Create Account

Username
Password
Remember me
Email
 
3
griffin
griffin

Drink off-vintage wines for value

12 comments, 208 views, posted 2:38 am 01/11/2011 in Food & Recipes by griffin
griffin has 11432 posts, 1661 threads, 1138 points
Teoti Teoti Teoti

Wines from “Bad Years” Are Secretly Delicious
Paul Blow


Fred Jones, a sommelier at Hearth in New York, recently told me of his success in pairing a 2004 Bordeaux with food. It was softer and friendlier than a lot of wines he could have chosen, not overpowering to the food, and best of all from the customer's perspective, it was a less expensive Bordeaux. Go figure: It was wine from a "bad year."

Bad years, a.k.a. bad vintages, mean that the conditions (weather, soil) weren't optimal, and hence the wine isn't as strong as in "good years." But I like bad years. So does Jones. And here's why you should like them too.

1. They're cheaper. Wines from good vintages are big and fruity, clean and full-bodied. But, just as often, they are heavy and tannic, unapproachable when young, and—worst of all—expensive. I laughed when I read the following line in an online article a few weeks ago: "At this early stage of vintage 2011, some Bordeaux vintners are expressing relief that they haven't produced another great harvest this year." France's famous southwestern region has enjoyed a "vintage of the century" every couple of years, attended by an enormous spike in prices. Now, even midlevel Bordeaux is outside the reach of financial mortals. On the other hand, the occasional lesser vintages can be snapped up for good prices.

2. They're ready to drink now. The wine is somewhat thinner, softer, less concentrated, and less likely to age for decades in the cellar. Well, that's a wine I want to drink. Why? Because it's ready to go. We should thank nature for sending us the occasional inexpensive, soft, friendly, short-lived wine. These are the perfect things to quaff lustily while those iconic bottles slowly trudge toward some state of readiness (if they ever arrive).

3. They pair better with weeknight dinners. Off-vintage wines may not be what we want to uncork with a thick, dripping slab of rib-eye, but who's eating steak like that more than once or twice a month? Rather, these lighter wines are perfect accompaniments to the chops, chicken, bean soups, curries, and stir-fries that make up our more quotidian diets.

4. There really is no such thing as a bad year. There are hardly ever "bad" vintages anymore. The global wine economy is just too competitive to allow producers to release the kind of thin, swampy, painfully green wines that originally made us fear bad vintages. Winemaking skill and technology have become so ubiquitous that producers have the means to deal with most problems. And if it was a truly wretched year—underripe fruit, rain, rot—producers will often not release the wine. They'll sort out bad fruit, even if it means reducing their crop by half or two-thirds, rather than risk the potentially crippling damage that a bad score or stalled sales can do to their reputation. Some vintages might not be as charming as others, but bad—as in brutally flawed—wines hardly exist anymore, meaning that our risk of buying something truly displeasing is really quite low.

So what are the good "bad years"? Of course, I don't mean to suggest that great vintages shouldn't be celebrated. But in these cash-strapped times, I'm happy to let others empty their bank accounts for 2007 Napa wines while I drink 2008. The same with 2009 Beaujolais and red Burgundy—if it's my money, I'm happy with 2008. So maligned was 2007 Pinot Noir from Oregon and so hyped was 2008. Well, guess what? Many of those 2007s are shaping up to be pretty delicious right now—and, best of all, they're available at good prices.

Source.

Comments

3
5:33 am 01/11/2011

Viscera

article is common sense stuff really. In the end, the grapes will have some difference year to year, but unless it was a catastrophic year weather-wise, (or conversely a perfect year weather-wise) don't pay too much for any bottle of wine unless you are going to use it as an investment opportunity. I have a bottle of Port from 1994 that I paid $50.00 for. It's rated a 100 pt wine, and I bought it because that was the year I was married, and in 2019 I will drink it for our 25th anniversary. The ony bottle of wine I have ever spent more then $15 for

2
5:42 am 01/11/2011

Viscera

I love pinot noir, grenache, and chianti. Three very different grapes, for three very different kinds of fare. Pinot noir is the same grape as a burgundy, but not grown in France. Soft and inviting, it works perfectly with lighter meats, but especially a roast or burgers. Grenache is a great wine for turkey or pultry, thus it is a good selling wine at Thanksgiving and Christmas time. Chianti is a meatier grape (sangiovese at least 85% to be called a chianti) and it goes well with pastas and red sauce, steaks that are seasoned, beef that has been "rubbed" and veal. Q likes shiraz/syrah (same grape different places) because of it's peppery full body, and zinfandel are hearty and bold. Very good with BBQ and anything heavily seasoned. I personally never liked Cab Sauv it was too strong for my delicate tastes lol.

