This is a quickie review of a malbec from Mendoza, Argentina which sells for about $15.
The 2009 Cruz Alta reserve malbec is a very welcome reprieve from today’s California reds. It tastes real. Fresh. Juicy but deep and dark, and not too sweet. A perfect Read the rest of this entry »
I’ve noticed a funny thing with cabernet this year. That being, I can’t find one that I like. So we set up a shootout and recently tried these 2010-2011 cabernet sauvignons, over a period of two consecutive nights. Listed in no particular order:
Today we look at a 2011 pinot noir from California’s Santa Lucia Highlands (“SLH”) region, which I picked up at Total Wine for $26. List price is $32.
California’s SLH grows mostly pinot noir. On the bright side, these wines are “big, fleshy and mouthfilling,” says the San Francisco Chronicle. But to me, they are too hot (high in alcohol), too fruity and tannic, and often taste burned. An example: the inexplicably expensive Siduri Sierra Mar, reviewed here.
In short: I am biased against SLH pinot.
Morgan‘s “Twelve Clones” pinot is pleasantly spicy. It has 14.3% alcohol, yet isn’t overly hot. Read the rest of this entry »
Today it’s a 2009 red blend from Chile that costs $30 at total wine.
I am not going to dis this wine — at 14.5% alcohol, 45% cabernet sauvignon, 35% syrah and 20% carmenere, it is one big, spicy meat-o-ball. Read the rest of this entry »
We reviewed the 2007 Heavyweight cabernet right here, and concluded that it’s a recommended wine.
Now it’s the 2010 Heavyweight, which is $12 at Total Wine and still features 1800′s-style drawings of various boxers like “Bob the Bruiser” on the labels, which vary from bottle to bottle. And so, what is the decision on the 2010 vintage? Read the rest of this entry »
Tonight we look at a 2011 cabernet from California’s Paso Robles area that sells for $12-$13.
I sometimes use the phrase “California goulash” to describe that generic taste you get from so many of California’s affordable red wines. Coastline’s regular cabernet ($6-$9) fits this term perfectly, but this reserve version Read the rest of this entry »
Today as we approach Valentine’s Day, we check out a 2011 pinot noir from California that sells at Total Wine for $16.
Menage a Trois. Ahhhh… such a provocative name. And such a history of good value in red Read the rest of this entry »
Today we review a Napa Valley cabernet that sells at Total Wine for $27. It is non-vintage, meaning its grapes come from various years’ harvests. It is 14.8% alcohol.
So — “cult” wines are those rare few captivating bottles – usually red – that make rich winos spend days looking for them, and then fork over seriously big bucks for their heavenly goodness. Does Cult cabernet sauvignon live up to the lofty goal of its name? Read the rest of this entry »
This 2010 red is from Napa Valley’s Stag’s Leap district, one of the Rolls Royce wine areas in California. It cost me $27 but routinely sells for $22-$25.
Nice to drink, with a very pleasing, medium-bodied mouthfeel — Cameron Hughes Lot 404 cab says “friendly” more than Read the rest of this entry »
Today we review a 2010 pinot noir from California’s Santa Lucia Highlands. I bought it tonight for $45.
Pinot noir often delivers elegant, light-on-its feet and earthy layers of spicy red fruit. The more you pay, the more elegance and complexity you usually get, and sometimes, the less “light on its feet” the wine gets, which can be wonderful.
This medium-bodied pinot from Siduri‘s Sierra Mar vineyard is giving me strong Read the rest of this entry »
I drooled all over the 2007 Phantom in my “holy cow” review, right here.
However, the current vintage (2008) has lost that loving feeling. I am sitting here trying to Read the rest of this entry »
Tonight we check out a 2009 cabernet from California’s Paso Robles area, which goes for about $13 at Total Wine and more elsewhere.
Bridlewood cab has some big things going for it. The label rocks. I mean, you look at it, and you just WANT this wine. Plus, it’s only Read the rest of this entry »
Today it’s a 2010 merlot from Chile that costs around $10.
Cono Sur is impressive when you first open it — dark, rich, with an earthy, manly taste. Blacker-than-black blackberries. Smoky leather. Plum and maybe a touch of prune. Spicy and dry for a merlot — in fact, it almost seems like a juicy carmenere.
