More tasting notes for wedding wines. I was going to do some sort of fancy linking thing back to the original posts about the wedding wines, but hey, they’re on this page already. They’re right down there. If you haven’t read them, go ahead, I’ll wait. OK? OK.

The first two wines we tried were both acquired from Silverlake Wine, with the assistance of the very cool and very in-charge April. She helped us pick out two French wines, a 2005 Sacha Lichine Poule Blanche and a 2005 Domaine des Cassagnoles Vin de Pays.

Before I say anything about these wines, I want to you to go to Sacha Lichine’s web site.  Go ahead, I’ll wait again. Wait, before you go – do yourself a favor and click on all the wines that he has on display. Oh, and turn your speakers on. OK, now go. Back? Wasn’t that insane? I’m not quite sure I’ll ever listen to “Ain’t Nobody Here But Us Chickens” quite the same way ever again. And what was up with that one syrah that played “Don’t Worry, Be Happy”? I mean, who’s heard THAT song since they traded that tape to their sister for that Bananarama mash-up they played on Live 105, right? Right? Wait. What was I saying?

Anyway, the Poule Blanche and the Cassagnoles are both white blends that rely primarily on Chardonnay, the Poule with some sauvignon blanc and Thompson Twins viognier thrown in, and the Cassagnole with, uh, some varietals that I am not at liberty to say because the bottle has been recycled. Well. Suffice to say that while I found the Cassagnole a nicely honed white with good floral and mineral notes, the Poule Blanche was surprisingly oaky for a French chard. I was half-expecting James Laube to jump in the window and rip the label off the bottle, revealing it to be a bottle of Cakebread Cellars or some such California insanity. Not my style, and not J’s either.

We did, however, find a couple really great rieslings soon after we tried the French wines. One, a 2005 Selbach-Oster Kabinett from the Mosel, is probably our frontrunner at the moment. It had great mouthfeel with some nice peach and nectarine flavors, but enough acidity that it could probably hold up to the salmon. We picked that one up from Pasadena’s Heritage Wine Company, which is a cool little store that happens to be just a block away from where I’m currently working. Another cool wine store, Colorado Wine Company in Eagle Rock, recommended a bottle of 2005 Weins-Prum Riesling Spatlese, which was also terrific, but slightly more expensive. And this isn’t even counting the 2005 Dr. Loosen “Dr. L” riesling we’ve bought from both Silverlake and Colorado Wine, which is a really tasty wine, but probably to light and sweet for the salmon.

So it seems likely that we’re going to be putting rieslings on a few tables at the reception. The better ones we’ve tasted are fun to drink, match with food, and are pretty darn cheap in comparison to a lot of high quality chardonnay from California. Oops, there I go bashing California wines again. Okay, Frenchies, you’re in with the Americans this time! Why don’t you all go marry oak trees if you love them so much! That is, if Canada will let you! Ooohhh! Uh, that’s it.

Okay, the long overdue wedding wine post is finally here. (See below for a description of what we’re looking for here.) Too late, you say? Well, don’t look at me – I was just, uh, casting about for some last-minute entrants. But anyways, on to the pour:

The first two reds we tried were actually consumed several weeks ago, so I have to work off some admittedly fading memories. Wine Number One was something my dad picked up at Kermit Lynch Wine Merchant, the 2004 Domaine Gachot-Monot Cote de Nuits Villages, the entry-level pinot noir offering from the Gachot-Monot house. I’d had this wine before, and as I tried it for the second time, I realized how much it had grown on me. The primary flavor is a strong beam of sour cherry, surrounded by some brambly fruit, which really fills the mouth. The first time I had this wine, I felt that the sour cherry was a little too overwhelming and prevented any kind of serious complexity. This time, though, I was impressed with the structure behind the fruit – there’s a nice little tannic backbone to this wine; it could conceivably keep for 4-5 years or more. I’ve heard that sour cherry flavors in French pinots are often the result of picking the fruit off the vine before it is at its maximum ripeness ala American pinot winemakers, and I wonder if this is the case with this wine. Regardless, I liked the style, as it was very different from most affordable burgundy that I’ve had. It had very nice acidity, too, stacking up well against the poultry we had that day (not our wedding menu by any means, but still). J was not too impressed with it, however. Although it’ll probably end up as one of the pricier wines we will look at – it’s around $17 American – it’s a good bottle and one that I would definitely put in the running for our selections.

