Somebody gave us a bottle of this wine and it is superb. It won a gold medal at the Concours General Agricole in Paris 2012.
It is produced in the Libourne area of Bordeaux and is Merlot based. We drank the wine over the course of two evenings as my wife and I usually drink no more than half a bottle at a sitting.
The first evening we ate rare Bavette steak . This is called skirt beef in the UK where it is used mainly as stewing steak. But if you cook the steak rare and use a sharp knife you are in for a treat. Bavette tastes much nicer than most other beef steak cuts. However, if you cook it well done or even medium it is too chewy: this is not steak for the faint hearted.
The wine went perfectly with the steak. It had a concentrated and complex taste of blackcurrants and dark fruits. It also had the "cigar box" taste typical of a red Bordeaux. It was medium to full body with a well balanced acidity. The tannin had not fully softened so there was a slightly bitter after taste. This wine should really be kept for a couple of years longer in a cellar. The tannin will then soften to reveal the fruit character and full complexity of the wine which has the taste of the oak barrels in which it was matured.
Many people do not realise that good wine needs to mature for 5 to 10 years or longer and that is why they dismiss wines that have a slight bitter taste from the tannin. They are missing out if they do not realise this. See my previous blog and the Daily Mail £595 wine test.
We "Vacu-Vined" the wine and drank the next evening with a Pintade or Guinea Fowl and it went down well with the rich tasting "chicken". But, the slight exposure to oxygen had not softened the tannin so you really must keep the wine longer to appreciate it at its best.
The wine costs £9.99 at Majestic and £7.99 if you buy two bottles. It is great value for money and it puts many more expensive wines from Bordeaux to shame. Most varietal "Merlot" labelled wines cannot hold a candle to this one whether they are from the New or Old World. Just be sure to keep the wine in a cool, dark vibration free space. Why not buy a case?
http://www.supermarketwine.com/majestic/chateau-recougne-bordeaux-superieur-france-2010
You can buy this wine even cheaper in Majestic Calais for EUR 7.48 that is about £6; this is wonderful price for such a good wine.
http://www.majesticwinecalais.co.uk/Chateau-Recougne-zidF-11319
http://vintuswines.com/estates/milhade/bordeaux_superieur/chateau_recougne
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/nov/23/indie-wine-dealers-and-sunday-red
http://www.barbackers.com/vawisa.html
Monday, 25 August 2014
Sunday, 24 August 2014
Nice One Oz Clarke
Recently three wine and food writers Rose Prince, Tessa Cunningham and Oz Clarke were challenged by the Daily Mail to identify a £595 bottle of Bordeaux red from amongst a number of other red Bordeaux wines not costing anywhere near as much. The labels were covered. Oz Clarke was the only one to get it right but he was the only renowned wine expert in the tasting panel. He identified the Chateau Haut-Brion 1990 (£595, from Lea & Sandeman).
It is worth looking at this website where all the wines were identified. The panel was given a clue as they were told only one bottle of wine was worth £595.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2698004/Could-YOU-tell-Lidls-5-99-claret-595-Grand-Cru-Our-thirsty-volunteers-tried-hilariously-humiliating-results.html.
So how did Oz do it? Well the Chateau Haut-Brion 1990 was by far the oldest wine in the selection and would have turned a brick red colour as part of the ageing process. Only a very good or exceptional wine would have maintained a concentrated fruit character over all those years and would have matured into to a wine complex enough to show tastes "reminiscent of pews in a cathedral, library books and old sofas."
Château Haut-Brion was rated as Premier Cru in the 1855 classification and is renowned as one of the world's top wines for both drinking and investment. This is why the price is so high.
An ordinary standard Bordeaux red would be well past its best after 20 years or so in the bottle and would be beginning to fade away. None of the other wines in the selection would have turned to the tawny colour as described. So well done Oz for your tasting, reasoning and experience.
