Veuve Clicquot, Grande Dame 2004

Veuve Clicquot Grande Dame 2004 was a present from a friend returning from Moscow, and what a present it was! Firstly, the presentation is very slick - although perhaps a touch gimmicky. The box has a tag which, when pulled, turns the inside case around to reveal the bottle. Very faux James Bond, but great fun!

Grande Dame is a "super cuvee" and is a premium expression of Veuve Clicquot's house style. As such, I was expecting richness and opulence with full fruit and a biscuitty mousse. I had recently tried Bollinger Grande Annee 2004 which I expected to contrast heavily (given the differing house styles) and so I noted some of those impressions while I tasted.

I felt that by drinking it in late 2013 we were perhaps risking a touch of infanticide, as this champagne will last for a good decade more at least. Still, good company and good wine go together, so we popped the cork.

Colour: Pale gold

Nose: Crisp, zesty lemon. There's grape with an almost grappa-like intensity. Lemon is very clear.

Palate: Sweet lemon, apricot and peach. As expected, it is on the richer side of the champagne chart and extremely strong and powerful - but not overly flamboyant. There's a slight sense of power being held in check by finesse. There's a really round and fruity style - a sharp contrast to the citrus (esp mandarin) I found in Bollinger Grande Annee 2004 but not far from the richer Bollinger Grande Annee 1997, which had had more time to develop. Peach and nectarine come to the fore in time and the Grande Dame evolves into a sweet, rich toasted brioche. Almost like a Sauternes...

Lovely mousse with no harshness or bitterness. Very fine bubbles.

Finish: Extremely long. It develops in clear stages with red apple coming through and becoming almost caramelised. Lemon brings up the rear to clear the palate and prepare for more. This goes on and on!

Conclusion: I couldn't think of many better ways to spend an evening that to have a bottle of this with good company. This grand Lady demands attention and is lavish in her rewards. Immense power and focused intensity with great poise and elegance. Worth the money? Yes!

Points: 94-95. Exceptional.

Corvus Vinium 2009

I came across Corvus Vivnium 2009 on a recent holiday and thought I'd give it a go. I've heard mildly positive things about it (nothing earth-shattering, but positive nonetheless) and it's always nice to unearth a lesser-known wine.

A rather smaller intro than usual on this as I didn't pick up any interesting facts or titbits about Corvus, other than that they are very much at the forefront of a growing interest in Turkish wine. Drunk at Locanda, by Kalkan, with an excellent calves' liver dish. The grape is called Karalahna.

Colour: A little cloudy - deep ruby red.

Nose: It was a touch cold to start with, so a fairly muted nose. In time sour cherry came through but the nose was rather astringent (if a nose can be astringent). It felt very drying. Hint of mint in the back and perhaps a touch of violet and pine sap - encouraging the slightly sharp scent. Leather in there too.

Palate: Regardless of whether a nose can be astringent, the palate most certainly is. A very dry wine with fairly prominent cherry and pepper. Whilst it softened in time, pepper and sour cherry dominate and it remains a dry wine. Not too sharp though.

Body: Med-full - quite hard to tell due to the astringency.

Finish: Simple, shortish and inoffensive.

Conclusion: Rather a nice table wine that went well with the rich and tangy calves liver I had. While it was a very dry wine, which is a style I'm less fond of, it had points of merit and was a perfectly enjoyable table wine for holiday.

Points: 83

Warwick Estate, Trilogy, 2009

Regular readers will know my interest in South African wines seems never-ending and that I am fortunate enough to have a good supplier nearby, so I have an almost limitless stock of the things. I gave Warwick a go based on positive comments by various distinguished boozers (the boozerati, perhaps?) and on favourable reviews by characters such as John Platter who, love him or hate him, is seen by many as the Parker of South Africa. His list of the Top 100 South African wines consistently dominates the marketing of SA wine - although people often criticise it for only plumping for already-established wines, leaving smaller vineyards largely to themselves.

Another, more superficial reason for choosing Warwick Trilogy is that I rather like the name and the bottle shape. At £20-24 it's not overly expensive and something you can cheerfully share with some friends without worrying about the bank. Might do a post on how to run successful tastings/wine events sometime, as they're a rather good way of getting into wine.

Anyway - onto the wine. Decanted for 2 hours then re-tasted after 4.

Nose: Typical Bordeaux at first - pencil shavings, graphite and cedar with an almost earthy texture to the nose. Tobacco, pepper and dark chocolate coming in from time to time, with the chocolate starting to build its intensity. Dollop of cassis in there. Peculiarly it's a rather light nose, despite the strong-seeming flavours in there. Everything is quite soft and gentle and it took some teasing to get into it. The dark chocolate has developed into a hint of chili and has a bit of bite to it. On the re-taste the nose had become much more opulent and jammy, but there was still a hefty dose of pepper in there.

