Best of 2005: Reflections on My Wine Log
by Ed Young
Frugal MacDoogal's Monthly Guest Wine Letter January, 2006
|
Last year at this time we gave readers a list of suggested wine resolutions for the New Year. One of them was to keep a log of what you drink, including price paid and tasting notes. I followed my own advice and just compiled the results, which revealed some surprises. There were 105 wines in my log. Now, I definitely drank more than 105 bottles of wine in 2005. Often I purchase a case of something I really like, but that wine would only be listed once in my log. I averaged drinking something new and different at home about twice a week throughout the year. I didn’t include wines sampled at tastings, at restaurants, or at other people’s houses. My reactions broke down this way: Wonderful-20%; Good-35%; Just O.K.-12%; and Did Not Like-33%.
One thing that surprised me was that one-third of the wines I tried, I didn’t like. Some of the reasons for low ratings that were noted were: tart; tannic; thin; no character; no finish; acidic; medicinal; and bitter. Some of them weren’t awful, but I thought they offered low value for the price. Some were O.K. just out of the bottle, but deteriorated in the glass. Some of the big reds (Cabernet Sauvignon and Shiraz) just wouldn’t open. A few had been left down too long. One of the year’s major disappointments was a bottle of 1972 Bonnes-Mares Burgundy that had long passed its peak. Some were downrated for comparing unfavorably with something already tasted that I liked better. In looking over the low rated wines, I realized that there are some grapes I just can’t seem to enjoy, even though others find them delightful. There are a few countries whose wines I don’t particularly like. Another reason for the high rate of dislikes is that I tend to be adventurous and to keep trying varietals that I haven’t liked in the past hoping to find one that will change my mind.
The prices of the wines I drank ranged from $2.99 to $69.99. The cheapest were a Spanish red and white that had failed to sell at a higher price and were slashed to move them out of the store. They were good bargains. The highest priced wine was an Amarone that was worth the cost. Overall, 2% of the 105 wines were under $5; 12% were between $5 and $10; 37% fell in the $10-$20 category; 20% were $20-$30; 28% cost from $30 to $50; and 1% was more than $50. In general, I got what I paid for. As the palate develops, one’s wine tastes become more expensive. However, I can recall several very inexpensive wines that were terrific, and at least one over $30 that I didn’t like at all.
Of the wines listed, 62% were reds, 37% were whites, and 1% were roses. I’m fond of white wines, but was surprised to learn that I drank more Chardonnay than anything else in 2005. Red blends came in second, and Pinot Noir was not far behind. This represented a change in habits, as red Zinfandel has been my favorite in past years. One thing I regret is not keeping a better record of Champagnes and sparkling wines. For some reason, only one wine in this category was logged.
I hope you followed my advice and maintained a similar list during the past year. It is a bit of work, but it pays off. You can learn a lot about yourself from such an exercise. I noted several terrific wines I would have missed altogether if not for the recommendations of the wine guys. I took pride in the fact that when the Wine Spectator list of top 100 wines of 2005 came out, I had five of them in my cellar already. I also noted several contradictions in the log—wines that I liked the first time, but not the second time when I absent mindedly logged them again. This shows what a fragile and changing thing the palate can be. One’s initial perception of a wine can be affected by the ambiance, who you are with, the mood you are in, your expectations, what you’ve already drunk that day, and many other factors. I seldom change my mind about a wine I don’t like at first, but many that I do like at first blush are less favored on subsequent occasions. However, several wines that I didn’t like right out of the bottle had opened and softened by the next night, and I had to go back and revise my rating.
There were so many times in the past year when I was trying to decide what wines to serve at a party, or for another special occasion, when my wine log was a life saver. Sometimes I had forgotten how much I had enjoyed something until I was reminded by the entry in the log. The entries also prevented some mistakes. No one who drinks a lot of wines can possibly remember all of them beyond the ones that were just sensational, or terrible. A log also forces you to develop standard terms and scores for evaluating the wines you drink. Since it is your personal “wine diary”, you can use a ten-point system, or whatever rating scale you choose. You can separate the entries by type of varietal, cost, or by points ascribed. I’m already looking forward to comparing my 2006 log with the 2005 one to see how my wine experiences change!
And now (drum roll) for the final conclusion of my 2005 wine log- the choices of my favorites for the year.
Red Wine of the Year: Miner Rosella’s Vineyard 2003 Pinot Noir ($49.99). Pricey, but worth every penny. Light, aromatic--everything you could want in a Pinot. Runner-up: Marquis Phillips 2003 “9” Shiraz ($36.99).
Best Buy: Columbia Crest 2002 Shiraz ($6.99).
White Wine of the Year: Barnett 2003 Sangiacomo Vineyard Chardonnay ($27.99). Oaky, with great mouth feel and wonderful finish. A great wine at a fair price. Runner-up: Tablas Creek Cotes de Tablas Blanc 2003 (Blend) $26.99.
Best Buy: Renwood Voignier 2002 Select Series ($9.99).
Most of these are still available in the store. They would be great early entries in your own 2006 wine log!
Miss last month's letter? >click here<
For A List of Ed Young's Archived Newsletters >click here<
|
 |
|
|
|