We also tried the 2005 Praxis Pinot Noir, which we got at Silverlake Wine here in LA. This wine comes in at $14.75 per bottle, which is a good deal for decent pinot. This wine had more of a smoky edge than the Gachot-Monot. Normally I would be all for that, but in this bottle, it wasn’t quite integrated with the cherry and raspberry fruit, which left everything a little off balance. There also seemed to be a touch of metal on the palate, although as time went on this dissipated somewhat. J was similarly “eh” about it. Overall, this wine is a good value, especially for the varietal, but there are other reds that I liked more at this price, even if they are not classic matches for salmon like pinot.

A couple days later, we tried the other red we had picked up from Silverlake, the 2004 Domaine la Bastide Syrah. I was a little worried that syrah was going to be too much for our food, but this was a very easygoing, “open-knit” style syrah that was very nice. Fruit forward, with blackberries and blueberries on the palate, it had a good mouthfeel without overwhelming one with tannins. Fresh, bright syrah like this seems to only happen in France, which is a shame, because I would buy more syrah if it were readily available in forms like this in the US. I liked this bottle and at $12, I’m willing to give it another shot. A contender.

Two wines we’ve had more recently are the 2003 Luna Sangiovese and the 2005 Pierre – Marie Chermette Beaujolais. The sangiovese is another wine that wouldn’t normally leap into one’s mind at the thought of salmon, but I’ve found that a lot of California sangiovese comes in on the lighter, fruitier side. This wine is a good example of that trend. The acidity is still mostly there to cut through the fattiness of the fish, but this wine had a sweetness and emphasis on red fruit and licorice that sets it apart from Italian sangiovese, ending with a nice little finish. I don’t necessarily know if I would want this on the table yet, but I enjoyed it and would definitely buy it again at $16. The Chermette was nice as well, with some blueberries, maybe a hint of banana and cassis that meshed well without really jumping out at you. We’ve had this wine twice now and while its price (about $12) makes it a decent house red, I don’t think I would place it higher than third in this group. J liked it, though, so she might fight for it. We’ll see.

Coming up next time: white wines. Good ones, too.  Stay tuned.

This post is going to be the first in what will hopefully be a short series on finding the right wine for a wedding. Our wedding, specifically – that’s right, The Table is getting married! To what, you say, an Ottoman? Ha ha ha. No, come April, J and I are going to be walking down the, uh, garden path at the Brazilian Room in Berkeley. Thankfully, most of the planning has been completed with a minimum of pain – we already have a cake, the band, the florist, and, of course, the caterer. We signed up with a company called Trumpetvine, who really impressed us with the menu they whipped up with us on our visit a few months ago. A quick summary of what will most likely be appearing on the table in four months (I’ll be vague about the preparation to retain some degree of mystery here, seeing as how most of you reading this will probably be there): salmon, asparagus, eggplant, mushrooms, and other assorted vegetables and fruits. Trust me, the real thing sounds a lot cooler than the list of ingredients.

The question raised by such a list, though, is a big one: what to drink with the food? For wine, uh, enthusiasts like J and myself, it’s important to have wines on the tables that  (1) match the food, (2) are interesting for the other wine drinkers of the family (and they are legion), and (3) are cheap -definitely less than $20, but hopefully less than $15. These restrictions create some interesting obstacles, but I think we can find good, exciting wines that we can be proud of come April. It’s like “The Five Obstructions,” only with Lars von Trier as a maniacal sommelier! Terrifying thought.

Considering the rules above, some concepts come focus: the reds have to be on the lighter side, should have good acidity, but at the same time have enough structure to stand up to a rich fish. The whites should have a fairly decent backbone to stand up against some of the more bitter vegetables that will be served. Oh, and we’re not buying any California Chardonnay. It just ain’t happening. Sorry.

The next post will cover some of the wines that we’ve sampled as potential wedding wine candidates. If any of you have suggestions for us, let me know and we’ll try it out.