Palate: Largely as above, but without the pencil shavings. The coffee is more intense and the cassis is more noticeable, but not exactly prominent. On the re-taste it was noticeably jammier, but still suffered from the slightly harsh/sharp coffee and dark chocolate. I rather wish I'd been able to decant this for longer as I think it was going really exciting places.

Body: Remarkably it was medium-light. There's plenty of tannin but there's no mouth-coating blast sense to this and it's certainly not overpowering. Rather well poised I thought - a nice weight in harmony with the clear flavours. Nice and smooth (before the tannic hit).

Finish: Quite austere and drying. Not terribly long, either. Not unpleasant, but not exactly one to write home about.

Conclusion: A nice wine, but perhaps unremarkable in some respects? I like the chocolatey-ness (almost like eating cocoa nibs - the intensity and sharpness was very interesting) but at the same time I was hoping for just a touch more fruit. I mentioned my regret that I didn't leave this out for longer, and I suspect I would have been rewarded if I had. Essentially, it tastes rather like classic claret but a little bit more accessible (especially at this age). Definitely worth a try purely to see if the construction is something you like or don't. I will try it again one day.

Points: 85/6 (note to new readers - I prefer to use a slightly broader scale than the traditional 85-100 used by most 100 point markers. By way of explanation, 85/6 is a perfectly respectable wine. Not one I would rush to put in my cellar, but one I would happily buy and drink again.)

Turley Zindandel, Juvenile, 2007

Back to America for this one. First things first - I'm not a wild fan of the bottle design or the label but fortunately it was a present, so my design judgment wasn't a factor. I say "fortunately" because this wine turned out to be much better than it looked. Due to university days I had always dismissed Zinfandel as a grape that was used solely in the production of cheap rosé (hi there, Blossom Hill). To say I was underwhelmed would be a minor understatement... Again, fortunately for me, it wasn't a sentiment that lasted long.

Colour: A lovely clear, deep and pure purple.

Nose: Oodles of dark berries, oak and a hefty dollop of spice. Cinnamon and black cherry intensity with a certain light crispness on the top notes. Much nicer than the insipid rosé I associate it with!

Palate: This is really smooth and mouth-filling. It's busting with fruit and spice but somehow it seems light and clean. A bit of an enigma here. The spiciness lifts the fruit and makes this more than just a fruit-bomb (although it certainly doesn't hold back) while retaining a lovely freshness.

Body: Oomph. Full, but rounded, smooth and with absolutely no harshness - along with the extraordinary feeling that it's actually rather light. I can't work out if this is a hefty beast or a delicate flower. Decent slug of alcohol in there but not oppressive.

Finish: Finishes very mildly and fades with a gentle lingering hint of berries. Excellent balance and decent length here too. A finish this satisfying demands another sip!

Conclusion: What a lovely way to dispel my negative image of Zinfandel. Of course this could have ended up in a cave-man style - a blast of fruit with nothing else - but the balance and cleanness really made it stand out. Crisp and fruity, there's not a hint of mustiness in it. People think it'll last to 2014/15 but I'd say go for it now as it's going down a treat.

Points: 90. Good stuff!

Brightwell Vineyard, Crispin

On trying a rather eclectic mix of wines one evening, I came across Brightwell's Crispin. It's a blend of  two lesser-known grape varieties, Bacchus and Reichensteiner, which are generally described as producing soft, dry wines. Bacchus has recently come to the fore as it is grown across English vineyards, notably Camel Valley (who make a rather good sparkling wine).

Described by the Independent as having 'notes of spicy fruit and rosewater on the nose with bold barley sugar aspects on the palate', Crispin is reasonably well-regarded among the English wines. Whilst the the Independent was describing the Crispin favourably, I couldn't help but think that the rather strange collection of flavours rather clashed with one another. Spice, rose and barley sugar? Not exactly classic bedfellows... As a result, it was with interest but mild trepidation that I tasted it (blind, incidentally, along with several other wines).

Colour: Water. The tiniest hint of yellow informs us that this is, in fact, wine.

Nose: Hm. Not a fan. Considering I knew there would be Crispin in the tasting selection somewhere I was actively looking for wines with hints of rosewater and spice in the nose, but I immediately dismissed this. Fairly bland, with the slightest hint of lemon (rather like a large glass of water with a small wedge of lemon in it), it smelt to me to be a bland supermarket pint grigio.

