April 20, 2007
In Vino Veritas
Lileks on the grape today:
You know, there’s nothing wrong with Merlot. That damned “Sideways” movie just made it difficult to drink without fear that someone will kick down the door, slap it out of your hand and make you drink something earthier, with notes of berry, fir, paper, turnip, and the digestive lubricant of the common weevil. I like earthy wines, but when someone gives you a merlot, you ought to drink it. Eventually.I am going through my wine cellar, starting from oldest to newest (see? I’m not a total novice), just to clear out the stuff before it converts to vinegar. I know, I know: it improves with age. Except when it doesn’t, and gets ruined by temperature variations. I should note that the “cellar” is the downstairs storage closet – an excellent room for storing wine, but probably a little too cool. Or hot. I don’t know. I do know that I pulled out a white a while ago, and the stuff in the bottle would cut through the deck of the Nostromo. Then again, I bought it for the usual sensible, informed reasons:
It was on sale
I liked the label
I’ve said this before, but I’m convinced that label design is the single greatest factor in impulse wine sales. There’s a wine called “Barefoot,” and I’ll never buy it, simply because the picture on the bottle makes you think of someone’s foot squishing the grapes. I know it’s a fine honored old-country tradition, but if there is one item I do not want as the intermediary between the grape and my mouth, it is someone else’s foot. Usually I drink Australian wine – Penfold’s, to be specific, because the label had a classic old font and a severe, dignified layout. It looked like something they’d pull out in an English club in 1947.
Yup. I've noticed that even the Italians are getting into this. Most of my everday plonk comes from Bolla and Citra, both of which vinyards have been fiddling around with their look recently. (Don't mock me about the Citra. It is quite a few steps up from rat poison, it's under eight bucks for 1.5 ml and I'm on a guv'mint salary.)
As it happens, we're hosting our church's monthly-young-families-potluck "Circle" party this weekend. Although I loathe parties in general, I always enjoy these because it's such a nice and interesting group of people. Plus the fact that we're entertaining at Orgle Manor means that I will have complete carte blanc to do as much uninterrupted yardwork as I care to on Saturday.
One label I'm sure to see, unfortunately, is this one, IMHO the single worst cotton-candy-cum-cough-syrup available on the market today that doesn't actually come with straw to poke through the top of the package:
Ai! how I hate this stuff. And yet I can't remember the last party I attended at which it wasn't there, lurking on the drinks table, knowing full well that when everything else ran out, I'd come crawling to it despite its double-coyote ugliness.
Of course, there's always the odd chance that somebody will show up with this:
I've never tried it. I reckon it couldn't be any worse that the Yellow Tail, but then again, it could be just as bad.
Robbo, agree. Yellow Tail is swill. If you want cheap Australian wine that won't eat away at the lining of your esophagus try Alice White. Also, it's a lot newer to the market but The Little Penguin is actually decent.
Yes, it's still mass-market plonk but if you have a house full of guests and you're on a budget the average person doesn't look at in this way.
Lilek's is dead-on about Penfold's as far as the better Australian stuff. But it's too bad he's avoiding the Barefoot. I've tried the Cabernet, the Chardonnay, the Sauvignon Blanc and the (Red) Zinfandel. And they were all pretty good. In fact the Zinfandel is probably the only decent one in that general price range. Great with pizza, burgers or other grill fare.
Yes, try the Funky Llama by all means. I haven't but Argentina is a real up-and-coming region for wine. You can find real value there.
Though wines with critter labels are becoming more and more common (and pretty bad in some cases) that one may well be worth raising a glass.
Posted by: Gary at April 20, 2007 10:56 AMFunny thing about Yellowtail Shiraz. The first time I tried it I was at a restaurant, and I had never heard of the label. And it was so, so good - especially for an inexpensive wine - that I impressed its name upon my memory. When, a year later, it showed up in the stores, I got a bottle, but the marvelous taste was not there. I don't know if Yellow had diminished its quality, or if I was simply deluded with that first experience. But as I have said, that first sample was good enough that I remembered it long afterward.
Posted by: fugio at April 20, 2007 11:46 AM$8 per 1.5 mL is pretty dang expensive.
Posted by: John at April 20, 2007 12:57 PMAustralian winemakers have had a bumper crop the past couple of seasons and they're pumping wine like water. Surplus equals lower prices equals more casual winedrinkers (who could care less how it tastes) equals higher demand equals lower quality.
A lot of people who used to drink only (ugh) white zinfandel have "upgraded" if you will to Yellowtail because it's almost as sweet and almost as cheap.
The manufacturer, Casella Wines, is savvy enough to understand who their target market is and know that the demand will still be there even if they dumb-down the quality. The brand is already established at this point.
Yellowtail Shiraz is currently ranked as the #1 selling red wine in the U.S. This might change as alternatives continue to pop up (see The Little Penguin) but I doubt it.
Posted by: Gary at April 20, 2007 01:01 PMOh, mL, L, whatever. Damn the Euro-weenies and their commie metric system!
Posted by: Robbo the LB at April 20, 2007 01:03 PMI'm a big fan of Two Buck Chuck for me everyday, even though it comes in at a pricey $3.54 per bottle here in Ohio, due to our high taxes on hootch.
Posted by: Nasty, Brutish & Short at April 20, 2007 01:36 PM