WTN: Memorial Day Weekend Wines

[Brad Ballinger]

Saturday night I attended a gathering of Science Fiction Fandom folk, and I think I was the only non-SFF person there. But the hosts are people I know more for their passion for food and wine. There were several wines open, some more interesting than others. I’ll comment on three.

2002 Von Volxem Saar Riesling, QbA. When I was told I could bring wine if I wanted, but that this wouldn’t be a wine crowd, I reached for this bottle. This has been a crowd-pleaser on previous occasions, and was summarily emptied quickly on this night as well. Fragrant, inviting nose of light mineral, limes, and a floral presence. Bright acidity with a citrusy crispness provide the initial focus, but there is a richer fruit profile to include apples and pear skin. There is also a consistent underlying minerality. I know that when it comes to QbA Riesling, Donnhoff seems to hold a dear place for many wine lovers, self included, but I’ll put this QbA up against it any day.

2003 Cellier des Dauphins Cotes-du-Rhone Villages. 11 grower cooperatives come together to produce and distribute wine under the Cellier des Dauphins label. This particular bottle has a squat shape, much like that of Mas de Gourgonnier. Looks cool; difficult to rack. 65% grenache, 25% syrah, 10% cinsault. Nice aroma of red fruits, some cocoa, some herbs, some floral. Ripe and acidic character that is very mouth-filling. Moderate tannin. Bright, pleasing finish. Overall, this is a bright and fragrant wine that would accompany roasted fowl quite well. It may not overpower on its own, but it’s definitely made for the dinner table.

1992 Bernard Faurie Hermitage. One person asked, “What does that smell like?” The host responded with a smile, “An old wine.” And he was right – on both the comment and the smile. This has a lovely aroma that accompanies wines with this much bottle age. Attractive funk, grilled mushrooms, dried beef, olives. Color is surprisingly dark. The wine is not tired at all in the mouth. Tannins are resolving, and the fruit and acid are still in play. It has a bit of a rustic character, in a charming way, yet has a layered development. Remains bright on the finish.

On Sunday, Marcia and I visited friends for dinner and an overnight stay. The wine cellar there is filled with wines bought on auction and at retail using Parker Points as a major determining factor. I also know that bringing over a well-regarded bottle of wine usually goes over better than bringing over something they’ve never heard of. I was asked if I wanted a glass of Viognier. “Pride?” I asked. “Yes.” “Then I’ll pass.” If these weren’t such good friends, I wouldn’t have been able to get away with that, but it was taken in good fun.

1990 Caymus Cabernet Sauvignon, Special Selection, Napa Valley. Pre-tasting commentary: This is a wine I purchased ages ago that I probably wouldn’t consider purchasing today. I also bought it before Spectator heralded it as WOTY (the first of four times I’ve been that clairvoyant). I picked it up in the cellar, read the label, and thought, “Well, let’s see what 34 months in oak is like 15 years later.” It was my only bottle of this wine, and at one time my plans were probably to drink this by myself or just with Marcia, but what the hell. Our host was duly impressed. Poured through a decanting funnel to separate sediment. I then covered the mouth of the decanter to prevent too much air from getting at the wine. I don’t know if that does any good or not, but I did it anyway. Bricking at the rim and a good one inch in. Aroma of currants, tobacco, coffee, dark chocolate. Perhaps a bit more “tired” than “mature” in the mouth, but not at all unappealing. The fruit has faded slightly and there are some secondary elements of coffee, cinnamon, and roses valiantly trying to fill in, but I’m not sure there were ever enough of them there to do the job. The tannins aren’t all gone and there’s still some good structure, but they seem a little on the wooden side. Turns a bit astringent on the finish. Drinking well enough, but definitely showing age.

1994 Ridge Monte Bello, Santa Cruz Mountains. 73% cabernet sauvignon, 15% merlot, 9% petit verdot, 3% cabernet franc. Our host asked what bottle he should open to go with dinner (we were grilling ribeye). I suggested a California Cabernet or a Super Tuscan. He pulled out a Tomassi Amarone and asked if that was a Super Tuscan. I suggested we stick to California. “Oh, here,” he said, “I’ll just hand you the list of what I have.” I glanced it over and suggested he open a 94 Monte Bello. He hesitated a bit, and I jumped on him. “Look,” I said, “I brought over the effing Caymus. You have an entire case of the 94 Monte Bello. What is so terribly wrong about checking in on it and seeing how it is doing?” His wife later asked, “How did you get him to open a Monte Bello? I never get to drink it.” Decanted a little over an hour. Still quite a deep ruby red, especially when side by side with the Caymus. Fruit-driven on the nose with spicy and smoky accents, cigar box, and some menthol. I think it may be just starting to come out of its shell, and another 2-3 hours in the decanter would’ve served it well. Shows tremendous size and complexity in the mouth – there’s blackcurrant, mint, chocolate, spicy oak. Full-throttle tannins that will probably show up on a toothbrush hours later. Powerful finish. This wine will benefit from a handful more years of development.

[Rebel Rose]

“Look,” I said, “I brought over the effing Caymus.  You have an entire case of the 94 Monte Bello.  What is so terribly wrong about checking in on it and seeing how it is doing?”

Brad, you're too bashful. You need to assert yourself.

Full-throttle tannins that will probably show up on a toothbrush hours later.

Purple teeth are the new black!