Flavour: No rose. Hint of slightly over-sweet strawberry. Not nice. Insipid and acidic.

Body: None to speak of. Thin, acidic and sharp.

Finish: Disappointing. Short, with harshness and strawberry again.

Conclusion: When I found out that wine 4 was Crispin I was heartily disappointed - I had wanted to like this wine, or at least be interested by it enough to commend it to others. Sadly, I found it perfectly resembled the Great British Weather - drab, dreary, harsh and unpleasant. I may consider trying it again one day, but not any time soon, especially at the rather unreasonable price of around £10. Amazed Decanter gave it a bronze medal...

Points: Is there any use?

Moss Wood Chardonnay 2010

First things first. Apologies for the hideous gap between posts. I got rather caught up in other things and couldn't find time to drink wine, let alone review it! Right, enough of that. Wine:

I'm a fan of Moss Wood. I've reviewed their Pinot Noir here and gave it a high rating 89/90, praising its complexity and the interest it garners among drinkers. Having enjoyed it so much, I thought I'd give their Chardonnay a go - which also went in tune with my Chardonnay renaissance. I've read all sorts of lovely things about Moss Wood's Chardonnay but, being difficult and obstinate, I don't particularly like to take other people's opinions into account when I taste wine. As a result, my tastings often go against the consensus of what tastes like what.

This brings me onto an interesting point that I always remind people of before they taste wine - everything is subjective when it comes to wine. We all have our preferences and styles that we like more than others and its human nature to put an unconscious bias on things we like. This is why I taste things blind (especially given I have a slight conflict of interest here as Moss Wood sent me a very nice email complimenting me on my review of their Pinot Noir). Fortunately this was tasted blind, so the awful flattery that is about to follow is entirely sincere as it could have related to another Australian Chardonnay that I was trying that day (and I have witnesses to prove it!)

Nose: An opulent, heavy, rich Chardonnay nose. There's plenty of oak, but it is suitably restrained and doesn't dominate. This is a really full wine - there's honey, vanilla and a great big dollop of butterscotch. Citrus is fairly restrained on the nose and as a result this is a sweeter and rounder wine than some Chardonnays and eschews the sharp acidic nose that can condemn some bottles (cheap Burgundy being the prime offender here). Super buttery and almondy.

Palate: Again with the butterscotch but in comes some lemon to give a citrus zip to the affair. Vanilla is present and there's an interesting contrast of sweet and sour flavours - they're in perfect harmony and magnificently balanced. In terms of flavour this is a very full wine (as the nose would suggest) and shows that so-called 'Imperial Wine' (to be laid down... and forgotten about) now offers some serious style and ferociously good wine-making. Regardless of the great flavours in here, one word describes this best: balance. I was considering a ballerina in mid-pirouette analogy here but then calmed down a little and left it out.

Body: Acidity comes in at the back, courtesy of the lemon, and forcefully pushes this wine on and on! It's full-bodied and has high alcohol (not that it affects the wine).

Finish: Goes on and on and on and on. Extremely long and with a charming little progression: the sweet and sour contrast is played out in miniature with butter, citrus, honey, citrus coming along in turn and each fighting for their spot in the limelight. A real highlight to an excellent sip.

Conclusion: Is there really much more to say? A different wine to Ataraxia  (click on it for a review) in that Ataraxia was consciously focused on becoming Burgundian while Moss Wood is revelling in its modern intensity, but as good an example of Chardonnay's values as you'll find. It would be brilliant to try the two next to one another and, as they're both around £20 a bottle, what's stopping you?! Not sure on cellaring potential but I suspect a few years might improve things further still - perhaps someone could enlighten me here?

Points: 90+. Accomplished stuff.

Au Bon Climat Santa Barbara County Chardonnay 2010

So, back to Santa Barbara County for an ABC Chardonnay. Much to my amusement, Au Bon Climat is regularly referred to as 'ABC' - ABC also being the acronym for those who drink 'anything but Chardonnay' (read my review of the magnificent Ataraxia Chardonnay for further discussion). I was mildly interested to see how I would enjoy this wine as I have had a very mixed bag of US Chardonnays in the past (Frog's Leap was lovely but heinously overpriced and there are many hideously watery, acidic and plain bottles out there).

So, clocking in at around £22 (£18 if on offer), I thought ABC would be worth a punt and an interesting option. I also rather like the bottle.

Nose: Very classic oaked Chardonnay - vanilla, honey and oak in abundance with an intriguing hint of lavender and apricot. Quite fresh with some apple and perhaps orange (?) coming through but at the same time delightfully 'creamy'.

