Yep, another Cotes du Rhone review. But you know, they're a damn good value these days, and least in our recent experience. And this one helps prove the point.

The nose was fruity, tobacco, leather, nutmeg, pepper, slightly chemical, bark, and black cherry. Yeah, a lot going on there. The taste was black cherry and raisin. And it was medium bodied; slightly more body than a typical CdR. The finish dries out immediately, with that red-apple dryness and artichoke. The apple-dryness then remains for awhile.

This was a very good CdR for the price (it was cheap!). Buy it if you can find it.

Cost:   

Rating:   7.0

(Grenache, Syrah, Mourvedre, Cinsault)

Torii Mor is tucked into the Dundee Hills, right at the epicenter of Pinot-dom. They're right by Cameron and Domaine Drouhin -- to name a couple. As the name implies, Torii Mor is sort of like a slice of Japan transplanted to Oregon -- bamboo and various Asian motifs. It's a nice place to visit if you're in Dundee and venturing about. Anyway, on to the wine ...

The nose was, and I hate to say this: Cherry jolly rancher. We've used that recently on a wine we didn't like. And we certainly liked this one. But that's what it was. Sort of a cherry medicine smell. Additionally, there was the smell of stems (subtle), violet, hyacinth, vanilla (only after it warmed up a bit), nutmeg, maybe some clove, and cinnamon. And right in the vein of Asian, honestly, there was ginger. Seriously. The taste was definitely cherry and raspberry. There was also that -- subtle -- vanilla sweetness (not literally sweet, of course). I think there was a bit of strawberry in there too. It finished with cherry cough syrup when it was cold (but not in a bad way if you can imagine that). As it warmed up, the finish was just slightly bitter (but not overly so). Definitely vegetable: green bean, asparagus, and zucchini.

This wine was light- to medium body, and was very smooth. And later after the wine opened up -- and that cough syrup dissipated -- it turned out to be strongly floral and perfume. It was also full of spice, but the floral/perfume was stronger. Denise -- who has been a bit tired of Pinots lately -- really liked this one. She said that was a very good wine, and that it "tastes really good". She added that she was "not expecting a meat and potatoes wine" and that was instead a "danty" wine, which was done very well. Kudos Torii Mor.

Cost:       ($26)

Rating:    8.0

Amber Kara: Amber, a former whale biologist, is the Director of Programs/Program Facilitator at the EnCompass Institute, an educational nonprofit serving families from diverse backgrounds. Amber is co-author of Win-Win Games for All Ages, a book of cooperative games and activities for groups of all ages. Amber holds a B.S. in Marine Biology from The Evergreen State College.



Albee Kara: Albee has worked at the EnCompass Institute for 12 years as a program co-designer and facilitator, leading groups of families, children, and professionals through experiential learning programming. Albee holds a B.A. in Music from University of California Santa Cruz and is also a co-author of Win-Win Games for All Ages, a book of cooperative games and activities.

Dinner: This evening provided our first opportunity to review wine sent to us from Emerson Vineyards. We selected Emerson's Pinot Gris to compliment our harvest dinner, made from the fresh produce at Sauvie's Island.

• green salad
• French onion soup
• pumpkin gratin
• baked beans and dirty rice
• carrot cake

Wine:

• Emerson Vineyards, Pinot Gris, 2006
• Chateau Ste Michelle, Chardonnay, 2006

Chateau Ste Michelle is a volume producer from Washington. They make all the usual suspects, including this Chardonnay. We drank this along side the Emerson Pinot Gris (see earlier review). And while you might think that a (generally heavier) Chardonnay would handicap a (generally lighter) Pinot Gris -- instead, this Chardonnay actually tasted sweet. Yeah, sort of like a Riesling. Albee thought it tasted like a desert wine.

The nose was sweet lemon (no, not sour at all). Sage. Honey. Golden raisin. Currant. The taste was sort of apricot and honey. I just couldn't get over how much like a Riesling this wine tasted (hey, CSM makes Riesling too; maybe they mis-labeled it?). That sweetness lingered into the finish, which was a bit like bubble gum. Denise said it tasted like "raisins and honey". To that, I'd add peach. But that's about it.