The problem is, for me, Cono Sur is a tad bitter. A situation that did not improve on day 2. I like this winery’s bicycle theme though, and I want the reserva now! Unfortunately, this one is:
Not recommended.
I purchased this 2010 California chardonnay at Costco for $11.
As you may know, I am not a huge fan of California chards. Kendall-Jackson’s relatively new Avant chardonnay has less of the chemistry-experiment taste than their regular chardonnay, and less oak and butter. From the front label: “Fresh. Crisp. Clean.” Read the rest of this entry »
Today it’s a 2010 California red blend that you can buy at Costco for just under $9.
Quick lowdown: Very cool black and red bottle, very popular, a warm, sweet blend of syrah, zinfandel, cabernet and merlot. Smells like Read the rest of this entry »
Here’s a quickie for you: Jacob’s Creek 2009 reserve cab is just $10.50 at Total Wine.
Although it had a nice texture, this wine from Australia’s Coonawarra region was too sweet for my tastes, and didn’t really taste like a cabernet. I wanted to like it, because their reserve shiraz is very good for the money. Unfortunately, Jacob’s Creek 2009 reserve cabernet is:
Not recommended.
Today it’s a 2008 cabernet sauvignon from Chile’s Colchagua Valley that I bought at Total Wine for $9.99.
Uhh… not sure what’s going on here. I mean, Veramonte is a good name — I’ve had some very good whites from this label, and I’ve heard positive things about it from people I trust.
But this wine Read the rest of this entry »
Today we review a $35 Bordeaux from Total Wine.
Dry. Tight. Serious. Great texture and mouth-feel. Chateau Garraud isn’t fooling around. It is 69% merlot, 26% cabernet franc, and 5% cabernet sauvignon. It smells of earth and alcohol, with traces of blackberries and licorice. The taste: lots of mouth-drying tannins and oak. Faint traces of rhubarb and tart cranberry. Not much fruit. It’s elegant, and extremely subtle, but not very friendly. The taste is so tight that it’s hard to appreciate what little complexity is being offered.
If you want a good example of the austere, no-nonsense reds from Bordeaux, Chateau Garraud 2009 is a nice choice, if you aren’t worried about the price. But for $35, I want either more sex appeal, more flat-out delicious taste, or more complexity. Although it is very good, at $35 I believe it is simply overpriced.
Not recommended.
EDIT: I also tried the previous vintage. The 2008 was much cheaper, at around $20, but was also much less drinkable than the 2009 reviewed here, with literally no fruit and not much else to redeem it. Not a viable purchase.
Hi! Tonight we review one of Total Wine’s popular selections, a Washington cabernet from 2010 that cost me $8.99.
Radius has two things going for it: it’s inexpensive, and very sweet and gentle. So if you are serving a younger drinker, or somebody who “hates red wine,” this might be a winner.
Unfortunately, that bubblegum sweetness was the downfall of Radius for me. Without significant aromas, mouthfeel, tannins or taste of a typical cabernet to offset the sugar shock, Radius cabernet encourages me to put down the glass. It is:
Not recommended.
I praised the 2009 Anakena sauv blanc here.
Unfortunately, it is no longer recommended, or a Best Value. It tastes fine, but the current 2011 doesn’t grab me like the 2009 did. Waltz two feet down the aisle at Total Wine and pick up Cupcake 2011 sauv blanc for just $7.97, two pennies cheaper and better than our old friend Anakena.
Not recommended.
A quick update on Five Rivers cabernet sauvignon. I praised the 2007 vintage here and here.
Unfortunately, the current Five Rivers (2009) is no longer recommended here at Wineguider. It is also no longer a Best Value. It’s not terrible, but it just has too much of that “cheap red wine” taste. That’s a deal-killer for me.
Sadly — not recommended.
Today we check out a 2010 pinot noir from France (Pays d’Oc) which sells at Total Wine for $8.99.
Ropiteau, which I have only seen at Total Wine, is a big deal. Why? Because it is a pinot noir, it’s cheap, and it doesn’t taste terrible.
The current vintage (2010) is a very close call, but I can’t say it’s really floating my boat. It doesn’t do anything terribly wrong — an aroma of spicy cinnamon and black fruit, and alcohol. It’s medium bodied, beefier than many other low-priced (and lightweight) pinot noirs. It tastes like leathery black cherries. But it is not calling out to me, “Wineguider! Drink more of me!” At this low price point (actually a dollar cheaper), the Cloud Break pinot noir, reviewed here, is your go-to bottle.