Palate: Wow. There is a quite enormous palate of vanilla and honey. This is a real mouth-filler with apricot and lemon coming in in the middle and battling it out.There's also something a bit buttery about this fellow - perhaps a slight crunch of shortbread in there - with just a touch of salt. I wouldn't go so far as to say this is balanced, but there's a certain focus to the intensity. It's forceful, big and brash but at the same time curiously captivating in its slight subtleties.

Body: Full - but strangely it mellows off remarkably well and is (contrary to the description above) extremely moreish and drinkable.

Finish: Strong and long. It develops well and finishes with a rather interesting spot of peppery lemon and a good zing of acidity. Crumbs, this finish goes on and on. This is a really top-quality effort.

Conclusion: Not sure if the sheer honey/vanilla power of this will appease or irritate people who dislike Chardonnay. In one way it's quite enjoyable, but in the other it typifies the extreme nature of modern Chardonnays - they can be insipid and watery or they can be a blast of oak. Needless to say, this wine divided opinion at the tasting and it's quite easy to see why. I, however, like it. It mellows very nicely (once you get over the sheer quantity of honey and vanilla) and has a seemingly endless finish.

Points: 88. Would certainly drink it again - which is good as I have some in the cellar!

Sula Dindori Shiraz Reserve 2010

So here's something a little bit different. Sula, the Indian vineyard that boldly claims to be 'at the forefront of the Indian Wine revolution', was founded by Rajeev Samant in 1993 after leaving his job as an engineer in Silicon Valley. Dindori Reserve was launched in 2005 and shows the experimental edge and growing flair of Sula. Aged in new oak for 1 year.

While the phrase 'Indian Wine revolution' may seem a little vainglorious, I thought it would be an interesting wine to try. I had been recommended to try Indian wine before, but I was cautious as to how well it would travel. Given the distinctly different climates of England and  India I felt its merits may be lost (especially as I tried it in mid-Winter - which was actually a rather good thing, as you will see from the notes below).

Along with experimenting across established Indian varietals, Sula also produces a dessert wine (India's first), a Sauvignon Blanc and a Chenin Blanc (also firsts for India). While I suppose this could be termed a revolution in that it has never been done before in India, the fact that these are 'firsts' for India suggests to me that this is a revolution very much in its infancy. Still, with some fairly slick marketing projects, including luxury accommodation on the vineyard, Sula may well end up being as successful as its marketing suggests. They definitely need to change the labels though...

Colour: A rather opaque, cloudy red. A hint of purple.

Nose: Peppery, spicy (cinnamon) and jammy. All characteristic Shiraz tastes. Now comes the interesting part - salt and smoke combined with distinct notes of dried black tea. For those of you familiar with Lapsang Souchong tea, this is a remarkably comparable nose! My notes say in capitals 'TEA'! How interesting.

Palate: Really really smoky fruit. Plenty of oak. Molasses and cinnamon (perhaps burnt cinnamon?) come in with some spice in the middle, giving it a rather charmingly sweet toasty flavour. Lapsang comes through again in serious quantities. Interesting. Quite heavy but not oppressive.

Body: Quite acidic and reasonable tannic. Quite austere on the back. Reasonably smooth.

Finish: The austerity really punches in here. Again, I can't help but make comparisons with slightly over-brewed Lapsang tea. Very smoky, drying and slightly sweet. Not wholly unpleasant.

Conclusion: Classifying a wine like this is extraordinarily difficult (much to my amusement I originally typed 'tea' here - reflecting just how tea-like it was!). It's hard to tell if its well-made or hideously unbalanced. The smokiness is something I quite like (for a glass or two) but I think those of you who have more refined palates may find it oppressive. I liked the sweet spiciness in the middle of the palate but was rather less fond of the austere ending, which is rather too dry for my liking.

Points: 84. Give it a go. It's an extremely interesting wine and is a great conversation-starter, especially given its provenance. Balance is an issue, but perhaps that's what makes it exciting.

Château Talbot, St Julien, 2001

As I tend to focus on New World wines, I felt it was time to go back to a classic Bordeaux.  Squashed between Pauillac and Margaux on the Left Bank, St Julien is known for producing consistently good and interesting wines. Château Talbot is a 5th Cru Classé and is produced in a very classic style. Some might say that it was designed for the Englishman as it ticks all the boxes for classic claret - the most important being that it is balanced and smooth.

A brief disclaimer is that I tasted this wine some time ago and so my notes are less complete and my memory less distinct. It was also tasted with food and not tasted blind, so I would suggest that this is probably a less objective tasting note than I normally give.

