Posts

Posted on

Meadowood

rich mauro the peoples palate

In the Napa Valley, It Doesn’t Get Any Better Than Meadowood. I have had the pleasure of staying at the Meadowood resort in the Napa Valley twice now, first in March of 2006 and again in July 2007. Nestled in a valley, a crease really, in the eastern foothills of the Napa Valley (roughly as far north as St. Helena), Meadowood is an amazing property. There is a refreshingly rustic feel to being surrounded by forest as you rest in your cottage. But make no mistake; Meadowood is a refined and eminently civilized place. Once inside your cottage, you feel as if you are in an elegant hotel.The civility is reinforced by the availability of golf, tennis and croquet. And a nightly wine reception offers a white and red Napa Valley wine to enjoy and an opportunity for conversation with fellow visitors.A notable offering is an extensive wine education program directed by Master Sommelier Gilles Chambure. Guests can (for an additional charge) avail themselves of a wide array of wine tasting sessions, winery tours and other wine-related services.And now The Restaurant at Meadowood has become a jewel of the resort. I left our meal there in July convinced that this is one of the best restaurants in the Napa Valley. Chef Joseph Humphrey prepares impeccable contemporary cuisine using fresh, local, seasonal ingredients (some even from the Meadowood’s own organic garden).There are three-course ($65), four-course ($80) and five-course ($95) Prix Fixe menus, as well as a Chef’s Tasting Menu ($120). Of course, the wine list is heavy on Napa Valley wines but there is also an impressive selection of wines from around the world.It is no surprise to me that Esquire recently named The Restaurant one of the best new restaurants in America and the Michelin Guide just gave it two stars (three is the most they give).Granted, both the resort and the restaurant are very expensive. But the next time you are looking for a splurge, you can do no better than Meadowood.

For more information, check out: http://www.meadowood.com/winecuisine/the-restaurant/

Posted on

Are Restaurant Prices Too High? Need I Ask?

A little over three years ago I wrote a series of columns about restaurant wine pricing for the Colorado Springs Gazette that generated the most interest and responses than all the columns I have written in the 12 years I have been a freelance writer.

It all started with a column summarizing the results of Wine & Spirits magazine’s15th Annual Restaurant Poll (published in its April 2004 issue) tracking the popularity and prices of wines in what the magazine described as “high-end American restaurants” in 2003. The poll was sent to the Zagat Survey’s “Most Popular Restaurants” listings on the not unreasonable assumption that these restaurants “reflect the range of dining in America.”

Here is what I wrote in the first column, edited to bring the data up-to-date.

According to the magazine’s publisher and editor, Joshua Greene, the survey results revealed a “sea change” in wine consumption trends, assuming the 350 responding restaurants are representative of fine dining in the U.S. The results showed an increasing diversity of regions and varieties on wine lists. The restaurants reported that diners have responded well to this growing diversity by becoming more adventurous than ever, experimenting with wines from southern Italy, Australia and other lesser-known regions over more familiar choices.

The poll (as well as the most recent poll in April 2007) also confirmed that red wine remains the wine of choice in American restaurants, at 60 percent of the most popular wines  (up to 64 percent in 2007) compared with only 46 percent ten years ago.

There are a variety of other interesting findings in these polls but most interesting to me was the price consciousness of consumers, a finding the magazine described as  “underscoring the consumer’s interest in identifying wines that present the greatest value in each category.

Yet, the polls reveal that prices remain high and mostly are even increasing. In the 2004 poll, nearly 40 percent of the restaurants reported an increase in wine prices. In the 2007 poll, over 60 percent said they have increased their prices.

I for one continue to be concerned about high wine prices at restaurants. Although, wine sales increased as a percentage of the responding restaurants’ total sales in both polls, restaurants may be missing an important opportunity to educate and excite consumers about wine and especially new types of wine. I suspect that lower prices (or at least a wider range of prices) would lead to increased consumption and higher sales.

High prices and unimaginative selections keep consumers from experimenting. Treating wine as a cash cow may be understandable from the point of view of a restaurant trying to make up for a narrow margin on the food. But high prices contribute to the mystification of wine and the perpetuation of the false notion of wine as elitist.

I am encouraged that consumers seem to be seeking good values more than ever before. Whether that trend is because of the economic squeeze or because diners are wine savvy (it’s probably both), hopefully restaurants will get the message. If more restaurants treated wine more as an integral part of the meal and priced it accordingly, both the diners and the restaurants would benefit.

I concluded the column asking readers (diners, restaurant owners and restaurant staff) what they thought.

The next column featured the readers’ responses.

“Boy, did your column today strike a nerve!!”

This statement pretty well sums up the readers’ reactions as they wrote to vent their frustrations about the prices of wine in restaurants. Interestingly, two themes were consistent throughout the responses:

Consumers take value seriously.

Consumers will seek alternatives when the perceived value is not adequate.

As for value, virtually everyone said they often feel bottle and especially by-the-glass prices are not justified by the quality, especially when they know the cost of the same wine in retail stores. Some even made rather precise price/quality calculations. Consider these representative quotes.

