexity with the sausage, although I still didn't try to characterize the flavors. The mourvedre stood up to the sausage and had plenty of flavor, but the flavor seemed bitter. The pinot noir went totally, absolutely flat against the sausage. Whatever floral notes or fruity flavors I'd detected before were gone. Yecho. The results were exactly the opposite with the potatoes dauphinois. The zinfandel fought with it (PDQ Bach's "Symphony for Bagpipes and Lute" comes to mind). The mourvedre was somewhere in the middle. The pinot noir - now, the pinot noir and the gratin sang together, mellow notes beautifully blended. Was that really the same wine? Didn't the potatoes seem creamier than before? These results were repeatable. I went back and forth between dishes and wines, trying various combinations and trying things in different orders. Most interesting. How typical are these wines of their type? Comments on my notes, questions from interested readers (if there are any), and "try this next time" suggestions from more educated palates would be welcome.

Wow, that's beautiful pottery! It's totally different than anything I've seen in Egypt. I think an eGullet clay-pot cooking tour is in order. You could do it as part of your book promo. Think of the fun we could have, just going across North Africa! Think of the luggage on the return trip! The top cone looks glazed and inscribed. Is it still a cooking vessel, or did you put a serving vessel up for show? What determines whether a tagine is a cooking vessel or a serving vessel? I notice the most heavily-decorated tagines on tagines.com are for serving only.

Do the Berbers usually put these tagines into the fire? Over coals? I realize their fires probably aren't big, but still - in their original use, do these tagines have flames coming up around the sides?

Yes, chardonnay is a grape with a naturally heavier mouthfeel. And, because of that, it can often handle a little more winemaker intervention gracefully, and is therefore a recipient of more maloloactic fermentation and oak than other white wines which are more "delicate." Being thicker skinned than some other white varieties, it also requires more heat to ripen, and heat often = higher sugar in the grapes which = more alcohol, which = heavier mouthfeel. Were you able to detect any differences in the "legs" of your white wines? ← It's strange, but I didn't see any legs at all. I couldn't see them on the merlot presently featured as the WOW, either. I confess I'm using my "everyday" wine glasses, that are routinely run through the dishwasher. (I know, I'm a heathen.) Do you suppose the glasses have some coating that's interfering with the legs? I know what wine legs look like from past experience. Edited to add: I may have been too impatient. It took longer than I expected to see the "legs" on the red wines I tried after posting this. <snip> It looks as though Beringer definitely goes after the super-ripe, honeyed, and heavily oaked style, on the chardonnay, at any rate. I'm guessing you may prefer some oak, but not a total oak bomb. I'm with you in that camp. Although I said earlier that oak is more an aroma than a flavor, that may be my strong personal preference coming through. If I taste oak in a white wine, I'm usually apt to praise it as "liquid gold," but I'm not really referring to the wine! ← Until this lab, I thought I didn't like oak at all. This lab suggests I may like it in very small doses. I'm relieved that the style may be swinging back toward a more balanced style, but the present oaky fashion has put me right off most California chardonnays. We call that oak flavor "pine tar" around our house. "Honeyed" isn't a word I thought of to describe that sweetness, but I think you may have hit it. I haven't tried the Dancing Bull, but Beringer is usually very consistent and true to varietal, although I suspect the whites do have a trace (less than 2%, I'm guessing) of residual sugar. Big productions often leave a little 'RS' in the wine to balance the alcohol and give the wine a fuller mouthfeel. It's barely detectable unless you're experienced, and even then not unpleasant. If the Beringer wines had a trace of RS, and the sauvignon blanc was completely dry and had no malolactic conversion to soften it, it would taste very sharp compared to the other two. Or, it could just be a really acidic wine. ← I may try it again tonight, after I've done the red wine lab...or maybe some other time so the two types don't interfere. That reminds me, is it too late to do the red wine lab and post about it if I do it tonight? I couldn't get to it last night. Edited as noted above.

This last point amazes me. A cooler! I suppose that helps with the condensation of the braising liquids. Thanks for the extra information. I feel myself teetering toward a tagine purchase...heck, it's only money and cabinet space....Tagines.com may be getting some of my money soon. (Sure wish I could go overseas and pick one out myself!) The Riffian tagines come in 3 sizes (11", 12" or 13" diameter). Do you have a recommendation?

Has anyone else tried letting it breathe overnight? I did think it improved, although still not enough to become a preferred merlot.

Thanks for adding those points, Wolfert. The separation of meat and juice during storage does seem to make a difference in texture and flavor. Another practical benefit I've noticed is that it's much easier to get the congealed fat off the juice if there isn't meat cluttering up the container. Would you please expand a bit on the idea of browning at the end of the braise? Is that done by leaving the lid off and turning the meat as the liquid reduces? Is this a stovetop or oven technique, or both? I like the idea that it saves me from having to mess up a pan for browning when I plan to braise in a clay pot. What difference does it make to the final product whether the browning happens at the beginning or the end? Moderator's Note: We've split Wolfert's response to this question and the posts that followed into a separate thread on Moroccan tagine cooking. Click here for that discussion.

