Bonjour tout le monde! Hello, everybody, and welcome back to Cèpage et Cuisine, Mary’s and Brian’s wine and food blog. It has been a month since our previous post. Family, work, and travel have conspired to delay writing about our adventures, but we have much to share, we’re glad to be back, so here goes!
We had our long-planned and much-anticipated Cabernet Sauvignon event recently, a blind tasting of Cabernet or Cabernet-based wines from Bordeaux and California. What fun!
I vacillate back and forth on whether Cabernet Sauvignon or Pinot Noir is my favorite red varietal. If the wine is balanced, elegant and finessed, the grapes not overripe and the wine not too high in alcohol, it is a close call.
And there’s the thing. The Cabernets of Bordeaux tend to have just that…finesse, elegance, complexity, and pair well with food, but they don’t always impress as a leisure beverage, which is what many Americans expect. For California Cabernet, all roads lead to Napa Valley, which in recent years has trended toward a bolder, riper, fuller style that get big numbers from the critics, but to my palate, are not as interesting and not as friendly with food. So in this tasting event, we tried to minimize bias by blinding the wines so no one knows what is in the glass until after the tasting.
We chose six wines, three from Bordeaux and three from California. The Bordeaux were all from the classic 2000 vintage. They included Chateau Leoville Barton, a second growth Bordeaux (perhaps a post on that later), and Chateau Langoa Barton. These wines were of interest because the two estates are basically separated by a lane, have the same blend of grapes, are made in the same way, and have the same owner. Differences in character have to be from the differences in terroir…soil type and other factors. The third Bordeaux was a more anonymous, less known, lower cost wine from Chateau Cambon la Pelouse, with grapes drawn from various vineyards.
The California wines included a prestigious wine from the valley floor, Heitz Cellar Martha’s Vineyard 1999. I posted a note about the 1991 vintage in a previous article on the blog. The other Napa Valley wine was a 2000 vintage wine from Wing Canyon on Mt. Veeder, high above the valley floor on the steep hillside. Wines from the mountain appellations are often more structured, austere in character, with intense flavors that reflect the site. I blogged about the great folks at Wing Canyon a few months back. Check out that article. The third California wine was a 2001 vintage from B.R. Cohn in Sonoma Valley, a highly regarded producer who offers one of the few Cabernets outside of Napa Valley that are considered to be top tier.
Now I’ll describe how we blinded the event. The stems were on tasting mats with color-coded circles. You can see in the photo the circles from left to right were yellow, green, red, blue, orange, and purple. To the right you see tasting notes that were also color-coded.
Identical-appearing decanters were coded similarly with colored ribbons.
I opened the bottles and placed them in plain, brown paper bags with the tops rolled back so they could be poured. Mary was out of the room while I did this. Then, I exited and Mary returned, having no idea which wine was in which bag.
Mary tied a diffferent colored ribbon around each bag. If the first bag she picked up had a yellow ribbon, for example, she then poured that wine into the decanter with the yellow ribbon. Mary and our very good friend, Beverly, poured all the wines into the decanters.
At that point, I returned, having no idea which wine was in which decanter. Wines were poured into the stems…yellow decanter into yellow stems, etc, and off we went.
It was an education for everyone and, of course, preferences changed when the wines were tasted with food. When we tasted the yellow wine, one person pronounced it tart and thin and stated unequivocally, “This wine has no place in my life.” But he agreed later it was better when paired with dinner. The expectation of Bordeaux = lean and elegant and California = bold and fruity didn’t hold up under blinding, either. The Chateau Leoville Barton followed the stereotype, a complex, medium-bodied, balanced wine with relatively high acidity and tannins that had not quite resolved, with all the expected aroma and flavor characteristics of a great Bordeaux…currant, red cherry, leather, cedar, graphite, and herbal and floral notes. On the other hand, the Chateau Langoa Barton, from literally across the road, was bigger, softer, bolder, fuller, had darker fruit character, not as complex. Most people were sure it was a California wine.
Likewise, the California wines didn’t exactly follow the pre-determined rules. The consensus favorite of the evening ended up being a California wine. At the first sniff and sip, most people around the table made happy sounds in unison. It was fantastic, silky smooth and polished in texture. The aromas had everything we could want in a great Cabernet. Like the Leoville Barton, the currant, cherry, a little spice, leather, cedar, and lovely sage and violet notes drew us to the glass. It was classically Cabernet in flavor, but I think those berry and floral qualities especially reflect the mountain origin. The palate showed that great smoothness, medium body, medium acidity, and flavors that largely followed the nose, especially the currant and cherry notes. And as the evening progressed, it continued to evolve and change. It was wonderful on its own and it was delicious with dinner.
And what was this amazing winning wine? Congratulations to Wing Canyon Vineyard on Mt. Veeder above Napa Valley! Kathy and Bill, I know you’re reading this and I was just delighted that your wine performed so well in a blind tasting among this group of outstanding wines. It is a reflection of your many years of hard work, craftsmanship, caring, and passion. We’re proud to know you. Now there are several Mississippians who want your wine!