“What I object to most is the prices that ordinary, moderately priced restaurants are charging.”

“It would be lovely to have a glass of wine with dinner but I refuse to pay more for the glass than I would for the entire bottle at (a liquor store).”

“Why would we want to pay $80 to $90 for a bottle of wine that is way too young, probably not stored properly, and served in cheap wine glasses when we can enjoy that bottle at home for about $30?”

“It kills me to pay $6-7 for an approximately 4 oz. glass of wine when I know I could buy the whole bottle for $12.”

When faced with such challenges, consumers invariably look for alternatives. It seems many simply will stay home. Others will give preference to restaurants with better prices. Most trade down, buying a glass instead of a bottle or a lower priced wine than the one they really want. Again the readers state their positions eloquently.

“Good wine values are exactly what we look for, though increasingly it is becoming a challenge. In the meantime we’ll save that special ‘expensive’ bottle for home and the restaurant’s can continue without us.”

“I can tell you that a lot of times, if we’re going out to a nice dinner, we’ll have a good glass of wine here at home before we go out because the restaurants are charging so much for their wine.”

“We have changed our dining out patterns considerably…We visit restaurants less often nowadays because to spend so much money for wine that is just average is not worth it to us…We often bring our own wine (home) and get food from restaurants as carryout.”

“My girlfriend and I are so fed up with high prices, poor quality and selection, and un-knowledgeable staff, that we drink a glass before we go to dinner and then finish off the bottle when we get home after dinner.”

“In response (to the outrageous markup), I have selected less ‘high end’ destinations simply because I feel the difference in the food quality does not justify the difference in the price of the wine.”

“I think restaurants count on the fact that people like us will order regardless of the price. However, we will be more selective where we dine when we know the wine is going to cost the price of two or three entrees …”

“My wife and I eat out ‘up scale’ ….In each of theses places I find about two ‘by the glass’ choices that I would accept and have to pass on one of the full bottles.”

“Restaurant wine prices of twice (or three times) the retail price is ridiculous. We therefore forego trying the better wines at restaurants.”

“The bottom line is that if restaurants had a reasonable profit margin on wines, we would be willing to be more adventurous and try more premium wines.”

“We are tired of the high wine prices in restaurants. We do tend to feel forced to purchase ‘House Wines’ regularly even though we know they are mediocre.”

Finally, the readers had a few other interesting comments and suggestions. There was a lot of interest in a wider variety of choices – both in the types of wine and the range of prices. Readers also expressed concerns about wine service and the staff’s lack of knowledge about the restaurant’s wines. Several people reserved special contempt for the chains on these issues.

Certainly, these responses do not constitute a scientific survey of consumer opinions but the unanimity and emotion cannot be denied. Restaurants, are you listening?

I finished the series giving the restaurants their chance to speak and ending with my two cents on the subject.

I interviewed members of the Colorado Springs Independent Restaurant Collective – Jeff Mervis of La Petite Maison, Brent Beavers and Kristin Schaeffer of Sencha, Chip Johnson of the Briarhurst Manor, and James Africano of The Warehouse – and came away convinced these are some of the “good guys” in the restaurant community. Unlike national chains, these independents are more concerned with providing quality wine and food than simply maximizing the return on their investment. They emphasize fresh, local foods and are more community oriented, donating to fundraisers, farmers markets and so on.

Their wine lists also typically have much more variety of wines from different countries, grapes and styles on their lists than do the chains.  They said they try to have a range of prices and provide good quality at all levels.

They said they too are appalled at the prices some restaurants charge, especially for wines by the glass. They don’t like being lumped in with those restaurants. And they don’t appreciate comparisons with liquor stores, claiming higher costs and less pricing flexibility. They point out that they are selling a total experience and environment for the diner.

But this isn’t the whole story. There is another model that deserves everyone’s attention. No discussion of restaurant wine pricing is complete without an acknowledgment of the pioneering approach of San Francisco’s PlumpJack Café.

When Gavin Newsom and his partners opened PlumpJack in 1994 they surprised the wine and fine dining worlds by selling their wine at only slightly above retail prices. Mr. Newsom couldn’t believe the mark ups in other restaurants and insisted that people ultimately will spend more if they get better value.

The result, according to Rob Goldberg (CEO) and Rose Gibson (General Manger), has been to cultivate a clientele that not only appreciates wine but also is very loyal. Newsom once told The Wine Spectator “PlumpJack makes money by selling higher volume and creating repeat customers.”

Gibson says, “Gavin was very clear from the beginning that we would make enough money; we don’t need to make tons of money.” Goldberg adds they “may have given up some profit for higher sales.”

Their plan seems to be working. PlumpJack is till around and busy every night, while many restaurants have come and gone since and the company now owns five other restaurants. And Gavin Newsom is San Francisco’s mayor, though I can’t prove his wine pricing policy is the reason.

