You want it to be one way. But it’s the other way.
(Sometimes.)
Seriously, you should really watch The Wire. But back to our scheduled programming…
I am a fan of wine from France. It’s true. Much of it is inexpensive, it’s made in traditional methods that bring out the natural expression of the grapes’ environment, and a lot of it is very good. One of the specific things that I love about a lot of inexpensive French wine is that it’s not afraid to…speak frankly about the farms and vineyards that it was raised in. What does that mean? It’s a kind of taste profile that brings to mind things that one wouldn’t ordinarily assume a grape could mimic, like dirt, sweaty leather, mushrooms, “barnyard smells,” etc. Some of these taste patterns can be linked to a substance folks that call “brett” (short for brettanomyces, a naturally occuring yeast that can appear during fermentation, and that can create many curious smell and taste factors). Some call the characteristics of brett “rustic.” Some call it “disgusting.” I’m kind of fascinated by it, so in most cases, I end up calling it good. For whatever reason, at the times that I have detected a barnyard smell in a wine, I haven’t been bothered by it. Not quite sure what choices I made in my life that lead me to that, but the point is that there’s no going back. I like-a the brett.
What I didn’t know until tonight was that I like-a the brett only up to a point. Early in the evening, I opened a bottle of 2004 Les Traverses des Fontanes that I’d picked up from Kermit Lynch Wine Merchant when I was in the Bay Area. This is a Vin de Pays from the Pic St. Loup region in the Languedoc. It carries the Vin de Pays name because it uses a single grape variety (cabernet sauvignon) that isn’t one of the elected grapes of the region, so it is forced to hide its shame on the back label. Of course, this excommunication from the church of Sanctified French Wine is part of the reason why I picked it up in the first place. Now there are many non-Bordeaux French Cabernet wines roaming around, and cabernet is a tricky grape to get right on the cheap, but KLWM rarely swings and misses, so I took a chance.
This wine came in a clear glass bottle, which was a little surprising – if you’re going to keep it for more than a few months, I guess you’d better make sure you keep it in the dark. In the glass, it was a deep, inky purple, enticingly thick. On the nose, it w-What the crap?! What is that? Smells like someone dumped a pot of stewed tomatoes on top of a pack mule. Yeesh! I don’t think it’s corked; there’s no cardboard-y odors on the nose or in the mouth. It’s not nearly as wacky on the palate; mainly some pepper and spicy notes, without much fruit or structure. That nose, though…too weird. Not for me. Not a bad table wine, necessarily; maybe its barnyardiness just reminded me of when I was a little kid and I was mildly scared of the goats at the petting zoo. But probably not a wine I will go back to willingly.
So I guess everything has its limits.
Just so I can prove myself totally wrong about everything, I’ll throw in a quick plug for a relatively inexpensive and very enjoyable Sonoma Pinot Noir. The 2005 Malm Cellars Pinot Noir, which is sourced from fruit in the Russian River Valley (unsure as to which vineyards), is made by Brendan Malm, who I think is still the assistant winemaker at Merriam Vineyards. Malm has been around for a few years, putting out mostly Rhone blends that were met with muted interest. His Pinot Noir, however, is only is its second vintage, and it is a very nice bottle of wine for around $20. Cherry red in the glass, with a kind of jewel-like clarity – very pretty. Nose of berries isn’t huge, but focused, and on the palate it leads with cherry and some vanilla mixed with a sort of smoky apple flavor. It’s not a huge, Central Coast-style Pinot, but it all comes together very nicely. I wish I could find more Sonoma Pinot at this price and quality. A good wine to look for – I bought my bottle at Silverlake Wine. Together with the 2004 Stangeland Pinot Noir and the 2005 Elizabeth Spencer, that’s three nice pinots at Silverlake for less than $30. Not bad! Maybe the world is worth saving after all.
Burgers and half-empty bottles.
