The little wooden guy is not pleased with this wine. Read on to find out why.
The color is very light clear red. The nose opens tart and fruity, sour cherry and strawberries. The fruit sweetens after the initial tartness, smelling candied with brown sugar or maple. There is also just enough of a whiff of earth to tell you it is likely French.
The palate opens all sour fruit, sour cherries and sour strawberries. That sweetns a little on the finish, adding a sense of red licorice. Tannins were slightly drying but smooth.
Will this close down on night two, or will it soften and open up, revealing something other than red fruit? Let us find out together.
Sour cherries and strawberries still lead the nose, but there is also some caramel and some sage. It actually seems, on the nose, to have closed a bit from night one. The palate is still sour cherries, but deeper, a bit richer, with blackberries throw in instead of the sweeter strawberries of the night before. A little Dr. Pepper followed, then a hint of spice. Overwhelmingly, though the sour cherries and blackberries deominated from start to finish, without significant transition to midpalate or finish.
This is a disappointingly one-dimensional wine. Yes, I know, at $19.99 it is practically free by the standards of 2005 Burgundy, but why bother? There are far more intersting wines from other regions for the same amount of scratch.
Have you ever noticed how a really mediocre bottle can be much better the second night? Sometimes a wine that is "closed" opens up from exposure to air. This is a great hint that the wine is really not as bad as you thought. It just needs more time in the cellar. Alternatively, something great falls completely flat in just a day - drink all you've got, because there's not much time left. Wine starts changing rapidly the moment you open it. So here, at "Two Days per Bottle Wine Tasting," I am going to follow wine from the moment I open it through a second night. Call it an experiment. Join me to see if it really tells us anything useful at all.
My wine review policy
There has been much ado in the blogosphere lately about "the ethics of wine blogging," particularly in the area of wine reviews. Should bloggers review every wine they are sent? Should they do so under a time limit? Some suggest we hew perfectly to the code of journalistic ethics, which forbid both promises. In my personal opinion, that is putting form before substance. Putting the form of the rule- don't promise reviews, ahead of the substance- do what is ethically best, creates a real perversion of the problem. First, and I am being completely honest here, I get a little thrill whenever somebody sends me wine. Why not? Heck, I love the stuff. So what if I (a) like getting free wine, and (b) don't promise reviews. That is easy. I only review the ones I like, out of fear of scaring people off. "Hey," I might say, "this sucks, but if I write that, nobody will send me wine any more." In other words, sticking to the journalists' "code of ethics" actually creates a LARGER ethical dilemma than reviewing everything. On the other hand, promising to review at a time certain takes editorial content away, so that is a promise I refuse to make.
Do you want me to review your wine? I would love to do so. But first, know what you are asking. Take a trip around the blog. See what The Little Wooden Guy, The Big Wooden Guy, and I have to say. We are not always generous or kind. And we WILL review your wine. Honestly. Every time.
If you are still interested, send it here:
David Honig 1 American Square, Suite 2000 Indianapolis, IN 46282