A bunch of Zinfandel producers will be in town on the 29th of July — 40 of them — for a tasting event that should be interesting — assuming you're near Portland. Zinfandel Advocates & Producers will be in Portland on Wednesday, July 29, 6:00 - 8:30 p.m., World Trade Center Plaza (121 SW Salmon Street). They've teamed up with the Oregon Culinary Institute and Portland Uncorked to bring an army of Zinfandels for you to taste, including:

• Accademia dei Racemi
• Alexander Valley Vineyards
• Artezin Wines
• Bonterra Vineyards
• Four Vines Winery
• Hendry
• J. Rickards Winery & Vineyards
• Mauritson Family Winery
• Opolo Vineyards
• Peachy Canyon Winery
• Pezzi King Vineyards
• Ravenswood
• Ridge Vineyards
• Robert Biale Vineyards
• Sanctuary
• Sebastiani Vineyards
• Starry Night Winery
• Steele Wines
• Storrs Winery & Vineyards
• Wine Guerrilla

From the press release:

"Tasters will taste a rainbow of Zinfandels, from growing regions  
all over California," explains ZAP's Executive Director, Rebecca  
Robinson. "A friendly touch we specialize in at these tastings is  
that the attendees will meet the winemakers and winery owners, thus  
insuring that their questions will be answered from the 'horse's  
mouth,'" she adds. "In both of these cities it will be an  
opportunity to learn why Zinfandel attracts such a great following---
people will be able to taste award-winning Zinfandels, mingle with  
winemakers and winery owners, learn about the richness & versatility  
of Zinfandel, discover why Zinfandel is called America's Heritage  
Wine and sample incredible BBQ from culinary students," she explains.

Tickets cost $35 for ZAP members and $44 for non-members; some  
tickets will be available at the door. Tickets are available in  
advance at:

https://members.zinfandel.org/cgi-shl/TWServer.exe?EREG:OrderEvent:2009TOURORNON

For for members of the wine trade:

https://members.zinfandel.org/cgi-shl/TWServer.exe?EREG:OrderEvent:2009TOURORTRADE

Decanterberrytales has been given some extra tickets to this event. If you're interested in going (assuming you'll be in Portland then), email me. I'll put all the names in a hat and pick out the winners.

I'm trying to learn my Rieslings, so this review will walk you through what I've learned so far. But the best place to start is why I bought this bottle (above) in the first place. Awhile back I drank the bottle below, and really liked it:



Read that review, here: Jos. Christoffel Jr., Wehlener Sonnenuhr, Riesling Auslese, 1990.

So, I really liked the 1990 bottle, and didn't like the 2000 bottle so much -- at least not at first. And yet, the labels look almost the same. Both are Rieslings from the same producer, Jos. Christoffel Jr. Now you could wonder about the vintage and all that, the fact is, there's a lot that's different on the two labels -- despite the fact that it's the same vintner -- than just the vintage. And that's what I wanted to figure out.

But I'm getting ahead of myself. You can read the earlier review, but first, I better let you know what this current bottle was like.

The nose was honeysuckle! That is, a cross between something floral and actual honey. The taste is most definitely sweet, and it is slightly effervescent (sort of like a sweeter Vinho Verde). The main flavor is a sweet lemon. Yet there was a slight sweet vegetable taste -- like a sweet pea pod. The most base way I can put this is that it's light and flat champagne mixed with Countrytime lemonade. Okay, that sounds terrible. And it's worth pointing out that while this isn't my taste, the quality of the wine was very good. And others that drank it with me very much liked it. And it's not like I don't care for some sweet wines, but this was just not my style. it reminded me too much of a wine cooler.

So why did I like the Ausleses and not this Kabinett?

Apparently there are two main dimensions to this story: quality and style. The style classifications are as follows:

• Trocken — bone-dry and high in alcohol.
• Halb-trocken — medium-dry and medium-high in alcohol.
• Edelsuss — traditional and lower in alcohol; they can be slightly-sweet to very sweet depending on the classification.