This was definitely lighter-bodied when compared to the Emerson Pinot Gris. It wasn't horribly sweet. It wasn't terrible. It was just sort of weird.

Cost:     (gift)

Rating:   5.5

We drink a lot of Oregon wines, but this is the first time we crossed paths with Emerson Vineyards (if you can't find it locally, you can order it direct: emersonvineyards.com).

Sort of ironically, Emerson is located in Monmouth Oregon which remained an anachronistic prohibition hold-out for decades. The city of Monmouth only lost its "dry" status in 2002! In other words, you couldn't drink alcohol there until about 6 years ago! Crazy.

Anyway, this wine is really lovely. Denise first discovered tangerine and cilantro on the nose. But it was a lot more than that. It was floral, herbal, and mineral -- all at once. We had a pregnant mom at the tasting (no, silly, she didn't drink it) -- but we did use her nose (pregnant women can usually taste and smell in the extreme). She found this to smell like kumquat and quince. She added that there was that smell you get when you open a bag of dried apricots. We also noted a musty smell (in a good way); "smells like grandma's attic" was a comment.

I got a lot of mineral on the taste. It tasted like gravel, and I really liked that. With that mineral was a definite green apple and lime. Mixed in there was herbs -- maybe an oregano. Okay, the pregnant mom ventured a small taste; and she said it "tastes like perfume -- very floral."

Albee described it as having a evanescent quality, which he really liked. The finish came in a flash. For me the experience was a bit different -- it went from green apple to grapefruit quickly, but that mineral/gravel lingered on for me.

Cost:   

Rating:    8.0

We drank this bottle along with a Tempranillo from Oregon (see the Abacela review), so it was really interesting to directly compare the old and new world styles.

This wine -- unlike its Oregon counterpart, had no strong vanilla smell at all. Instead of vanilla, it was sour, rotting and stem aromas. A bit later on, after it was open for a hour or so, I also got vegetable smells -- squash! Additionally, there was a ply-wood smell and a bit of cinnamon.

This wine is fairly light in body -- much lighter than the Oregon one. The taste has bit of that pepper-bite -- along with plum and cherry. The finish is cherry, and then that stem taste (stems plus cherry). At the very end, the finish is a bit tart at -- something like currant (or maybe just tart cherry). This wine is much less fruity than the Oregon counterpart. So while I'm describing these fruit tastes and such, they are much more muted than that of the Oregon bottle.

Cost:   

Rating:    5.0

We've been fans of Abacela for a long time. They're in the Umpqua valley. No, this is not the Willamette Valley. This is close to Roseburg, not Dundee -- in the southern part of the state (most of the Pinot is more towards the north). These guys do some very interesting blends (see the other reviews), and perhaps surprisingly, they do very nice Tempranillos. We've had some of their reserve Tempranillo (and still have a 2001 stashed away for a special occasion). However, this was not that.

The nose was first vanilla (oak). But really (and seriously), it smelled like hard cherry candy -- in-between a Luden's cough drop and a cherry Jolly rancher. I'm not kidding -- literally. The taste was a plum and red cherry mix -- along with some stem taste thrown in there, and vanilla again. That vanilla was just slightly sweet, but not overly so. Not much taste really. The body was medium. The finish was quickly cherry (sort of sweet), and then went into pomegranate (just slightly sour). Denise said the finish was "twiggy" -- no, not the 60's model; for her, that stem-essence remained.

We drank this again the second day, and had it side-by-side with a Spanish Tempranillo (that review will be posted tomorrow). It's always fun to compare them directly; you really can easily taste the differences. On that second day, the vanilla was gone and was replaced with cedar! Really strongly pungent. In addition to that cedar was a nice lavendar. However, that vanilla remained in the taste and the finish. This wine had a lot more body than the Spanish one.