“If customers look at the total check and feel they got a good value, they are likely to come back more often – we put money in the bank, not margin,” says Goldberg.I can’t help but see PlumJack’s approach as a model for other restaurants. I wish restaurants would do the following:

Offer bottle and half bottle prices close to retail

Provide a knowledgeable staff

Use high quality glasses

Offer a taste before purchase

Pour at least 6 oz. by the glass

Offer1/2 glass options

Offer flights

Offer wine and food pairings

Offer occasional bottle discounts

Pass on any cost savings to the customer

Then there is Fred Franzia. You may not have heard of him but he is responsible for possibly the biggest phenomenon in the wine industry in recent years  – “Two Buck Chuck,”  $2 Charles Shaw wines sold in Trader Joes stores.

Now he is stumping for a $10 bottle of wine in restaurants. He told The Wine Enthusiast, “Trader Joe’s became a destination retailer by providing this opportunity. You’d think restaurants would want to become frequent destinations for their patrons.”

Franzia’s crusade also struck a nerve with former New York Times wine columnist, Frank Prial. He once wrote about a bottle of wine he paid $18 for in a restaurant and then saw the same wine in a liquor store for $6. He concluded the restaurant could have sold the wine for $10 and still made three time more than they paid. Still Prial isn’t convinced the $10 wine will ever take hold. His solution is for restaurants to start offering carafes.

But consumers need to do their part, too. Prial asserts “In some ways, the high cost of wine is a problem we have made for ourselves: we take wine too seriously.” He goes on to say that it is fine to be serious about wine under certain circumstances but it is unnecessary for everyday drinking.

We diners need to be reasonable. We should appreciate that high quality and unique wines are likely to cost more than cheap, mass-produced wine. We also need to stop thinking inexpensive wine is always cheap quality.

Somehow I don’t think we’ve heard the last on this issue. For my part, I continue to seek restaurants that provide consumers with good quality at a fair price. For the rest, I’ll drink a glass of water before I will overpay for wine.

Posted on

Hank’s is a Great Choice for Seafood in Washington D.C.

I just had to report on a great restaurant I discovered while I was in Washington, DC recently. Whenever I am in DC I consider it a must to visit the area around Dupont Circle. With some of the city’s best bookstores (like Kramerbooks) and museums (most notably the Phillips Collection) and arguably the liveliest street life in the city, rich maurothis area draws me much more that traditional tourist favorites like Georgetown.

Actually, the main attraction for me is the wealth of cafes and neighborhood restaurants. And on a recent visit I was invited to sample the fare at a recent addition to the neighborhood, Hank’s Oyster Bar. The restaurant is located just a few blocks from Dupont Circle in the heart of the diverse neighborhood around 17th and Q streets. In case you didn’t know, the Dupont Circle area also has long been one of DC’s most gay friendly neighborhoods. And Hank’s is run by Jamie Leeds, a skilled chef and restaurateur who just happens to be a lesbian. After spending years laboring in other DC restaurants, she opened her own place in May 2005. Jamie has modeled the restaurant after the popular oyster bars and seafood hangouts in Boston, New York and San Francisco. Hank’s also is a tribute to chef Leeds’s late father who was a fisherman.

Being a neighborhood restaurant, it is moderately sized, with seating for about 65 people inside and around 20 outside. The menu changes daily, offering several inviting specials but also many seafood classics. We immediately felt welcome, and not because they knew I was going to write a review. The place just felt welcoming and we could sense the pleasure of the diners, and see it on their faces. Naturally, we started with a look at the blackboard for the daily oyster and clam selection ($2 each), which also listed sake oyster shooters, jumbo shrimp cocktail and seafood ceviche. Then some excellent sourdough bread bridged the gap until our small plates ($6 to $13) arrived. We enjoyed lobster bisque and fried oysters but the popcorn shrimp and calamari, Caesar salad, and crab cakes looked just as good. The night we were there they also offered special small plates of steamed Penn Cove mussels, chilled Old Bay peel & eat shrimp, and shad roe with bacon. When it came to sampling the large plates ($11 to $22), we opted for the daily fish specials. Sable fish, mahi mahi and Arctic char all were fresh and expertly prepared.

The regular menu offered an oyster Po’ Boy, fried oysters, Ipswitch clams, a lobster and roll seared scallops. Believe me, it was a difficult choice. For those not in the mood for fish, there is a daily-changing “Meat & Two” menu (plus two sides). This included offerings such as short ribs, chicken schnitzel, pork chop, Flat Iron steak, Hangar steak and Beef Brisket. Hank’s also offers a market veggie plate. Sides ($4 each) are much more than the typical Cole Slaw, French Fries, and onion rings, although they have those, too. We adventured out of our comfort zone to order French green lentils, sesame snow peas and collard greens and were not disappointed. The one drawback is that Hank’s does not serve dessert (the kitchen’s too small) but they try to make up for it by bringing some excellent dark chocolate along with the bill.

