I’m a Wine Noob myself, but I seem to have picked up Wine Snob friends (a poker gang and a book group). So I often run into a local wine place (or Trader Joe’s if Patrik the 17 yr old wine guru is working) and say “I’m looking for a $50 bottle of wine that just happens to cost less than 15…”
I’ve had requests from poker guys to stop by Trader Joe’s on my way to the game. Every time I bring a “Moon” branded (Honey Moon, Velvet Moon, or Moon X) or Blue Fin or a Grifone wine from TJ’s they love 'em. Those run $6-10.
By the way, one local coffee ‘n’ wine shop has a “Wall of 100 Bottles Under $10” that they think are outstanding. And I agree.
The food pairing experiment there sounds like fun, but the advice I would take to heart is their comment at the beginning that the only way to see which wines work for you with which foods is to try it yourself, and there are no right answers as everyone’s tastes will be different. That said, I’ve had many restaurant meals with wine pairings offered as part of a prix fixe multi-course serving that I thought were very well selected.
But what surprised me in that article was the “Our Findings” section. They claimed that “for most people the red goes with almost nothing” in their recommended tasting assortment. Really? For me, it would go with almost everything they had, except perhaps the sweet jelly. They claim it doesn’t work with brie, which is absolutely a classic match for reds. They claim it doesn’t work for salty things like potato chips and walnuts (it does). Then they go on to praise the versatility of the sparkling rosé which supposedly goes with almost anything. Again, really? I rarely have sparkling wine, even more rarely with food, never with dinner, and I despise rosé. So I wouldn’t drink that swill even if I liked sparkling wine. So there you go – our first lesson in how there are absolutely no absolutes about tastes in wine!
(The tasters who can replicate their own results are not really tasting a peach or burnt rubber, of course - they’re detecting a chemical that also happens to be in peaches or in burnt rubber or whatever. If they reliably say “This one tastes like peaches”, then you could in theory buy thousands of gallons of the wine, extract that chemical, and sell it for artificial peach flavour. But who would, because artificial peach flavour is already being manufactured more cheaply.)
There are, of course, published guides/apps/cheat sheets (example) that contain individual reviews for thousands of wines as well as answer questions like what are the good deals versus what is overpriced; what years are good/bad from region xxx, what goes with what food, etc.
It’s not as simple as that. There have been a variety of studies that all get conflated into “wine experts can’t tell the difference between any wines,” but these studies show different things.
One of the most famous is the 2001 study where the researcher gave oenology students a glass of white wine, and a second glass with the same wine dyed red. The students described the dyed wine with terms most common to reds, and the undyed wine with terms common to whites. I think this is more representative of what others have pointed out, that perception is shaped by much more than just taste and smell. Color is an important part of how we experience wine, and discounting its importance as “experts can’t tell the difference” isn’t the full story. Similar studies have shown that people thought two glasses of the same wine were different when one was served a little warmer than the other. Again, there are a lot of things that influence the experience.
There was also a famous study where wine judges rated several wines (1-100 scale) over a few days, and their ratings varied for the same wines. Typically their ratings were in the 70s to mid 90s, and the average variability for the same wine was 4 points. This is enough to mean that on any given day, a completely different wine might win an award. But it doesn’t mean these judges couldn’t tell the difference between good and bad wines.
What this all means is you should recognize all the things that go into appreciating wine, both by you and by experts, and that many of these aspects are not fixed. If an expert says wine A is an 88 and wine B is a 91, don’t put much stock in it. If he says wine C is a 65, you can have some confidence that there is a real difference. And when you’re drinking wine yourself (and trying to appreciate it), don’t drink it from a dixie cup; put it in a proper glass so you can see the wine and capture the bouquet. Drink it at the right temperature. If it doesn’t taste good on first sip, let it sit for a little bit - maybe it needs to warm up a little, or maybe it needs to “breathe” (which is a real thing).
As for price, it’s one variable among many. I’ve had plenty of $10 wines that were very good, and $15-20 wines that were amazing. Still, the law of averages says that if I choose a $10 wine and a $50 wine randomly, it is most likely the $50 bottle will be significantly better. But there are lots of exceptions, and a good wine shop can help you find those.
Most wine that’s on the shelves anywhere is meant to be bought and drunk quickly. Only a small handful of styles of wine are really intended to be aged by the purchaser, and AFAIK, they’re all the super-pricey sorts like Brunello, Barolo, expensive Bordeaux, and so on.
