Tag Archives: Californa wine

Mother's Day wine

Mother’s Day wine 2018

Mother's Day wine 2018Four suggestions — red, white, rose, and sparkling — for Mother’s Day wine 2018

This Mother’s Day wine 2018 post is the 12th time we’ve done it on the blog, and one thing has remained consistent every year. Buy — or serve — Mom a wine she will like, and not something you think she should drink. Our Mother’s Day wine gift giving guidelines are here; the idea is to please your mother. What’s the point otherwise?

These Mother’s Day wine 2018 suggestions should get you started:

Arrumaco Verdejo 2016 ($8, purchased, 12%): A Spanish white that is a little richer than expected (more stone fruit than citrus), and as well made as all Arrumaco wines are. Imported by Hand Picked Selections

Scharffenberger Cellars Excellence Brut Rose NV ($24, purchased, 12%): This California sparking wine is impressive in many ways — the very aromatic raspberry fruit; the hint of spice that is a surprising and welcome note; and just the right amount of yeastiness, which lets the fruit show. Highly recommended.

Justin Rose 2017 ($18, sample, 13%): A California pink that is one of the shockers of rose season — a pricer wine from a winery best known for big red wine that is intriguing, almost subtle and delightful. Not nearly as fruity as I expected (barely ripe raspberry), with a little minerality and floral aroma. Highly recommended.

Domaine de Courbissac Les Traverses 2015 ($15, sample, 13%): This French red blend is delicious, and it’s even more delicious if you can find it for $12 (and it’s only about $9 in France). Mom wouldn’t want you to overpay. Look for some earth, a little rusticity, and black fruit. Imported by European Cellars

More about Mother’s Day wine:
Mother’s Day wine 2017
Mother’s Day wine 2016
Mother’s Day wine 2015
Two Murrieta’s Well wines

Mother's Day wine

Mother’s Day wine 2017

mother's day wine 2017Four suggestions for Mother’s Day wine 2017

The same lesson applies for this, the Wine Curmudgeon’s 11th annual Mother’s Day wine post, that applied to the previous 10. Buy Mom something she will like, and not something you think she should drink. Our Mother’s Day wine gift giving guidelines are here; the idea is to make her happy, not to impress her with your wine knowledge. She’s your Mom – she’s impressed already.

These Mother’s Day wine suggestions should get you started:

Pewsey Vale Dry Riesling 2015 ($16, sample, 12.5%): Australian rieslings are some of the least known quality wines in the world, because who associates riesling and Australia? This white shows why the wines offer so much quality at more than a fair price: dry, crisp, lemon and lime fruit, and a certain zestiness. Highly recommended.

Cristalino Rose Brut NV ($9, sample, 12%): Every time I taste this Spanish cava, or sparkling wine, I am amazed at how well made it is, and especially how well made it is for the price. No wonder it has been in the $10 Hall of Fame since the beginning. Tight bubbles, red and citrus fruit, and perfect for Mother’s Day brunch.

Mulderbosch Cabernet Sauvignon Rose 2016 ($10, sample, 12.5%): This South African pink is tighter and more closed this year, and the weight of the cabernet is more obvious. Having said that, it’s still a fine, fresh rose, with dark red fruit and a little spice and what could even be tannins in the back that add a little interest.

Bravium Pinot Noir 2015 ($30, sample, 12.5%): This California red is nicely done, a varietally correct pinot from the well-regarded Anderson Valley and more or less worth what it costs. Some earth, red fruit and even a hint of orange peel.

More about Mother’s Day wine:
Mother’s Day wine 2016
Mother’s Day wine 2015
Mother’s day wine 2014
Wine of the week: Anne Amie Cuvee Muller Thurgau 2015

Barefoot wine review 2016

Barefoot wine review 2016The Barefoot wine review 2016: an interesting pinot grigio and a pinot noir that isn’t very pinot noir-ish.

The Barefoot wine review 2016 goes a long way toward explaining why the market for wine that costs less than $10 has been eroding for a couple of years — save for Barefoot. These wines are professional and technically competent, but more importantly are made for specific groups who know what they like and will buy what they like.

The pinot grigio ($10, purchased, 12.5%) is more like pinot gris, with sort of soft lemon fruit and more acidity than I expected. This is not a tonic water pinot grigio like similarly priced Italian wines; instead, the Barefoot straddles the line between the two styles. It’s also sweet – not moscato or white zinfandel sweet, but with a touch of residual sugar that you’ll notice on the back of your tongue. There is lots of winemaking going on here, but the result is drinkable, especially if well chilled and of you don’t mind the sweetness. The pinot grigio is American appellation and non-vintage.

