Tag Archives: Ruwer

Tasting with Friends: Unexpected Pinot Noirs

It had been way too long since we conducted one of our fairly regular wine tastings with friends. The rules are always the same: The host sets a topic (we did “European Reds“, “Strange Fruit“, “French and Argentinian Malbecs“, “Michigan vs. Mosel” and others in the past; you can find links to all of them here), and then guests bring a wine bottle each. The wines are usually accompanied by cheeses and meats, and as of late we try to taste them blindly.

Two of our friends had to move out of town for work, so we had been missing them dearly. When one of them came to town for a visit, we made sure to have a tasting. Since I was hosting, I had the honor of setting the rules. I called the tasting “Unexpected Pinot Noirs” and explained that I would like to try Pinot not from France or the U.S. usual suspects Oregon and California (but guests were free to ignore that rule). I am a huge fan of Pinot Noir and was looking for a chance to expand my palate.

We paired the wines with cheeses and meats from my local go to sausage maker Biercamp. These guys just know what they are doing: I got several bacons thinly sliced, including duck and lamb bacon, a wonderful garlic and herbs de Provence sausage with a nice kick, as well as smoke sticks from them. Delicious pairing options for sure.

Blind tasting has its own trappings, and I am always a bit weary of it because it is the most humbling experience you can imagine. You try to whittle down where the wine is from, and while doing that more often than not I convince myself that it is a particular style or region or vintage and then look for arguments to support that, thus closing off my mind. Nina tends to be way better than me at picking up nuances and determining characteristics about wine. She definitely owns me in blind tastings, and so it was with this one:

A Pinot from the Ruwer valley

A Pinot from the Ruwer valley

The first wine we tried was a German Pinot Noir (called Spätburgunder, literally “late Burgundy”), a 2010 Heinrich Mertes Waldracher Meisenberg Cuveé Lara. My friend Mansoo had sent me this bottle a while back (as well as the other bottle we entered into the race), and I was eager to try it. Heinrich Mertes winery is located in the Ruwer valley, a small tributary to the Mosel river. The wine showed a medium-light red color. The nose was perfumy with currants and some heat. It wasn’t exciting at all. The heat was actually quite disturbing. On the palate, though, this wine shone: raspberry, red currant and tobacco aromas, and an awesome kick of acidity. The puzzling and intriguing thing about this wine was that the fruit tasted very ripe, yet the acidity kept it wonderfully fresh. This was a strong beginning. The nose not so much, but the flavor profile was awesome. For me, the acidity gave it away: Because I knew there was a 2010 from Germany in the race, a year with quite high acidity in general, I took my chances and guessed right (so did Nina).

Quite the label, huh?

Quite the label, huh?

Next up, a 2007 Arno Kruft Veldenzer Grafschafter Sonnenberg from the Mosel (our second entry). The color was in stark contrast to the first wine: dark, purplish red. The nose showed wet dirt, some rotting branches and what others described as compost aromas. Not very pleasant. I think the compost descriptor came from hyper-ripe fruit aromas, but I couldn’t nail down which fruit. On the palate, the first noticeable thing was that it was way chewier than the first wine. It also was somewhat smoky, with cherries and cranberry aromas as well as a bit of vanilla. In my mind, this was totally a new world Pinot with a lot of the characteristics I have encountered in some California Pinot Noir: too potent, too strong, no restraint. But I want my Pinot Noir less potent, less strong and with more restraint. I did not like this wine. I guessed it was from somewhere pretty warm, and definitely new world. Boy was I wrong.

Michigan high end winery with South African winemaker

Michigan high end winery with South African winemaker

The third wine of the evening was a 2012 Brys Estate Old Mission Peninsula Pinot Noir from Michigan. Apparently, Michigan winemakers consider 2012 one of the best Pinot Noir vintages yet, so this should be exciting. The color on this one was gorgeous: a red currant red, darker than wine 1, much lighter than wine 2. The nose was flowery, with some strawberry, rather intense smoke, but seemed quite closed at this point. On the palate, the wine felt creamy and heavy, which gave it a wonderful mouthfeel. But it is a mouthfeel I don’t expect or particularly cherish in a Pinot Noir, which I want more light footed and delicate. Still a solid showing. Nina guessed Michigan correctly, I had no clue.