Talked/thought so much about burgers recently I thought I’d try my hand at actually making some. After all, I’ve got the Zuni recipe…that at least gives me a good blueprint. After perusing the web and thinking about what I would want in the perfect burger, I settled on a recipe. To wit: the meat was a three-way mixture of eye of round roast, sirloin tip roast, and short ribs, equal parts of each. The short ribs were salted two days before cooking, the round and sirloin one day before. All three meats were ground in a food processor, then mixed by hand. The patties were seared on the stove, then finished in the oven with a slice of smoked gruyere.
Verdict? Pretty good. Not perfect, but the burgers definitely displayed the effort put into their creation. The salt did come through in the flavor, so I’m glad I presalted. I try to presalt meat as often as I can, and this was simply another lesson in how important that is. The three-meat mix was interesting. The depth of flavor was more pronounced than I thought it would be – it almost took your tastebuds a second to recover after taking a bite. That sounds ridiculous and narcissistic, but that level of richness in the meat wasn’t necessarily a good thing. It sits heavy on ya after a while, and after a whole burger, you feel kinda “ugh.” In the future, I would want to play around with the percentages of the meats a little, and maybe change the meats themselves, too. Eye of round probably isn’t the best meat to mix with the short ribs, another flavor-heavy cut that is dense and usually requires long, slow cooking. Perhaps top round next time.
The other problem was the texture. The burgers were very thick and heavy, which made for a bit of a laborious chewing experience. Why was this? Three reasons: 1) choices of meat – this is probably not as important since the food processor destroys texture, but two of the three meats are very heavy, which tipped the scales a little; 2) the food processor – really, meat should be ground with a meat grinder, not a processor, since the processor can pulverize the meat beyond the necessary level of grind. I don’t own a grinder, but I think I let the meat get a little too chopped up in the ol’ Cuisinart, which made for very small meat particles and led to heavier burgers. Next time, I have to keep a close eye on the meat in the processor, and take it out the moment I can form a patty out of it; and 3) the process of mixing the three meats together required some effort, which further messed with the meat’s texture. Next time I think I’ll try to mix the meats in the blender to save some mixing effort.
So I have a ways to go before I can craft a burger like Sang Yoon or Judy Rodgers. But I felt that it was a good first step, and I look forward to the next one.
We drank most of a bottle of the 2003 Twenty Rows Cabernet Sauvignon with the burgers. This is an okay California cab that you can find for less than $20 most places; we got ours at Silverlake Wine. 2003 wasn’t a great year for California cab, so it wasn’t surprising to note something of a green character to this wine. It had some nice notes of spice on the nose (and what I swore smelled like ketchup – maybe cumin? I dunno…), and dusty, tart berries on the palate. A bitter note on the finish. A workmanlike effort, let’s say, and not nearly as exciting as the 2004 Sandoval Cabernet Sauvignon I picked up last week at Colorado Wine Company on the recommendation of Dr. Debs. No formal notes for that one, but it had great dark fruit and good structure. Well worth seeking out for $13.
Tasting notes: wines from Du Vin Fine Wines.
J and I took a recent trip north to the Bay for a bridal shower. As I was not allowed to participate – curse the heavens! – I decided to get a little editing work done during the day. After a bit of this, my wandering mind got the best of me and I found myself walking into the small wine shop on Santa Clara avenue, (relatively) recently opened, called Du Vin Fine Wines.
Now, most of you will know that I lived in Alameda for a long, long time. Because of that, I have certain ideas about how Alameda goes about its business – in short, not very quickly. If I go to a store, I expect to see certain things that real Alamedans expect, because businesspeople are generally savvy about understanding things like this in a generally fuddy-duddy community like Alameda. So if I walk into a new wine shop in Alameda, I expect it to go about its business in specific ways – ways that don’t rock the boat. Not that this is a terrible thing, mind you – Farmstead Cheese and Wine in the Alameda Marketplace is a real non-boat-rocker of a wine store, but it still has a lot of great bottles, many of which I’ve tried and can recommend wholeheartedly.