Although some in our group still were disappointed, I just looked at it as a convenient excuse to move on to one of the great cafes in the area. And the wine list? Well, since this is a wine column I must tell you that the list is a really good match for the food and accessibly priced. Among the whites, we could choose sauvignon blanc from France or South Africa and chardonnay from France or California. But there also were more interesting choices, like French Muscadet, Austrian Gruner Veltliner, and Alsatian Pinot Gris. The red wines also were well chosen. A prime choice for fish, there was pinot noir from France, California and Oregon. But it was also nice to see alternatives, such as tempranillo from Spain, shiraz from Australia and malbec from Argentina. Once I got back to Denver, I wanted to see if I was alone in my favorable impression and found just the opposite. A few examples: Troy Petenbrink in The Washington Blade wrote, “Hank’s Oyster Bar is an excellent and much needed addition to the 17th Street dining scene.” Tom Sietsema of the Washington Post concluded, “Though the atmosphere is casual, this fish is first-rate.” And the Washingtonian magazine recently ranked Hank’s as one of the city’s top 100 restaurants.

Bottom line, Hank’s is a great neighborhood restaurant, a casual place where the food is anything but casual. And, in true neighborly fashion, the prices (including the wines) are more reasonable than other D.C. restaurants of comparable quality. If only Denver had a place like this.

VITAL STATISTICS: 1624 Q Street, NW, between 16th and 17th Streets. (202-462-4265). Hours: Sun-Tue 5:30pm-10pm; Wed- Sat 5:30pm-11pm; Sat-Sun Brunch 11am-3pm. Website: www.hanksdc.com

Posted on

Pink Wines Strike Refreshing Middle Ground

This is the time of year most of us wine critics write columns touting various white wines as the cool, refreshing antidote to summer’s hot weather. These days most of us also are singing the praises of pink wines. Of course, we are not talking about White Zinfandel. We are talking about dry serious wine and there are many quite tasty ones worth your attention.

Europeans, on the other hand, have known for a long time the joy of drinking a good pink wine. The most common label for these wines outside of Europe is the French word “Rosé” in reference to the color, of course. There are essentially two types of pink wine. The most common style is a made by crushing red grapes and leaving the juice in contact with the grape skins (the source of a wine’s color) only briefly. The other style is the result of a process called “saignee.” This is a technique in which a certain amount of juice is “bled off” after the grapes are crushed. Either way, the result is a wine with a shade of pink that is an ideal “bridge” wine: it approximates the flavor interest of its red siblings but drinks more like a white wine. The best are dry or occasionally only slightly sweet but deliver bright, fresh fruit flavors.

As such, pink wines arguably are the most versatile of wines. They make excellent aperitifs and can accompany a wide variety of foods. They are a fine choice at barbecues, picnics and a restaurant when you want a bottle of red and your companion wants a bottle of white. Because of their light body and lively fruit, pink wines are best when chilled and should be drunk young, so look for the most recent vintages available. Arguably the best rosés in the world are produced in France, where they take pink wines every bit as seriously as they do red and white wines. This is especially true in the south, where a wide variety of rosés are produced. Tavel, referencing an appellation in the southern Rhone Valley northeast of Avignon and southwest of Chateauneuf-du-Pape, probably is the best know pink wine in the world. Certainly, the wines are very good but this popularity probably also is because rosé is all that is produced here and the region does an effective job of marketing their product.

In fact, the 2005 Guigal ($16) was the best of my tasting. This sixty-year-old wine company is one of France’s greatest producers. Guigal makes a wide range of wines, including highly prized Hermitage and Cote Rotie. Clearly, this flavorful rosé (equal parts grenache and cinsault) benefits from that expertise. The 2006 Chateau d’Aqueria ($17), from an estate that was founded in 1595 and now is the largest in the appellation, is a more traditional Tavel in that it is a blend of red wines (grenache, cinsault, mourvedre) and white wines (clairette and bourboulenc).

Head southeast of Tavel and you come to the idyllic region of Provence and the French Riviera. Here, famed Chateauneuf-du-Pape producer Chateau Mont Redon makes L’Aire du Rossignol Cotes du Provence (2005, $15) from biodynamically grown grenache, cinsault and syrah vines averaging 35 years old. Over near the southwest corner of France, is the Languedoc. Although the area has about a 2500-year history of wine making there wasn’t much to recommend it tot consumers until about thirty years ago. Today, it is one of France’s most exciting wine regions. Domaine de Nizas is a good example of this new commitment to quality. Established in 1998 by Bernard Portet, the winemaker for Napa Valley’s Clos du Val and John Goelet, a direct descendant of the Guestier wine merchant family on Bordeaux, it is now producing several impressive wine. The 2006 Coteaux du Languedoc ($16), a blend of Syrah, Grenache and Mourvedre, is a good introduction to the winery and the region. Before leaving France, how about a quick stop in Beaujolais? Here, Louis Jadot, for 150 years one of the most respected names in Burgundy and Beaujolais, also makes a fine Rosé. The 2006 Beaujolais ($13, screw cap) is made with gamay, the only grape allowed in Beaujolais.

