State of the Union

Well, as you can see I'm slowly getting into the swing of things and am slowly filling up the pages of the Blog with various reviews. At the moment I'm slightly amazed at how broad my readership is - with readers from South Africa, America, Germany and Brazil supplementing my UK base. So dankie, thanks, danke and obrigado - please send it all around to your pals and I'd love to hear some comments at some point. I always enjoy hearing a second opinion on a wine and mine is by no means that of a professional. Equally, any comments on how I review or any wines you'd like to see reviewed (within reason) would be welcomed - I know I write rather flowery reviews, but I quite enjoy the chance to be a little silly.

As things go on I hope to review all the wines I have taken notes on over the last year or so (somewhere around 90), so there will be a little bit more balanced with some more negative reviews coming in. At the moment, I'm sticking to the positive ones as those were the ones I enjoy writing about the most. At some point I plan on reviewing some wine websites and shops, but there are one or two little points I need to address before that (mainly securing a wider readership and ensuring I don't end up libelling someone by mistake!). Other ambitions include working out how to start cataloguing things properly into reviews by country, grape, flavour etc., but I don't think that will be worthwhile or realistic until I've managed to get a fair few more reviews down.

So there we are. A brief gap in the reviews, then back to the bottle. Happy glugging!


Image nabbed from Symposium Wines. Thanks chaps.

Te Mata Cape Crest Sauvignon Black 2010

Whilst I was going through a bit of a Kiwi Sauv Blanc phase, notably covering Saint Clair Pioneer Block 3, I stumbled across the highly original concept of an oaked Sauvingnon Blanc. Being a fan of both oaked whites and Sauvignon Blanc, I thought this might be worth a go.

Te Mata's SB is barrel fermented with an addition of a touch of Sauvignon Gris and Semillon in order to give a bit of balance and introduce some more complementary flavours. The result, I am assured, is that this wine is not far off a mix of Bordeaux Blanc and Kiwi SB. Having rarely tried top Bordeaux Blanc I'm not qualified to comment on that, but it certainly was nice.

Colour: Funnily enough, despite the oaking, this was almost clear but with a slight tinge of green. So far, so Sauvignon Blanc.

Nose: Ah, well the similarity ended there. With aromas of peach, apricot, honey, vanilla and citrus, one might be forgiven for thinking that this smelled like a typical Chardonnay. The raciness of the citrus made a nice balance, effectively replacing the 'minerality' one might expect from a Chardonnay.

Palate: Stone fruit - peach and apricot again - backed by vanilla with a twinge of green apple and citrussy zestiness, reminding us that this is an oaked SB, not a Chardonnay. A nice dollop of honey to round things off. There's a smooth and creamy texture to this with a sweet but light hint of Spring to it (sorry for the utterly obtuse note there. Perhaps blossom might serve better?)

Body: This is as full-bodied a SB as anyone is likely to try with a smooth texture which ends a touch abruptly with a zing of sharp citrus and acidity.

Finish: Medium length, and finishes a little sour with an almost coffee-like sourness (the taste following a big swig of black filter coffee). Not entirely pleasant, but not wholly unpleasant either.

Conclusion: An interesting experiment that was put up against the more illustrious (or at the very least the more famous) Cloudy Bay Te Koko and which stood up well. In time it developed stronger flavours but was perhaps a little less balanced that one would have hoped and the finish let it down a little. That being said, an interesting wine and certainly one to try next to an unoaked SB (Saint Clair Pioneer Block 3 would give an almost comical contrast) and an oaked Chardonnay (you can't go wrong with Ataraxia).

Points: Hard to rate a wine like this. Tasty and interesting, but a touch unbalanced with a slightly disappointing finish, meaning I can't really give it more than 87. I'm tempted to go down to 86.

Cloudy Bay Riesling 2007

Riesling. I'm not really a fan if I'm honest. I tend to find the petrol/oil smells overpowering and the fruit a touch too sickly, but I'm never one to write off a grape just because I don't tend to like it. Everything has its time and place, it's just that I can't seem to find the time to place Riesling...

I tasted Cloudy Bay's 2007 Riesling out of an enomatic machine at Majestic and thought that it was rather good, so on a whim I bought a few different bottles and decided to give them a go. Whilst 2 of the bottles confirmed my opinions by ticking the 'over sweet' box a touch too often, Cloudy Bay (and another Kiwi wine, Main Divide) was remarkably tasty, although at a price of £20-25 a bottle, one might expect it to beat the socks of the £9 standard Rieslings...