And in reference to varietals vs. blends, a lot of that is not so much consumer taste or preference, but rather a marketing exercise. From what I understand, most European wines are typically named regionally- Chianti, Bordeaux, Chateauneuf-de-Pape, Champagne, and so on. The wines fall into a particular style that originated in that geographic area- Chianti wines are made with at least 75% Sangiovese grapes, up to 10% Canaiolo and 20% of other “approved” red grape varieties. They also have to be made in a specific geographic area, and sometimes using specific techniques. Sometimes areas have even more stringent requirements- DOC/DOCG/AOP/IGP are examples.
Winemakers in the rest of the world have rarely had that sort of tight association between regions, grape varieties and production methods, so they’ve typically relied on a combination of grape varietal and region- i.e. a Napa Valley Chardonnay or a Carneros Pinot Noir, when they haven’t just labeled it with “California” and a European place name, like Burgundy, Chablis or Champagne and sold it as table wine.
The catch seems to be that while real Chablis implies a specific style of white wine made from Chardonnay grapes grown in a defined area of France, using particular defined production methods, a Sonoma Valley Chardonnay may be oaked, may have undergone malolactic fermentation, or may be made with different yeasts or aging techniques than other Sonoma Valley Chardonnays. So in a sense, you know what you’re getting from the French Chablis more than you might with a Sonoma Valley Chardonnay.
The most expensive wine I’ve ever experienced was a Chateauneuf-de-Pape, 1961. A friend who is a wine nut gave me the bottle as a thank-you. I looked it up out of curiosity, and it had sold at auction for $380 - $500 a bottle.
The friend who gave it to me was anxious to hear if I liked it. He kept telling me to just open and drink it with any random dinner. I finally took it with me to a BYOB Italian restaurant we like.
When I opened the bottle the cork crumbled. I ended up pushing what was left of the cork into the bottle, and the owner of the restaurant brought over a coffee filter basket and we strained the wine through that. We shared the wine (me, my gf, the restaurant owner), drinking it out of coffee mugs. It was great!!!
Very generally speaking, many French red wines age well. Many do not, of course, and different vintages of the same wine can age differently. IME new world wines are vinted to not need or even benefit from aging. Really, unless you have a cellar or a wine fridge or can keep them in bond, buying wines to keep for years is very risky as the average home cannot provide the long-term constant temperature required to keep wine in good condition.
This is a pretty nonsensical statement. First off all, most “Old World” wines are actually grafts or hybrids of California vines due to the Phylloxera infestation in France of the 1870s which nearly destroyed the French wine industry. Second, most wine produced in France for domestic consumption is explicitly not intended for long aging and isn’t even particularly good quality wine. The French drink wine like Americans drink soda so they have their versions of Three Buck Chuck that are very popular and make up a significant portion of the industry. France actually has a unique type of wine production (vin de primeur) intended for a very short maceration and fermentation period for quick turnaround to market and which does not age well at all so it is typically drank within a few months of bottling.
There are plenty of California, Oregon, and Washington State wines that benefit from moderate aging, particularly Pinot Noirs, Cabernet Sauvignon, and Sangiovese. What dictates the potential to improve with aging is primarily in level of phenols absorbed extracted from the grape skin combined with the level of sugar and acidity. Naturally sweet, fruity wines like the Beaujolais nouveau or rosés do not tolerate aging at all as they lose their fruitiness and become flat and sour. Similarly, most white wines do not benefit from aging although provided they are dry enough they can tolerate remaining in the bottle in cool storage for several years. The only sugary wines that benefit from age are those that are fortified or concentrated like ports and eisweins.
I am nothing of a connoisseur. That having been said -
[ul][li]As has been mentioned, any wine you like is a good wine.[/ul][/li][ul][li]Usually, California wines are more consistent than French or German.[/ul][/li][ul][li]The placebo effect is real. You might find that you enjoy a wine more if it costs more. Does that make sense? Who cares - see my first bullet point.[/ul][/li][ul][li]I tend to go for type of wine rather than cost. That is, I like Merlot more than Chianti (my wife is the opposite). So, to me, a $15 bottle of Merlot tastes better than a $50 bottle of Chianti. Usually.[/ul][/li][ul][li]You can make a good wine better by aging. You can also make a bad wine worse.[/ul][/li][ul][li]On a related note, do not cook with a bad wine. It just concentrates the badness.[/ul][/li]And especially - [ul][li]After the third glass, it all tastes the same.[/ul]See John 2:10.[/li]
Regards,
Shodan
To add to what **Stranger **said, most wine has usually already been aged several years when it’s sold- only wines that are meant to be drunk young (say… Beaujolais Nouveau) are not aged prior to sale. This is true of whites and reds actually.