The Spanish are as serious about their “Rosado” as the French are about Rosé. While there is a lot of good Rosado from Rioja (tempranillo grape), the region of Navarra to the north, although still more famous for the bulls of Pamplona, is a great source of Rosado from garnacha grapes. The 2006 Red Guitar ($12) is produced by Bodegas Ada, a 53 member cooperative established in 1941. The winery amazingly claims this wine is made from the same 60-100 year old vines as their red wine, which says to me it is made by the saignee method. Regardless, it is a flavorful, well-priced wine. The 2006 Julian Chivite Gran Fuedo ($12) comes from the oldest (1647) and still one of the finest producers in Spain. Chivite is best known for red wines from Rioja and Ribera del Duero but has relied on vineyards from their home base in Navarra to create this fine Rosado.

Now is also a good time to try California rosé. More and more wineries are producing quality rosés, perhaps sensing a growing interest among consumers. Here are a few good choices: 2005 Big House Pink ($10, screw cap). The whimsical “Big House” brand was created by the inimitable Randall Graham of Bonny Doon and includes a Red, White and Pink. This pink is produced by the saignee method an includes an eclectic blend of five grapes: sangiovese, barbera, zinfandel, carignan, and Mourvedre. 2006 I’M Rosé Napa Valley ($13). This wine is one of the new projects from the Michael Mondavi family. In fact, the brand is named after Michael’s wife, Isabel Mondavi and his son, Rob, makes it using the saignee method. It is quite full flavored, maybe at least partly because it is 100% cabernet sauvignon.2006 St. Francis Sonoma County ($17). This Sonoma Valley winery is one of my favorite Zinfandel producers. Although this blend includes only two grapes, I find the combination of 75% merlot and 25% syrah as unique as the Big House.

Finally, let’s head down to New Zealand for a 2006 Wild Rock Vin Gris ($16, screw cap). Wild Rock makes distinctive and affordable Pinot Noir and Sauvignon Blanc from Central Otago vineyards located on the South Island. The label uses the term Vin Gris” or “grey wine” as a tribute to the French, which often used the term to denote a Rosé. Because of their light body and lively fruit, rosés are best when chilled and should be drunk young, so look for the most recent vintages available. Finally, one last point in their favor: they are eminently affordable. Most can be had for less than $20 retail.

As evidence of their growing popularity, pink wines now even have their own advocacy group: Rosé Avengers and Producers. Check them out at . There is also a new book dedicated solely to Rosé: “Rosé: A Guide to the World’s Most Versatile Wine,” (Chronicle Books) by Jeff Morgan, who is also a founder of RAP.

Posted on

Summer Pairings for Picnics

rich mauroThis summer when you prepare for a picnic, don’t forget the wine. While most people still turn to beer or margaritas to beat the heat, to my palate, there is no better environment for wine than a leisurely picnic or a backyard barbecue. One general guideline I follow is to match modest wine with modest foods. And I extend that to include modest circumstances, like picnics. Most picnics feature an eclectic variety of appetizers and snacks. Consequently the wine choices are myriad. Given the warmer weather and lighter foods, my thoughts turn to crisp, fruity, aromatic whites, such as these:

– 2006 Newhaven Sauvignon Blanc Marlborough ($12)

– 2006 Hogue Pinot Grigio Columbia Valley ($11)

– 2006 Chateau St. Jean Riesling Sonoma County ($15)

– 2006 Chateau St. Jean Gewürztraminer Sonoma County ($15)

A full-flavored rosé, such as the cabernet sauvignon-based 2006 Rosé Napa Valley ($13) from the Michael Mondavi family, also will do the trick.

Spicy appetizers like salsas and buffalo wings are a pairing challenge, to say the least, but wines with higher acid or some sweetness, including those just listed, can hold up to the heat. Other good choices include:

– 2006 Hogue Late Harvest Riesling (screw cap, $12)

– 2006 Kenwood Gewurztraminer Sonoma County ($14)

– 2006 The Winery at Holy Cross Abbey Sauvignon Blanc Reserv ($19)

If you insist on red wine, try the vibrant fruit of an Australian shiraz, like the 2005 Rosemount Diamond label ($10).

If cheese is being served, especially fresh and tangy cheese like goat’s milk, a brisk white, such as the 2006 Hogue Sauvignon Blanc Columbia Valley ($10), is my first choice. The Dry Creek Vineyards Dry Chenin Blanc ($12), 2005 Covey Run Pinot Grigio Columbia Valley ($9) or a Rhone varietal like the 2004 Marc Kreydenweiss “Perrieres” (biodynamic, $14) also would do nicely, especially with moderately aged cheeses.

Salads may present the toughest challenge for pairing, mainly because of the presence of vinegar. But it’s not impossible. Again, the acidity of a sauvignon blanc — say the 2006 Rosemount Diamond Label ($10) — or pinot grigio, such as a 2005 Tamas Monterey County (screw cap, $12), are most likely to stand up. The 2006 Martin Codax Albarino Rias Baixas ($15) from Spain world be an intriguing alternative.

The options for sandwiches are similar to those for appetizers. Just about any snappy, fruit-forward wine (red, white or pink) should do nicely. But this is where dry rosés really shine. I suggest looking to southern France, where rosé never went out of style. I recently tasted four excellent ones from Provence.

