lots of good info & my plan is to try all the wines mentioned I did find one red too sweet but danged if I can remember which one it was, hope I wrote it down blushing
today I had my first glass of menage a trois and I love it, just love it. what do you think of this wine in particular? I ask because Snickers posted
which is how I found it
while Athena posted it is very sweet. opinions?
FoieGrasIsEvil: I read what you said about “sweet” & hope you post
I consider that sort of wine to be “drinkable” - it isn’t sweet like a sweet wine (try the Rombauer Old Vine Zin or there is a South African Shriaz called Jam Jar that deserves its name). And it certainly isn’t sweet like a dessert wine. But it has enough sugar to go down easy.
I’ve never tasted it. From the name alone, I’d imagine a description like: “A complex wine, not suitable for people who can’t walk and chew gum at the same time. Equally good with beef or fish. Too fruity for some, but just right for others. Be careful about pushing menage on a neophyte wine drinker; she might want it every weekend.”
I think **FoieGrasIsEvil **absolutely nailed it towards the end of your linked thread, there - there seems to be some confusion between “fruity” and “sweet.” Some call the big, jammy, fruit bombs that I love “sweet,” when they’re not sugary at all. For me, I reserve “sweet” to refer to the presence of residual (or otherwise) sugars found in dessert wines or off-drys like Rieslings, Moscatos, white Zinfandels, some roses, ports, that sort of thing.
But it’s definitely true that Menage a Trois is really easy drinking. I really enjoy it; and at the price it’s great to keep around for a table wine that should please most palates. Try the Apothic red blend too - I think I like it more than MaT.
After you get your toes a little more wet, I’d start looking at Zinfandels (not the white kind; these are red red red) and Shirazes for more jammy, fruit-forward wines.
Dammit, edit time expired. For Zinfandels, I can recommend the Seven Deadly Zins and Zen for Zin wines as big, jammy, fruit-forward wines. Careful, though: they tend to have higher alcohol content. Run about $15 a bottle. I also love love love Hanwood Estate’s Shiraz; not sure how easy this is to find (but it seems pretty available around here). Runs $10ish a bottle.
Another drinkable sweet red wine is Barefoot Sweet Red California. I’m not a fan of tart, acidic, make you pucker wines, but this stuff caught me off guard with how sweet it is.
I have a bottle of that Apothic red, and the Menage a Trois, I’ll give them a whirl this weekend. I started buying a bottle or two of generic “red” every trip to the store, but I don’t drink a lot and I’m getting quite a stockpile.
This wine is 1.2g/100ml in residual sugars, which means this is a dry wine. Most dry wines generally will have around a gram or so per 100ml of residual sugar, IIRC because certain types of sugars are difficult/impossible for yeasts to convert to alcohol. Truly sweet wines aren’t usually perceived as such by most people until you get upwards of 30 or more grams of sugar per 100ml, and many very sweet wines will have a lot more than that.
Remember: there is a big distinction between tasting “fruit” flavors in a wine (again, often misconstrued as “sweet”) and there being actual perceptible levels of sugar left in the finished wine, rendering it “sweet”.
This red we’re talking about is part of a pretty good-sized trend of blended reds intended for immediate consumption, often are non-vintage, are designed to be inoffensive (in a good way) with low tannins and a lot of forward fruit. They are also typically quite inexpensive.
I second Snicker’s suggestion to take the next step towards a more structured wine, using Red Zinfandel as your primer. Since there is already a significant portion of Zinfandel in the Menage a Trois wine, and you like that style, chances are good you will like a well-made Red Zinfandel too.
Understand that these, as well as the seven deadly Zins that was mentioned earlier are blends of more than one type (variety and/or species) of grape. Modern vintners use refractometry and gas chromatography to produce consistant, excellent blends. One random bottle will taste exactly the same as the next; and this is a good thing.
My wife and I love the MaT, 7DZ and Apothic reds. The popularity of these types of wines is one of the things that has me excited about wine drinking in America: Just solid, good tasting wines at a fair price, with none of the wine snobbery! I suppose many of the old-world vinophiles got this a long time ago.
In answer to the OP, sweet wine does not equal fruity, jammy wine. Remember that part of the fun of wine drinking is in the discovery of what you really like. Don’t overthink it.
Zins are great, and there are lots of good CA ones out there. Try Earthquake Zin (it’ll make the earth move under your feet), Zen Zin (mentioned above), or anything from Dry Creek Valley in Sonoma County. That’s one of the best regions for Zins.
Look for “old vines” on the label. Although that can sometimes be a marketing gimmick, the real old vine Zins have some interesting character.