Colour: A fairly deep purple/red, but there was a slight tendency towards tawny on the edges.

Nose: Cedar is the dominant note, backed by tobacco and a dollop of blackberry. Rather less fruit than I had expected, but by no means absent.

Palate: The reverse of the above! The blackberries came first and in a decent enough level of intensity. These were followed by the tobacco with the cedar coming in at the end to clear the palate. This isn't hugely complex - it's simple and light - but it is very nicely balanced and extremely smooth. Very much an easy-drinker.

Body: Extremely soft and gentle. Very light on the body, but with a decent level of taste. It isn't insipid or dreary. Very balanced, with a hint of astringency to firm it up a bit.

Finish: A medium length which fades nicely but without great complexity. Could have done with a bit more of a finish, I feel.

Conclusion: This is exactly the sort of wine that is really difficult to grade. Its soft and subtle flavours mean that many will find it inaccessible or boring, especially if they were to drink it next to a fruit bomb. This strikes me as the sort of wine that is absolutely ideal for a relaxing evening with a book in front of a fire. It was excellent with food, but can it really become a talking point? Its very merits lie in the fact that it is balanced, light and smooth - not exactly 'Eureka' features. That being said, those who prefer a milder wine will adore this as the one thing it does have in spades is class.

Points: 88

Welmoed Cabernet Sauvignon 2010, Stellenbosch

Time for something a little different. While I generally focus on mid-range wines, sometimes I come across a table wine that's so good it deserves an honourable mention. Welmoed is one of those wines. At a bargain-basement £7.50 (or £5 each if you buy 2+ from Majestic), it's a real blockbuster and a massive crowd-pleaser to boot. Simple enough to enjoy on with food, it also has a degree of interest that will please the thinker-drinkers among us.

As with many South African cabernet sauvignons, it has a meatiness and smoky spiciness that appeals and is something that people may not necessarily have tried, meaning they are often under-appreciated.

Nose: Peppery and savoury. There's definite hints of tabasco in there as the sharpness comes through. The pepper strengthens and is joined by chilli before too long. Quite intense. Touch of smoke to smooth the edges. Tobacco.

Palate: Heavy fruit, spice, chilli and cheese (?!). The red fruit is jammy and intense, and well supported by the smoke and cedary tobacco. Classic cigar-box cabernet sauvignon, here. A decent development of flavour within the palate, but not overly complex. Surprisingly pleasant served slightly chilled. I would certainly recommend brining one up from the cellar and drinking it straight away and seeing how it evolves as it begins to warm.

Body: Remarkably light body given the intensity and weight of the nose and palate. Could perhaps even be called delicate, at a push.

Finish: The spice remains strong while a dollop of sweetness comes through at the end to clear the palate and leave a pleasant after-taste.

Conclusion: At £5 you really cannot go wrong with this fellow. With a good range of flavours which provide both enjoyment and interest, it's a perfect wine for any red meat and would go particularly well with a lump of grilled, peppered steak. I have since bought a case, and would heartily recommend you do the same.

Points: 84

Moss Wood Pinot Noir 2009, Mornington Peninsula

A pal of mine has been telling me to try Mornington Peninsula Pinot Noir (he's Australian) for many months now and I have finally given in. After reading a series of excellent reviews for Moss Wood's wines, I felt the need to try a range of their wines (Chardonnay, Cab Sauv and Pinot Noir - obviously from different vineyards).

One thing that I like about Moss Wood (Jancis Robinson calls their Cab Sauv 'The Latour of the Margaret River) is their elegant label design. Another positive is that they haven't overpriced their other wines as a result of the Cabernet Sauvignon's success. The Pinot Noir is available from £17.50-25, depending on where you look and also on shipping, so whilst it is expensive, it is not prohibitively so.

This fellow was drunk at 2 sittings - one at 8 PM and the other at 00:30. Because of the huge differences between the original tasting and the re-taste I feel the need to separate the two:

Nose: At 8 PM the nose was, to me, perfect. It had a magnificent sense of balance and assuredness about it. There was certainly fruit present, but it was perfectly balanced with savoury notes and a lovely hint of pepper to clear the nose at the back. Strawberry, muted raspberry (i.e. no sourness) came in alongside cherry. There's a certain jamminess to it, but not the overpowering sickliness that will have deterred many from trying Australian and other New World Pinot Noirs. It is extremely restrained and refined - the mushroomy savouriness in the middle of the nose really adds to complexity and ensures this wine has 3 distinct areas.