Nose: Rubber tyres, with an almost peaty undertone that really assaults the nostrils. Oily and nose-coating with a somewhat unappealing hint of what I could only describe as 'sweat'. A touch of dried apricot underneath. Not exactly appealing, but I suppose that's Riesling for you.

Palate: Light, sweet and peachy. Very nice indeed. Honey, canteloupe melon, lemon and something that tasted a bit like lavender. Certainly sugary, but not overpoweringly so. It's rather nicely balanced, too. It began to lose the over-sweetness in time and evolved into a more rounded taste, with a good balance of savoury and sweet. Hints of citrus come through with more tropical fruit.

Body: Smooth and pleasantly mouth-filling.

Finish: Short, dissipating quickly and leaving little or not aftertaste. No development noted.

Conclusion: Perhaps I do have time for Riesling after all? This was quite a pleasant experience, especially after tasting 2 other cloying sugar bombs. The fact that it lost its oversweet edge over time was a huge bonus and meant that I was able to drink more than 1 glass of it. It improved greatly over time in the glass, but the nose remained a negative for me, although it is by no means any different from most Riesling noses, so don't let that put you off it you're a Riesling fan.

Points: Hm. As it got me over my intrinsic dislike for Riesling I'm encouraged to give it extra points, but then that will inflate it above wines that I regard as better. As a result, 86-88 seems to be a fair range. Not bad at all.

Cape Mentelle Cabernet Merlot 2010

I bought Cape Mentelle on the strong recommendation of various employees of various wine shops and have now tried it on a couple of occasions. I rather like Aussie wines at this price point (£12-15) as they often have great character and are readily accessible, meaning they're a good one to use to introduce a friend/group to wine tasting. With strong flavours that are often comparatively easy to identify along with some occasional subtleties, they nearly always go down well in a blind tasting.

Cape Mentelle is made in Margaret River, in Western Australia. A cool climate, Margaret River is often regarded as one of the top Aussie wine-producing regions, especially for its Cabernet Sauvignons. In due course I will be trying Moss Wood's Cab Sauv, described by Jancis Robinson as 'The Latour of the Margaret River' so I will hopefully be able to build you a picture of the region over the coming weeks or months.

Nose: Immediately obvious are tobacco, cedarwood and some smoke. So far, a very classic Cab Sauv blend. There's fruit at the back of the nose and a hint of pepper. Here's the reason I like these sort of wines as an introduction - plenty of interesting smells that can easily be identified. So far, so good.

Palate: Ah, it's clear we're in Australia now. Lots of rich red fruit hits the palate immediately, with cassis leading the way with some seriously jammy oomph. There is, however, an interesting twist, as the palate suddenly turns dry, with some decent spice and bitterness (coffee, perhaps dark chocolate) coming up to claim the fore. As it develops, the cedar from the nose comes through, clearing off the palate nicely. There's a certain level of astringency to this, but I feel sure that this will fade with some time out of the bottle. Quite a 1-2-3 structure in that the constituent parts are very separate, but this is by no means an unpleasant wine. Eminently drinkable and a crowd pleaser.

Body: I'm sure you can guess from the above that this could only go into the 'full-bodied beast' category, with some serious tannic power to back it up. I wonder if it might be worth leaving it for a year or 3?

Finish: Medium length, fairly basic, but pleasant nonetheless. Nothing worthy of note.

Conclusion: As I noted in the introduction, I'm a fan of this sort of wine. It has good, strong flavours and has clearly been made with a clear purpose in mind. No smoke and mirrors or attempts to beat Bordeaux here, it's Aussie Cab Sauv at its simple best, and it's happy to be it.

Points: 86. At the price, well worth a pop. Interesting enough for a tasting, but would match well with any red meat, ideally a suitably red cut of beef. Yum.

Highland Park 12 Year Old Whisky

Time for a brief hiatus from wine. Having written some fairly lengthy posts about wine, it's time for a brief chat about whisky, inspired by re-reading and writing up my notes about Ataraxia Chardonnay 2009.

Funnily enough, Highland Park 12 was my first ever review of an alcoholic drink. I did it on the thoroughly excellent www.connosr.com, which is a real haven for whisky drinkers and reviewers and well worth a visit. 

As this was my first review, structure is a little haywire, but here it is: 

This is a gorgeous malt - it's a perfectly balanced study in the whisky-producing regions of Scotland. Whilst I seem to have found the nose rather lighter than my fellow reviewers, this whisky is absolutely bursting with flavour!

From the moment I sipped it there was a blast of honey rushing through my mouth with a perfect little dash of firey peat coming through afterwards to 'crisp off' the taste. As it moves on there's a touch of salt creeping in - I'm instantly reminded of the heather-covered hills of the Shetlands and the ever-present menace of the high seas. Wow. Whisky-inspired nostalgia!