– Domaine Houchart 2006 ($10)

– Château de Pourcieux 2006 ($11)

– Commanderie de la Bargemone 2006 ($13)

– Domaine de la Sauveuse 2006 (organic, $18)

Of course, grilled and barbecued meats and fish often are the centerpieces of a picnic. Here is where the red wines take center stage. For beef or lamb, cabernet sauvignon is a classic choice but I suggest a Bordeaux-style blend: 2003 Kendall-Jackson Vintner’s Reserve “Meritage” ($12) and 2005 Robert Mondavi Private Selection “Vinetta” ($11). More interesting would be a Sangiovese-based wine like Gabbiano’s 2005 Chianti ($10) and 2004 Chianti Classico ($13) or the 2005 Col d’Orcia “Spezieri” ($13).

Actually, my favorite wines for grilled foods (especially chicken and sausages) and barbecue are zinfandel and syrah. Their jammy fruit, good structure and spice form a beautiful chorus with the smoky, juicy flavors of the grill. These will get you started:

– 2005 Dry Creek Heritage Zinfandel Sonoma County ($16)

– 2005 Rosenblum Zinfandel North Coast ($18)

– 2005 Covey Run “winemaker’s Collection” Syrah ($9)

– 2005 Kendall-Jackson Syrah “Vintner’s Reserve” ($12)

– 2005 Archetype Shiraz Barossa Valley ($15)

– 2004 Marr Syrah Tehama Hills ($19)

Finally, grilled seafood always seems to be less delicate than when cooked in the oven. White wines still work fine, Rosés even better. Best would be Pinot Noir like the 2005 B & G “Bistro Wine” ($9), 2005 Kali Hart Monterey County ($18) or 2005 Tolosa Central Coast ($18) for their earthy, low-tannin character. What are your favorite pairings and suggestions for summer fare? I would welcome your comments and thoughts!

Posted on

What Makes a Wine Great?

rich mauro the people's palateThere must be something in our nature as human beings that drives us to a fascination with greatness. Whether it is athletics, business, politics, science, music or art, we seem to be preoccupied with the best of human endeavor. This certainly is true with wine connoisseurs. Witness The Wine Spectator’s April 30, 2005 issue that features a cover story on wines the magazine has given perfect 100-point scores. Last fall, Wine & Spirits magazine devoted a complete special issue to the subject of “What Makes a Wine Great?”

So how do we know someone or something is the best of its kind or otherwise qualifies as great? I think we all, consciously or subconsciously, employ both subjective and objective criteria. Both magazines acknowledge the same is true with wine. The subjective aspect recognizes that different people have different sensitivities and preferences and may experience a wine in different circumstances. The objective component asserts that there also are basic criteria with which to judge the quality of a wine. As for objective criteria, there seems to be consensus that a great wine begins with a great vineyard. James Suckling, writing in The Wine Spectator, says a great wine communicates something about its terroir (basically the vineyard). Taylor Antrim, writing in Wine & Spirits, adds that the vineyard is what gives a great wine its unique personality.

Well-know wine critics Matt Kramer, in “Making Sense of Wine,” and Robert M. Parker, Jr., in “Parker’s Wine Buyer’s Guide,” agree emphatically. I also remember a seminar Parker gave at the Food & Wine Magazine Classic at Aspen a few years ago call “What Makes Wine Great?” He emphasized the importance of well-placed vineyards (ideally south facing, with not too much heat or cold) and conservative viticultural practices (pruning in the winter, dropping fruit in the summer to keep yields low and achieve very ripe fruit).

The vintage is the next critical component. Even a great vineyard will produce less than perfect grapes if the weather does not cooperate at key points during the growing season. When nature cooperates to produce perfect raw materials, the role of winemaker is to make sure the true character of the grapes and the vineyard where they originated and the characteristics of the vintage are translated in the final wine. In other words, to not screw it up. According to Parker and others, minimal intervention is the watchword here. That means little or no clarification (fining) or filtering. Winemakers should intervene only when something goes wrong. Great wine is not the result of a manufacturing process.

As for the characteristics of a great wine, Matt Kramer identifies complexity, balance, proportion and finesse. Suckling also names complexity and balance and adds concentration and a flawless structure in general. For reds, he recognizes extraordinary richness of fruit and superb tannin structure, while pointing to layers of fruit and balancing acidity for whites. Most agree the wine ought to taste not only like the grape variety from which it is made and that it should taste like the place from which it comes. One way to judge this is to rely on benchmarks or, as Parker would say, reference points. For instance, judging a Napa Valley cabernet sauvignon relative to red Bordeaux or an Oregon pinot noir relative to red Burgundy. Most experts assert, though, that the point is not necessarily to imitate these standard bearers. One can compare and contrast such wines but a wine’s greatness should be judged in terms of its own origins. Parker declares a great wine has the ability to please both the palate and the intellect, hold a tasters interest (think complexity), offer intense aromas and flavors without heaviness (balance), taste better with each sip, improve with age (requires adequate fruit and acid structure), and offer a singular personality. Some go so far as to assert that a truly great wine is an expression of a single vineyard, as contrasted with a regional blend or reserve style.