Ropiteau pinot noir is a good value, but the 2010 vintage is:
Not recommended.
Continuing our Italian restaurant experience, here’s a 2010 red blend from California that Bertucci’s sells for $7.50 a glass / $29 a bottle. It was paired with their Eggplant Napoleone.
The Coppola Rosso is a blend of zinfandel (33%), syrah (26%), cabernet (25%) and petite sirah (17%). Whoa — look at those grapes. But instead of a serious steak wine, the winery says it is intended as a lighter, sweeter red for casual dining. And that’s what it is. Likely to appeal to younger drinkers, for me it was a little too jammy, with vanilla and a dusty zinfandel zing.
But! Bertucci’s Michael Cropper and Chad Phillips paired it with a lovely modern caprese salad, featuring eggplant roasted in their famous brick oven, plum tomatoes and fresh mozzarella all drizzled with a balsamic glaze incorporating pesto without nuts, for those of you with allergies. The croutons were too crunchy, but no matter — Eggplant Napoleone rocks, and it made the Rosso shine.
I don’t recommend the wine alone, but I do recommend this pairing. This dish would also go very nicely with a pinot noir (Bertucci’s offers the delicious Estancia pinot, which I praised here).
Today we review a 2010 Cotes du Rhone from Kirkland Signature (Costco’s brand) which sells for the low price of $7.
I am a fan of the Kirkland label — many times, I have been astounded by the quality of the products carrying this simple all-capital-letters logo. And that includes wine.
In this case, the dark purple juice that flows into your glass looks beautiful and has a nice subtle aroma of red fruits and flowers. The taste is certainly not terrible – yes, it’s a little too sweet, and yes it’s very simple, but these things can be forgiven at $7. What kills it for me is that it sort of tastes like Welch’s grape juice. Just a little weird, just a little “off.” Unfortunately, this bargain-priced Costco red is:
Not recommended.
Hi! Today we examine a 2009 cabernet from Sonoma, California. It’s $11 at Costco and Total Wine, and sells for up to $16 elsewhere.
Eleven bucks for a good name like Sebastiani! A no-brainer, right?
A reasonable answer is “yes,” but for me, it’s no. Here’s why: Generic California Red Wine Taste. Mass-produced. Oaky-sweet. Actually, it’s not bad — a little spicy, smells like rhubarb pie, and has good mouthfeel with blueberry and reminders of cherry, raspberry, cocoa and cinnamon on your tongue. At a modest 13.5% alcohol, this would work at a barbecue or with pizza. And if you’re throwing an upscale party, but don’t have an upscale budget, you might stock up on Sebastiani cab, because it looks upscale.
Unfortunately, the taste is a little too sweetly generic for me. Although your party guests may very well enjoy it, this competent 2009 California red is:
Not recommended.
The wine “reviews” site called Best Pinot Noir appears to be a website run by wine.com, which allows any producer of pinot noir to pay $10 in order to have a favorable “wine review” posted. No comments are permitted.
Let’s be clear. It’s just a collection of ads. But it looks, and reads, like a friendly, good-humored home-made wine blog. The list of ads on the right is even titled, “Pinot noir reviews.” Nice.
My favorite statement on the website is this: “We went with Big Fire, a Pinot Noir out of Washington state.” Ahhhh, yeah. Big Fire is from Oregon. Worse, the large photo of the label, right next to these words, shows “OREGON PINOT NOIR” in big capital letters. Who wrote this? Some idiot at wine.com?
What a crass, reprehensible pile of crap. Can “best cabernet” and “best merlot” be far behind?
Today we examine a 2010 Australian shiraz that sells for $10.
I’ve heard this reserve is good, so I was excited to try it. It has a nice “berry” aroma, and in the mouth it feels dense, with a texture that is almost thick, or viscous. It is pretty darn sweet, with blueberry, huckleberry, maybe a little blackberry. Some mild spice in the background. The label says “cherry” as well, which I didn’t get.
You may like it, but the problem for me is, Yellow Tail reserve shiraz is boring. Generic. It tastes “fine,” but I wouldn’t buy it again. Especially with Jacob’s Creek reserve shiraz in this price territory, and Koonunga Hill even cheaper.
Not bad, but not recommended.
Today we check out a 2010 Australian shiraz that is $13 at Total Wine, $12-$15 most other places.