Others have criticised the finish as brief: I must have had a fantastic bottle as my experience is completely the opposite. The distinctive honey-salt taste lingers at the back of my mouth for some time and fades gently away in a perfectly charming way.

HP12 is, to me, like a masterful piece of furniture - everything has smooth, rounded edges and the flavours are perfectly balanced and married together with consummate style. There's a feeling of 'shininess' that's present from the very first sniff and sip. The honey-salt-peat combination is absolutely perfect. I've been looking for a premium(ish) bottle to buy and if HP 12 is this good, the 18 is coming up next!

I always read these reviews before buying a bottle to see if I think it'll suit my palate, so I thought I'd quickly list a couple of other bottles I'd associate this with. In short, I'd put it as a mix between Bowmore Legend (incidentally I prefer Legend to 12) and Dalwhinnie 15. It's like the best of both worlds. Glorious! 

Points: A slightly inflated 90, due to the excellent pricing of the whisky (£24-30).

• Nose: 20

• Taste: 23

• Finish: 22

• Balance: 25

Ataraxia Chardonnay 2009

Chardonnay is a much-maligned grape in my view. What particularly peeves me is when someone declares that they are an 'ABC' man or woman. What, I ask, does that mean? Oh, comes the glib response, it means 'anything but Chardonnay'. In order to emphasise a point one day I bought an extremely nice bottle of Meursault (I'll review it one day) to a well-known ABC acquaintance, who proceeded to wax lyrical about the wine's plump stone fruit, smooth edges and excellent zing of minerality. Needless to say, they were most distressed to find that they had been drinking Chardonnay - confirming my view that ABCers are only against Chardonnay because someone else told them to be, rather than based on their own experience.

Anecdotes aside, I have been trying a series of more accessibly-priced Chardonnay from around the world and I stumbled across Ataraxia in September. Ataraxia means tranquillity - a freedom from preoccupation (rather suitable, as it freed several ABCers from their preoccupation with saying ABC). Before I am accused of being intelligent enough to speak Greek, this is helpfully provided on the back of the bottle!

Kevin Friend, the winemaker at Ataraxia (who also have a Sauvignon Blanc and a red, which I can't remember) has made a conscious effort to make Ataraxia a Burgundian-style Chardonnay and has been greatly praised for his excellent work at Hamilton Russell, a particularly fantastic South African vineyard. So, onwards we proceed:

Colour: I tend to think that the colour of the wine is more relevant for whites than reds, as there are only so many ways of saying 'ruby' or 'garnet'. This is a rather appealing rich straw colour, continuing all the way to the edges.

Nose: There is a significant amount of vanilla, confirming the presence of oak (on research, they use 34% new oak and 66% old oak barrels). Along with the vanilla there's a lovely dollop of honey and an almost caramelised smell - perhaps maple syrup? This is a buttery, soft, smooth nose and yet has some real power behind it. Rather strangely there is a slight almost imperceptible hint of chocolate and perhaps some salt as well. I must see if I can confirm that over some more bottles.

Palate: The best bit. After a stellar nose we get everything a person could want with a top Chardonnay: punchy stone fruit is immediately present, smoothed off with vanilla and honey. Indeed, in time the honey becomes even more distinct and the wine becomes exceptionally smooth - almost like drinking a good bit of Highland whisky*. This is really full of flavour and cleans itself off with a dash of minerality and lemon at the end. Accomplished stuff here and clearly marking itself against Burgundy's finest.

Body: This is a heavy and 'thick' Chardonnay. Whilst tasting like some of Burgundy's charmers, it definitely has New World 'oomph'. It's full-bodied with high alcohol but retains its exceptional smoothness.

Finish: Medium to long on the finish. It develops a little, but the majority of the finish comes from a gradual receding of the flavours with yet more honey-vanilla sweetness.

Conclusion: Really really interesting wine. One to try next to a top minerally Burgundy (I think it would be great to try next to a Meursault, but remember that you get what you pay for with Meursault, and should really be aiming for £30+, although Labouré-Roi is an acceptable alternative at £20 or so from Waitrose). It ticks every box and has no unpleasantness about it. Having read my notes through a couple of times, I have now decided to buy a case, as this will certainly improve for several years in the cellar.

Points: 93. At £20 a bottle with excellent cellaring potential, what are you waiting for?

*As a side note on whisky, Highland Park 12 is my 'basic expression' tipple of choice. Lovely honey and vanilla aromas that are reminiscent of this! Extremely smooth. In fact, I shall post a review of that next.