So you can imagine my shock when (as if you haven’t already guessed this and have been waiting impatiently for me to arrive where you’re standing) Du Vin turns out to be a crazy little wine store, the likes of which I have pretty much never seen in California. OK, it’s got some run-of-the-mill wine store stuff – Lynch Bages, Silver Oak, Duckhorn, JC Cellars. All good names, of course. On top of that are some names I’ve seen in stores that put an emphasis on boutique wines, like Sean Thackeray, Neyer, and Roger Perrin. Hm. Shelves dedicated to wines from South Africa and New Zealand. Not bad. THEN you get to the back of the store, and that’s where they proceed to blow your mind. Just read the tops of the shelves: Greece. Turkey. Slovenia. Croatia. Hungary. Hungary makes wine??? OK, what do I buy?
Since we already had a full rack of everyday wines in our kitchen, I only made two purchases. But they were both interesting and worth mentioning.
The 2005 Tselepos Moschofilero “Mantinia” is a dry white made from the moschofilero grape, an indigenous grape to Greece that grows on the Mantinia plateau in north Arcadia. The grape often compared to Gewurztraminer, which makes the fact that the Du Vin clerk compared this wine to a Traminer no surprise. In the glass, it is pale straw-gold in color, a little lighter than chardonnay. The nose is nice and friendly, with some notes of honeysuckle and peaches. On the palate, you can see where the the Traminer comparisons come in, as there are strands of pear and lychee on the palate. It’s lacking some of that richness you get from the better Alsatian Traminer, though, and it ends on a bit of a grapey note. Still, it’s a nice wine and at $16, not a bad investment if not the greatest one either.
The red I bought without recommendation, since the clerk hadn’t tried and and couldn’t speak for it. But I had to get something from Croatia, so I picked up the 2004 Dingac Plavac Peljesac for about $12. According to my books, the grape in this wine – Plavac Mali – can be used to make very big, tannic wines, but this wine was far from that – it seemed more like a cross between gamay and pinot noir to me. In the glass, it was red/violet, fading away at the rim. One of the palest reds I’ve seen in a young wine. The nose was…odd. Is this the “wet dog” people refer to? More like “wet cow at the goulash farm.” Unique…but I’m not sure I like it. On the palate, this wine went through several stages. At first it was just a mushroomy flavor on the back of the palate, but as time went on it developed some tart fruit, like gooseberries maybe, and after a few hours, some cocoa as well. By that point I really came around on this wine, but it certainly took its time getting there. Good acidity, but not much of a finish – this isn’t really a wine built for storage, I think, but it was a fun bottle and I’d certainly consider picking up more, although I don’t know what I’d eat with it. We had salmon with this wine and it didn’t quite work out with the funky. Maybe next time.
Of course, I write all of this only to find out that Derrick Schneider over at An Obsession with Food put the Dingac in his “Wines of Germany and Eastern Europe” class, and Purple Liquid has already blogged about it. Oh well. It was a weekend for the bride, after all, and I guess I’ll have to play the bridesmaid on this one, too.
Bay Area roundup: we have winners.
Back from the annual sojourn up north to spend time with the family, carouse semi-politely, and play Christmas Present Hot Potato. You know catch a pair of socks, you toss them to a friend as a re-gift, and they toss it into the “Refund for Store Credit” pile in their closet. It’s that spirit of tossing that keeps the magic of the holidays alive!
Even beside the presents, we had a very eventful trip. J was off on foreign shores for much of my time off, but I still managed to have some fun experiences with food and drink. Highlights to follow in a couple posts.
S AND J PICK WEDDING WINES! Before J came back, my Dad and I made one last trip to Kermit Lynch to gather as many candidates as possible to try out as salmon-matching wines. We came back with four bottles: a 2005 Domaine du Salvard Cheverny, a 2004 Kermit Lynch Cotes du Rhone Cuvee Selectionee, a 2005 Domaine de Reuilly Pinot Noir, and a 2005 Domaine de la Chanteleuserie Bourgeuil. We also got another bottle of the Rosso di Montalcino we had previously tried, the 2003 Castello di Romitorio. All in all, an impressive lineup. Livers around the world averted their eyes in awe.