Re-taste Nose: On the re-taste the nose has grown much more opulent, but rather more one-dimensional. There are positives and negatives to this. On the positive, it means that people who are looking for a fruitier wine will be satisfied, as there is a significantly juicier nose while the wine maintains a hint of sourness at the end to ensure the flavours remain at least partially balanced; on the negative, the loss of the savoury edge has removed a certain level of complexity and (dare I say it?) excitement for the taster.

Palate: Flavours as above. This is a smooth, supple, soft and ultra-balanced wine. The sweetness and savouriness offset one another perfectly and this is an exceptionally drinkable wine. It's light on the alcohol and the body is neither too heavy nor too jammy.

Re-taste Palate: On the re-taste the fruit and sourness are much much stronger than the savoury flavours. The wine is now better described as tasting of dried cranberry and strawberry: there's a touch of tartness to affairs and while the wine is still remarkably smooth, the savoury flavours have all but disappeared. There is, however, a decent 'oomph' of spice in there. Oakiness coming through.

Body: The body is extremely light, smooth and pleasant. Tannins are (as expected of a PN) very light.

Finish: The finish is short but nice. Little change between tastings - surprisingly the hint of pepper in the finish has survived to the later tasting. On the re-taste there is quite a hit of oak-spice that has lingered for some time now. Pretty punchy stuff.

Conclusion: I really really enjoyed the first tasting - this was a wine that showed that the New World can imitate Burgundy's finesse at an acceptable price point. Although the second tasting was completely different from the first, in the time I have been writing this review and re-tasting for a third time, it has begun to grow on me as something different, but by no means worse. It is a far more modern expression of pinot noir and it is nice to see that drinkers are offered an option. Drink the wine straight out of the bottle for a more restrained wine, or decant for 2 hours and enjoy a fruitier fellow. I'm not sure if this was deliberate but if it was, it is a stroke of genius! One cannot help but be impressed.

Points: 89/90. Really pleasant - the factor that pushed it to a /90 was that the wine changed so much after time out, offering diversity and complexity. Super wine and a fun one to drink. One of my readers - BB - will be able to confirm this phenomenon, should he wish to comment...

Au Bon Climat, Santa Barbara County Pinot Noir, 2009

Au Bon Climat (or 'ABC' for those of us too lazy to bother with the full name) is one of the few US wineries to have a really significant presence in UK wine shops. Others, such as Stag's Leap, Frog's Leap and Beringer pop up here and there, but ABC is certainly the most prevalent of them. One factor for the lack of American wine on UK shelves is that the Americans are (with some justification) proud of their wines, and as a result they are priced accordingly.

Clocking in at anywhere between £19 and 40+ ABC's range in the UK is pleasantly diverse, although I always seem to see more Pinot Noirs than anything else. I have a bottle of their Chardonnay somewhere, which I will taste and review sooner or later. Having recently visited Wine Country in California, I have been lucky enough to try a respectable number of American wines. I have a real soft spot for Californian Chardonnay and Cabernet Sauvignon, but if I'm on Pinot Noir I tend to aim for New Zealand or Burgundy as they tend to have more distinct styles and characters. I tasted ABC's 2009 Santa Barbara County Pinot Noir alongside a mix of Burgundies and New Zealand PNs (blind, of course) and here's what I thought:

Nose: An appealing nose starting with a touch of oakiness which is almost instantly followed by heady aromas of raisin and strawberry jam. There's a smidgen of minerality and it's a perfectly pleasant nose so far.

Palate: Light and smooth, ABC has nice fruitiness with a hint of sharpness at the back. The fruitiness is very light and sweet, closer to strawberry than anything else, and this could explain the purpose of the sharpness as it tends to restrain the potentially over-sweet taste. On a re-taste some caramel came through and there's a velvety smoothness that makes this an almost dangerously drinkable Pinot Noir. There is, however, a slightly unappealing tickle of acid in there.

Body: A very well-balanced wine. No single flavour dominates or unbalances affairs and they lie together in a pleasant harmony. It's extremely smooth and (as expected with a Pinot Noir) it's not a heavy wine - the two of these factors combine to make a very enjoyable wine.

Finish: Not a great deal of development, but reasonably length and a nice mellowing of flavours. The acidity fades, which is a big bonus.

Conclusion: I'm fond of juicy, light Pinot Noirs and so this went down well with me. One complaint could be that there didn't seem to be an awful lot of complexity considering this is a £20 wine. My feeling is that I would be delighted with it had it been cheaper, but I feel that it is a tad over-priced as things stand.

Points: 85.

