Favorite wines and wine advice!
 

Since I started the best restaurants thread, and happened to mention my passion for wine (and whisky), many have PM'd me to ask recommendations for good wines when dining. I'd have assumed that most will simply ask the sommeliers and wine directors at the restaurants at which they dine, but it seems that many distrust those for some reason. So I thought I'd start this thread about good and favorite wines to help people better choose or judge when they dine out (or want to purchase wine for eating at home, etc).

First, wine preference is subjective, so there SHOULD be varying opinions. Let's be kind with the opinions shared, even if they don't agree with your own.

Second, my own bias/experience should be mentioned. We live in Orange County, California, and have visited most of the New World wine regions (Napa/Sonoma/Santa Barbara/Paso Robles in California; Margaret River and the Barossa in Australia; Mendoza in Argentina; Central Otaga/Marlborough/Martinborough/Hawke's Bay in New Zealand; Franschhoek/Stellenbosch/Paarl/Constantia in South Africa, etc) on numerous occasions. We also have visited Tuscany, Bordeaux, and Rioja. We intend to visit Chile; Burgundy, Champagne, Alsace, the Rhone (France); Hungary; and the Piedmont and Venice (Italy) in the coming years.

Finally, I am in the midst of completing the UC Davis graduate winemaking certificate program for my own personal edification. Our cellar has wines from all of the above regions, with a focus on those regions we've already visited--as I like to drink wine that reminds me of the place where the grapes were grown as much as possible.

My ten recommendations for drinking and buying wine:

(1) Don't be afraid to rely on sommeliers at the restaurants where you dine! They can often suggest inexpensive wines that best pair with the meal. Just give them a budget and they will always do their best to help.

(2) Don't be afraid to try new wines of which you've never heard. I'd never had Torrentel until in Peru last year, and it was perfectly suited for the meal we had at Astrid y Gaston in Lima. My husband never ventured from Merlot and Chardonnay when we met, and I had to push him to try Pinot Noir, Brunello, Vino Nobile, Barolo, Syrah/Shiraz (same grape, everyone!), Viognier, and Malbec, among so many others. In Italy, just order the local wines and enjoy--they have so many grape varieties that only a sommelier or wine fanatic will ever come close to knowing most of them.

(3) Don't assume because you haven't enjoyed a grape type that you will always dislike that grape--sometimes it's the style used to make the wine from the grape that matters as much as the grape. I used to think I didn't like Chardonnay...hating the buttery, creamy and often woody taste and texture for the most part. That is, until I tried a more Burgundian style Chardonnay that was more crisp and mineral driven. Turns out, I do love Chardonnay--made in the style I prefer.

(4) You don't have to spend a fortune to enjoy a good bottle of wine. For those who love big, bold flavors and assume that a California Napa Cabernet or blend is the best bet, you'd be surprised to discover that many California Central Coast Syrah's are just as big and powerful (and alcoholic!). For those who like delicate wines, there are many excellent examples around the world to appease you for much less than a Burgundy!

(5) You pay for hype and label (and sometimes ageability) more than how good the wine might actually taste when you spend on pricier wine bottles. I often tell friends that the more expensive the wine, the more likely it is very much in demand and/or has a better track record of aging better than other wines--so a younger example is usually not worth the money. Seeing a 2010 Bordeaux on a wine list might seem impressive until you realize that the 2010 Bordeaux isn't likely to reach reasonable drinkability for another 4-5 years at the earliest! Don't pay for expensive YOUNG wines unless you know that vintage or winemaker and know it somehow can be decanted to approach better drinkability. Often, a less expensive wine that has some bottle age (to a point) can be the better drinking wine. I never order Opus One--it's a fine wine, but there are many comparable examples that cost much less and which may be better IMO (like Pahlmeyer at almost half the price). Opus One is well known and marketed well, so many make the mistake that it's better. Not necessarily.

(6) Don't be intimidated by wine vocabulary--they're just fancy words! (Doctors and lawyers and those in science will understand this very well.) Tasting notes detect flavors and nuances that you might not, and that's OK. Some of us use different words to describe the same flavors and nuances without realizing that fact, and no one's vocabulary is better than another's. You enjoy what you enjoy.

As a corollary to wine vocabulary, don't be freaked out by the names of wines. In New World wine countries (USA, Australia, Argentina, South Africa, New Zealand, etc), we name our wines by the grape for the most part; in the Old World wine countries (France, Italy, Spain, Germany, Hungary, etc), they name the wines by the region/town...and each region/town is only legally permitted to grow certain grapes (so many will realize the grape because of that). A red Burgundy is always a Pinot Noir; a white Burgundy is always a Chardonnay. A red Rhone is a Syrah based wine (with some Granache or Mouvedre thrown in sometimes!). Syrah and Shiraz are the same thing. Bordeaux reds always have one or more of Cabernet Sauvignon, Cabernet Franc, Merlot, Petit Verdot, and/or Malbec. You will figure this out over time. If in doubt, ask!