Another established Michigan winery

Another established Michigan winery

Up next, a 2011 Black Star Farms Arcturos  Pinot Noir, also from Michigan. Again, the color was spectacular, a bright and shiny red currant. The nose was full of roses, almonds and cedar wood, with hints of red berries. I thought the nose was gorgeous. The palate also started off nicely, with spice and pepper aromas, and a light footed feel to it. But then the palate turned out to be a bit harsh: There were bitter aromas kicking in that were rather striking. It also felt like the wine had a bit too much alcohol (which was not the case, we checked later and it clocked in at only 12% ABV, but felt more like 14), and that really turned me off. I couldn’t get over the harshness in the wine. My guess was, because of the perceived high alcohol, a warm climate wine, maybe Southern Italy.

A New Zealand surprise and an Oregon Pinot

A New Zealand surprise and an Oregon Pinot

Second to last came a 2011 Oya Pointe Pinot Noir from New Zealand’s Marlborough Valley. New Zealand has definitely gained some serious street cred for its Pinot production. The color was similar to the previous wine, and the nose was awesome: strawberry jam with rosemary and sage aromas. It was crazy, but good crazy! I loved it. The palate was very herbal as well, thyme, rosemary and sage aromas, with strong acidity with some iron aromas, great lightness to it and some red berries. This was very unique and therefore impressive wine. I hadn’t come across such an herbal Pinot before. This was an exciting wine. Because of the iron aroma that I had come across before in an Oregon Pinot Noir, I decided to guess Oregon…

The final wine was a 2012 Grochau Cellars Commuter Cuveé Pinot Noir from Oregon’s Willamette Valley. The color was more purplish, maybe black currant. The nose was chalky, intensely perfumy, with cocoa aromas. On the palate, the wine seemed rather bland: some cherries, some strawberries, plum, not very expressive though. Straight-out fruit forward style, but all a bit thin. I would not have recognized it as a Pinot Noir if I hadn’t know it had to be one, maybe more of a Grenache or so. I just didn’t find much that excited me about this wine. Not bad, but quite standard. My guess, because it was a bit heavy, was California.

So, recap: My guesses were mostly off. My ranking of the wines from best to least favorite, is 1 (2010 German), 5 (2011 New Zealand), 4 (2011 Michigan), 3 (2012 Michigan) and 2 (2007 Germany) and 6 (Oregon) – the last two share the spot, I couldn’t decide.

Combined with the others rankings (6 points for favorite down to 1 point for least favorite), this is the likability ranking:

First place: 2010 Heinrich Mertes Cuveé Lara – 23 points (ranked first by three people out of four)

Second place: 2011 Oya Pointe Pinot Noir (New Zealand) – 17 points (ranked second twice)

Third place: 2012 Brys Pinot Noir and 2011 Black Star Farms Arcturos Pinot Noir – 16 points each (with the Arcturos being ranked first once)

Fifth place: 2012 Grochau Cellars Commuter Cuveée Pinot Noir – 6 points

Sixth place: 2007 Arno Kruft Veldenzer Grafschafter Sonnenberg – 5 points (ranked last by three out of four)

The tasting was fun, and it was kind of interesting to have a German Pinot Noir ranked first and last. The Heinrich Mertes was just such a great expression of the grape, to me it was a rather easy winner. The New Zealand Pinot Noir was unique in a good way, expressing some aromas that were unfamiliar, yet seemed befitting to the grape.