Despite highlighting these objective standards, each of the above authors acknowledges the role of subjectivity in classifying a wine as great. Suckling notes early in his article that it is difficult to describe what it takes to be a 100-point wine, except to say it has “a little extra, everything and even more.” Antrim writes of a near supernatural quality that is hard to measure. Antrim adds that people he interviewed for his article also spoke in metaphysical terms of a “bolt from the blue” experience. Kramer identifies such surprise as a critical element of great wine. And Suckling describes a “wow factor, that spellbinding quality that makes your jaw drop in amazement.”

What makes even more sense to me is to think in terms of a great or even perfect wine drinking experience. Relying on ratings (i.e., receiving 95-100 points from a wine critic) is too authoritarian for me. I prefer a more egalitarian approach. Antrim, for instance, writes “a great wine is often the result of a singular context, a happy coincidence of people and place (and usually a meal) in which a wine becomes something grand and memorable.” Here memory is the key in deciding if a wine is great to you. It may or not be objectively remarkable, let alone monumental, but the whole experience and your memory of it is what make the wine great. Certainly the 1966 Chateau Cheval Blanc I drank with college friends in 1979 was a great wine. It was such a revelation at the time, I still remember how delicious it was. So was the 1990 Dom Perignon that accompanied a banquet at the Moet & Chandon estate in Champagne. That wine is objectively great but talk about an amazing wine drinking experience.

Best of all, though, was probably the humble red wine served in a carafe at a restaurant in the small Piemontese town of Nizza Monferrato drunk with a wonderful lunch, my wife and a dear friend. That wine is to this day more memorable than the single vineyard Barolo we tasted while visiting wineries later that afternoon. So, I have concluded that ultimately, while there are certain qualities that make a great wine great, what makes wine great is the pleasure it delivers in the context of a social experience.

Posted on

Can We Taste Terroir?

rich mauro the people's palateWinemakers love to talk about terroir, both of their own vineyards and often that of the region in which they are located. There is a long history of interest in the subject in Europe and especially France. This is probably because of history and culture, but lately one can scarcely talk to an American winemaker without the topic being raised. It can be a challenging subject, though, for consumers. The contribution to a wine of the elements that comprise a vineyard’s or region’s terroir – the soil, climate, weather, environment, winemaker, even the culture – can be difficult (though, not impossible) to identify in the finished wine.

I have found a resource that can help us wade through this complex and often confusing world – an online publication called Appellation America that can be found at www.wine.appellationamerica.com. The journal describes its mission as reporting the “Terroirs of North America.” It covers the wines and wine regions of every state in North America, with an emphasis on the identity and uniqueness of the different growing regions (or appellations). In addition to weekly feature articles, the website also offers an extensive database of the appellations and varietals growing in North America, individual pages and satellite imagery for more than 3,400 wineries, and daily reviews of wine by a group of regional correspondents. I was particularly struck by the Dan Berger’s thought provoking article of December 27, 2006 called “Why Terroir is Essential To Wine Evaluation.” Berger argues that ratings focused wine evaluation has driven winemakers to seek riper, even overripe, fruit that ultimately overwhelms the distinctions of terroir. He says wine critics tend to be impressed with wines of great weight, intensity, richness, and hedonistic flavor, while qualities like varietal character, balance, structure, regional distinctiveness and food compatibility are less important. He further asserts that many wine critics (including the most influential ones) often evaluate wine simply on whether they prefer the flavor or style without considering the wine’s origin, its terroir.

Another article, “Cabernet at its Peak” by Alan Goldfarb on November 22, 2006, which describes the new mountain Cabernet Sauvignon program from Atlas Peak Vineyards, also caught my interest, both because it is a good illustration of Berger’s advice and because I have tasted these four wines. Spring Mountain. The Spring Mountain District is located at 400-2,200 feet elevation on the eastern slopes of the Mayacamas Mountains, directly west of the town of St. Helena. The vineyards, which are comprised solely of residual sedimentary upland soils, are subject to Pacific Ocean influence. This wine shows the red fruit and fine-grained tannins typical of Spring Mountain. It was Goldfarb’s favorite.

Mount Veeder. The Mt. Veeder appellation sits on the eastern slopes of the Mayacamas Mountains (400-2,600 feet), which separate Napa Valley from Sonoma Valley. The appellation is cooler than Spring Mountain to the north, because of winds from San Francisco Bay. Its sandstone, shale, ash and clay soils of volcanic origin are relatively high in acid. This wine has a purity of fruit and is well balanced. It also displays the characteristic chewy, spicy and wild qualities associated with Mt. Veeder. Goldfarb thought it showed the most definitive terroir expression but, ironically, it was his least favorite.

Howell Mountain. Howell Mountain is located east of Calistoga in the northern end of the Vaca Range that forms the eastern boundary of the Napa Valley. The vineyards are at 1,400-2,400 feet elevation and are comprised of mostly volcanic soils. This is the biggest, oakiest, most tannic wine of the group. Yet it also has the most complexity, finesse and balance and deepest fruit. Goldfarb says, “It is the one with the most of everything.” Maybe that is why it was my favorite. Atlas Peak. Atlas Peak is located at the southern end of the Vaca Range due east of Yountville. Cooling afternoon winds from the San Francisco Bay influence the vineyards, which range from 1,400-2,400 feet. The soils are mostly upland volcanic with some alluvium (gravelly loam). This yields a Claret that is powerful and structured, yet quite drinkable right now. That could have something to do with the 34 percent Merlot and 15 percent Petit Verdot in the blend. Goldfarb thinks it is one of the better wines of the vintage and would put it up with great Bordeaux. I wouldn’t go that far but it was my second favorite wine.

