 |
|
Peter Wagner |
As I have previously noted,
many of us are very thrifty folk, a flaw borne of necessity after years
of scraping by, courtesy of NIH et al. Thus, each year, it is worth
taking a look at the Charles Shaw wines, aka Two Buck Chuck. Recall that
these are available only at Trader Joe’s stores (try
http://www.Traderjoes.com) and
where I reside, in San Diego, they remain just $1.99 a bottle. Of great
interest, the California State Fair recently awarded winning status to
the 2005 TBC Chardonnay (which is the current release). In this
competition, the wine beat out Chards costing more than 20 times as
much.
Well, in my opinion, we got what we paid for this time and no more. I
don’t know what the California State Fair tasters were drinking (or,
more likely, smoking) that day. Here are my notes on the current
releases, of which I found five. Five bottles for $10.
2005 Chardonnay: The nose was OK, soft citrus and apple with a slight
yeasty edge. The palate was nondescript and like so many other cheap
whites. It was light in body, with light oak, generic citrus, slight
perfume and vanilla and tasted slightly sweet – except at the finish
which was a little hard and lean. It would just work as a summer
backyard pool party wine, no more. I have no idea what the Caifornia
State Fair judges were tasting. You may wish to try it just in case what
I tasted and what those judges tasted represents bottle variation – you
might just win the lottery.
2005 Sauvignon Blanc: On the nose, this wine had one of the three bad
flaws I always hope I do not see in whites. (The three being sulfur,
cork taint, and dirty wet socks (which may be a sulfur variant)). This
one had wet socks. There was some lemon fruit as well. The palate also
had the wet sock element, and the fruit was light and simple – slightly
sweet melon and lemon character. None of rich herbal grassy features of
the good SB’s. Not recommended even at $2.
2005 Syrah: This wine also had some dirty sulfur (aka barnyard) on the
nose with some earthy sweet vanilla and cherry as well. While the fruit
was decent in intensity it was “berryish” and hard to identify as Syrah
(or any other grape for that matter). It had good acidity but was a bit
too tannic for the fruit. Not really recommended.
2005 Cabernet: Here we go again— stemminess and sulfur on the nose. The
palate was again “berryish” and could not be identified as any
particular grape. It was light in body and slightly sweet. I would not
even use it for cooking, sorry.
2005 Merlot: There as a touch of stemmy green peppers (OK for merlot)
and floral red cherry on the nose. At last, no sulfur. The palate had
decent if generic red berry fruit, soft tannins and OK acid. It was
simple and not varietal, but would do OK as a party red for folks who
did not care about which grape was in the bottle. OK for $2.
I felt so guilty about this outcome I went a bit further this past
weekend and found a couple of surprises for you:
Pepperwood Grove Old Vines California Zinfandel. $5. No vintage year on
the label!! This wine comes from Sebastiani, a venerable Sonoma vintner,
as an offshoot brand that declares the makers as the “Three Loose
Screws”. This refers to three Sebastiani kin who apparently are
responsible for this brand. This Zin has a very nice nose of clean,
sweet vanilla with loads of ripe but not overripe cherry and raspberry
fruit. The palate is very accessible with cherry/raspberry fruit right
out there, lots of vanilla, but it is made in a very easy to drink
lighter bodied style with not much tannin. Acidity is perfect, there is
no residual sugar, the alcohol is in check, and there is a touch of
tobacco. The finish is also quite good. This is a remarkable find for
the price, and should be widely available. The only suggestion is please
drink it young – I am sure it will not age well.
2004 Pietra Santa Cienega valley Zinfandel ($10). While this may be hard
to find, it is a nice drop. This is a very ripe wine, almost “late
harvest” in style (which means very ripe, high in alcohol and with a
touch of residual sugar giving it a slightly sweet taste). There has
been a trend lately to produce ultra-ripe late harvest monster
zinfandels, which I do not care for, and many are simply over the top.
This one is close to the top, but not over it, and I do like it. There
is intense sweet dark berry fruit on the nose and palate with a youthful
slightly floral grapey note. Tannins are soft and the acidity is high,
which helps balance the ripeness. Alcohol is 15.8%, which is getting up
there. If you like ripe, alcoholic, slightly sweet zins with loads of
good fruit, this is for you.
Those of you who patronize Costco know they have their own wine brand –
Kirkland. Those of you who patronize Australian wines may be familiar
with Sparky Marquis, an Australian winemaker known for voluptuous reds
(reds, not redheads) under the recently disbanded Marquis-Phillips
“Roogle” label. Roogle represents interbreeding of eagles and kangaroos
– go figure. After Marquis divorced his USA partner Mr. Phillips (now
“Roogle” means something), he has apparently taken up with Costco. I
think they should call the wine “Coogle”, or “Costaroo” but who am I to
them? What is now available is:
2004 Kirkland “Roogle” Shiraz (10). This is sumptuous stuff, a big, oaky
and alcoholic. Mae West style of wine, but the tannins are soft and acid
is good. There is copious rich dark berry fruit. The only complaint is
the amount of American oak manifest by lots of dill, but even this
subsides a bit with airing. This is a wine meant to be drunk in its
youth, but it could last a couple of years if well-cellared. Needs a
strong red meat dish to make it shine.
2006 Martinborough Sauvignon Blanc $12. Another new Zealand show-stopper
with all we have come to expect – herbal grassy gooseberry/passionfruit
nose and palate with richness and excellent acidity. Squeaky clean and
very, very easy to drink. Highly recommended, but as I have said before,
if you can’t find it, basically any New Zealand Sauvignon Blanc you can
find will not disappoint you (if you like the NZ style of course).
|