Have you ever shopped for speakers? Some of them have a “wow” or “hell yeah!” factor that grabs you in the store. But later, you realize the “wow” is just hyped-up treble or bass, and they become unacceptable over time.
That’s similar to Layer Cake shiraz for me. The first sniff is a wow — blueberry shortcake — and the first taste is another — like red wine combined with one of those jelly bar desserts from middle school. But after a few sips, there comes a realization: uh-oh, this wine is just too sweet.
Compared with the cheaper and fairly delicious Jacob’s Creek 2008 reserve shiraz (only $10), Layer Cake loses. Restaurants may want to consider Layer Cake, because with this name, everybody is going to want to try it. But for us home gamers, this shiraz is:
Not recommended.
P.S. For a very different view, and a potential primer on everything that is wrong with wine reviews in America, try this, which states that Layer Cake tastes like ”melted” licorice, ”crushed” black currants, and also has ”intense dry extract” (WTF?). Then there’s the color: ”Layer Cake Shiraz is a tremendously dense blackish-red color with a deep opaque purplish core going out into a fine violet-fuchsia rim definition with super high painted viscosity.”
Today we check out a 2009 cabernet from Washington State’s Columbia Valley, which you can get at Total Wine for $16. It looks like just ”Apex,” because the word “ascent” is printed very small.
My first reaction to this Washington cab was . . . drum roll, please . . . no reaction. I couldn’t taste it. Or smell it. I found this to be very strange. However, it had a nice texture.
On day 2, I could sort of taste it. Not too sweet. Not an excess of tannins. Dark in color. Maybe some blackberry. But what are my affirmative comments and opinions about its taste? Still, almost nothing. It’s not bad, but I wouldn’t buy it again at this price. Maybe Total Wine has spoiled the experience for me by asking too much.
Not recommended.
Here’s a $15 non-vintage prosecco from Italy, which I obtained from Costco.
This Ruffino is an extra dry sparkling white wine. The label says that it is creamy and crisp, with hints of peach and golden apples.
I disagree. I say it is massively over-carbonated, and produces loud, extended belching. As for its flavor, I can’t tell, because of the Colorado-rapids rush of foam in my mouth. After various efforts to reduce the carbonation, which your New Years Eve guests will not be able to replicate, I conclude that this is an average, OK-tasting sparkling white wine. Meaning, it tastes roughly like salty apple cider.
Like most sparkling wines and champagnes under $300, this prosecco is:
Not recommended.
Hi! In response to overwhelming demand from you, the faithful readers of Wineguider, tonight we kick off a special series of reviews examining affordable cabernets that have one-word names beginning with the letter H.
First in line: Hogue, from Washington State’s Columbia Valley. This 2008 cab is just $8 at Total Wine, but often goes for $10. While it’s a bit on the light side for a cabernet, a light cab could be wonderful. Let’s find out.
Hogue smells nice. You get cloves, a nice ”fertile soil” smell, and some cranberry-ish red fruit. But in your mouth, the familiar red fruit and tannins leave you with a slightly tinny aftertaste. Unusual, but quickly tiring. Worse, this wine is actually hard to taste. It’s a bit generic. Hogue is vague.
I love the price, but this Washington value cabernet is:
Not recommended.
Today it’s a 2009 old vine zinfandel from California’s Lodi area, which costs about $19.
This is a big one!! The label is awesome: a guy with a plunger on his head. It’s pretty hot when first opened, meaning, it smells and tastes of alcohol (it is 14.9% alcohol). It’s also pretty darn spicy. That’s a good thing. More good stuff: the medium-to-full-bodied texture is wonderful, and there is some nice complexity on your tongue that says HEY, this wine is better than a $9.99 special.
In your nose, there is a bit more “rhubarb pie” sweetness than actually greets your taste buds. Meaning, Plungerhead tastes more dry and balanced than it smells.
The problem is, for $19, I just didn’t warm up to the dense, spicy blueberry, rhubarb and eucalyptus flavors, as nicely put together as they are. At $12, this would clearly get a recommendation from your Wineguider. Although this zin with the big impact is obviously high quality, my picky, cranky self has decided that it is:
Not recommended.
Hi!! Tonight, as the United States dissolves into default on its obligations, we review an Australian shiraz from 2008 that costs $20 at Total Wine.