Château Lynch-Moussas, Pauillac, 2006

Back to a more 'classic' wine for this one. Tasted at a mini-Bordeaux tasting that covered Pauillac, Margaux and St Emillion, Lynch-Moussas was well regarded by fellow reviewers, but has been denigrated elsewhere, so was of interest to me. Costing £26, it's hardly a bargain-basement wine, but it's reasonably priced in comparison with many of its compatriots.

I have always liked Bordeaux wines that are more subtle, smooth and structured, as I feel that the New World often does the fruity wines better than France does. This is very much Bordeaux's forté and as such, I rarely buy a Bordeaux when looking for power - I look for finesse, and this wine will be judged by that criterion.
Nose: A nice array of aromas coming through here. Not all are instantly identifiable, but they remain there long enough to be found by a trial and error process. There's vanilla and spice immediately with a hint of perfumed flowers - we thought lilac, but weren't quite sure. Behind the floral aromas there was a touch of woodsmoke and a light hint of strawberry (or perhaps very diluted cassis). A fairly typical Pauillac then, although with an almost Margaux-like perfume.

Palate: Rather lovely, but became less so after a few sips as a touch of astringency came into it. Cherry and red fruits are present and it's extremely smooth although a hint of acidity and spice came into affairs after a short time. It began to change into a sweet and sour taste of raspberry - again, I was unable to find much cassis, which I had expected would be much more prominent, which struck me as a touch odd. That lilac taste came flitting in and out and had one reviewer convinced he was drinking a Margaux. Funnily, on a re-taste an hour or two afterwards, this became a much smoother and more characterful wine. Whilst there still wasn't cassis as such, the fruit was more pronounced, softer and more interesting. Would be lovely with all kinds of food and it seems a well-structured wine.

Body: Medium-bodied, medium alcohol and fairly low tannins and became perhaps a touch thin after drinking a (very small) glass of it.

Finish: A fairly classic finish in that it softens almost imperceptibly but has a reasonable level of development as a dash of fruit makes a late resurgence to remind you to take another sip.

Conclusion: Lynch-Moussas is a reasonably sophisticated wine with an interesting array of aromas (especially the floral ones). Well-balanced and smooth, but without a great deal to really excite, I think this would be excellent with classic roasts. Mint-crusted lamb would suit it ideally. 

Points: 86-87. Nice level of sophistication, but not quite enough to get into the serious points. Drinking now and unlikely to improve in the bottle, is it really worth £26? 

Glenelly Lady May 2008

Hello all, after a brief hiatus due to various work commitments, we're back to South Africa for this post. Glenelly is a South African vineyard with a rather intriguing 'twist'. It's owned by none other than Madame de Lencquesaing, the former owner of the exceptional 'super second' Chateau Pichon Longueville Comtesse de Lalande, who feels South Africa's soils, grapes and climate provide a perfect canvas for Bordeaux-style winemaking. If you have read one or two of my other posts, you'll know it's clear that I also subscribe to this opinion!

As Madame de Lencquesaing's first name is May, the name of this wine provides us with a fairly strong clue as to what to expect. A Bordelais statement in a New terroir, so certainly something different from the usual meaty smokiness that I love so much in South African Cabernet Sauvignon blends. If I remember correctly from the back of the bottle (now in the recycling somewhere in climes unknown), the statue on the front of the bottle is a very young version of Lady May herself! So, onto the wine - decanted for 2 hours and tasted again after 4.

Colour: I felt the need to include a colour section for this wine in particular (as I haven't bothered doing it for other wines so far) because it really is quite extraordinary. I removed the cork and there was almost no colour to it - a rather pale pink that I would associate with Burgundy rather than a heavy Cab Sauv - so I was extremely surprised when I poured out an almost black wine. It is incredibly deep and almost entirely opaque. Quite intriguing that it stained the cork so little. If someone knows how/why this is I would appreciate a comment about it!

Nose: Whoomph. There is an almost overpowering aroma of coffee. There is a hint of hay and barnyard aromas - a slight sourness that perhaps leads into some intensely dark chocolate. Fruit is not overly evident and was not overly evident on later tasting. This, I believe, is where the fact that the wine is so young has had its effect. That's not to say that the nose is closed, as it is certainly not, it is simply that it is currently slightly unbalanced and I look forward to seeing the effect of some time on the bottle (although 10 years may be too long to wait!). There's some real heat in this nose - reminiscent of chilli chocolate (Montezuma Chocolate make it and it's quite intriguing!). In sum: Coffee, hay, dark dark chocolate and some chilli and heat at the end.