It’s not so much that the pinot noir ($10, purchased, 13.5%) doesn’t taste like pinot noir. You can say that about a lot of pinots that cost less than $25 and are made more like cheap red blends. Rather, my sense is that the goal was to make a wine that tastes like the kind of wine that people who don’t drink much wine think red wine should taste like. Yes, a complicated sentence, but it means that the pinot noir is a little rough and not smooth in the way many wine drinkers describe wine. Plus, the tannins are surprisingly noticeable and not well integrated, something that almost never happens with a Barefoot wine. The pinot noir is American appellation and non-vintage.

Finally, a word about the price of the wine, which was almost 50 percent higher than it should have been – $10 instead of $7. I bought both bottles at the same supermarket where I buy Barefoot every year for the review, and that was the price. Call it premiumization or grocery store pricing or whatever, but it means the wines are that much less of a value given the higher price.

More about Barefoot wine:
Barefoot wine review 2015
Barefoot wine review 2014
Barefoot: Almost the best-selling wine in the U.S.

Has all the value gone out of California wine?

California wine

Just don’t expect to find any value around $10.

Where has all the value gone in California wine?

The store employee, who knows his business, didn’t mince words. “You’re not going to find any value here,” he said, waving his arm at the store’s extensive California wine section. “That’s why I tell people to look at Spain and Italy for value. There isn’t any in California any more.”

The Wine Curmudgeon, who had just spent 15 minutes scouring the aisles in a vain attempt to find a $10 California wine to write about (or even a $12 or $15 wine, for that matter) was surprised to hear someone who sold wine say that. But I wasn’t surprised to hear it.

There has been value in wine, even in these dark days, almost everywhere in the world save for Bordeaux and Burgundy. You just had to keep looking. But I’m finding it harder and harder to find value in California. Instead, there are $17 high-alcohol zinfandels that all taste the same; $15 too fruity red blends with cute labels that all taste the same; $12 white wines wearing fake oak disguises that all taste the same; and too much wine costing less than $10 that tastes like it was made without any regard for quality — and that all tastes the same.

This doesn’t mean there isn’t quality, because California can produce the best wine in the world at any price. We know how I feel about Bogle. Rather, it’s that you almost never get more than you pay for anymore, and you rarely even get what you pay for.

How did this happen? Ten years ago, when I started the blog, value was common in California. and I wrote about those wines all the time. Since then, though:

Land prices have skyrocketed. Higher land prices mean more expensive wine, even if the quality of the grapes isn’t any better.

Consolidation, which has shifted producer focus from wine quality to wine marketing. This is the difference between “How much is this wine worth?” to “How much should we charge for this wine, given where it is in our portfolio?”

• Price increases, as producers make up for all the price increases they didn’t take during the last decade.

• Pricing based on styles. This is where a producer will charge more for a cheap wine made to mimic a more expensive wine, because the cheap wine will still be less expensive than the expensive wine. It just won’t be a value, but we’re not supposed to be smart enough to figure that out.

Of course, I’ll keep looking for value in California wine. But given all that has happened, I don’t expect to find much.

Wine of the week: Michel-Schlumberger Maison Rouge 2011

Michel-Schlumberger Maison Rouge One of the Wine Curmudgeon’s regular laments is that it’s much too difficult to find well-priced and interesting California wine, and especially red California wine. Which made me so happy to stumble on the Michel-Schlumberger Maison Rouge — litterally, since it was buried on a bottom shelf and I had get down on my knees to pick it up.

What makes the Maison Rouge ($14, purchased, 13.9%) so interesting? For one thing, it’s wonderfully stinky, with that barnyard aroma that the French do so well in the Rhone. For another, it’s a seven-grape blend where none dominate, each adding a little something to the mix. Who’d have thought carmenere would feel at home in a California red blend? Look for red fruit (cherry? raspberry?), some much welcome earthiness, and pinpoint tannins. If you’re looking for a house wine, this would be an excellent choice — nice on its own, but also fine with most red meat, roast chicken, and even hearty vegetables.

This is another of those all too infrequent wines that reminds us what California winemakers can do when they want balance, thoughtfulness, and style instead of power and alcohol. Highly recommended, and well worth the $14.