Well, well, well. Here’s a delicious shiraz. Importantly, for tonight’s governmental festivities, it has a stout 15% alcohol. It’s spicy. Dense. Big. Loaded with dry tobacco and juicy blueberries. And yes! Some chocolate.
HERE’S THE PROBLEM. I’m drinking Shotfire together with another little Aussie shiraz from 2009 that I like to call, “Rosemount” (reviewed here). It’s really good. Although sorely lacking in House/Senate anesthetic potency — it has a meager 13.5% alcohol — it is in fact beautifully dense, warm, juicy, and spicy. And it costs a big, fat, $6.50 at Total Wine. Ha! Less than 1/3rd the cost of Shotfire.
Although Shotfire is clearly better, with more complexity, more transparency to its flavor, and more dry “snap” in your mouth to accompany its juicy warmth, it’s not 3 times better than Rosemount. I’m not even sure it’s 2 times better. So, it’s just too expensive. Shotfire, at $20, although very nice to drink, is unfortunately:
Not recommended.
Today we review a 2008 merlot from Mendoza Argentina, which cost me $9.
The smooth and soft texture of this merlot is lovely. Its deep, dark ruby red color makes your mouth water. And the label is very classy — at only $9, it looks like a $45 wine. That can help a guy who’s making dinner for his date.
However, you’ll want your date to actually drink her wine. Norton is OK, with a cigar-chomping / Anthony Quinn take on the usual merlot taste, but it’s not quite “good.” There’s some Cheap Red Wine taste in there. A little bitter, and hot, meaning you can really taste the 13.5% alcohol.
Although it has some nice leather and spicy-hot tobacco, Norton merlot from Argentina isn’t warm, comfortable and merlot-ish enough for me to encourage you to take the plunge.
Not recommended. Maybe I should try something from Bolivia.
Today we review a 2007 merlot from New Zealand that costs around $13.
This glass of medium-bodied Oyster Bay merlot really reminds me of the beach. Not a pristine white sand / blue water beach, but a fishing beach. Lots of thick rope, metal buckets, and shellfish.
I guess what I’m saying is, this merlot is salty. It has a hint of black olives. It’s also minerally, and woody. Maybe a little bitter, in a good way? It’s interesting, and would go well with salty food, or a good book on the deck of a beach house. But at $13, I want a little more composed and smooth delivery of merlot warmth. I don’t think it will make most merlot drinkers super happy. And so, it is unfortunately:
Not recommended.
Hi, how are you? I’m good but — well, there are some things I should tell you.
I wildly recommended the 2009 Tiefenbrunner pinot grigio, in this humdinger of a review right here. I stand by that review, but I have to say, the 2010 is not as good. It’s OK, but a bit lifeless, and I am just not digging it.
Second, for years now, I’ve been telling everybody how great and low-priced Nobilo sauvignon blanc is. (My fawning review of the 2009 is here.) At $11, it consistently tastes like a $20-ish wine. Well, the 2010 ain’t so hot. It’s lost some of that bursting-with-citrus magic. Coincidentally, it now sells at Total Wine for the absurdly low price of $7.47.
I am confident that Nobilo 2011 will stage a complete comeback.
Tiefenbrunner, I’m not as sure about, because I only got to know it last year. I am very hopeful that it will return to its 2009 glory days as well.
Until then, these charmers are “Not recommended.” Cheers,
Wineguider
Today we review a 2009 zin from Dry Creek Valley in northern Sonoma Valley, California. I got it for $20.
OK this Frei Brothers zin is really good. It has 15% alcohol, so, if you want to wind down after a hard day’s work — WAY down — it will do the job. Spicy, rich and tannic, full of dusty blackberries, and deadly serious, this wine tastes like a real step up from the normal $10 family dinner wines.
The problem is, I’m not excited about paying a full $20 for another bottle. If it were $15 or $16, Frei Brothers reserve zinfandel would receive a committed, definite recommendation. At this price, however, it’s a delicious, happy dreams-inducing, near miss.
Not recommended.
Today we review a very popular 2008 red blend that’s 85% petite sirah and 15% petit verdot. It’s from California’s Lodi appellation and costs around $18.
This wine is powerful. Which is what you expect if you’re familiar with these grapes with the dainty-sounding names. Petite Petit is very juicy and jammy, yet also has medium-to-large amounts of tannins. Dark purple in your glass, it tastes almost thick. Somebody took ”fruit bomb,” and turned it up to 11. If you want a deep, extremely dark blackberry-ish red wine, Petite Petit is your answer.