But if you're paying attention, none of these words appear either label. So that's less useful. The quality scale runs like this (from lowest to highest):

1. Kabinett — light wines made of fully ripe grapes.
2. Spätlese — grapes harvested after the normal harvest ("late harvest").
3. Auslese — selected and very ripe bunches; typically noble wines intense in bouquet and taste.
4. Beerenauslese (BA) — individually selected and overripe berries; rich, sweet dessert wines.
5. Trockenbeerenauslese (TBA) — individually selected berries that are overripe and shrivelled on the vine almost to raisins; rich, sweet, luscious, honey-like wines.

Ah ha! Now those was words on both labels. So part of the story is that the 1990 bottle was not just older, it was also a higher-quality wine — the grapes were actually selected for their quality — an "Auslese" — unlike my second, "Kabinett" bottle. But, of course, there is a price to be paid. The Auslese was about $50, and this Kabinett was about $20. So, yet another example of you getting what you paid for.

Also notable is the "Ürziger Würzgarten" and "Wehlener Sonnenuhr" designations. This refers to the specific vineyards where the grapes were grow. Both of these are from the Mosel valley in western Germany. The grapes are grown on these incredibly steep slopes:



However, unless you're a connoisseur of Rieslings, the vineyard where the grapes were grown will likely play a less important role in judging a Riesling by its label than the quality designation.

Anyway if you're like me, you don't usually drink Rieslings, at least not on purpose, but are interested in learning more, I found this article in the NY Times helpful: Ausleses Put Sweetness on the Table.

P.S. I held off on posted this for a few days. And in the interim, I had a small glass of this wine each day. And by the third day, I was starting to like this wine. It lost some of that effervescence, but I'm not sure that was what I didn't like at first. Maybe it's just starting to grow on me.

Cost:   

Rating:    7.0

This was a bottle brought to a recent dinner we had. Apparently the purchasers of the bottle were talked into the bottle by the wine steward at the now defunct Zupan's that used to be on Beaverton-Hillsdale Hwy. They mentioned that they were unsure of this bottle as many other recommendations from that steward were not to their tastes. Wine can be very subjective of course. Anyway ...

The nose started out with a strong chemical smell, which definitely became more and more subdued over the course of the time we drank it. That's the thing about many Frnech Burgundies: they are usually so much different between when you first open the bottle, and when they finally open up. Sometimes that's over an hour later.

Under and through that chemical smell, there emerged cinnamon and dust. No, there's really little if any fruit in the nose like you'd find in a typical Oregon (or California) Pinot Noir. However, if you smell this one next to, say, a Rhone or a Bordeaux, there is something very, very subtly sweet or fruity — just every-so little.

The taste is a thin strawberry plus something much less sweet, like a currant or loganberry. No, this is not at all sweet. Not even a little bit. It's dry and light if you wee comparing it to a typical Oregon Pinot. It's also very earthy — dusty and slightly dirty (in a good way). And the spice is more subtle — there was some pepper and cinnamon. The finish is pretty quick and has that sort of apple-dryness quality right at the end.

Cost:   

Rating:    7.5

We reviewed this wine from Emerson Vineyards last year (the 2006 release), and it's amazing how different this bottle was from last year's. I went back and read the review, and we described the 2006 as Burgundian and, of all things, "a spelunker's delight". Which was to say that it was very minerally -- lots of volcanic rock elements to it. That was then, this is now.

Instead the 2007 was a pretty darn big wine. 2007's are still a bit young (generally), and this one really benefited from some time in the decanter. Right at the start it had a slight chemical smell. However, a little time -- like about 15 minutes -- took care of that. The nose was really meaty: heavy tobacco. Denise took one whiff and exclaimed; "cigars!". And it was earthy too. We really struggled with what, exactly, the earth was. It wasn't peat. It wasn't rot. It wasn't manure. What it was was like a minerally potting soil ... maybe. And under all that was a subtle vanilla and cinnamon. Wow, that was quite a nose!

When you take a sip, you'll find this a full-bodied Pinot. Instead of Burgundian, it's more akin to the Oregon jammy style. At first, the taste has a little of that vanilla-sweetness. No, not literally sweet, but not bone dry either. The fruit is red cherry and that mixes with the vanilla to provide a creamy mouth-feel.

Towards the beginning of the night, the finish was red cherry. Then later, as the wine opened up more, the taste was more specifically bing cherry, and that finish was blackberry. The sweetness was still there, but it was much more subtle and flashed quickly. It's funny how much wines can change over the course of an hour (it's easy to drink it too quickly to notice!).