(7) Older wines aren't necessarily better for everyone! My husband loves the youth and fruit of a younger Chardonnay; I love that, too, but sometimes I crave the caramel and nuttiness of an older Chardonnay/white Burgundy. My husband loves younger Cabernet/red blends that are very fruit forward, but he also enjoys the older reds that lose some fruit but get scorched earth and forest floor type of flavors that are often hidden by the fruit in younger red wines. Experiment with less pricey wines to see if you even like older wines--if you don't, you can save yourself a bundle by sticking to less expensive wines that are on the younger side!

(8) Don't be afraid to ask for a younger red wine to be decanted. Or decant it yourself if you're at home. Do it when you first get to the restaurant or hours before you want to drink it at home. You will be surprised how much airing out the younger red wine can do to change and ehance its flavor.

(9) Don't get stuck on preferring red or white. A good wine is a good wine! There are many bigger white wines that pair with meats and there are many lighter reds that pair with fish, so don't believe those old rules from a simpler (and less worldly) time. When you're recommended a white, try it! How else will you learn? When you're recommended a red, try it--not all red wines have the rough tannins or sulfites that can give you headaches--here, spending a little more can help alleviate that problem, as cheaper red wines are more likely to have harder tannins and sulfites. The food you're eating has more to do with the choice of best wine than your palate, believe it or not.

(10) You've likely never lived until you've enjoyed a perfect wine pairing with a food dish. It can be shocking when you finally experience a great pairing. I normally detest mackerel fish, especially when only barely cooked, but the mackerel I had paired with a white wine (identity forgotten, alas) at Geranium in Copenhagen made magic. I normally don't like sweet wines, either, but the Sauternes I had at the Hotel Nimb gastronomic restaurant in Copenhagen when paired with the black licorice dessert was an extraordinary explosion of perfection in my mouth. THIS is one of the best reasons to listen to your sommelier or advice from your wine shop.

Points 4 and 5 are paramount, IMHO. Unfortunately, based upon their post in the thread about average spend for a bottle of wine, it would appear that the OP themselves don't appear to follow them, given their predilection for the Bryant, Colgin, and Harlan cabs, Sine Qua Non Rhone varietals, and the most expensive Argentine Malbecs that can be found in the U.S - each of which is on the short list of the priciest, most hyped wines of their respective types that one can buy.

My personal advice for the OP would be to try tasting some of their most favored wines blind, against some well chosen alternatives with similar styles but less prodigious price tags. It might be very enlightening to them.

Easy there, fella! I believe what I say...but we happen to have the good fortune to be able to afford more than most. Just because we love some very expensive wines doesn't mean that we think all expensive wines are better. In my experience, those who cast stones in this regard are revealing more envy than anything else. Yes, I love Harlan and Colgin and Sine Qua Non...but I also love Carmenere that is cheap! But carmeneres don't age well, nor do they have the complexity that I sometimes love or the ability to age well for decades. Our Harlans etc. have mostly been sitting and aging since our first purchases in the early 2000s...since I don't think it's worth it to drink them much when younger--and comparable to wines that cost a third of the price. I've tried a bottle or two here and there to see how they're aging, but I want to see where they go, as I love the secondary and tertiary flavors hidden by the massive fruit. Less pricey wines often have that fruit but rarely can go quite the distance with age and complexity let alone those follow-up flavors.

If we only liked big names, we'd have continued ordering Araujo, Futo, Sloan, Kapcsandy, Kistler, etc. we used to, but we stopped and put our wine dollars into other wines--we just didn't like them as much as others.

That being said, our wine cellar is mostly made up of wines that cost between $50 and $150, much less than those big name wines. I love Meerlust's Rubicon from South Africa, which costs $45 from our local retailer. My husband prefers jaysen (from Pahlmeyer), especially their Chardonnay, while I am not as big a fan--too buttery in some vintages for me. For years, we had Truchard as our house Chardonnay, since it was so good. Then we tried Aubert's first vintage of Chardonnay, and that was the end of most others for us--I can drink his Chardonnay anytime, anywhere, and I don't care that it's expensive...as it's still much cheaper than most comparable Burgundies.

Careful how you judge is what I am trying to impart.

Sorry, but someone who drinks Colgin and Bryant and Harlan cabs and Sine Qua None, has no business lecturing people about drinking Opus One - all of them are on the short list of over-hyped, over-priced wines. You don't get that EXACTLY what you said about Opus One applies every bit as equally to those wines?

BTW, Colgin and Bryant cabs in particular are not even especially ageworthy wines. They are vinified to be showy early on in their lives, and they have that precisely in common with Opus One.