It also has a fantastic label, something that Michael David winery seems to be very good at.
The problem is that the actual flavor of this wine is almost lost. You’re too busy being overwhelmed by the big juiciness. (And the feeling that your teeth are now purple.) When you find them, the flavors in here aren’t really that delicious, so I would not spend another $18 on it. I prefer this winery’s Incognito, which I reviewed here.
Not recommended.
This 2009 pinot noir from California sells for around $10 and inspires some very divided opinion.
Many wine reviewers love Smoking Loon pinot noir. This review says, “the flavors started to explode, layers of dark cherries, spice, cocoa, and berries flowing together all framed together by a touch of oak.” And this review called it a “winner.”
Then there’s this review, which says “if you switch to Smoking Loon after a true, decent pinot noir, it’s a knife in the throat, with the alcohol hitting your sinuses so intensely it’s almost like you took a swig of gasoline by mistake.”
As for yours truly, taking a big swig of this pinot caused me to wince uncontrollably. Musky, a little dusty, weird, and a jumble of flavors that resist identification. (Cherry? Bacon? No, I’m serious.)
Yet, I keep drinking it, trying to pin it down. By this time, many other pinots have found their way into my garbage disposal. Surprisingly, Smoking Loon is calling me back. Bottom line: this gets two reviews. If you enjoy inexpensive pinot noirs generally, you just might like it, because you’re prepared for it. If you really love high quality pinot noir, stay FAR away.
Before we begin I want you to know that I have very high regard for French wines. In fact I believe that with barely any effort at all, they have the ability to kick our California wines all over the room. When they feel like it, that is.
Now, today, we examine a $15 red from 2009 that I bought at Total Wine. The bottle says “red burgundy.” In fact, it is a beaujolais. Ahh, yes, the French. Their labels are so user-friendly. Their marketing is just so spot-on, warmly welcoming Americans with their every move. (You see, it can be a beaujolais and still have ‘burgundy’ written on the label, because beaujolais is one type of burgundy.) (Ahhh, thank you . . . . wait – that still doesn’t make any sense . . . plus, what is beaujolais, exactly? And burgundy?) (Shut up.) (Yes, thank you.)
Other fun things on this bottle for Americans include ”MORGON” in massive letters, ”Georges Duboeuf,” ”Jean Descombes,” the very helpful “A. F.71570 Romaneche-Thorins,” and “W.J. Deutsch.” Great. Thanks. Anyway, that’s pretty much it. It never mentions beaujolais, and never tells you what gosh-darned grape this wine is made from.
(It’s gamay.)
(“Oh,” I said, acting like that was helpful information.)
In fact, after you study this bottle at the store, you would be forgiven for wondering, “so what the hell is this shit?” Ahhh, but then you’re supposed to just drink it, and forgive. Wine Spectator did, and they gave this dark purple juice a whopping 93. That’s very, very impressive.
However, I do not give this juice a 93. Or even a 92. It tastes, fine — not great. I do not want more and more. It’s fairly simple, medium bodied, extremely fruit forward (strawberries and slightly stinky blackberries), yet also has a tannic bite that makes it feel dry in your mouth. Kind of like Welch’s grape juice. Actually, really a lot like Welch’s grape juice. Athough it’s by no means terrible, even if it had a label that Americans could read, this red would remain:
Not recommended.
This 2009 pinot noir from Oregon’s Willamette Valley costs $20 at Total Wine.
This pinot noir, made by the NW Wine Company, is pretty good. Smells like real pinot. Tastes like cherry. Cola. A little raspberry. On the sweet side. A little bit of that genuine pinot mushroomy spiciness. It’s on the lightest side of medium-bodied and has a pleasant, dark rose color in your glass.
BUT! it has a kind of washed-out taste. Many reviews say, “bursting with flavors of …” Kudos reserve isn’t bursting with anything. My golden-palatted friends at a recent tasting liked it at first, but soured as they tasted it more. And it tastes noticeably worse on Day 2. In conclusion:
FOR NORMAL PEOPLE: Although it’s good, I don’t think Kudos reserve is worth $20. If it were $11, I would give it a hearty recommendation. Unfortunately, it isn’t. So, I am going to say that this low-pricer (for an Oregon pinot) is:
Not recommended.
