Confessions of a wine obsessive

I read an article recently by food writer Diana Henry, “Help! I’m the only foodie in the family”, in which she contrasts her love of great food with her partner and children’s more relaxed attitude to it. She plans trips to special restaurants while on holiday, while her husband wonders what’s wrong with the one across the street; one son proclaims that he likes his food “bland, bland, bland”.

I sympathise with Diana’s position and wonder if there is something similar going on in my own family. 

As you might imagine, I find the minutiae of wine infinitely fascinating. My husband likes a glass of wine as much as the next man, and has gratifyingly broad tastes. But he is in no way obsessed with the stuff: his spirit does not instantly lift at the sight of grape vines; he can ask polite questions of winemakers while tasting their wines, but doesn’t feel the need to get to the bottom of exactly what kind of soil the grapes came from, nor the intricacies of the oak ageing regime.

Do I drive my family mad with my non-stop wine monomania? Here is the case for the prosecution.

The wine cupboard is full of inviting-looking bottles, but only I know whence they came and therefore which particular one is suitable for opening tonight.

There is no standing still in the wine world and I am relentless in my pursuit of the new:

Him: This is really nice, why don’t we buy a case of it?

Me: No! We can’t just keep drinking the same thing, what would be the point of that?

I may forget key things on the weekly shopping list, but when it comes to remembering wines I’ve had, my memory is prodigious.

Me: does this wine remind you of anything?

Him: Umm, no.

Me: It’s an Alsace Riesling – we had one very like this at a meal out last year, remember?

Him: (wearing a look of incredulity mixed with blank incomprehension) No.

But would I really like to be married to someone every bit as obsessed with wine as I am? It could get very competitive and, I fear, make us a rather dull couple, with no-one to rein in the endless discussions of fruit character and terroir.

You might think the children of a wine buff would get off lightly, but no.

Camper van actually inside a wine cellar

Holidays are often (OK usually) centred on wine producing areas. On a road trip round France in our camper van, we managed to hit quite a few of them. As we drove through the vineyards of Châteauneuf-du-Pape, I pulled over, clambered out of the van and crouched down among the vines to take pictures of the large pudding stones that cover these famous vineyards.

“What’s mummy doing?”

“Taking pictures of stones.”

Pudding stones in Châteauneuf-du-Pape vineyards

A mile or so further on, I stop again.

“Mummy, why are you taking MORE pictures of stones?”

“These stones are better.”

 

The "better" stones

But there is an upside. The other day we (or more probably just I) were chatting about Champagne. I mentioned “Moët” and my 12 year old casually added “et Chandon” as he helped clear the dinner table. That kind of knowledge will never go to waste.

Another upside - ice cold Champagne at Champagne Novack's own campsite

Digging for gold in the Rhône

There’s a golden rule when buying internationally renowned wines: one third is good, one third is just ok and a third is pretty dire. The trouble is, it’s not necessarily obvious from the price, which of these three you might be faced with.

Wines which fall into this category include Rioja, Sancerre and Châteauneuf-du-Pape. Anyone who’s ever spent twenty quid or more on a lacklustre Meursault from Burgundy has fallen foul of this golden rule. Its corollary is that, on restaurant wine lists, such wines are almost never good value.

The trouble is that such a recognizable name on the label enables lacklustre wines to sell at a price which far outstrips the quality of what’s actually in the bottle.

There are two ways to deal with this situation: one is to keep on buying the big names until you strike gold in the search for quality to match the price you’re paying – a long and possibly expensive process – though not unpleasant. The other is to do a bit of digging and experimentation and find the over achievers who live in the shadows of their more famous neighbours, but over deliver in terms of quality.

Actually there is a third way, which is just to carry on buying the big names, spending big bucks, but not worrying about it because you’re absolutely loaded. But somehow I don’t think you’d be reading this column if this is you – but hey, if you are, please get in touch, I’d love to come round and help you get through your extensive and well-stocked wine cellar.

But back to the more creative approach – how do you get to know who are the star Championship teams who could give many a Premiership side a run for their money?