Despite their differences, these mountain appellations do have some things in common. Their high elevation translates to more sunlight, though cooler daytime temperatures than the valley floor. This elevation and the slopes of the hillsides result in thin, well-drained soils, which make it is easier to control vine growth and achieve in lower yields. The four wines, all from the 2003 vintage, also have some things in common. They are inky dark, intense and tannic, all qualities often attributed to mountain-grown wines. They also all would benefit from about three years of cellaring. While not unqualified successes, they are all very good to excellent and, more importantly, fascinating studies in terroir – although, at $86 each, admittedly expensive studies. The point here is that understanding more about a wine’s origin will help us appreciate the wine better. I came across two more examples of this recently with wines from Carneros and Dry Creek Valley.

Carneros is located at the northern end of San Pablo Bay (it once was under the water) about 45 miles north of San Francisco. The region straddles Napa and Sonoma counties and naturally is heavily influenced by this large body, which, ironically, serves both to cool and insulate the area. So, while Carneros generally is cooler than the more northern areas of Napa and Sonoma, it also is given to less extreme climactic conditions. Overnight lows are warmer and daytime highs are cooler; winters are warmer and summers are cooler. Proximity to the water also means fog and winds further lower temperatures and dehydrate the vines, while low rainfall challenges the vines furthers and the generally shallow heavy clay and gravel soils make it difficult for the roots to grow deep to find much needed moisture. All of this stress conspires to challenge the vines, delay ripening, and make for a longer growing season, ideal conditions for extra flavor development and acidity. It also means Carneros is ideal for growing chardonnay and pinot noir.

Which brings me to Buena Vista Estate, situated right in the middle of the Carneros region. Buena Vista was one of the first wineries to invest in the region when it began planting vineyards in 1969. The winery now has the largest vineyard holdings in Carneros. Buena Vista has released a fascinating new portfolio of limited-production, clone-specific wines that showcase the winery’s estate Ramal Vineyard. These wines (all from 2004) are made from grapes planted in small vineyard blocks with the rootstock/clone combinations dictated by soil type and exposure. The Chardonnays (all $34) display typically crisp Carneros acids, yet a medium body and elegance, with tropical (I sensed pineapple) fruit. The “Ramal Vineyard” also offers nutty and citrus notes and a viscous texture. The “Dijon Clones” also has citrus with toasty, mineral elements. The “Clone 17RY” is the most complex, with a steely quality, brown butter, crème bruleee, and citrus. The Pinot Noirs (all $38) exhibit characteristic Carneros elegance with earthy cherry and strawberry qualities and a silky mouth feel. The “Ramal Vineyard” also carries brown spices, blackberry, raspberry, and a hint of fennel. The “Dijon Clones” leaned more to cinnamon, strawberry and watermelon. The “Swan Selection” was smoky, with pure cherry essence, a velvety texture, and bright acidity.

Dry Creek Valley is a stark contrast to Carneros. Although a large body of water and fog also influence this region, they do so much less than in Carneros. This has a lot to do with its farther north (approximately 70 miles north of San Francisco Bay) and more inland (20 miles from the Pacific Ocean) location, as well as its topography of coastal hills. That topography is a product of uplifting and folding of Pacific tectonic plates, resulting in a long, narrow valley with quickly changing slopes. Thus, there are a high proportion of benchland and hillside vineyards relative to the valley floor. The soils on the benches and hills mostly are gravel and clay loam, while the soil on the valley floor, deposited by Dry Creek over thousands of years, is primarily gravel and sandy loam. Dry Creek Valley also warms up earlier in the day and reaches higher average temperatures than almost all the other growing areas in Sonoma County but also gets cooler at night. Although, cabernet sauvignon and zinfandel are roughly on a par as far as acreage and sauvignon blanc and Rhone varietals show promise, Zinfandel is the most important grape. The terroir of Dry Creek Valley yields fruit that makes for intense, jammy Zinfandels, with crisp acidity and a fruitful finish.

I could have spent the whole column (and have in the past) on the many wonderful Zinfandel producers from this appellation. But I think the 2004 Zinfandels (all $24) from Mazzocco Winery, make a good case in point. Although I have found Mazzocco’s wines uneven in the past, these new releases represent significant improvement and reflect their origin well. The “Home Ranch” has spicy, oaky notes with briary cherry and plum. The “Quinn Vineyard” leans more to toast and brown sugar, cassis and crisp acids. The “Cuneo & Saini Vineyard” also offered toast and brown sugar notes but added black cherry compote. So, bottom line, I recommend taking some extra time to learn a little about what you are drinking. I think you will enjoy the wine more.