The tasting was not exactly a competition and the wines were all good, top to bottom. It is fun to rank preferences, though, and see how they change through the evening and with food. My own bias is that I tend to see wine through the lens of food pairings. Since Mary and I pretty much drink wine only with meals, I often think about how I will like the wine with food even before I taste it with food. Beyond the Wing Canyon, preferences varied quite a bit. My two through four choices were the Bordeaux with the Chateau Leoville Barton my second most preferred. But get this. I paid $25 for Bill’s and Kathy’s wine and $135 for the Leoville Barton. Considering the difference in cost, the Leoville Barton becomes a distant second!
Dinner was delicious, thanks once again to Mary. It was the rack of lamb and ratatouille dish we described in a blog post a few weeks ago. As a surprise, I made a pear tatin and opened a Bonnezeaux and a Point Reyes blue cheese. The dessert-style wine of Bonnezeaux and the pear tatin and cheese were a perfect end to a fun and delicious wine dinner.
Here are several photos from the next morning.
Here are my notes on each of the wines.
Wing Canyon Vineyard Cabernet Sauvignon Napa Valley Mt. Veeder 2000. Congratulations to Bill and Kathy! This was the consensus favorite of the evening! It was silky smooth, had great balance, and complexity. The aromas showed lovely currant, cherry, floral notes, earth, leather, and cedar. The palate was beautiful, silky smooth, gliding across the tongue with medium acidity and exquisite balance. Currant, red cherry, and earthy notes followed the aroma profile. The finish was nice and long, the balance perfect, very complex. Everyone thought it was the expensive Bordeaux before the paper bag came off. 85% Cabernet Sauvignon, 8% Merlot, 7% Cabernet Franc, 13.0% alcohol. We paid $25 for this wine.
Chateau Leoville Barton Saint Julien 2000. Although some folks really liked this wine, some attendees rated it low from the beginning. For me, it was my number two preferred wine, with and without food. It had wonderful Cabernet aromas of currant, cherry, floral qualities, leather, and cedar. The palate followed with similar flavors, possibly with added anise or licorice characteristics. It was moderate to high in acidity, not surprising with only 12.5% alcohol, almost rough in texture, and medium in body. It had a tartness and thinness that was not appreciated by all and definitely performed better with food than without. I would be glad to have more of this wine. 72% Cabernet Sauvignon, 20% Merlot, 8% Cabernet Franc, 12.5% alcohol. This baby cost us $135.
Chateau Cambon la Pelouse Haut Medoc 2000. For me, at least, this wine performed well, my third most preferred wine out of six. It had good varietal qualities of cherry, violet, earth, and smoked meat aromas and flavors. It was medium in acidity with smooth texture and a medium to full body. It was nicely balanced, long finishing, fairly complex, getting an excellent quality rating. It was mostly rated around the table as "like." It was a different cèpage from the others, comprised of 50% Merlot, 30% Cabernet Sauvignon, 20% Cabernet Franc, 13.0% alcohol. An excellent value at $20.
Chateau Langoa Barton Saint Julien 2000. The Langoa Barton was discernibly different and less preferred than the Leoville Barton. It was riper in character, even to the point of raisin and other dried fruit, with earthy notes. The palate showed low to medium acidity, smooth texture, not exactly silky, medium to full body. Blackberry and dark currant fruit were evident on the flavor profile. The finish was medium in length, the balance was adequate, and complexity moderate, rating a good quality assessment. I rated it four out of six. 72% Cabernet Sauvignon, 20% Merlot, 8% Cabernet Franc, 12.5% alcohol. We paid $60 for this wine.
Heitz Cellar Cabernet Sauvignon Napa Valley Martha’s Vineyard 1999. There were varying degrees of preference for this wine, but I must say I was a bit disappointed in it, especially considering its price. We had a 1991 Martha’s a few weeks ago that was absolutely amazing. Perhaps it is vintage variation. The older vintage Martha's Vineyard wines are just so compelling, but I think Heitz has followed the market pressures to produce riper, more extracted wines with bold flavors that score well with the critics. It was not disliked, to be sure, and had nice dark berry and fruit qualities along with some graphite and charred wood characteristics, but did not have the classic Cabernet quality of earlier vintages. The acidity was low to medium, the texture was reasonably smooth, it was moderately complex, rated as good quality, but my fifth out of six wines on preference. 100% Cabernet Sauvignon. 14.2% alcohol. We paid $144 for this wine.
B.R. Cohn Winery Cabernet Sauvignon Sonoma Valley Olive Hill Estate 2001. There was diversity around the table on the preference for this wine, but it was my least preferred wine, which is not to say I didn't like it, but it was just not in the top tier. It was reasonably powerful on the nose, but not all that complex. It showed blackberry, cherry, and plum, the typical dark fruit characteristics of a New World wine, along with chocolate and a bit of cured meat aromas. The acidity was low with smooth texture and full body. It was medium in length, reasonably balanced, moderate in complexity, overall a good but not excellent wine. 100% Cabernet Sauvignon. 14.0% alcohol. We paid $40.
That’s our post for today. We hope you enjoyed it and found it interesting. If you are near Jackson and would like to join one of our events, comment on the blog to reach us. We enjoy warm conviviality, Mary’s great creations, and come away with great memories. If you're one of our California friends from St. Gabe's or Pres, come visit us! Keep checking back at Cèpage et Cuisine for more posts about wine and food. In the meantime and as we shared at the event, may you never want for good wine nor friends with whom to enjoy it.
Cheers!
Mary♥Brian
No comments:
Post a Comment