Let’s take Châteauneuf-du-Pape as an example. At their best, these Grenache-based blends produce wonderfully weighty, intense wines of silky power – but at a price. In order to find value it pays to know a bit about how the French appellation system in the Rhône works. Look, It might be yawnworthy, but it could save you money…

There is a hierarchy of wines in the southern Rhône, a bit like a pyramid. At the bottom layer are wines labelled Côtes du Rhône, which can be made anywhere within the designated vineyard area. These are mostly fairly simple, easy drinking wines.

The next level up is Côtes du Rhône Villages, made from selected areas deemed to make higher quality wines. Often there is quite a step up in quality in such wines – an extra couple of quid will get you plenty more wine for your money.

After this come wines where specific villages are allowed to append their names to the Villages appellation, eg Côtes du Rhône Villages Sablet. There are currently 18 such villages and they generally represent a sweet spot in terms of value for money, with ambitious and high quality producers making wine under such labels.

At the very top of the quality pyramid are the individual villages which have the right to use their name alone on the label. Châteauneuf is of course the most famous, but there are 15 more of these across the entire Rhône valley, 7 of them in the southern Rhône: Rasteau, Vinsobres, Lirac, Tavel (for rosé only), Beaumes de Venise, Gigondas and Vacqueyras.

Now I’m not saying that all the wines from all of these villages are every bit as good as Châteauneuf, or are even necessarily made in the same style. I don’t know about you, but I am innately suspicious of wine merchants who talk about wines made from grapes a “mere stone’s throw” from a more famous neighbour, implying that you can get Châteauneuf quality at Côtes du Rhône prices.

Gigondas is probably the best known village after Châteauneuf  and quality has been rising here for some years. Grenache Noir can make up up to 80% of the blend, with a minimum of 15% of Syrah and/or Mourvèdre.

In Châteauneuf, there are famously 13 different permitted varieties; though most wines are Grenache-dominated blends, with Syrah and/or Mourvèdre in support, but also frequently with Cinsault, which is light in colour but adds lift and perfume.

On paper these two villages make broadly similar wine, but if you were to visit the area (and I strongly recommend you do) you would see a dramatic difference in the terroir. Châteauneuf is broadly a flattish plateau close to the river Rhône, characterised by “galets roulés” or pudding stones; large, rounded stones formed by the action of rivers. 

Gigondas, meanwhile, hugs the side of the Dentelles de Montmirail, jagged outcrops of limestone which loom above the village, like the plates along the spine of a vast stegosaurus. Altitude and aspect clearly have a vital role in determining the style of wines made here. If Châteauneuf is all about suave power, Gigondas is more defined by density of fruit and a definite freshness.

Recommended southern Rhône wines

Domaine Maby, La Fermade, Lirac 2012 - £9.95 from The Wine Society

Unbeatable value for money, from a conscientious producer in a village across the Rhône from Châteauneuf. It conveys warmth and ripeness combined with refreshment.

Domaine Martin 2013, Rasteau - £13.49 from Laithwaite’s

Rasteau was elevated to village/cru status only in 2010, so now is a good time to find wines whose quality is on an upward trajectory, but where the lower profile means prices reflect good value for money. Full, rich and savoury.

Domaine du Grapillon d’Or 2012 Gigondas - £19.99 from Waitrose

A rich mix of Quink and black fruit, with good freshness, even at 14.5% alcohol.

Domaine Richaud 2013 Côtes du Rhône Cairanne – £22.99 from The Wine Reserve in Cobham

The highest price wine here is, in theory, a lower quality level than the others. Purity of fruit, intensity of flavour and elegant structure make this worth the price tag.

US Presidential Election 2012 - and the winner is...

This is not a prediction of the outcome of the election, but the result of an entirely unscientific wine-based version of it, conducted by me here in Surrey with an electorate of just 80 people.

The “candidates” were all bottles of wine, their identities concealed; our electoral college, all members of wine groups belonging to the Fetcham University of the Third Age (U3A).  The voters were equipped with a wine glass, a ballot paper, their noses and tastebuds.