It is worth looking at this website where all the wines were identified. The panel was given a clue as they were told only one bottle of wine was worth £595.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2698004/Could-YOU-tell-Lidls-5-99-claret-595-Grand-Cru-Our-thirsty-volunteers-tried-hilariously-humiliating-results.html.
So how did Oz do it? Well the Chateau Haut-Brion 1990 was by far the oldest wine in the selection and would have turned a brick red colour as part of the ageing process. Only a very good or exceptional wine would have maintained a concentrated fruit character over all those years and would have matured into to a wine complex enough to show tastes "reminiscent of pews in a cathedral, library books and old sofas."
Château Haut-Brion was rated as Premier Cru in the 1855 classification and is renowned as one of the world's top wines for both drinking and investment. This is why the price is so high.
An ordinary standard Bordeaux red would be well past its best after 20 years or so in the bottle and would be beginning to fade away. None of the other wines in the selection would have turned to the tawny colour as described. So well done Oz for your tasting, reasoning and experience.
Where Oz did better, if that were possible, was in recognising the 2009 vintage -Château Haut Batailley Pauillac 2009 (£23, M&S) but he did rather over estimate the price. This too is exceptionally good wine.
Oz also did very well to recognise the Château Pichon Longueville-Baron 2006 (£125, Majestic) was £120 a bottle but he did not identify the wine blind as far as I can see. This wine is a deuxième cru from Pauillac and has the potential to age as well as the Château Haut-Brion. However, the 2006, would not have turned to the same tawny colour. A case of the 1990 could set you back over £2,000.
Rose Prince and Tessa Cunningham did nowhere as well as Oz Clarke but I would not expect them to. They simply do not have Oz's tasting experience and knowledge of wine and its market. We often have off days when we do not taste wine so well.
Rose has been criticised on the following website for being humiliated at the tasting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_Prince_(writer) but this is a bit strong and unfair. She guessed wrongly that the Saint-Emilion Grand Cru AOP Château du Cauze 2011 (£11.99, Lidl) was the £595 wine but this is of course very good wine and Rose spotted that blind. But she missed the Premier Cru wine. However, she did recognise the Château Haut-Brion as being very good wine and if you take away the brand name value perhaps it is only really worth £65 - such is the power of marketing and brand names.
Tessa Cunningham guessed wrongly that the Château Haut Batailley Pauillac 2009 (£23, M&S) was the top wine. This was not a bad guess: 2009 was a particularly good year and the wine could have been confused with Château Latour Pauillac 2009. This is just a snip at £720 a bottle. But how does this account for missing the key wine?
Tessa to her credit recognised that the 1990 Château Haut-Brion was something special but she could not link that with the market price.
Perhaps the test was not so easy.
One of my favourite wines Château Cantemerle was not rated well by Tessa - oh well we cannot all have my great sense of taste!
None of the panel was really perfect at guessing the prices and the "blind tasting " was really a bit of a gimmick but it must have been fun. In reality wine tasting and evaluation is fraught with difficulty and you can easily be caught out.
No bottle of wine costs more than about £10 to produce; not even the top investment wines. The Lidl Saint Emilion may not be as prestigious as a Premier Cru investment wine but its quality is not far off. The Lidl St Emilion is therefore exceptional value for money and wine lovers are lucky that bargains can still be found. As far as investment wines are concerned a lot of the price if not most of it is in the brand name and not in the absolute quality of the wine. The Daily Mail has done well to point all this out.
With a little bit of wine education , experience and knowledge and the ability to reason you too could recognise the £595 bottle especially when you are told that only one wine of this value is in the selection.
We have got a Lidl down the road so I am going off to find a bottle of St Emilion Grand Cru for £11. 99 and keep it for a couple of years longer to let the tannin soften a bit and then taste a really good wine.
We have got a Lidl down the road so I am going off to find a bottle of St Emilion Grand Cru for £11. 99 and keep it for a couple of years longer to let the tannin soften a bit and then taste a really good wine.