Personally, I think this wine would be better with some age. The Spanish usually don't release Tempranillos (like Rioja) for at least a few years, and usually more like five or more. I bet this would be a lot better after five more years of sitting. That vanilla sweetness would assuredly mellow. In my opinion: hold 'em if you got 'em.

Cost:   

Rating:    6.0

(Tempranillo)

We've had this before -- I think it was the 2002 the first time. This is not a bad table wine. The varietal mix is not traditional Italian -- sort of a mix of new (Cab and Merlot) and old (Sangiovese) world.

The nose was plum, stems, nutmeg, cedar, vegetable, celery, and brussel sprout. Yeah, pretty interesting for such a cheap wine. The taste was less interesting -- basically just plum along with some grit in the mouthfeel. The finish, again, was plum and a bit of that cedar. This wine was not as dry as as all the Rhones we've had recently. The fruit (plum) remains in the finish -- unlike the typical Rhone. The body was medium.

This wine was alright -- not great -- sort of blasé. Certainly good enough for everyday wine drinking. The nose was definitely the most interesting, yet the taste and finish were pretty one dimensional.

Cost:   

Rating:    5.5

(Sangiovese, Cabernet Sauvignon, Merlot)

According to the Wine Advocate: "The 2005 Monastrell is an insane value ... fragrant aromas of blue fruits, plums, and prunes. Ripe, layered, and full-flavored, this hedonistic effort can be enjoyed now but will surely evolve for 2-3 years.” Hmmm ... Not exactly my experience. Though I drank the 06 and not the 05.

The nose was prune and blueberry, with a little bit of pepper. That prune and blueberry returned in the taste, along with stems. There was that fruit-driven sweetness (not literally sweet). The body was medium. The finish went almost immediately dry.

Overall, this is not a very complex wine. Take some prunes, add some blueberries and grape stems, and blend -- yeah, it's like that. Except for that taste of stems, there's nothing really earthy about this wine. If blind-folded, the style would lead me to guess this to be from Australia, Chile or maybe California -- not Europe. Not terrible, but certainly not an "insane" value in my book.

Cost:       (like $11)

Rating:    5.0

(Mourvedre)

This wine represents our friends Elizabeth's and Kenny's attempt at that good and cheap dinner wine quest. They brought this over the same night we drank that 1983 Grand Cru Pauillac, and a 2005 Crozes Hermitage. Honestly, I would drink this over that 2005 Hermitage any day.

Mont Ventoux is a notable mountain in France rising to 6300ft, and it marks the gate between Rhone and Provence. This wine is grown just south of this mountain. So it's basically Provence, but it's a lot like a Cotes du Rhone too.

This wine smells like raisin, pepper, and stems (a bitter smell). The taste is plum, but not at all sweet. There's raisin in the taste too. The body is medium (much more so than that Hermitage). The mouthfeel is just slightly gritty in the texture, but not in a way that bothered me. The finish is dry. Those stems return in the finish (but not in an overly bitter way). There's pepper and then plum and raspberry (just a hint of a sourness).

Overall, this is a darn good wine for the price (just short of $10). Nice work E and K!

Cost:   

Rating:    6.5

(Grenache: 80%, Syrah 20%)

We've drank a fair amount of Broadley wines over the years. It's usually a good wine, and usually at a fair price (relatively, Pinots are pretty expensive). And this latest vintage didn't disappoint.

The nose is strawberry, raspberry, pepper, and a very subtle hint of vanilla. No, wait. Scratch that pepper part, that's cinnamon. It's totally cinnamon! A bit later, there was a hint of orange (but not in a bad way); just that essence of orange, not that citrus sourness. The taste was strawberry and vanilla/oak. Predominantly, it's fruit -- so much so, it seems almost sweet -- especially after all those French and Spanish wines we've been drinking lately. The finish was immediately raspberry. Then strawberry. Then acidic and dry (again, not in a bad way). "Fruit forward", yes. Though not exactly "jammy", more like "fruity".