The tasters warmed up with a glass of something cold, pink and sparkling, then the first of the four wine “candidates” was poured.  At this stage of the campaign, all the voters had to do was to choose their favourite two wines and to vote for them, via the usual one person one vote method in a secret(ish) vote.  We were keen to uphold democratic principles.

Instead of the battle buses, debates and TV adverts, the candidates could use only what was in the bottle to get their message across.  We tasted each wine in turn and assessed their relative merits in terms of body, backbone, intensity, character, persistence and so on.  Good qualities for wines, but also, perhaps for those bidding for high office in one of the most powerful nations on earth.

Once all four wines had been tasted, our electorate cast their votes on their ballot papers which were collected in.  While the voters then tucked into a buffet supper, the tellers counted the votes and determined the result of our own version of the US Presidential Election.

When all the votes had been counted, one candidate emerged as a clear winner, thereby taking the President slot.  Second place was closer, with just a single vote separating the two wines competing for Vice President.  The final candidate was adrift by some distance.

Once the two winning wines had been announced, voters were given the kind of information you would expect at a wine-tasting – that is, what wines had they actually been tasting?  I think it’s fair to say that there was something of a surprise amongst the electorate that the cheapest two wines in the line-up had received the most votes.

  

This speaks volumes for the value for money and drinkability of the wines in question.  Out in front was The Winery of Good Hope Shiraz 2011, from South Africa and £7.25 from The Wine Society.  Voters responded to its lively spice-tinged fruit, depth of flavour and balance.

In second place came a white wine from the Abruzzo region of Italy.  The Contesa Pecorino 2011 (£8.95, also The Wine Society) had appealing pear fruit and juicy acidity.

These two wines managed to trump their much more expensive rivals.  

Château Mont-Redon Châteaneuf-du-Pape 2010 (£18.50, The Wine Society) was undoubtedly a well-made and good quality white (yes white Châteauneuf exists), but its relatively subtle fruit and understated charms failed to woo voters.  Fighting hard for second place, but ultimately falling short was Château Picque Caillou 2005, from Pessac-Léognan in Bordeaux (£18, The Wine Society).  Many loved its rich aromas of spiced red fruit and chocolate, but were less charmed by its angular body and dry finish.

What does this, perhaps shock, result show us?  Blind tasting puts wines on an equal footing and each one has to stand or fall on how it comes across to the taster – or voter – on the night.  If the wines had not been tasted blind, would the results have been any different?  I certainly think so.  We can’t help but be swayed by knowing what’s in the bottle, for good or bad.  A look at the label is worth a thousand sniffs, goes the saying.

So much for the wine tasting results.  I have promised you a wine election to mirror the US Presidential one.  Each of the wines tasted equated to a Presidential or Vice Presidential candidate in my mind – any guesses as to who is which?  Some lateral thinking is required!

The most straightforward one was, I think, the winner – the Winery of Good Hope Shiraz equated to Barack Obama.  It references the African origins of his Kenyan father, as well as Obama’s political tome The Audacity of Hope.

The formidable white Châteauneuf-du-Pape was intended to represent Vice President Joe Biden.  The wine’s name translates as the new palace of the Pope and Mr Biden is a notable Catholic.  Told you lateral thinking was required.

The third placed red Bordeaux represented Mitt Romney.  How so?  Romney’s Mormon faith is well documented and adherents often serve as missionaries in locations around the world for two years in their youth.  Romney’s mission took place in 1968 in Bordeaux – et voilà.

If you’ve been paying attention then you’ll know that Paul Ryan, Republican nominee for Vice President, must somehow be symbolised by an Italian white wine made from the Pecorino grape.  As well as being the name of a grape variety, Pecorino is also a type of cheese.  Paul Ryan is a native of, and still lives in, the state of Wisconsin, which makes so much cheese that its residents are colloquially known as cheeseheads.  Easy when you know I suppose.

So, in our entirely spurious election, Barack Obama was convincingly re-elected as President.  If this does come to pass then I will be the first to take the credit.

Rather more problematic is the election as Vice President of Paul Ryan to serve alongside him.  I’m not an expert on the American electoral system but, as far as I know, this would be unlikely, not to say impossible.  But if they can elect Ronald Reagan as President (twice), then never say never.