2
5:42 pm 01/11/2011

HariSeldon

Yes it is common sense, and of course so much of the wine's quality if bs subjective anyway. How many stories to you hear about expensive wines getting crappy ratings when served out of cheap brand bottles and the other way around as well. Hell, even when you take 2 glasses of the same white wine, tint one of them red with food coloring, the experts don't notice the wines are the same or even the fact that the colors don't match with the wine. The tinted red wine gets red-wine descriptions even though it is white.

2
5:43 pm 01/11/2011

Viscera

absolutely, the only "expert" that matters is your own taste.

2
5:59 pm 01/11/2011

blackspy

Not much of a wine drinker, red tastes like red, white tastes like white to me ... not that I've sampled many to begin with. I've found it interesting to think about though, I would like to try more (better) wines, but don't really feel like spending much money on them. Any suggestions?

1
6:59 pm 01/11/2011

griffin

Get a Californian or Australian merlot, you can't go far wrong with that. Merlot is the 'original' grape, it's teh same one the Romans and Greeks used. All other grapes are descended from it.

3
7:16 pm 01/11/2011

Viscera

blackspy, what kind of flavor are you looking for? If you want lighter tastes, then go white. Chardonnay can be really oaky (tases buttery) if the wine is fermented in oak casks. If you like a clean crisp flavor, then find a tank fermented chard. For red, zinfandel, shiraz, are more on the peppery side, pinot noir is a neutral grape without too much overbearing flavors, cherry/strawberry/raspberry flavors usually are dominant, but you can have others. Merlot has the usual qualities of currant, black cherries or plums.

2
8:44 pm 01/11/2011

griffin

Quote by Viscera:
Merlot has the usual qualities of currant, black cherries or plums.


Merlot gets a bad rep from wine snobs, it being too 'fruity' and unsophisticated, but I think it's accessible and a great wine for beginners.

3
9:54 pm 01/11/2011

Viscera

merlot is a great grape for blending and the striaght varietal is probably the most accessible and favorite for wine newcomers. Definately underappreciated

0
4:23 pm 03/11/2011

blackspy

Interesting... now I have some new things to look for.

0
2:24 am 04/11/2011

griffin

Drink Cheap Wine
I mean, really cheap.
By Brian Palmer|Posted Wednesday, Nov. 2, 2011, at 6:54 AM ET