Morgenster 2004, Flagship Red

My new 'current favourite': whilst not actually called their 'flagship red', Morgenster 2004 is the second vintage of Morgenster Estate's flagship wine and is a classic example of South Africa's take on Bordeaux blends. With solid ageing potential, it is at the higher end of pricing but the 2004 is less costly (at around £30) than other vintages. Morgenster made it clear that they were not intending to make a 'showy' wine, but were rather looking for elegance, quality and balance.

While everyone loves a little bit of marketing and some gimmicks - after all, which winery isn't trying to make a supremely balanced and elegant Bordeaux-style red? - it's important to get through them. This is one of the advantages of tasting wines blind (I use some rather fun tasting sleeves which I shall post up in due course) as it allows the tasters to judge the wine itself, rather than the bottle, labelling, marketing and reputation. This was decanted for 2 hours before drinking and re-tasted at intervals of an hour.

Colour: Being reasonably old, the 2004 has begun to get a hint of tawny at the edges, although not enough for anyone to suggest that this was a seriously old wine.

Nose: Decent vanilla at first showing the oak coming through but then (surprisingly, given the age) a touch of green. Pepper, spices and red berries show the dominance of the Cabernet Sauvignon and there's a leathery edge to things. There's a good level of complexity in the nose and it's strong enough to allow most people to pick up the aromas whilst also showing off a good level of balance. The greenness faded after a further hour. Fruit began to emerge at the 2 hour mark and was more pronounced after 3 or 4 - which also saw the end of the savoury notes, which faded away to be replaced by a punchy dose of white pepper.

Palate: Somewhat muted on the first taste: a hint of vanilla and cedarwood with fruit tickling the back of the tongue. Slightly closed and grassy. After hour 3 this changed entirely. It was sweet and surprisingly light - a hint of astringency that faded away by the fourth hour - and the pepper and cedar remaining at the back end of things. There was a touch of earthiness. An extremely smooth-drinker that greatly impressed - perhaps the marketing isn't all rubbish? Elegance, balance and a distinctly Bordelais style. Nice.

Body: Thin at first, then opened up admirably after hour 3/4. Fairly high tannins and certainly a decent slog of alcohol in there.

Finish: Could be that of a top Bordeaux. All flavours in perfect symmetry with a clear direction and decent length. Supreme body and excellent balance.

Conclusion: Very nice wine - but it needed a LOT of decanting. I would have been hard-pressed to give it above 84 after the first two hours after decanting but it shot up to high 80s after 3 hours and touched 90 after that. If I were to serve it at a dinner I'd aim for serving it at the 3 hour mark, as its strength would be present for the early stages of the meal but then would soften off and become a much easier drinker as the evening progressed. One slightly sad point is that a search of Morgenster Estate's website comes up with 'account suspended' page. Whilst I hope this is only a technical problem, it may be worth buying a bottle or two while you still can.

Points: 90.

Karasi Zorah, Areni Noir 2010

Time for something a little more exotic and off the beaten path. Karasi Zorah is an Armenian wine grown a 1,400m altitude and is comprised of a grape called Areni Noir - which I am told is the signature grape variety of Armenia. Karasi Zorah has been well-reviewed by some top names in wine: Jancis Robinson gave it 17 and memorably described it as having 'gypsy' flavours - meaning it in a positive sense, suggesting an 'untamed' and wild edge. With such a review, I had to give it a go. On a side note, the bottle is also very pretty: made in a classic style with a wider shoulder than base, the label has raised colouring and the design is a nice touch of traditional Armenian art (although the wine itself was made by an Italian - Alberto Antonini).

Tried alongside several other wines from non-mainstream producers (but by no means non-traditional, as Armenia has been making wine for thousands of years), Zorah was a strong contender. Aged in oak and made in traditional amphorae, it certainly has character galore!

Nose: On first sniff it smelt almost exactly like a Cuban cigar, with notes of smoke and hay backed with a lovely heady mix of raisins, spice and coffee. A hint of pepper comes through at the back and complements the coffee nicely. There's a very distinct structure and on first impression it is extremely well-made.

Palate: How odd! I found it to be very similar to actually smoking a cigar with all the hay, smoke and spice that entails. The savoury tastes are backed with nice ripe fruit although there's a slight sharpness at times. Impressive pepper and coffee. In time, it became sweeter at the front end of things - perhaps a hint of blood orange - and heavier and more sour at the back, with the coffee coming to dominate.

Body: Quite a full taste, but strangely a relatively thin body. Perhaps I didn't give it enough time, but the body doesn't feel quite balanced. Definitely something a little strange about it.

Finish: Medium length with a nice little development. There's a bit of orange zest in the finish - with the bitterness associated with eating some peel.