I love the Zins and Zin blends from Ridge Vineyards, but they are pretty pricey. Try the Oltranti if you can get your hands on a bottle (many of their wines can only be bought at the winery). Talk about your fruit forward!! These are the one of the guys who “beat the French” in 1976 and again int 2006.
Jackie: Have you tried any Pinots yet? I’m sure you’ll find some that satisfy!
I guess Athena was right and that it actually was sweet, not just fruity. I didn’t remember that when I had it, but it was awhile ago.
I’m kidding but, were you weaned on Essencia, FGIE? 30 g/100mL or 30% residual sugar, is comfortably higher than even stuff like Yquem. 30 g/L, and I’ll agree with you. Completely agree with you on confusing fruit with sweetness. I do it all the time, and often have to ask my GF, (who thinks Trimbach could be drier) whether the wine’s sweet or not. Also agree with you and John Mace that the OP would probably like a good Zin. The best part is: there’s so many to choose from!
Reading your mention of the Judgment of Paris, the funny thing for me is that Ridge Monte Bello (not a Zin, incidentally.) is probably the most Continental of the wines from America that were tasted. I’m not experienced in it at all, but the few times I’ve tried it, it was a lot more reticent and less fruit-forward than either Montrose or Mouton.
Moving along, I love their Zins, especially Lytton Springs and Geyserville. Pagani and Dusi aren’t slouches either. Hard to find a juicier Zin that an over-ripe Pagani. Shame they don’t make Lytton Estate anymore. Never heard of the Oltranti til you mentioned it; I’ll have to keep an eye out for it. Zin, especially old vine Zin, is IMHO a place where terroir really shines in CA. Those head-trained vines are essentially irreplaceable. Tried another one of the “R’s”, Rafanelli, the other day. I was really surprised by how restrained it was, compared to what I was expecting. Difficult to find, and somewhat pricey when you do, it’s still an interesting glass. Rosenblum’s are a lot easier to find, and usually cheaper.
Really though, I came in to recommend another very fruit-forward, occasionally sweeter wine for the OP: Valpolicella Ripasso. I like Zenato’s version, but there are others and all of them should be jammy, tasty, and fairly high alcohol. Usually inexpensive too. (Unlike their big brother Amarone.)
Hmmm, I’m not sure. Next time I have some, I’ll reserve my opinion and ask the two ladies I’m sharing it with what they think.
More seriously: I found it a “serviceable” bottle, not bad, but unremarkable. I haven’t had one in a while and can’t speak to the ‘sweet’ question very well, but my recollection was it had a fruit note with a dry finish. YMMV.
I guess I was off on my residual sugars (by an order of magnitude!). I’m sure you’re right, and ya’ll will have to forgive me as I’ve been out of the wine world for quite awhile now. I don’t know why I had my g/ml figures skewed so upward. I guess I just forgot and guessed. Ah well.
I will third the suggestion for Ridge Zinfandels, and will add another that I have spoken of before: Seghesio’s Sonoma Red Zin bottling. Its an excellent example of the varietal, isn’t as pricey as their single vineyard bottlings (IIRC about $25/btl) and is very high quality.
And as to those old zin vines: they are irreplaceable and look like gnarled little old men.
And yeah, I’ve been quiet because I don’t want to rain on a parade, but those wines like Menage a Trois, Apothic, and a pile more have a style that’s very high in sugar for a wine marketed as dry, along with very little acidity or tannins. They’re unbalanced and almost flabby IMO, and really not to my taste at all.
That said, I think they’re being marketed to people who don’t think they like wine, or like only sweeter whites, and it’s working. I see them at a lot of restaurants, served by the glass, and people like 'em. And all the power to them! I think it’s great that [del]we’re assimilating more people into the Great Wine Cult[/del] they’re making wine that appeals to a broader section of people.
And the reverse is true, too - I don’t know many hardcore wine drinkers who like the style. It’s NOT just fruity - it’s off-balance on the sugar side. Like others have mentioned, a good Zin can be over-the-top fruity but still have balance and complexity.
1.2% residual sugar would fall on the low side of medium dry or “off dry” wine. Menage a trois is sweet for a dry wine, but it doesn’t strike me as particularly sweet overall. Just a nice, easy-drinking wine, tastes best served a bit cooler than your dry and tannic reds. If I want to quaff a wine, which I often do, that one works fine.
Isn’t that what everyone’s saying? It’s on the sweet side for a dry wine.
I think it’s not to my taste because it doesn’t have enough acidity or tannins to balance the sweetness. I’ve have plenty of off-dry wines that I think are great, just not this particular one.
I did find one red too sweet but danged if I can remember which one it was, hope I wrote it down blushing