That’s why you might see a 2014 vintage wine being sold in grocery stores today- they aged it for 4 years prior to sale already.
The ones with the higher levels of phenols, tannins and acidity are candidates for aging, but it’s kind of hard to know just how long- a bottle of pinot noir may benefit from another year or two, but that’s it, while a Brunello may benefit from a decade or more.
Any wine you buy at the supermarket or Bevmo is not intended for additional aging. Wines that are suitable for aging are either bought from a specialty wine broker or direct from the winery, and are generally done by sommeliers of really high end restaurants or private investors. If you don’t know whether a wine you are considering for purchase will benefit from aging, it likely won’t.
Yeah a $15 bottle of Australian Wine in Australia is a 5 quid bottle in the UK.
I drink a lot of wine and spend between $10 and $20 on a normal day, I stick to Australian wines mainly as they tend to be great value for money in Australia.
Australian (and Californian which are very similar) wines are normally made to consume now where as French wine likes cellaring.
I am fairly lucky I have 32 wineries (and 8 breweries) within 35kms of my house so choice is by biggest problem, often it is the experience of the winery itself that influences the choice.
Agree 100%, there is no reason to use cork except for snob value.
I also drink cask wine every now and then, we have some particuarly good ones from DeBortoli in Australia. These are normally 2 litre casks, I can’t remember having a good 4 litre cask ever (known as goon down-under).
Feedback from wine makers is that you get up to 15% of bottles with cork taint, so I rest easy. Nothing worse than picking up a nice bottle on the way home and yep corked.
Oh and any wine can be improved by aeration, get’s rid of the sulphur smell for one. I do this on clean skins and normally am happy with the results.
I didn’t agree with all their conclusions either, but don’t judge the rosés too harshly. One of the best experiences I had with a charcuterie plate was with one from Beamsville ON (Malivoire Lady bug )at the Good Earth Food and Wine Co. With the right pairing it can be quite nice. Seafood like crab is another thing we’ll drink a rosé with. FWIW, the best wine pairing I’ve had this year was fish and chips with a bottle of Veuve Cliquot. Insane and absolutely delicious, the bubbles and acidity cut right through all the salt and grease; it was great!
I love charcuterie! Last one I had was a casual lunch on a lovely afternoon on the outdoor patio of the Featherstone winery in that same area. If you’re lucky their very old dog will come over for a short nap under your table. I don’t know if it’s official policy but you may, if you like, share your charcuterie with him. Featherstone is noted for their Cabernet Franc, and their 2010 (long gone, and way past its prime now anyway) was superb beyond belief, easily worth three times its $16 price. It sold out in record time.
Anyway, what I wanted to say is that my feeling about rosé is entirely subjective and entirely my own. If someone who didn’t know wine asked my advice, I’d say go ahead, you might like it quite a lot. Personally I’m more a fan of robust reds, though with a delicate seafood I’ll enjoy a mellow Chardonnay or buttery Pinot Gris.
Your description of fish and chips with Veuve Cliquot sounds great, BTW. The trick is where to get really good fish and chips!
True, AFAIK. To me the only difference is in my wine collection where the corked bottles need to be stored on their side and the screwtops can be stored either way though I usually prefer to keep them vertical. So the advantage of one over the other depends on what form of storage space I have left where I keep my long-term wines.
As a previous poster noted, Australian wines use screwtops a lot, including on some very fine wines indeed. Conversely, I don’t know if I’ve ever seen a California wine with anything other than a cork. Canadian wines are unsurprisingly a mix of the two, with corks predominating in the higher price ranges for what I’m sure are reasons of image. I still consider pulling a cork with a waiter-style corkscrew to be part of a timeless tradition, I must admit.
Back in the day when we had no kids this used to be Christmas Dinner, sitting on Sydney Harbour with a bottle of Veuve or Moet and some fish and chips and if we put the rent off for a week maybe a lobster. The sharpness and the bubbles worked very well.