Palate: At the first taste I noted massive coffee backed by 'solid' fruit - the fruit, however, was tight and restrained. This, I am sure, is the emphasis of Lady May's Bordelais heritage and a conscious move away from South African style to a more Old World effort. The bitterness of the coffee and dark chocolate definitely comes through near the end, but there isn't harshness to it, so it's not a negative point. On the later tasting (4 hours decanted) I got blackcurrant coming to the fore with the coffee moving to a supporting role (but a rather loud supporting role!). After 5 hours the coffee began to calm down a little, encouraging me to keep trying it.

Body: The body is extremely full and this is definitely a heavy Lady. The tannins are enormous and it's clear from the first smell that this wine has been made with the intention of a long cellaring.

Finish: As above, fading away into more savoury aromas. A hint of leather coming through (perhaps the evolved version of the slightly sour hay and barnyard aromas in the nose?), coffee and a touch of blackcurrant, but it's elusive. 

Conclusion: It must be remembered that this is a VERY young wine and intended to be cellared for a good few years before drinking, so this review will most certainly be coloured by the fact that I am drinking this young. As a result, I find it extremely hard to give it a rating as I don't think it will be a fair analysis. I found this wine extremely interesting, but was it really a wine I would drink? I think that it's only fair to wait for at least another 2 years before drinking and ideally 5 or 10. Given all of the expertise that has gone into it, it's certainly an accomplished wine and it is certainly making a statement. I had a heated debate with a reviewer who referred to this as 'typically South African' that divided the room, but I stand by my view that this is a Bordelais wine residing in a South African terroir. 

Points: Anything from 85-91. 
I would love to hear if anyone else has tried this and what their feelings were! Next time I will do an overnight decant and see what it's like in the morning.

Hochar Père et Fils, Chateau Musar

Hochar Père et Fils is the second wine of the famous Chateau Musar. Musar is a Lebanese wine, established in 1930 by Gaston Hochar and now continued by his sons (hence the name 'Père et Fils'). There is a fabulous story of Serge Hochar, the son currently in charge of wine production, spending an evening during a particularly savage bout of shelling in the Lebanese Civil War (which ran from 1975-1990) tasting one of his finest vintages. Despite pleas to go to a bomb shelter, Serge poured an entire bottle of Chateau Musar 1972 into a glass and spent the subsequent 12 hours tasting it and meticulously noting its development.

As a result, it was with some interest that I bought some of the main label Chateau Musar (still in the cellar, waiting to be drunk) and the second label, Père et Fils, which set me back £12. I am reliably informed that this is produced in a slightly lighter and more accessible style than the full Chateau Musar, so I was excited about the prospect of getting to know the style of wine of this famous Chateau. This was one of the first wines I had properly 'tasted', so it was difficult to articulate some of the flavours.

Nose: The aroma was somewhat unpleasant to my nose. There was a heavy dose of resin (some described it as 'nail polish') which was quite off-putting and which rather dominated the nose. There was also a slightly sour hint of it with citrus (rather rare in a red!) leading some of us to describe the wine as smelling of pear drops.

Palate: A complete contrast to the nose, the palate is light with some slightly musty red fruit and a more restrained version of the pear drops found in the aroma. It balances quite nicely and is certainly dangerously easy to drink. It has a very Middle-Eastern feel to it with dates, figs and spices giving it a slight hint of a Moroccan marketplace (I haven't been to Lebanon, so Morocco will have to do!).

Body: As I had been advised, this was a lighter wine and the body was medium, with pleasantly smooth tannins.

Finish: Very short and fades away almost instantly. This could be a characteristic of the fact that Musar often releases its wines 3-4 years after production to ensure that they are drinkable - meaning they are often of a good age by the time they get to the table. Nothing unpleasant in the finish, so all in all a positive experience.

Conclusion: An enjoyable table wine that is fairly-priced and accessible. Some may be put off by the aroma (I'll have to re-taste to ensure I wasn't tasting a corked one) but the taste was enjoyable. I hope that my Musar 2004 will be in the same vein!

Points: I gave it 6.5+/20 which I think equates to somewhere around 84.

Saint Clair Pioneer's Block 14: 'Doctor's Creek'

I mentioned in my first review that I love Saint Clair as a vinyard. In many ways Saint Clair was the first wine that I really thought about and one that got me hooked on the idea of Pinot Noir and the versatility of grapes in general. Matt Thomson has won a host of awards, including the prestigious for his work at Saint Clair and the Pioneer Block series always deliver - even their Gewürztraminer was excellent, and I am no fan of Gewürztraminer.