I think we paid about $18 for this bottle. Yeah, that's a bit high compared to a lot of southern French or the Spanish wines we've been drinking lately. But if you gotta get that Pinot fix -- which I do once and awhile -- this is pretty good. Yes, I would buy another bottle of this.

Cost:   

Rating:    7.0

This wine was displayed at the local Fred Meyer with one of those tags describing the wine as something special. I can't remember the details, but somebody gave it a high rating or some thumbs-up. That's not, exactly, my experience.

The nose was interesting, and really herby -- mainly lavendar and some cayenne. Later, as it opened up, it had a musty smell, sort of like the bank of a river. Elizabeth smelled caramel too. The taste was harder to discern. Was that pomegranet? Maybe Raisin? It took us awhile -- and this sounds funny -- but then it struck us: it's green apple. There was some dark fruit mixed it, but the taste was just like green apple. And yeah, it was dry and tart. This tartness started out tasting almost like grapefruit, but over a little time, it was definitely green apple. The body was light -- just a bit too light for me. And as Elizabeth noted, this wine was just not big enough, or flavorful enough to discern the flavors much beyond that green apple.

The disappointing part was that this wine was much more expensive (like $25) and not as good -- in my opinion -- as many of those cheaper (like $12) Cotes du Rhone bottles we drank last month (see the other reviews).

Cost:    

Rating:    6.0

This is another bottle we got in a lot from a Dougy Center auction. So it's hard to say how much this bottle really cost, but it was listed as having a $130 value. So right away, the expectations are set pretty high. That lot also included a 1990 version of this wine, that we reviewed earlier. Then, we drank that 1990 with a 1975 Petrus. No, not a fair fight to say the least. This time around, we paired this 1983 with a 2005 Hermitage, a 2005 Cotes du Rhone, and a 2006 Cotes du Ventoux. Again, not a fair fight, only in reverse.

And similar to last time, this wine was significantly different between when we first opened it, and about an hour later. Initially, it was thin, flabby, and terribly disappointing. It smelled a bit like vinegar, with flower rot, puke, and branches. The taste was non-existent, and super thin. It totally had that about-to-go feel to it. Bummer. So we all got a second glass of that 2005 Hermitage (and then that 2006 Ventoux), and drank that for awhile, leaving this 1983 Pauillac to sit.

And it was much better an hour later. The aromas were much more complicated now. Curry. Pepper. Cedar. Vegetable. Cauliflower. Musty. And Peppermint. The taste was subtle: plum and vegetable (maybe beet and some other green vegetable). However, the finish still remained very thin (really light bodied).

This wine definitely didn't meet our (admittedly high) expectations. Here's a 1983 Grand Cru Pauillac! And yes, the nose was pretty amazing. Yet, it was just too thin and the taste was not all that exciting. Certainly it was better than the other cheaper wines we drank this night, but it wasn't worth $130 in my opinion. It probably peaked years ago. Too bad.

Cost:    

Rating:    8.0

Here's another Spanish wine. This one had a card at the store describing what a deal this was, so why not give it a try?

The nose was plum! Lots of fruit compared to all the other Spanish and French we've been drinking lately. In addition to the fruit was seafood -- seriously -- like shrimp. Also there was chemical, cumin, pepper, and finally seaweed. The taste was less complicated: prune and  raisin. The finish was a bit tart and dry. There was bark, stems, brussel sprouts. The finish was really bitter. And it was super dry -- so much that it felt like my mouth was caving in. After thinking more and tasting more, inbetween the taste and the finish, inbetween the prune and the bark. It was cranberry -- bitter cranberry in there too.

This wine certainly had an unusual nose (seaweed?). And it had nice spice, including pepper and cumin. Definitely gamey. However, the prune-bitterness just didn't work for me. A more disparaging way to say this is: take prune juice, and add grape stems, and blend ... it tastes (and finishes) like that. But hey, it was only $8.

Cost: 

Rating:   5.0

(Tempranillo 65%, Grenache 35%)

Apparently, we've just started a Spanish wine kick, and this is the second (of a many coming soon).