Red wine
Photograph by iStockphoto/Thinkstock.
Try this experiment: Walk into the nearest wine shop and ask for an “everyday wine” recommendation. Refuse to give a price range, and see what the merchant suggests. My guess is you’re out 15 bucks. Critics seem to be pushing this price point as an appropriate range for “everyday wine”—Slate is as guilty as any publication—even though the phrase can’t possibly be taken literally. If you and your significant other were to drink five bottles of wine a week, at $15 per bottle, your annual wine outlay would approach $4,000. That’s more than the average family spends on groceries.
Granted, few Americans actually drink that much wine—annual consumption is around one bottle per month (PDF) per capita—but perhaps they would if the industry hadn’t taught them that truly affordable wine isn’t worth drinking. The evidence is right across the Atlantic: In Europe, consumption is 3-to-6 times higher than in the United States. But only the most affluent would spend 11 euros to drink a bottle of wine at home on a Wednesday night. Europeans seem perfectly comfortable cracking open a 1-euro tetra-pak of wine for guests. Germans, for example, pay just $1.79 on average for a bottle of wine.
Not long ago, American wine-buying habits were very similar to the Germans’. In 1995, 59 percent of the wine purchased in the United States sold for less than $3 per bottle. By 2006, controlling for inflation, that share had dropped to 29 percent. Wines over $14 per bottle more than quadrupled their share of the market during the same period. Looking at raw consumption rather than market share, sales of over-$14 wine increased sevenfold. Sales of wines that cost less than $3 per bottle actually declined 28 percent, during a period when overall wine consumption was rapidly increasing.
Advertisement
There are plenty of reasons to go back to our 1990s habits, and to start using 15 bucks to buy four or five bottles instead of just one. Ernest Gallo, who, along with his brother Julio, popularized wine among the American masses, understood the psychology of wine better than anyone. He used to pour two glasses of wine for potential buyers, telling them that one sold for 5 cents, and the other for 10. According to Gallo, his guinea pigs invariably chose the more expensive option. What they didn’t know was that the two wines were exactly the same. Researchers have recently reproduced Gallo’s results, proving that our appreciation of a wine depends on how much we think it costs. If you can break yourself of this psychological quirk—or have your spouse lie to you about the cost of your wine—you’ll save a small fortune.
You’re also likely aware of the piles of studies showing that you can’t reliably pick out expensive wines in a blind taste test. Many studies show that laymen actually prefer cheaper wines (PDF). Professional wine critics are quick to point out that they, unlike you and I, can distinguish between high- and low-cost bottles in blinded experiments. Here’s the question they can’t answer for you: So what? The only thing these “successes” prove is that a small group of people have gotten very good at sniffing out the traits that the wine industry thinks entitle them to more money.
If hints of cassis, subtle earthiness, and jammy notes don’t interest you, you are not a lesser person. Wine is not art. There’s no reason to believe that aligning your tastes with those of a self-appointed elite will enrich your life, or make you more insightful or sensitive. If wine critics want to spend lavishly on the wine they like, that’s great. Leave them to their fun. Be grateful that you can gain just as much pleasure, if not more, without bankrupting yourself.
I’m not without sympathy for the American winemakers who keep wine prices high. Real estate is pricey in California, and some vintners claim they have to charge $20 or more per bottle just to break even. That’s a shame, but wine-buying isn’t an act of philanthropy. If you can’t tell the difference between an expensive wine from a small family vineyard and their cheaper competitors—or you think the cheap stuff is superior—save your money. You are under no obligation to keep vineyards afloat. A little consolidation might be a good thing. Do we really need tiny winemaking estates up and down the West Coast, not to mention Long Island, Michigan, Virginia, and Missouri?
There’s also an enormous range in the retail price of a single bottle of wine, which means the $15 bottle you bought at one store might be a $6 bottle elsewhere. A recent study found that a wine selling for $695 in California went for $2,000 in Illinois. The Yellowtail Merlot offered for $4.99 in Buffalo cost more than twice that much in Jersey City. Such discrepancies are due not only to taxes and varying distribution schemes but to individual store owners trying to wring a few more dollars out of clueless consumers. Again, the key here is that higher prices do not reliably reflect quality.
Finally, rest assured that cheap wine in the United States is good, to the extent that the term has any objective meaning. Falling market share over the last 15 years has forced discount vintners to compete with upmarket brands, and modern technology has enabled them to crank out consistent wines, case after case. So, if you win your $3 gamble on the first bottle, you know you’ll like the next. And, in a sense, we have an advantage over Europe, since our discount offerings are usually a notch better. European bargain wines can be hit or miss, because they’re made by cooperatives that sometimes have outdated equipment, poor inventory management, and even substandard sanitation practices. Charles Shaw and the best American box wines rarely have such problems.
You’re probably hoping for some recommendations. You don’t need them. Reviews and recommendations are great for cars or televisions or overpriced wines, because bad decisions are expensive. If you hate your cheap bottle of wine, just uncork another.
Thanks to Michael Veseth, author of Wine Wars: The Curse of the Blue Nun, the Miracle of Two Buck Chuck, and the Revenge of the Terroirists.

Source.

0
3:35 am 04/11/2011

backroom

My wife says she has never had a bad bottle of Clos du Bois.

Add Comment

Log in via teoti, or register to add a comment!


Teh NookMayrHayasdanJaranWebAngryShirtsGoneGeekEat Liver