FOR PINOT NOIR LOVERS: Kudos reserve has that certain very real, Oregon pinot-ish something that the affordable California pinots are missing. It’s a little boring, but the fact is, you cannot get better Oregon pinot for much less than this $20 price point. For you pinot lovers, Kudos reserve is:
Recommended.
Very truly yours,
Sybil
Today it’s a 2007 California chardonnay that will cost you $40 at Total Wine, up to $50 elsewhere.
This wine is famous. It comes from a Napa Valley winery that was founded in 1882. (That’s not a typo.) Chateau Montelena is also THE white wine that put California whites on the map – in 1976, the 1973 vintage of this wine stunned everybody by trampling a bunch of great French whites to win the Paris Tasting, a/k/a the Judgement of Paris.
So, this 2007 chardonnay has a lovely floral aroma. It tastes like an extremely elegant version of the familiar California chardonnay. The typical super-oak quality is replaced by subtle notes of oak. The typical buttery thing is replaced by smoothness, a really pleasant mouthfeel. Besides that unfortunate “California chard” taste, you get hints of mellow pineapple, vanilla, and a spicy, minerally finish. It has a LOT of character, so it should be paired with something spicy or bold. It is crying out, “spicy chicken dish” to me right now.
However, this wine is $40 at Total Wine, and costs more just about everywhere else. With its pedigree, it should be expensive, but I would not pay $40 again for it. Then again, most California chardonnays hit me with an unnatural, weird kind of non-wine flavor, so I admit that I am not a neutral judge of this animal. (No other wines do this, and I love chardonnays from other parts of the world.) I say, there are much more satisfying white wines you can buy for around $25. However, if you are living in a Groundhog Day-like cycle of California chardonnays and only California chardonnays, then you should definitely check out Chateau Montelena, because it’s one of the best.
Not recommended.
Today, we review a 2009 Italian pinot grigio that cost me $19.
Folks, Ca’ Montini is serious. It is less sweet than many other pinot grigios, so it is less “fun”. But it’s good, some might say, extremely good. Dry, minerally, citrusy, and balanced. However, I just didn’t find that it was delicious enough to merit a price of $19. But this one is close — you might love it. Unfortunately, for your Wineguider, this elegant Italian is:
Not recommended.
Today we look at a 2008 “reserve” pinot noir from California’s Monterey area, which costs $17.
Fog Head reserve is good. It does nothing wrong, which is a big score in the pinot world. It has a nice cherry and cola taste, and doesn’t have too much alcohol. But it’s a little too sweet, a little bland, has that strange “California pinot” taste (which does not actually taste like pinot noir) and it is not spicy, which I almost require before recommending a pinot. At $10, this would be a definite recommendation. Unfortunately, although very nice and friendly, and although it’s done nothing at all wrong, Fog Head reserve at $17 is:
Not recommended.
Today’s wine is a 2009 pinot noir from California’s Sonoma coast, which costs $17-$19.
This Coppola “Director’s” pinot noir is a step up from the regular Coppola pinot, and it does indeed taste better. It also tastes a little bit like the Archstone that I just recommended, here. And like the Grayson, recommended here. Those are $10 wines, so as you would expect, the Coppola is better.
All three are California pinots, and all have a certain hard-to-define flavor in common, which I’m not used to in a pinot noir. I’m not wild about it. In addition, Coppola Director’s gives you a lot of rose, cherry, and especially cola. Its color is a beautiful dark rose.
It’s nice and smooth, generally appealing, and it doesn’t do anything wrong. However, for a $17-$19 pinot, it’s a little bit too sweet, and it doesn’t taste quite enough like pinot noir, so it juuuuust misses. This California girl is:
Not recommended.
Hi! Today we look at a 2006 cabernet from California’s Sonoma County, which costs $20 at Costco and $22 at Total Wine.
The $15 ”regular” Kendall-Jackson cabernet is juuuuuust good enough to recommend, according to me (I reviewed it here). Today’s wine, the K-J Grand Reserve, which sounds like it should cost about $85, is actually only a few dollars more. Unfortunately, it isn’t much better than the regular stuff. It smells sweet. It is spicy, oaky, and has a fair amount of mouth-drying tannins. It reminds me of leather. It has a lot of dark red fruit and it isn’t very complex. What we have here is, basically, a generic California cab.