The nose is oak/vanilla, pepper, cinnamon, bark, a slight bit of chemical. Yes, oak again, but no where near the level of oak in that Toro we just had. The taste is mainly cherry, but there's something tart in there too -- maybe raspberry, and maybe some cranberry. This is not exactly fruity, though it is much more so after all that southern French wine we've been drinking these last few weeks. The finish is oak, cherry, arugala (bitter veggie), yet it has some of that citrus (tangerine) acidity, especially at the start of the finish. The body is medium.

Cost: (it's normally $11, but we paid just short of $10)

Rating:    6.0

I'll describe this as a "Justin Timberlake wine"; yeah, it's bubble-gum pop, but you have to admit that sometimes it sounds good (no, I don't own any Justin albums just for the record). It's just that this is a wine likely to be a hit at parties (oak is pretty popular, or vinters wouldn't use it), even if the critics might not like it ...

Read more...

So I had a bunch of bottles open that I'd reviewed recently -- along with a piece of pumpkin pie (thanks Elizabeth!). And I took the opportunity to taste a bunch of them side by side. This is neat because it really makes clear the differences between the wines. Up to bat are the following:

Read more...

Here's yet another Cotes du Rhone. I think we may be slowing down on these as we've had a lot of southern French wine these last few weeks. This was a "Wine Stewart Selection" at Fred Meyer's.

This one was hardly fruity at all. The nose was vegetable, and some berry. And it was slightly musty, along with lavendar, peas, pepper, and black cherry. The taste was mainly lavendar and pomegranete, but there was also dirt and pine needles. The finish, however,  was citrus, like a watered down grapefruit. It's really dry, and not at all sweet. The body seems medium on the taste, but then seems much lighter on the finish.

Denise said it taste like grape stems and leaves -- like a "dry fall deciduous forest path". Not bad, yet not as good as many of the others we've had recently.

Cost:

Rating:    6.0

(60% Grenache, 20% Syrah, 10% Carignan, 10% Mourvedre)

As we've been writing about, Denise and I have been on a Southern France wine kick lately. Oregon Pinots are leading us to insolvency, and these Cotes du Rhone (and wines to the east and west) are good and reasonably priced (even with the weak US dollar). However, this one is very different from the others.

The nose was strawberry and blueberry, and wood and vanilla. Later, there was also sweet spice, moss, leather, and musty stuff: river rock and wet saw dust. That vanilla and wood returned in the taste. Yeah, it was slightly sweet -- a jammy cherry! And that's what was unusual about this. It was French, but it tasted more like a New World wine: most oaked up and jammy. Weird. Anyway, the finish was pepper, red cherry, currant, and that apple dryness at the very end.

The body was medium, and it was very fruity for a CdR. As I said, it was just slightly sweet. While I say it tasted a bit "New World", it'll be interesting if I can hold on to a bottle of this for a few years. Perhaps all the fruit and wood will mellow out. Time will tell (if I an resist drinking it early). Yeah, good stuff.

Cost:   

Rating:    7.5

(50% Grenache, 30% Syrah, 10% Cinsault, 5% Mourvèdre, 5% Carignan)

Here's another red from Corbieres (see the other reviews). I have to say that these wines are generally cheap, and quite good for the money. Not something you'd sit on for a couple decades, but great table wine.

The nose on this was really musty: mud and peat. But there was also a strong chemical smell (not good). And after all that, just a hint of nutmeg. The taste was a combo of blueberry (subtle) and bark -- not very fruity, almost bitter in its dryness. The finish is really dry -- it's not sweet or fruity at all. You get a sense of blueberry, but just barely. The taste has a subtle flash of fruity sweetness to it (just), but that dissipates into a raw bitterness in the finish (did someone add bitters to this wine?).

The body is pretty light. It wasn't spectacular, yet it was only about $8. Not to shabby.

Cost:   

Rating:    6.0

(Carignan: 35%, Grenache 35%, Syrah 15%, Mourvedre: 15%)