How did the wines stack up against an actual plate of salmon en croute? On the whole, admirably. In the case of a few, exceptionally. The standout to me was the Salvard. When I think of bone-dry sauvignon blanc in the future, this is the wine I will think of. Despite its austerity, however, it had an aluring nose of pear and tropical fruit, a lovely acidity and a flinty minerality that made it a very nice wine to drink on its own, and an even better match with the salmon. And at less than $12 per bottle, it’s a real steal. A terrific wine at a terrific price, available locally in high quantities? Sold. Cross the white off the list.
The reds were all very different, despite the fact that 3 of the 4 came from France. The Kermit Lynch Cuvee came with a strong recommendation from the clerk at the store, which made me slightly suspicious of a conflict of interest, but not enough to prevent me from trying a bottle. It’s a decent red for the price ($13 or so), but other than a core of rustic country fruit like rhubarb and cherry, it didn’t offer much. With all the great wine that can be found at KLWM for less than $15, I can’t really recommend this one. The Reuilly was interesting – a pinot that had much more in common with a gamay than French Burgundy. It was a simple, fresh wine with a shy nose of flowers, some pleasant blueberry and strawberry notes, and a nonexistent finish. I could see getting this again – only $12 – but it wouldn’t stand up to the fish. At least it didn’t stand up as well as the Chanteleuserie or the Romitorio did. The Chanteleuserie (“place where birds sing”), made from cabernet franc, was a wine that I really loved, especially since I’m not all that wild about most cab franc – most of the stuff I’ve tried has been thin and vegetal. This wine, though, had a strong core of dark fruit, which made a great base for the notes of pepper and herbs to play off of. It seemed to have almost a hint of mint in there, which was better than it sounds. Better yet, it was a great compliment to the salmon – acidity, texture, and a nice finish.
A Rosso di Montalcino wouldn’t be a lot of people’s first idea when trying to pair a wine with salmon. Its trademark red-brick sangiovese grape conjures up images of braised meat and pasta with rich sauces like bolognese. But unlike its older, Ferrari-driving, waiter-stiffing brother, Brunello, Rosso still has a soft heart. Rossos can be very showy wines, expressive without being flimsy, structured without being overly oaked. And at a third of the price of Brunello, they can actually be bought more than once a year. The Romitorio is a terrific example of what Rosso di Montalcino can do. While it was very clearly an Italian sangiovese with an earthy, tannic center, it also displayed pretty notes of blackberry and plums. With the salmon, the contrasts in richness and flavor were damned good. I was worried that this wine just wasn’t going to fit with the food, but just like the Flowbee, sometimes two things go together in ways you never would have thought of. Score.
Up next: burger battle. And no more alliteration, I promise.
The Table on cheap wine
(Or: Cheap wine on the table.)
Saw this post to Eric Asimov’s NY Times wine blog, The Pour, and I had some thoughts about his suggested cellar.
1. Anyone who is willing to plunk down $1500 a year on wine is going to drink more than a bottle a week. This automatically makes the list kind of useless, since one could conservatively guess that a medium-level oenophile would drink three times as much wine in a year as that. Asimov basically acknowledges this, but it still merits mentioning.
2. The average price per bottle for a year’s worth of wine in Asimov’s imaginary cellar is $27. That’s more than double what I spend on the average bottle of wine in a year, including all the “special” bottles I put away to age.
3. I don’t think you can get most of those wines very easily in California, and certainly not at those prices.
4. Three bottles each of red and white for a year? You’re going to get awful bored of those everyday wines real fast.
In other words, “practical” is not the first word that springs to mind when I consider his choices. Don’t get me wrong, they all look like fun wines, but that list is both too small and too pricy for a wino of limited means and unlimited appetite like me. With this in mind, I decided to try and draft a “workingman’s cellar,” a collection of wine that could sustain two frequent drinkers for an entire year, provide interesting choices, and not break the bank.
First rule: there has to be a lot of wine. Some people have suggested in response to Asimov’s list that three bottles per week is a good starting point. Um, maybe I shouldn’t say this, but pretty much the only times we go through three bottles per week or less in our house are when one or both of us is gone. So let’s say five bottles per week, or 260 bottles for the year.