I tried PB 15 (as it was in its previous iteration) at approximately this time last year and have since tried several of Saint Clair's Pinot Noirs. The current vintage is 2011's Doctor's Creek, or PB 14 for short. I have now tried it on 4 occasions, 3 of which were tastings, and I feel that I'm on to a real winner with it. I would describe it as an excellent example of  how a New World beast can be tamed.

Nose: SC PB 14 has a lovely intense nose of all the great parts of Pinot Noir - it's a jammy raspberry blast with a hint of mushroom earthiness to back it up. Nutmeg dances around the aroma to give it a hint of depth. An almost ferric hint slips in there somewhere, but is elusive if you look for it. As with Pioneer Block 3, intensity is the buzzword regarding Saint Clair's wines, but don't imagine that it is just intensity. There's also great complexity and this is not a wine to be dismissed as a New World 'fruit bomb'.

Palate: Sweet with the slight sourness that characterises top Pinot Noir. The fruit is held in place and structured with this, combined with pepper and spice backing up the juiciness. This is most certainly not Burgundy - it's juicy and fruity and lacks the savoury 'barnyard' gaminess of top Burgundy, but has much to interest nevertheless. In time (approx 1.5 hours) the spice becomes more pronounced - becoming more Burgundian. Interesting. Excellent.

Body: As an inexperienced taster, this is somewhat hard to describe. In terms of flavour, this is a full-bodied mouth-filling wine but it isn't heavy in the slightest. It is in fact exceptionally smooth, suggesting it's light of body. Whatever the correct description is, it's lovely.

Finish: Is that a hint of menthol, clearing my palate for another glass? Only one way to find out...

Conclusion: With cellaring potential of 5 years from vintage (i.e. up to 2016) it is well worth buying a case or two. It is an easy-going crowd pleaser and will never fail to impress. Serve with slow-cooked paprika chicken or prawns with squid-ink linguine (contact me for a recipe if you want). I have a photo of it somewhere that I should upload... 

Points: Excellent. 91, especially after a little time exposed to the air.

Tasting Wine - Glassware

Despite having posted a grand total of 4 posts, I realise I have not yet discussed the importance of glassware (or stemware) in tasting wines. I hope that a post at this early stage will be useful for would-be wine tasters and I plan on doing a small serial on the methods of improving the wine tasting experience.

The impact a good or bad glass can have on the experience is often profound - I have known friends to become frustrated at being unable to get the full aroma or taste of a wine and feel left-out at tastings simply because they did not have an appropriate glass.

It is important not to be daunted by the prospect of the vast array of stemware available at specialist shops. I recall seeing a Riedel display which had a glass for each and every type of wine I could imagine. Whilst it was in many ways an enlightening experience, it was at the same time absolutely terrifying! The thought of having to purchase at least a dozen glasses before being able to 'taste' wine 'properly' almost drove me away from tasting.

Fortunately for the amateur taster such as myself, such complications are largely unnecessary. In the end, I decided to simply buy two glasses - one for white wine and one for red. After the briefest of searches I came across a company called 'Chef & Sommelier' who make remarkably good value and professional-looking wine glasses.

In my tastings I use the two displayed here:

Chef & Sommelier White Wine Glass

Chef & Sommelier Red Wine Glass

When comparing the difference between my notes and ability to discern flavours and aromas from the wines in professional glasses and normal glasses, I was startled by the difference. By channelling the bouquet of the wine and holding it in the glass, the professional glasses allow for a much more intense and accessible experience in tasting wine. They emphasise each wine's properties and can make for a much more enjoyable evening's tasting.

The style of each glass is also important in exposing the wine to the air, whilst maintaining its bouquet in theglass. You will notice that the red wine glass has a wider base and becomes thinner at the top - this is to make the bouquet more profound and also to allow the taster to nestle the glass easily in his or her hand. The white wine glass, by contrast, discourages this practice with its narrower base and wider middle, which allows for the vapours to concentrate before moving out of the glass.

Moreover, the ultra-thin glass used has 2 important uses. The first is somewhat frivolous - it makes the glasses look much smarter and glitzier - rather like a nice restaurant! The second is more significant: having a very thin rim on the glass means that tasters can much more accurately place the wine in their mouths - an often overlooked concept - that allows the specific aspects of a wine to be more clearly examined.

I bought my glasses in boxes of 6 (12 total) for the princely sum of £48 (they were on sale on-line) and I cannot recommend them more to anyone who wants to either start tasting wine or simply wants to enjoy their wine more.