This is quite a wine, especially considering it's only $25. It used to be that there was a wide selection of Oregon Pinots in the $20's. But these days, most of them have crept up to, or over $30. If this is your price-point, then this is a great bottle to grab. However, I think this wine will really mature in a few more years. It's big enough to cellar for a little while. And yes, I'll have to get some more and see how it is down the road.

Cost:    

Rating:    8.5

We've come to really enjoy wines from Emerson Vineyards. They make really nice affordable wines. No, this isn't Beaux Freres or Ken Wright; but then, that's not what they're trying for. Instead, they offer wines that are perfect for a nice and unpretentious dinner with friends and family, or maybe a picnic in the summer. And this time we have their latest Chardonnay.



If you're looking for stereotypical California Chardonnay, this is not that bottle. This is not oaked up and buttery, though it does have a hint of vanilla on the nose. On the contrary. Whoa! This one is a bit of tart one. If you like sour candies, then this is the wine for you. It's a tart apple. Imagine lime mixed with granny smith apples: that's this wine. The taste is a mix of lime and a little grass. The taste and texture mutate a bit as you swallow. It starts out sort of smooth and creamy, yet it finishes really crisp -- as Elizabeth said: "like a bartlet". "Like a bartlet?" I asked. "Yeah, and then I'm just happy" she replied. Okay, not sure what she meant with the apple reference exactly, but she really liked this wine.

It's a really refreshing wine made for a hot day. Yes, definitely serve this one cold.

Cost:   

Rating:    8.0

We picked up this bottle from a local wine distributor that was closing down. You might blame it on the economy, yet this one had, shall we say, internal issues. Anyway, here's all this wine in a warehouse, and it's got to be sold: everything must go! So I have the opportunity to pick up some eclectic bottles for wholesale. This is one of those bottles.

The nose started a bit chemically; that dissipated after about 10 or 15 minutes. Under and through that, was a vegetable matter smell. Rhubarb perhaps? Dust. Manure (earthy). Cinnamon. And kiwi.

The body was medium, and it tasted a bit like spinach: dry and veggie. About mid-taste that turned more toward asparagus. There were no discernable fruit flavors here.

The finish was dry, and slightly tannic.

Elizabeth said it tasted like the Roquefort cheese we got for the dinner. And this was a really gooey and smelly cheese. And it was especially salty. Elizabeth liked that about this cheese. So this wine reminder her of the cheese from earlier. For Denise, this tasted like an unsalted beef broth. So, there you have two different takes: one salty and one not. I'm not sure what that means either. Nothing spectacular, yet everyone liked it well enough.

Cost:   

Rating:    7.5

(Merlot 60%, Cabernet Sauvignon 40%)

We had some friends over -- fellow oenophiles. So we brought out a Lelemson Pinot Noir 2004 that I'd been saving. While the love Pinots they also love French, usually a Rhone of some kind, but Bordeaux's aren't bad in their book (or mine) either. They brought this bottle.

Right after an Oregon Pinot, this tasted especially earthy and dark. And in fact the nose was quite dank: musty and earthy with some rubber and onion. Hey, that's what we smelled! The taste, for some, also had that rubber in it too. Under that, there was plum and subtle blackberry. I say "under", because this wine didn't really taste like fruit (again, especially after a fruity Pinot). It's made from grapes, so there is fruit; but this wine was definitely on the side of earth and things other than fruit. The finish ended with more plum, and maybe some prune as it lost any thing resembling fruit and things that might be sweet. This was a very dry wine. However, it was fairly smooth and the tannins weren't bitter or gritty. Overall, this was an enjoyable bottle to drink.

Cost:   

Rating:     8.0

(Cabernet Sauvignon 55%, Merlot 43%, Cabernet Franc 2%)

I first discovered Lemelson many years back when my wife and I had an anniversary dinner at Georgio's -- serving upscale Italian fare. I don't remember the vintage, but I did remember that I liked it when I saw this bottle at the store. I picked it up years back, and have avoided drinking it -- until now. We had some friends over -- fellow oenophiles -- so it was a good excuse to give into temptation and share it.