Although the Grand Reserve is probably a little better, if I were shopping in the K-J lineup, I’d stick with the ”plain” cabernet (which is misleadingly named “Vintner’s Reserve”). (Sigh.) In the coming months, I am hoping to find other cabernets in this $15-$25 price range that are more interesting, more exciting, maybe even a “Best Value”. Unfortunately, this Not-Very-Grand K-J cab is none of those things, so it is:
Not recommended.
Today we look at a 2007 cabernet sauvignon from Napa Valley, CA that costs around $18-$19 (but I got on sale, for $15).
On sale at $15, this cabernet is in the ball park of a recommendation. And 2007 Napa Valley reds are supposed to be “so great,” so the rulebook says that I should be recommending this puppy. The problem is, I never see it for $15. Maybe I just live in the wrong state — what are you seeing it sell for? (Just leave a comment.)
It’s a typical California cabernet, with tannins, deep dark fruit, and oak. It doesn’t have a very transparent taste (i.e. it is somewhat generic), so it’s more about texture than flavor. It’s not super dense, and it’s not terribly juicy, but it’s fine. And it seems very consistent, because I’ve tried multiple vintages and I always have the same reaction — “this is almost good enough.” But not quite good enough to score a recommendation from your Wineguider. Unfortunately, this reliable Napa Valley red is:
Not recommended.
Today we review a 2008 chianti superiore from Italy (of course) that costs around $11 or $12, but is just $9 at Costco.
You would think that Ruffino‘s chianti ”superiore” would be, ahem, superior to other chiantis, such as chianti classico, or classico reserva.
But this one isn’t superior to much of anything. It’s on the light side and it’s dry, not juicy. Kind of bitter. Not warm, not complex, not delicious. Maybe it would be great with food? Sorry, I just didn’t care for this, despite its promising name. I can’t suggest that you spend even the $9 that it requires at Costco. This one is:
Not recommended.
Tonight it’s a controversial French pinot noir from 2009 that will cost you about $10.
This wine is famous, not for its taste, but because there was a huge controversy about it a couple years back. It seems that the French actually sold about a kagillion gallons of fake pinot noir to the maker of Red Bicyclette, which affected 2006 and previous vintages.
So I bought a bottle, thinking ”maybe now, it will be awesome for the price, to help give this label a credibility come-back.” In my optimism, I ignored the absence of maker’s name (Gallo) on the bottle. I ignored the winemaker notes, which admit that this pinot is still cut with 14% merlot and syrah. And I ignored this, on the back label: “Bottled by: Reh Kendermann Gmbh Weinkellerei — Bingen, Germany.” (????)
Rather than awesome, I felt it was just bland, sweet, fake cherry water that failed to resemble pinot noir. I poured most of the bottle down the drain. My bitterness from wasting $10 on this wine is lessened only by the satisfaction of writing those last two sentences. If you don’t have a wine blog, but you, too feel burned by Red Bicyclette, please feel free to leave a comment on this review. Or if you work for Gallo, and want to vent at me for being an unqualified wine-swilling jerk, please feel free to leave a comment.
Unfortunately this pinot is:
Not recommended.
Today we look at a 2009 pinot from California that I bought for $13.
Block Nine vineyards is dedicated to making only pinot noir, which is really cool. Right now they offer only the “Caiden’s Vineyards” pinot. The famous Robert Parker has called the 2009: “Everything a pinot noir should be,” and said, ”even more shocking is how good Block Nine pinot noirs are for their price.” His notes on the 2008 included: “Earthy, gamy, plum and cola aromas jump from the glass of this medium plum/garnet-colored wine. Complex notes of herbs, sweet cherries and sassafras follow through on the palate.”
All of which is baffling and mildly hilarious, because, unfortunately, this California red with the pretty dark-pink color tastes like alcohol-infused cherry water, not pinot noir. It’s very pleasant, light-to-medium bodied, and easy to drink. It’s also too sweet, typical of California pinots. To be fair, it does have a bit of spice and floral action going on, which is nice. Overall it’s like a computer-generated replica of pinot noir, by the guy who made the ’80s Atari video games. The big problem for Block Nine is Mark West, which is still under $9 at many stores, and really does taste like pinot noir.
Cool bottle, awesome “one grape only” philosophy for a winery, but Block Nine is:
Not recommended.