The pretty clear winner

The pretty clear winner

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A Bit of a Detective Story: 1989 Kaseler Nies’chen Riesling Auslese

1989 SMW Kaseler Nies'chen Auslese

1989 SMW Kaseler Nies’chen Auslese

This post is inspired by my fellow bloggers’ writings in the Monthly Wine Writing Challenge #3, which just concluded and featured articles around the theme “possession”.  A common thread in most posts was the idea of how possession of wines is only fully realized when they are consumed. But not just alone, but shared with friends, fellow wine lovers or loved ones (this theme hit me especially forceful in Anatoli’s entry as well as John, The Wine Raconteur’s piece)… My buddy Jeff, The Drunken Cyclist, posted something about how to deal with your wine possessions and I literally exclaimed in the comments section that the most important rule was not to wait for special occasions, in my view, a special wine IS the occasion on any given night. So let me reiterate: If you have a special bottle stashed away somewhere and you are still waiting for that right moment to open it, why not make tonight that night?

The articles inspired me to search my modest cellar for a special bottle that I had been keeping there for a while: A bottle of 1989 Kaseler Nies’chen Riesling Auslese (and its twin, I actually have two bottles of this wine). So much about this wine is special: I received these bottles in a special shipment from my friend ManSoo (who confided that this was at the time – spring 2013 – his favorite wine), the label itself is special (as you can see), the year is very special, especially for a German, and a more than 20 year old Riesling is special anyway…but label and bottle also caused some head-scratching, which I will let you in on in a minute. Very dear friends of ours had invited us for dinner, and I decided it was a great occasion to bring this wine because one of them loves aged Rieslings and the other loves Riesling of any kind.

As I unearthed one of the bottles (yeah, my holdings are not very well sorted at all…), I paused and looked at the label. The photo of the Berlin Wall coming down is still giving me chills. To this day, 24 years later, I remember my dad calling my brother and me downstairs so we could see the live footage that fateful night of November 8/November 9, 1989 when the Berlin Wall came down. I remember his tears, although we didn’t even have relatives in East Germany. The next days were crazy, with teachers only talking about this, no matter the subject. It was all very emotional. So naturally, the label touched a very soft spot for me.

But there is some mystery to this wine when you look closely. The bottle mentions Saar Mosel Winzersekt, a cooperative, as the wine’s shipper, not bottler. So the label was attached by the cooperative and is probably sold by the cooperative, but it was not made by it. Who made it?

The clue came when I pulled the cork: There emerged a coat of arms, and the name “Erben von Beulwitz”, which is a winery in the Ruwer valley with significant holdings in the vineyard Kaseler Nies’chen. So that settled that. The wine was made by Erben von Beulwitz winery, but somehow some of it ended up receiving this special label by the cooperative. How? I have no clue…

Then, while drinking the wine and looking at the label again, I realized that there was something else that was odd. I’ve written before about the AP number, a special number that needs to be printed on every bottle of wine produced in Germany. You can read more about it here, where I explained that concept in detail. But to cut things short: Every bottling in Germany gets a unique number and sample bottles of these bottlings have to be retained in order to ensure the quality and that no fakes are being made. The AP number’s last two digits stand for the year in which the wine was approved as wine. Usually, that is one or two years after the vintage. So for a 1989 you would expect to see a “90” or “91” at the most. However, this label shows the digits “99”, which means it was only submitted for review and approval in 1999, ten years after the grapes were harvested!

Now I am not sure whether the wine spent that long in steel tanks or barrels (which seems unlikely but what do I know?) or whether it was bottled but never labelled and therefore only submitted for review when the labels were attached…

I love these detective instincts that labels can and wines can trigger. This was a special case, because usually it is confined to checking out the vineyard and winemaker, trying to see where in particular the grapes are coming from. This one had several weird clues, and I relished investigating them. There is so much to wines!

Needless to say, the wine was really yummy. Everyone around the table seemed to enjoy it, and I had a particularly great time because I love it when my friends have one of my treasured Riesling moments. I have no descriptors or any of that sort today, will save that for a later date when I drink the second bottle. Today is just an exercise in investigative wine journalism…

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,
%d bloggers like this: