Staying a friend's house at the moment, so the drinking has been a little irregular! Did manage to work in this little number, though.
A transparent orange-red colour that was a little dull.Quite a meaty nose, beetroot-like, again a little dull perhaps, and subdued, also a bit hot. Livelier on the palate, with a slippery entry that leads to a spectrum of flavours showing good intensity and balance, if not great sophistication. More beetroot and bright red fruits that are a bit confected. Acid is very present and gives the palate a zippy feel. There's no great length of flavour, and the palate dies a bit towards the lightly drying finish, which is a shame.
I'm probably damning this one with faint praise. On the plus side, it's varietal, tasty, and cheap (I think I paid about $15). One could do a lot worse.
Thursday, 18 October 2007
Saturday, 13 October 2007
Marimar Torres Estate Don Miguel Torres Vineyard Pinot Noir 1999
Haven't had too many US pinots, so thought this might be an interesting diversion when I spotted it at the bottlo last week. Cheap too, at $19.
A dark, piercing nose whose sweet red fruit is somewhat swamped by other, more savoury characters. Leafiness and oak, mostly. A subtle entry into the mouth widens considerably on the middle palate. Again, the flavour profile is juicy red fruits (strawberry-like) mixed in with aged, leathery notes and considerable oak. There's reasonable intensity of flavour and enough bottle aged complexity to make this wine interesting. The wine is still quite tannic and could use some more softening, although I wonder whether the fruit will disappear before the oak has lost its aggressiveness. The finish is a bit hot.
This wine's fruit is varietal but I can't help thinking that it's been moulded in a style that drags it away from a pure expression of pinot noir and towards something chunkier and altogether less lightfooted. I also think perhaps this would have gone better with food.
A dark, piercing nose whose sweet red fruit is somewhat swamped by other, more savoury characters. Leafiness and oak, mostly. A subtle entry into the mouth widens considerably on the middle palate. Again, the flavour profile is juicy red fruits (strawberry-like) mixed in with aged, leathery notes and considerable oak. There's reasonable intensity of flavour and enough bottle aged complexity to make this wine interesting. The wine is still quite tannic and could use some more softening, although I wonder whether the fruit will disappear before the oak has lost its aggressiveness. The finish is a bit hot.
This wine's fruit is varietal but I can't help thinking that it's been moulded in a style that drags it away from a pure expression of pinot noir and towards something chunkier and altogether less lightfooted. I also think perhaps this would have gone better with food.
Mount Pleasant Elizabeth 1999
I bought a case of this on release and have dipped in a few times to see how it's going. I remember tasting this soon after the initial purchase (three or so years ago) and it struck me as an especially tight Elizabeth.
This was a good bottle. An attractive green/gold colour of clarity and considerable richness. The nose shows definite signs of bottle age, but is not at a point of full maturity. Instead, the subtle, almost dumb aromas of a young semillon are mixed with a moderately intense bouquet of vanilla, beeswax and that (not unattractive) dusty note that some older semillons show. Good complexity. The entry is slippery and lively, still showing some prickly CO2. It opens to a generous and quite intense mid-palate that is in between young and old. The sophisticated, slippery mouthfeel of aged semillon is present, quite full bodied, and there are certainly hints of honey and wax, but also of (simple) primary fruit. The after palate loses thrust a bit, and the wine sort of jumps straight to the finish, where the secondary flavours linger nicely on the tongue.
This wine is very much in between in its development, with youthful characters fading a little and bottle age starting to exert its influence. As I sat with this in the glass, it gained richness and the honey really started to come to the fore. I'll track this over the next few years with interest.
This was a good bottle. An attractive green/gold colour of clarity and considerable richness. The nose shows definite signs of bottle age, but is not at a point of full maturity. Instead, the subtle, almost dumb aromas of a young semillon are mixed with a moderately intense bouquet of vanilla, beeswax and that (not unattractive) dusty note that some older semillons show. Good complexity. The entry is slippery and lively, still showing some prickly CO2. It opens to a generous and quite intense mid-palate that is in between young and old. The sophisticated, slippery mouthfeel of aged semillon is present, quite full bodied, and there are certainly hints of honey and wax, but also of (simple) primary fruit. The after palate loses thrust a bit, and the wine sort of jumps straight to the finish, where the secondary flavours linger nicely on the tongue.
This wine is very much in between in its development, with youthful characters fading a little and bottle age starting to exert its influence. As I sat with this in the glass, it gained richness and the honey really started to come to the fore. I'll track this over the next few years with interest.
Thursday, 11 October 2007
Faiveley Bourgogne Rouge 2005
We've been having a fair few mid-priced local pinot noirs lately, so I thought it would be interesting to throw a Burgundy of roughly equivalent price into the mix. This one's from the celebrated 2005 vintage, from a widely available producer, and I picked this up for $26 at a local bottlo.
Reasonably dense ruby/garnet colour, not enormously bright, but still attractive. Initially, this wine was very tight on both nose and palate, with an assertively astringent finish that actually kicked in from about mid-palate onwards. A few hints of fruit and oak but that's it. So, a swirling we will go.
A few minutes of aeration saw the wine opening up and the finish, though not totally transformed, at least relaxed enough to allow the mid-palate to express itself in fruit terms. This wine's aroma shows a good amount of savoury red fruit that is subservient to a strong mineral/iron (like blood) aroma and a slightly doughy note too. It's tight, not hugely complex, and quite linear. The wine's entry is focused and opens out to a concentrated mid-palate of savoury fruit and iron, echoing the nose. Tannins kick in and carry the wine away firmly, with reasonable length, but with an intensity that diminishes a little too soon.
I like this wine's flavour profile and strong sense of personality, but it really does need some time to soften before it could ever become truly delicious.
Reasonably dense ruby/garnet colour, not enormously bright, but still attractive. Initially, this wine was very tight on both nose and palate, with an assertively astringent finish that actually kicked in from about mid-palate onwards. A few hints of fruit and oak but that's it. So, a swirling we will go.
A few minutes of aeration saw the wine opening up and the finish, though not totally transformed, at least relaxed enough to allow the mid-palate to express itself in fruit terms. This wine's aroma shows a good amount of savoury red fruit that is subservient to a strong mineral/iron (like blood) aroma and a slightly doughy note too. It's tight, not hugely complex, and quite linear. The wine's entry is focused and opens out to a concentrated mid-palate of savoury fruit and iron, echoing the nose. Tannins kick in and carry the wine away firmly, with reasonable length, but with an intensity that diminishes a little too soon.
I like this wine's flavour profile and strong sense of personality, but it really does need some time to soften before it could ever become truly delicious.
Tasting notes - what do you find useful?
Everyone seems to write tasting notes a little differently, and I admit that mine so far have been structured (or not?) purely to please myself and to help with my tasting memory. I am interested to know, though, what other people find interesting and useful when they read notes.
What information do you think is essential? what is often provided but mostly superfluous? Do you find a highly structured note more useful or clearer to read? Or do you prefer notes with some context, perhaps with notes on food or tasting circumstances?
I'd love to know your perspectives. Feel free to comment here, even if you normally just "lurk"!
Thanks,
Julian.
What information do you think is essential? what is often provided but mostly superfluous? Do you find a highly structured note more useful or clearer to read? Or do you prefer notes with some context, perhaps with notes on food or tasting circumstances?
I'd love to know your perspectives. Feel free to comment here, even if you normally just "lurk"!
Thanks,
Julian.
Tuesday, 9 October 2007
South Pinot Noir 2006
Made by Andrew Pirie, part of his "South" budget label.
A bright, transparent ruby colour, tinges of purple, not very dense. Quite an expressive nose that is dominated by bright fruit and leafy, tobacco-like notes. The wine enters in quite a linear fashion but opens out nicely on the mid palate, spreading simple, sweet, light fruit flavours that remind me a bit of Central Otago pinot in character (if not weight). Moderate intensity of flavour. Noticeable acidity tingles the sides of the tongue. The wine's finish is lightly astringent and a bit short.
This wine is pretty, refreshing and nicely varietal. There's no great complexity of flavour, but it's very nice to drink and would go well with moderately spiced food.
Update: the wine opened up a fair bit over the course of the evening. It gained in density of fruit flavour, weight and complexity. It also lost a little of its attractive delicate touch.
A bright, transparent ruby colour, tinges of purple, not very dense. Quite an expressive nose that is dominated by bright fruit and leafy, tobacco-like notes. The wine enters in quite a linear fashion but opens out nicely on the mid palate, spreading simple, sweet, light fruit flavours that remind me a bit of Central Otago pinot in character (if not weight). Moderate intensity of flavour. Noticeable acidity tingles the sides of the tongue. The wine's finish is lightly astringent and a bit short.
This wine is pretty, refreshing and nicely varietal. There's no great complexity of flavour, but it's very nice to drink and would go well with moderately spiced food.
Update: the wine opened up a fair bit over the course of the evening. It gained in density of fruit flavour, weight and complexity. It also lost a little of its attractive delicate touch.
Sunday, 7 October 2007
Stonier Pinot Noir 2006
Fresh Mornington Peninsula pinot, here we go!
I like it when pinot gives off slightly stinky notes, and this one does, just a bit -- let's call it polite stink. The stink actually seems inseparable from the fruit in this wine's flavour profile, almost as if the light red fruit flavours have gone slightly putrid and started to develop savoury edges. So far, so good. The wine's aromas are quite delicate, with the aforementioned savoury fruit, beetroot and herbs/forest floor. There's a hint of sweetness in there but I'd say this wine is tipped firmly to the savoury end of the spectrum.
The palate is surprisingly light in body; it slips across the tongue and away, leaving some quite gorgeous flavours in its wake. Fairly forthright oak (caramel/milk coffee flavours) adds itself to the mix. The wine's mouthfeel is nicely astringent, seemingly driven by acid, but aided by fine yet drying tannins. All this is well and good but with each sip I keep wishing for a bit more presence, and for the flavours to assert themselves beyond the alluring whisper they repeatedly offer to me. Perhaps I'm in the mood for more generosity. Certainly, this wine has a lot of attractions if you enjoy a light, savoury red wine.
I like it when pinot gives off slightly stinky notes, and this one does, just a bit -- let's call it polite stink. The stink actually seems inseparable from the fruit in this wine's flavour profile, almost as if the light red fruit flavours have gone slightly putrid and started to develop savoury edges. So far, so good. The wine's aromas are quite delicate, with the aforementioned savoury fruit, beetroot and herbs/forest floor. There's a hint of sweetness in there but I'd say this wine is tipped firmly to the savoury end of the spectrum.
The palate is surprisingly light in body; it slips across the tongue and away, leaving some quite gorgeous flavours in its wake. Fairly forthright oak (caramel/milk coffee flavours) adds itself to the mix. The wine's mouthfeel is nicely astringent, seemingly driven by acid, but aided by fine yet drying tannins. All this is well and good but with each sip I keep wishing for a bit more presence, and for the flavours to assert themselves beyond the alluring whisper they repeatedly offer to me. Perhaps I'm in the mood for more generosity. Certainly, this wine has a lot of attractions if you enjoy a light, savoury red wine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)