That's a problem in terminology, isn't it? I'm tempted to call it a "stick" pan, but that gives the wrong idea as well. Good summary, k43. I have at least one minor quibble with your summary: in my experience the Le Creuset was not difficult to clean, although it looked like it would be. I did not, nor would I in the future, brown the meat in another pan and then transfer it with the deglazing liquid to the LC. One or some other posters said it didn't brown as well as stainless steel, but that was not my experience either.

I never thought about the volatiles being sucked out. Can you actually taste it, Brad, or is it just your sense of chemistry talking? I ask mostly out of curiosity, because (1) even if *you* can taste it may not mean that *I* can, and (2) since when did a good bottle of wine last more than one night around my household? Nancy

I too am surprised to see that use of the word "albedo"; it means the same in planetology as it does in climatology. The appearance of the fruit is beautiful. What does the peelzyme do to the flavor?

I tried 3 inexpensive whites last night. They may not have been typical, because I was going by (bad) memory when I went by the store, and not one was something you'd recommended. I don't know whether that affected my "results". I do know I came away with questions, and some definite learning. That's always fun. Rancho Zabaco Dancing Bull Sauvignon Blanc, 2000 Berenger Founders Estate Chardonnay, 2003 Beringer Chenin Blanc 2003 It was an interesting and educational comparison. For the very first time, despite years of drinking wine and testing them with friends, I "got" that nose that's supposed to be unmistakeable and characteristic of the chardonnay: butter, maybe some vanilla, and oak. The more I smelled the three, the more I could detect it and the more distinctive it became. I could taste it, too, when I got around to that part. I GOT IT! Here's my first question: Step 6 of the Evaluating Wine portion seems to be saying that the buttery aroma noted above comes from the way the wine is fermented. Yet chardonnay is always characterized as having aromas of butter, oak, and sometimes toast or vanilla. Are you saying that characteristic is from the way the grapes are handled, rather than the grapes themselves? Could you make a sauvignon blanc grape taste and smell like that? If you did, would you still call the finished product a sauvignon blanc? More observation: I started to understand a bit about body and structure, based on the description of both. I'm not sure any of these three wines had much of either, but there must have been some structure because the flavor of each changed somewhat as I rolled it around in my mouth. It seemed to me the chardonnay had more body, if I understand that term correctly. It seemed fuller-feeling. Question: does it sound, from this paragraph, like I understand the terms? Does it make sense that the cardonnay would seem fuller, and would that mean it has more body? Finish: For my money, the RZ sauvignon blanc ended on a sharp note that may have been alcohol, and the B chardonnay ended with a woody sweet note that I didn't like a bit. The B chenin blanc had the nicest finish. That was surprising since that wine is almost too sweet for my tastes as a stand-alone wine, and I'd have guessed that the sweetness would cloy. It may be that the wine was more consistent from start to finish so there was no surprise sweetness jumping out at me as with the chardonnay. Questions: What am I tasting in the finish, and can someone help me characterize it better? I'd be especially interested if someone who knows these particular wines can describe them better. I'd never had the Dancing Bull Sauvignon Blanc before, and won't bother again. (I don't much like their zinfandel either, despite all the hoopla, so I may be weird.) What IS that finish? If some expert prefers not to discuss this in public (say, for fear of offending a client), feel free to PM me. How typical are the wines I picked of their type? Finally: nowhere have I seen chenin blanc listed in your labs. Is that because you just overlooked it, or is it not good for this lab for some reason? My reading suggests that I'd have to put good money into a French chenin blanc to get a good representative of this wine, and I got a cheapo wine that I knew would be sweeter than the others - but still, it was a good comparison. Am I off track for this lab?

Well, as winesonoma points out, there are silicone-coated (or otherwise plasticized whisks) available. The more general answer to your question, I think, comes from All-Clad's web site , which unfortunately doesn't say what-all you CAN use, but explicitly states that using metal utensils on your non-stick surface will void the warranty. I don't have much non-stick cookware (and none of it's high end like yours) but I'm almost to the point of using wooden utensils even on my metal-interior pans, just so they don't get scratched. Talk about fussy! I know what you mean about wanting to keep it looking nice!

Miligai, that is a very useful, very helpful exposition. Thank you.