Jean-Louis Chavy Puligny-Montrachet 2010

Puligny-Montrachet is one of the most interesting and exciting of the Burgundian white wine regions, often clocking in with enormous price tags and subtlety, minerality and class to match them. This was my nod to 'classic' Chardonnay in my tasting set and while not at the sort of price point that is really needed to express the region, at £25 it was by no means a budget bottle of wine.

Montrachet is located in the Côte de Beaune subregion of Burgundy, just south of the incredibly famous town of Meursault (N.B. if you want to try Meursault, please resist the chance to buy a £15 bottle. It is one of those wines that you have to pay more for, sadly, but is often worth the extra pennies). If you get the chance it is a particularly nice part of the world to visit - Beaune containing some of Burgundy's most famous vinyards along with some exceptionally pretty towns.

Anyway, on to the wine. Tasted blind on the same evening as the Eikendal (and others), this was the most expensive wine of the evening (not that we knew as they were all wrapped!).

Nose: This can be said to characterise Burgundian Chardonnay - it was fresh, citrussy and acidic, but with an almost buttery balance to it. This was the first clue about the oak in this wine, which slightly damped the minerality but (in my view) gave the wine an interesting extra dimension. 

Palate: As with the Eikendal this was perhaps a touch sugary but in time it improved greatly. Citrus came through and the palate began to 'fill out' with more flavours, including light vanilla from the oak. There is certainly minerality here and the fruit is in pleasant harmony with the other flavours.

Finish: The finish was perhaps a touch compact, but I have nothing negative to say about it. The wine simply faded away pleasantly and left no bitter after-taste or lingering acidity. It led easily into the next glass!

Conclusion: A very pleasant wine in terms of its harmony, but was it really worth £25? The oak played a part in making the balance of the wine, but as one of my co-tasters commented, it made it somewhat difficult to separate it from a fairly ordinary New World oaked Chardonnay. While I had failed to follow my own advice (steer clear of 'cheap' white Burgundy), I thought that this would be worth a go considering other positive reviews from elsewhere. As far as I'm concerned it was a wine that I would very much like to drink with friends over dinner, but £25 could be put to much better use elsewhere - even the traditionally heavily overpriced American wines did better (Au Bon Climat - to be reviewed shortly).

Points: It's hard to rate this one considering my knowledge of the price. When I tasted it blind I gave it a 7/10 - which I suppose equates to somewhere around 87 on the 100-point scale. Pleasant, but don't get too excited. 

Eikendal Chardonnay 2010/11

I have recently decided that Chardonnay is a much-maligned grape and so have attempted to taste a broad range of Chardonnays from both the Old and New World. The latest in this set of tasting (the others will be posted at some point), was the South African Eikendal 2010/11, which cost around £12.

Eikendal Chardonnay is Eikendal's flagship white wine, according to their website, and is oaked for 7 months before bottling, so I was expecting a certain amount of intensity, although not so much as one might expect from an Aussie oak-monster of a Chardonnay. My thoughts at the time of tasting are as follows:

Nose: Surprisingly, given the oak, this was a light-smelling Chardonnay than many others I have tried. It was grassy and perhaps a little minerally with distinct notes of green apple and lemon coming through. After some time a hint of toasty oak began to emerge. The citrus was, however, the clearest of the identifiable aromas.

Palate: My first impression was 'smoky sweet'. It was pleasantly tasty with a decent level of stone fruit (peach, perhaps some apricot) with a little dollop of honey coming in at the back. After a few sips, however, it began to taste a little light and overly sugary. Perhaps even insipid. My standard tasting measure is around 50-75mls, so for a wine to become cloying after such a short period (admittedly without food) is not an entirely positive sign.

Body: The body remained remarkably light for an oaked Chardonnay throughout and altogether not what I was expecting. Perhaps there was too much focus on attempting to achieve a Burgundian minerality when making this wine and less was thought about how this would affect the wine's structure.

Finish: Longer that I would have thought given the lack of body and pleasant. More citrus, especially lemon, with a slightly grassy tang.

Conclusion: Clearly an ambitious attempt to make a Burgundian-style wine in South Africa, but did it really work? Well, it was a perfectly nice wine to begin with and showed some potential for development, but the slightly sugary taste meant that I was unable to say with certainty whether or not I liked it. I feel that with some well-chosen food matched with it (grilled fish or any white meat) or perhaps another year or so in the cellar this could have been a thoroughly decent wine.

Points: 84. Pleasant enough but there wasn't quite enough depth to make me want to drink this again. The citrus made me feel that this was in fact a Sauvignon Blanc in disguise.