The nose was spectacular. Strong cedar and clove! Then later, it also had black pepper, and chocolate, and something roasted -- in-between coffee and cocoa. Yummy. However, you take a sip, and it's not quite what you were expecting from the aroma. It was thick -- I don't want to say syrupy, but ... well, thick. And for an instant, the taste was vanilla-sweet. Not sickly, but there was a flash of sweetness (this mellowed out a lot after some time). Then the taste was pretty much just black cherry. The fruit had a hard time competing with the fact that this wine was super spicy. As I implied by the thickness, this was nearly full-bodied. The finish was those strong spices: clove and black pepper.

Honestly, I was expecting more. And the body wasn't, exactly, what I had hoped. Yet, I still really liked it. I liked that strong spice, and yet it was borderline too much. Still, it was definitely the best (and favorite bottle of the night. We also had Grochau Cellars' Cuvee Des Amis Pinot Noir (2006), and two decent Bordeaux's.

Cost:   

Rating:    8.5

A number of years ago I had a bottle from Michel Gros at a restaurant -- his Vosne-Romanee -- and it was really nice. In fact, it was memorable enough that when I saw this bottle at Elephant's Deli (a local specialty food store and deli), I had to buy it.



It's a "Bourgogne" (Burgundy) so they can't say, exactly, where the grapes are from. But Michel Gros is located in Vosne-Romanee, and this was bottled there, so ... it's likely the lesser quality Vosne-Romanee grapes, and maybe mixed with grapes from other parts of the Cotes d'Or. Anyway, I've kept this for a couple years, and finally decided to crack it open.

The smell was really rustic: meat, bologna, bark, steak, and a rotting pile of wood chips. In a word: earthy. And it was down right dank -- not wood like over oaking -- it was like moss. The fruit tastes were very subdued, yet there was subtle marionberry, red cherry, and maybe salmonberry. You take a sip, and the body is really full in you mouth. Then it's much lighter body on the finish. In the middle, there's hints of something floral (maybe violet), and honey! However, that honey taste was completely devoid of sweetness; just imagine the taste of honey without being sweet. At the end, your left with marionberry, and earth (moss or something green veggie).

I found this wine very interesting. This is Pinot Noir, but it's not at all like anything you'd find from Oregon. I really like earthy wines, yet beware, this is really earthy. This bottle was not heavily oaked, so it wasn't at all sweet -- it fact, it was very dry. It was so dry, it was almost slightly sour (but I don't mean that in a bad way). As I said at the start, the best one word description I have for this is: "rustic". Sort of like an dirty county road with an old Ford pickup truck. Yeah, like that.

Cost:  

Rating:    7.5

Here's another wine I had recently that was enjoyable considering the cost. Like most people, I drink more red than white; and generally, I'll pick another varietal over Chardonnay (not that I dislike it). This one was notable for being well balanced and tasty for the price.

The nose was lemon-lime, and something mineral (just a hint). There was a bit of oak, yet not overly buttery. Sort of in between a Burgundy and California Chardonnay in style. Not too light, not to heavy -- just in the middle.

The taste was lemon, celery, and kiwi. It was acidic, so drink it cold; yet it wasn't that gut-bomb acid either. Just good structure. At the very end, that citrus took on a taste almost like Rainier cherry.



It was just slightly sour at the start, then a little fruit sweetness in the middle, followed by that good body it had. This makes a great summer wine.

Cost:   

Rating:    7.5

I really liked this nice, cheap rosé, so I'd like to go on about all the flavors and aromas. But that's the thing about this wine -- there isn't much to say and maybe that's why I liked this one. It's sort of like a refreshing soda lemon-lime drink -- only not sweet, and not bubbly.

The nose was strong lime! Maybe some cilantro, and perhaps a little grapefruit. But the taste was not sweet nor acidic. It was just easy-drinking goodness. Again, the finish was mainly that lemon-lime, and maybe there was a hint of grapefruit. But I don't mean to imply it was sour.

Oh, and it was cheap too: about $12.