For my first attempt at lamb curry, I used Julie Sahni's recipe for Gosht Masala from Indian Regional Classics. I suspect, after rereading this thread to answer some of the questions that came up while I was cooking, that it's a bit generic, or simple, as curries go. (For instance, it calls for cooking oil instead of ghee.) That's all right for this beginner, however; I still learned plenty. Since my photos aren't anywhere near the caliber of those already posted, I'll just show the before and after. 2 lbs. lamb stew meat, pureed tomato, finely chopped onion, grated ginger, minced garlic, ground cumin, coriander, red pepper, paprika, turmeric. Question: what kind of red pepper is usually used here? I had some ground up dried hot Egyptian chilies on hand and used a bit of those. Is cayenne the norm? Let's see...I learned that I really have to turn down the heat. I was using my Le Creuset 6.75 oval French oven over an electric burner set on about 6 - medium high heat. My onion was running out of moisture and threatening to burn at about 15 minutes. I wonder whether that means too much heat or too large a pot? At any rate, I didn't get the caramelization I was expecting, and the sauce is pretty oniony. I used 2 c. of finely chopped yellow onions for 2 lb. lamb stew meat, 1 c. tomato puree, and assorted spices and cooking water. I also learned, yet again, that time does wonders. The sauce after simmering was bitter (the uncaramelized onions, and perhaps the red pepper I used) at first. I poured the finished product over some leftover pilaf, and the merged beautifully and tasted pretty good. Today I just had another bowlful for lunch - no rice - and the flavors have definitely mellowed, although the onion aftertaste is pretty strong without the rice. Tonight I'm going to reheat the whole thing and cook some small waxy potatoes in it, per Sahni's variation, and garnish with cilantro. The finished product, poured over pilaf, isn't as elegantly plated as most of you manage, but it tasted good enough for a first attempt:

I'm curious about what's going on with the changing flavors I noted in my previous post, and how to describe it. If someone else experienced it with this wine, and can explain it along with better descriptors than mine, I'd appreciate some elucidation. I may try it again after the current Introduction to Evaluating Wine eGCI class is finished, as a measure to see how my perceptions and ability to describe them have changed.

I've been testing and tasting wines for a couple of years with friends, but still don't have good descriptions. I hope the present eGCI class will change that, but in the meantime, please bear with me. This is a pretty generic description. Columbia Crest Grand Estates Columbia Valley Merlot, 2001 On first opening: Deep garnet color, coats the glass, no legs that I can see. Aroma pleasant, fruity, rather light-bodied. The first sip was pretty astringent - due to tannins? I let the glass sit 30 to 40 minutes and tried again. The dry salami I had in the meantime may have influenced my palate, but the wine seemed less astingent. After an hour, the wine was definitely smoother, but also not as fruity. Still some tannins (I think). It wasn't quite a one-note wine; as it sat on the the tongue the flavor changed and improved. This was a drinkable wine, but not as good as other merlots I've had in the same price range. Without having a good term for it, I'd say it struck me as dark, rather musty, and almost sullen. Andrea Immer says some wines improve after a night - or in some cases two - so I let the rest of the bottle sit until tonight. There was a definite improvement. 2nd night: Aroma light, fruity Flavor: pleasant, fruity (see, I told you my wine vocabulary is weak) Tannin bite is gone The flavor is better, brighter. Whatever seemed dark and sullen last night is gone. Tonight, it's a pretty good wine. I don't know that it's worth bothering to buy again, though. I have trouble envisioning myself buying a bottle of wine and opening it the night before I want to drink it. I've found other merlots that are friendly right after opening, for the same price.

Rocks are in short supply around here right now unless I go after them with an ice chisel. I think I have enough in my pet rock collection around the house to satisfy the requirement, but I'm wondering whether I should be selecting particular types. River stones? Aquarium gravel? Lava? Edited for lucidity

I am very fond of The Salt Traders' Danish Viking-Smoked Salt. It has a lovely dark amber color and distinctive smoky flavor that goes especially well with pork dishes and some pasta dishes. It reminds me, actually, of some flavor notes found in certain sausages and hot dogs. I'm glad to see some recommendations of other salt types. So far I've experimented with a Japanese Nazuna(?) sea salt and a Murray River Basin salt, and couldn't tell much difference from the regular Eden sea salt I usually keep around. I've been reluctant to blow money on further experiments, but with this thread's guidance I'll go exploring anew.

OK, I have 3 recipes for curried lamb from which to choose and will be choosing tonight. (The lamb is already thawing in the refrigerator.) Tomorrow I go to purchase the fresh spices, since my turmeric and cardamom (to name only a couple) are at least a year old. Here are my questions: 1. If I purchase whole spices and toast them, how will I know they're done toasting? 2. Are there certain spices in the typical curry recipe that won't need toasting and that I should purchase ground? (That probably depends on the recipe I finally pick, but maybe I can get some general rules here.) 3. For those of you who make your own garam masala, I'd like to know your preferred mixes. I tried making it once - can't remember whose recipe - and didn't like it, either by itself or in the final dish. I don't like cloves, in any form that I can detect, and I think that's what wrecked it for me. Is it total heresy to leave cloves out of garam masala? Nancy

Re the "neutral white wine" for the aroma kit: in general I avoid cheap California chardonnays because so many of them are heavily oaky. Is that not an issue for the aroma kit? Or is Gallo sufficiently oak-free that it won't matter? Would a sauvignon blanc do as well from a "neutral" standpoint?