Kanonkop Paul Sauer 2009

As I have tantalisingly put Kanonkop's Paul Sauer 2009 as my current favourite wine, I feel it is only just that I should put up a review to accompany it. Kanonkop (meaning Canon's Hill - from which a warning shot that was fired to alert farmers to the arrival of traders at Cape Town) is regarded as one of South Africa's top wineries.

Kanonkop was inspired by a special offer that caught my eye and has since inspired a love of South African wine that I am yet to shake. Made in a distinctly Bordelais style with a blend of Cabernet Sauvignon, Cabernet Franc and Merlot (giving it an edge of complexity over the single-grape Kanonkop Cabernet Sauvignon), Kanonkop is an excellent expression of what it is to be a 'proper' South African red.

Decanted for 3 hours before serving (at a later tasting I attempted 1.5, which was clearly too short), the colour was an rich, smoky red. Almost opaque, and interestingly a herald of things to come.

Nose: Kanonkop says 'I'm South African' all over the nose. It has the typical red fruit associated with a blend of this variety, but backed with the smokiness that is so classically South African. Coming in as top notes were blackberry, cherry, plum and some pepper. The more I sniffed, the more I felt the smoke was perhaps tending ever so slightly towards the phenolic aromas of a peated whisky. That is one I'll have to try to find again.

Palate: After 3 hours it was gloriously soft, smooth, fruity and rich. A decent oomph of spice kept it from being cloying and the smokiness gave it a lovely mouth-feel that was both complex and accessible. While I have listed a series of platitudes as regards red wine above, this wine should not be dismissed as basic - the layering and structure of the fruit, spice and smoke means it gives any palate a good run for its money.

Body: As mentioned above, this is an extremely smooth wine considering its full flavours. Tannins are remarkably soft, especially considering the youth of the wine.

Finish: Superb is the only word for it. Every constituent part softens and fades away in a subtle and yet somehow distinct order. It is medium-long and the structure holds perfectly throughout. Most excellent.

Conclusion: A really, really lovely wine. The sort of wine to kindle a love-affair. The quality of blending that one would expect of a Bordeaux combined with real flavour, passion and power. This is certainly one to have with a good braii on the beach (Cape Maclear, Malawi would be my ideal). It's potent and yet sufficiently subtle, complex and structured to stand up to any food without overwhelming it. But why would you bother trying to match it with food? This is magnificent on its own.

Points: 93.

I have since bought a case that will be sitting in my cellar for however long I can resist temptation. Expect to see updates as I check on the developments. It can be bought for around £25-30.

Saint Clair Pioneer Block 3

Hello all and sundry. While this is my first entry on my first blog, I am glad to say that this is not the first time I've had the privilege of trying Saint Clair's fantastic Pioneer Block 3 sauvignon blanc.

Since I started organising wine tastings (although to give them such a formal name belies the casual and amateur approach we have!), one vineyard and one wine in particular has caught everyone's attention: Saint Clair. Saint Clair Pioneer Block 3 (SC PB 3, for short) is a magnificent expression of the excitement of New World wine. It captures the new, modern approaches to wine-making alongside the sense of excitement and freshness increasingly associated with the New World, especially New Zealand.

Nose: Zing! Straight away there’s a great deal of passionfruit, citrus – lime and perhaps some mandarin?, gooseberry and redcurrant. Make no mistake, this is Kiwi SB at its most zesty. While this is most certainly not for the faint-hearted or those that love the subtle minerality of a Sancerre, my goodness does it have character, taste and accessibility in spades!

Palate: The palate follows mostly from the above. The wine tasting group was interestingly somewhat divided on their opinions. All agreed that it was a great wine for a tasting, purely because of the ‘shock’ factor it carries, but is it perhaps too bold for some? It was described as ‘magnificent’, ‘wow’ and ‘extraordinarily intense’, but others were less effusive in their praise, teasingly describing it as ‘unsubtle’ and ‘up front’.

Conclusion: While the lack of subtlety may be a deal-breaker for some, I believe it is SC PB 3’s key asset. Each glass packs some serious punch and it develops nicely in the glass, somehow growing more intense, but never cloying, oversweet or unpleasantly acidic. To me, it is a real mark of Saint Clair’s quality that they have produced such an intense wine with none of the negatives usually associated with New Zealand SB.
While I have matched this with an excellent crab linguine before, one guest suggested it was perhaps too intense. In future I will try it with a heavy creamy pasta. Images will follow at some point!

I usually rate out of 10 – this got 7.5+ and moved to 8.5 after an hour in the glass. If I had to rate out of 100, I would suggest 90+. It costs anything from £14-18.

Image courtesy of Saint Clair Wines.