Wednesday, 13 August 2014
Natural Wine
The other night I saw a television report about natural wine production in Tuscany. The reporter likened modern natural winemaking to that of the Romans. This is off course bunkum. Even if modern industrial technology is not used in winemaking it does not mean that winemakers have regressed.
Most modern wines have European scions grafted onto American rootstocks to protect the wines from the Phylloxera louse. The Romans had no knowledge of the New World so they would have had no knowledge of Phylloxera infestation of the soil.
The Romans would have had no knowledge of modern biodynamic vineyard techniques and their vines would have been badly affected by insect pests and changes to the weather etc.
The Romans would have primitive methods to control yields. Planting, pruning and harvesting would have been by hand but they probably used horses for some of the harder work.
The Romans did not apply scientific methods in the winery and they had no knowledge of the function of yeast and other microbes in the wine making process. They would have been unaware of winery hygiene so much of the wine would have turned out to be vinegar or tasted rough.
We cannot possibly know what Roman wine tasted like but there is no doubt that it was different. Corks had not been invented so it was unlikely that wine could be matured for any length of time. Most wine would have been stored in clay vats anyway. Some of the wine probably tasted awful by todays standards but we shall never know.
Modern biodynamic wine production methods are a far cry from the past.
We should be careful not to assume that because winemakers use biodynamic methods their wines must be better. I have tasted some pretty ordinary stuff and some of it is only fit to be poured away. Sometimes traditional and natural does not mean better.
We have friends who make wines using biodynamic techniques but they take great care in both the farm and the winery and their products are delicious and above the ordinary; even special. Likewise we know producers that do not use biodynamic techniques and their wines are just as good.
One thing is certain industrialised wine production will not produce exceptional wines that have a unique taste. This does not mean to say that the wines taste bad or are not wholesome; most of them are perfectly acceptable for "everyday drinking" but not for special occasions.
It is, therefore, wise not to rush to conclusions and not to allow prejudice to cloud your judgement. It is also wise to taste the wine, when you visit a winery, before you spend a lot of money and time and effort to transport it home; just make sure you are on to a winner.
Most modern wines have European scions grafted onto American rootstocks to protect the wines from the Phylloxera louse. The Romans had no knowledge of the New World so they would have had no knowledge of Phylloxera infestation of the soil.
The Romans would have had no knowledge of modern biodynamic vineyard techniques and their vines would have been badly affected by insect pests and changes to the weather etc.
The Romans would have primitive methods to control yields. Planting, pruning and harvesting would have been by hand but they probably used horses for some of the harder work.
The Romans did not apply scientific methods in the winery and they had no knowledge of the function of yeast and other microbes in the wine making process. They would have been unaware of winery hygiene so much of the wine would have turned out to be vinegar or tasted rough.
We cannot possibly know what Roman wine tasted like but there is no doubt that it was different. Corks had not been invented so it was unlikely that wine could be matured for any length of time. Most wine would have been stored in clay vats anyway. Some of the wine probably tasted awful by todays standards but we shall never know.
Modern biodynamic wine production methods are a far cry from the past.
We should be careful not to assume that because winemakers use biodynamic methods their wines must be better. I have tasted some pretty ordinary stuff and some of it is only fit to be poured away. Sometimes traditional and natural does not mean better.
We have friends who make wines using biodynamic techniques but they take great care in both the farm and the winery and their products are delicious and above the ordinary; even special. Likewise we know producers that do not use biodynamic techniques and their wines are just as good.
One thing is certain industrialised wine production will not produce exceptional wines that have a unique taste. This does not mean to say that the wines taste bad or are not wholesome; most of them are perfectly acceptable for "everyday drinking" but not for special occasions.
It is, therefore, wise not to rush to conclusions and not to allow prejudice to cloud your judgement. It is also wise to taste the wine, when you visit a winery, before you spend a lot of money and time and effort to transport it home; just make sure you are on to a winner.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)