In preparation for the Malbec tasting we are attending this Friday, we decided to hold our own tasting (just me and the wife) to determine which bottle we would bring.  In this case, the extra dolares resulted in a better experience:

2004 Renacer $50

Color: ruby, not as inky as I expected, was able to read through the edges but not at the center

Legs: were thin and fell fast along the edge of the glass telling us this was higher in alcohol (in fact, 15.1%)

Nose:very fruit forward, but with a little hotness and hint of oakiness (note: that 20 minutes later I came back to the glass and got some toffee/caramel on the nose as well)

Taste:very plummy, even black fruit (cherry?), very big mouthfeel with spice that lingers long on the finish

Other:This was aged in French oak for 24 months and then another 12 months in the bottle.  It was very satisfying and stood as very different from your usual Malbec.

2007 Tikal Amorio $20

Color: ruby/purple, and lighter than the Renacer just a little

Nose:barnyardy (not in a good way), synthetic like a shower curtain and stinky/damp feet

Taste:kind of flat, light on the spice and some black fruit, but kind of uneventful

2007 Luca  $30

Color: very dark and inky, like I normally see Malbec.

Nose: This was dank and damp too at first like a wet dog, but mellowed out a little bit after 10-15 minutes

Taste:Again, the plum and spice with just a medium mouthfeel, a tad of licorice coming through and medium finish

Other:I really missed the boat on this one.  It was better than the Tikal, but I didn’t get all the hype nor the characteristics portrayed when it received 93 points and the #82 spot in the top 100 last year.  I am going to give it another try tonight and see what happens.

You know or at least have heard of the Wine Spectator.  A sizable magazine that prides itself on rankings of wine on a 100 point scale.  You either subscribe to the magazine or at least have seen local retailers hang a card with the WS score on the wine rack or list it on the wine menu at a restaurant.  I admit, I have “trusted” this scoring system when looking for new wines to try.  Sometimes, that’s all you have to go on when you are in the store or at the restaurant because the help is actually no help.  But, then again, nothing is better than your own palette when it comes to evaluating wine you like.  And your palette isn’t swayed by prestige or by money, generally.  It just knows what it likes and it tells your brain and you enjoy the experience or not.  Enough said.

To further muddy the waters of whether you should trust or use the WS scoring system in helping you find a wine you will like, check out this story about a guy who submitted a fake restaurant with a fake wine list to the Wine Spectator.  As a result, he was given the WS Award of Excellence.  As you will see in the article, it appears no real due diligence was exercised in evaluating this “restaurant” and questions WS real motivation in evaluating restaurants and their wine lists.  What then does that say about their individual wine scoring?

What also piqued my interest is the book the article author, Robin Goldstein, has written called “100 Everyday Wines Under $15 that Beat $50 to $150 Wines in Brown-Bag Blind Tastings.”  The title caught my eye and I’ll be reading it soon.  Surely, this guy wants to make a buck as well, but for $10 I might give this guy a shot at guiding me towards some real value wines vs. the old standard, who may have just lost some credibility with us everyday wine drinkers.

Every Saturday afternoon, the Sherlock’s down the street (literally, within walking distance of our house – not a bad deal, huh?) hosts a wine tasting of about 3-4 wines, normally from a specific region or style.  This past weekend they focused on wines from Spain.  They offered the 2006 Martin Codax Albarino, 2005 Bodega Maurodos Prima Toro, 2006 Martin Codax Rioja, and 2003 los 800 Priorat.

Our favorite was the Prima Toro and is made mostly from the Tempranillo varietal, yet is named for the town in northern Spain from where it was made.  The wine lady was telling us that the tannins would get bigger and more prounounced as we went down the list, which was also in order from West to East across northern Spain.  However, I believed the Prima Toro was more tannic than the Rioja.  Of course, my wife disagreed, though we liked both wines.  Unfortunately, the Toro was the most expensive on the list at $18.99, which was most likely due to the recent 90 point rating it received from Wine Spectator.  However, on the web I have seen it discounted as low as $15. 

Color:  Dark and inky

Nose: Immediately attacked by cedar, but in a good way.  There was a graphite rock note from my perspective, though Sherlock’s tasting notes called this “pencil lead”.  Either way, the aromatics were very appealing and not overbearing at all.  It really set my expectations and drew me in for the taste

Taste:  Definitely got some plummyness in there, which was refreshing to get and some blackberries/currant as well.  The tannins completely filled the mouth and finished strong and long with black pepper at the end

I’d recommend any of these wines, but the Prima Toro (~ “Premium Bull”) just edged the others on this day.

Salud!