Second rule: the wine has to be good. Not great, necessarily, but something that you would enjoy opening up on any given night. It should also be wine that matches with food, since most of our wine is consumed at the dinner table, and be diverse enough to pair with many different kinds of dishes and to prevent boredom with your own cellar. Your 40th bottle of cabernet sauvignon will not look very enticing on that night when you’re just having a simple roasted fig salad.
Third rule: it’s gotta be cheap. Our target drinker has a great thirst to be quenched, but his wallet is thin. Let’s set a target of $2000 for one year of five bottles per week.
Fourth rule: it has to be available either in LA or the Bay Area in reasonable quantities.
We’ll also set aside some special bottles, most of which will benefit from short-term cellaring, although our price limits prevent us from getting anything that can sit for more than a few years.
So we throw these rules into a jaunty little chapeau, and what do we come up with?
THE TABLE’S (nearly) $2000 WINE CELLAR
Suggested title: “She Works Hard for the Money”
1 case of each of the following everyday wines. Price is per bottle.
EVERYDAY WHITES
2005 Blason Tocai Friulano – $9
2004 Bocce Pinot Grigio – $9
2005 Domaine de Cassagnole Vin de Pays Blanc – $7
2004 Chateau des Cleons Muscadet Sevre et Maine “Sur Lie” – $8
2004 La Craie Vouvray – $8
2005 Dr. Loosen Riesling “Dr. L” – $11
2005 Sollner Gruner Veltliner – $10
2005 Tobiano Sauvignon Blanc – $11
EVERYDAY REDS
2004 Bodegas Barbaris Tempranillo “Mendoza Barricas” – $7
2004 Bogle Petite Sirah – $8
2004 Cusumano Nero d’Avola – $11
2004 Cycles Gladiator Syrah – $9
2005 E. Guigal Cotes du Rhone - $10
2005 Maritma Sangiovese – $7.50
2005 McManis Cabernet Sauvignon California – $7
2005 Quattro Mani Montepulciano d’Abruzzo – $7.50
2005 Las Renas “Barrica” Monastrell – $10
2005 Las Rocas Garnacha Catalyud – $8
NV Rosenblum Vintner’s Cuvee XXIX – $8
EVERYDAY SPARKLER (good for shellfish!)
NV Fantinel Prosecco Extra Dry – $9
“IT’S A SPECIAL THING” WINES
2 bottles 2005 Selbach-Oster Riesling Wehlener Sonnenuhr – $15
2 bottles 2004 Stangeland Pinot Noir Stand Sure Vineyard – $25
2 bottles 2003 Domaine Tempier Bandol Rouge – $27
2 bottles 2004 Vina Cobos Cocodrilo Cabernet Sauvignon – $20
2 bottles 2004 Zind-Humbrecht Gewurztraminer – $20
1 bottle Clos du Mont-Olivet Chateauneuf du Pape – $22
1 bottle Saracco Moscato d’Asti – $15
240 bottles of everyday wine, less 10% case discount: $1868
12 bottles of special wine: $251
252 bottles of wine: $2118
So, we neither hit 260 bottles nor $2000, but we’re pretty close on both counts. And we have an interesting and flexible cellar, with some fun “special” wines to drink about once a month. I’m sure there are better choices to be found elsewhere, but these are wines I’ve had and so I can vouch for them. The other side of that is that these are wines that I enjoy. Your tastes, dear reader, can and do diverge from mine, so there are bound to be bargain bottles that you would replace one of these wines with.
Of course, this list doesn’t take into account trying ANY new wine in one year, which seems silly considering one of the greatest pleasures of wine is discovering something new to savor. It also doesn’t have any money set aside for tastings or buying bottles at restaurants. All things considered, I don’t think I have the kind of discipline necessary to restrict myself to a list like this, but for a tight budget and a serious wine jones, it might be a good starting point.
Another good list at the $1500 level is up over at Cooking Chat. Check it out – lots of interesting stuff, most of which I haven’t tried.