Conclusion: A really rather interesting and fun wine. The bottle is very distinctive and, depending on your style, it's either a fun design point or an unnecessarily heavy gimmick. At £20 a bottle it's not exactly a cheap wine, but then it does come up with the goods in many areas. The imbalance in the body may have been from my bottle, so it will certainly be one that I re-taste (when I can find another supplier in the UK, as it's rather hard to get hold of). I thoroughly enjoyed the smokiness and spiciness which also seems characteristic of Armenia in its wildness and makes one think of mountain scenes in small villages (the vineyard is near Mt Ararat - where Noah's Ark finished its journey).

Points: 88-89. The slight weirdness with the body has removed a point or two from this, but I would have no hesitation in recommending this to someone who is interested in wine and would like to try something different.

Menetou-Salon, Domaine du Manay 2011

I took a punt on some Menetou-Salon after getting a recommendation from a friend who described it as Sancerre without the blockbuster name. At £11 a bottle, it's certainly priced competitively and it can often be bought for slightly less if you purchase in bulk at various wine merchants. As with Sancerre, Menetou-Salon has very limestone rich soil and the similarities between the two regions is clear from the first taste. It was tasted alongside various other Sauvignon Blancs (including my perennial favourite, Saint Clair Pioneer Block 3 - although it was Pioneer Block 11 at the time) and performed well.

Nose: Quite a restrained nose to begin with. There are light floral notes and an odd aroma that was described by one friend as 'fruity cauliflower'! A decent bit of zest and minerality give it some backbone, but this is certainly not a powerful wine - it is clearly designed for a touch of subtlety and for matching with food.

Palate: A very appealing minerality and rainy-day earthiness gives Domaine du Manay a classic and timeless edge. A touch of sweetness comes in at the back giving balance and ensuring the wine doesn't become too harsh or acidic. Whilst not hugely complex, this has been well done and is an enjoyable glass of wine.

Body: Medium-light.

Finish: A fairly short finish ties in with the comparative lack of complexity in the wine. It gets slightly sweeter and thinner. Not much to write home about, but nothing negative either.

Conclusion: A perfectly pleasant £11 / £9 bottle of wine that is not going to excite your tastebuds in the line of some of the others reviewed here but will certainly provide an excellent wine to partner with any manner of dishes. White fish, chicken, salads, dry cheeses and anything with a creamy sauce would go very well with it. I have tried it with risotto on several occasions and it was just about able to stand up to a wintery lentil and sausage stew.

Points: 85. Well worth a go at the price and a perfectly enjoyable wine to drink on its own, although clearly better for food matching.

Peregrine Pinot Noir 2010, Central Otago

Wandering round through different styles of wine is always fun. I tasted Peregrine at an Old and New World tasting of Pinot Noir, highlighting the differences between the two styles, with the general rule being that Old World PNs tend to be more savoury and New World PNs tend to be fruitier.

Nose: There's a slightly musty nose here. Perhaps a hint of mushroom or tobacco coming in to slightly overpower a hint of fresh cherry. Oddly enough, there's a touch of cedarwood and then some pepper near the end. This is a much more savoury Pinot Noir than I was expecting - on first impression I had this down as a Burgundy, and a good one at that.

Palate: I'm afraid to say it was rather bitter. There was none of the rich fruit backed by spice that I was expecting. There's cherry, but it tastes like unripe cherry - it's sharp and yet musty at the same time. Pepper is present throughout but there's an unpleasant chalkiness to the wine. While I have since read reviews saying this flavour was an example of good minerality, to me it wasn't minerality in the classic sense - it was chalky and mouth-drying, and added little to the wine. Perhaps if I'm being optimistic I might be able to find some raspberry, but I'm not entirely sure that I actually tasted it or if it was simply wishful thinking looking for something to like.

Body: Surprisingly for a Pinot Noir this felt remarkably tannic. The sharp furriness coming from the musty unripe cherry added to this sensation and made for a not very pleasant drink.

Finish: Almost no finish. This was extremely short and very one-dimensional.

Conclusion: When the cover was taken off I was deeply disappointed to find a wine so highly regarded had disappointed me so much. At £25, it's not cheap either. Perhaps I ought to have left it open for longer, but even after 2 hours I don't recall noting any positive changes. My only note from the later tasting is 'The nose is the only redeeming factor'. What a shame

Points: 70. Not a fan. I shall have to re-taste to confirm this opinion at some point, but when there are so many better Kiwi Pinot Noirs out there, why waste the time and money on this? The vastly superior Kota Lime Rock (which I will review in due course) blasted this out of the water for a perfect mix of savouriness and fruitiness.

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.