Cost:    

Rating:    7.5

This was a bottle purchased at a business dinner. I'm the wine guy (obviously), so I get the difficult dance of picking the right wine. This doesn't necessarily mean the best or most expensive. It all depends. In this this particular case, there wasn't much to choose from (no offense to this Solena). It had to be a Pinot Noir, and while there were quite a number of mediocre options, there was only this and a Ken Wright. And while I like Ken Wright (see the other reviews), I also know that this particular restaurant isn't all the adept at storing wine properly for the long haul. So something younger was the guiding factor. And this Solena was an 06, which I have generally been enjoying. This, topped with the fact that I've been wanting to try a Solena (I'm overly familiar with Ken Wright, for sure).

The nose was a lot of citrus. Tangerine, and not just, but actually sweet tangerine. And behind that, spice: cinnamon and vanilla -- and a little wood. But mainly it was vanilla, cinnamon, and tangerine soup! Maybe a little clove. Then later, some white pepper and violet.

The taste was red cherry -- strictly. That turned quickly into pepper. That subtle sweetness came back at the end, along with the citrus taste. It was a bit acidic. And under that, was wood. Finally, the last thing -- and the finish was quite long -- was cayenne. It had a bite -- but in a good way for me.

Personally, I suspect the wine wasn't kept in the best of conditions (this is not the first bottle from this restaurant that was not a good as I have had elsewhere). But despite that, the nose, flavors and the body of the wine itself were very enjoyable. The acidic bite wasn't great, but -- again -- I think it just wasn't stored well. And putting my money where my mouth is, I would buy this again just to see of that finish wasn't better in other (hopefully better) circumstances.

Cost:   

Rating:    8.5

My goodness, this wine was a surprise! This is a really, really big wine: think, rich and full-bodied. This was very different from other Willakenzie wines I've had in the past, including the 1999 version of this wine (see that review here). The wine itself looked like something other than a Pinot; check out how dark this is:



Maybe the picture doesn't capture this exactly; the wine is super dark. It's not translucent at all. Big!

Like the 1999 version, this one had an incredibly great nose. There were all kinds of aromas; and they changed from minute to minute, evolving over the course of the evening. At first it was vanilla, mushroom, cedar, river rock, and pungent lily. Later, there was vanilla, raspberry, kale and leather. Later still, there was tobacco -- really strong tobacco. And blackberry -- the blackberry became strong towards the end of the bottle (about an hour after we opened it). The last whiffs contained burnt wood, caramel, and orange. Definitely orange.

The taste was really dark fruit: like prune and blackberry. First prune, and then later it was mostly blackberry. Mixed in that, was mineral, earth -- potting soil! And behind all that, was a little menthol and clove.

The finish was a mixed bag. It was really spicy -- lots of pepper and some vanilla. And that menthol taste mutated into eucalyptus. Yet the finish was a little hot. And it wasn't a smooth as I was hoping. In some ways the ending was more like a big Cab than a Pinot. Thick and rich, but without the silky texture.

This sounds like a bad ending on what began as a great wine. And that's partially true. However, I still really liked this wine. We had our friends Cheryl and Caleb over as well, and it was starting to be that male/female split: the guys thought it was great, whereas the gals were less impressed. However, later in the evening, Cheryl switched sides -- agreeing that the finish, while not necessarily silky smooth, was not as biting as she first thought. And she agreed this was an exceptional bottle. However, if you're holding one of these bottles, you might consider holding it a little longer.

Cost:    

Rating:    9.0

We just got the latest releases from Emerson Vineyards, so this will be part of a group of reviews. Emerson is located in Monmouth, just to the south of Salem. Monmouth was a dry town until 2002, so it's sort of ironic to be making wine there. Emerson south of the Eola Hills and is on the southern end the Willamette Valley AVA.



The nose is granny smith apple, mixed with some lime. A little more subtly, there's also cilantro, peach and maybe apricot. But it's mainly apple and lime, which may sound sour. Yet it isn't in the way you might think. Instead, there a strong acidity that holds up the right just right. In the mid-palette, there's quick tangerine taste. That flashes, and then it returns to a subtle sourness. And that's what makes this wine so tasty: the acid holds the wine up, but doesn't linger long enough to give you that acid stomach (no need to grab a tums). The finish isn't long at all, and that's also nice. And refreshing.

This Pinot Gris release is a great summer wine -- something I'll take on picnics. Also, we're elated that the community rallied to fund the Washington Park summer concerts this year; we'll have to take a bottle of this along for one of those nights too.

Cost:     ($15)

Rating:    8.0