Might I suggest some Ch. Leoville Las Cases, or Ch. Montrose, or Ch. Gruaud Larose, or Ch. Pichon Baron Longueville, if you want some really ageworthy cabernet that's actually worth the money, and will taste better after 15-20 years of cellaring than they do at age 5. Among California wines, try some Forman, or Ch. Montelena Estate, or Dominus - at age 20.

To each, their own. IMO, Opus One is a solid wine that is ridiculously overpriced and only the result of massive marketing and promotion. For its price point, there are hundreds of Bordeaux type California red blends that taste as good and age as well or are as complex or more that cost substantially less. Your attempt to compare my scourge against the single example of Opus One is a bad analogy. I've converted so many people who loved Opus One only to discover a superior and less expensive Pahlmeyer that I honestly lost count. Opus One is a fine wine...but in any category you care to name, there are far too many better wines that cost less. Trying to assuage yourself by calling out my opinion on Opus One in that regard is fairly pitiful, as you and I both know I'm not wrong.

The French wines you've suggested are wonderful wines. YOU think they are better, and that's great! Unfortunately, I don't agree. French wines typically MUST be aged 8-10 years at least before they even approach the drinkability of most California cabs/blends after just a year or two--and for the truly age requiring Bordeaux, they really don't drink as well for 15 years IMO. If you don't like bold fruit, then I can understand the appreciation for them--but I find most California cabs/blends to be more my style. Have I had some Bordeaux that are amazing? Absolutely--but usually, for comparable quality, the Bordeaux costs much more--largely because of crazier demand more than better quality. The lower alcohol for Bordeaux used to be their best selling point compared to Napa/California, but that has changed in the past decade. I could buy some of those you suggested for less than a Harlan or Colgin, perhaps, but I couldn't even try to drink them in 5-10 years and enjoy the French wines...but I could enjoy the California wines with a little decanting. The Hundred Acre I can enjoy in a year or two, something none of your French examples permit. For ME, that makes them better. I'm quite comfortable if you don't agree. You buying more French wines means more California wine for me, and vice-versa.

You may love Bordeaux, and based on your own assault on my preferences I could call you out for simply loving Bordeaux because it sounds more prestigious. While that may or may not be true, that is the equivalent of what you tried to say about me and the wines I prefer. Of course, I don't need to stoop to that level. you may simply prefer Bordeaux, in which case I say more power to you. Unfortunately, I far prefer most top long lived Napa cabs or blends over most French wines--and I've had several trips to Bordeaux and consumed plenty of Bordeaux over the years for me to make that determination for myself. I don't think most French wine is better than California wines...except for Burgundy.

Whether one shares the OP's taste in wines or not, I think it's uncalled for to go on the attack against them. I would cheekily note that Rubicon in South Africa does have a similar reputation for being overpriced and overmarketed :)

Let's get back to the spirit of the thread - my first 2 cents contribution would be to get to know some of the less well known European countries (Georgia, Slovenia, Hungary, minor French regions, Sud-Tyrol, etc.) as they often make great wine and because they are less well known they have lower mark-ups in restaurants than better known regions (particularly Bordeaux in London).

I wasn't referring to long-lived Napa Cabs. I was specifically referring to Colgin and Bryant - which are pointedly NOT - and which are at least as over-hyped as Opus One. And you'll notice that I did NOT mention any first growth Bordeaux - I mentioned other classed growths that are, IMHO, typically of the same quality as first growths, but substantially less costly. IMHO. And BTW, I generally prefer Napa Cabs to Bordeaux if I want a wine that's less than 20 years old, and I don't buy Bordeaux anymore because it has, in general, gotten over-priced in the past 10-20 years, and I probably won't live long-enough to appreciate the ageworthiness of recent vintages (But I have plenty of wines from the 1970s through 1990 in my cellar. My comments and the wines I specifically mentioned were specifically to address YOUR desire for ageworthiness in Cabernets, which you directly contradicted yourself by mentioning a couple of the most over-priced NON-ageworthy wines that come out of California, in the Bryant and Colgin cabernets.

If YOU had not made a direct attack on the choices of people who drink Opus One - because of it's hype to value ratio, I would not have levied the identical critique on you for your choice of the Colgin and Bryant wines. I'm simply pointing out that that was hypocritical. Someone with YOUR preferences really shouldn't be lecturing others on their preferences. The fact is, you haven't mentioned a SINGLE wine that isn't a hyped, trendy label. And you claimed to want ageworthy wines, yet dismiss the wines that really are, in favor of some of the most hyped, NON-ageworthy labels out there. That's why I'm skeptical of you posting advice for choosing wines on their "value". Even among Argentine Malbecs - a category that's rampant with great wines that cost $15-$50, you only mentioned the two most expensive Malbecs available in the U.S.

ALL: I will never understand why threads about alcohol tend to bring out incivility and snark, but I would remind everyone who might be inclined to contribute to this thread that one can state one's thoughts, opinions, and even disagreement civilly, respectfully, and without snark.

Failure to to so will lead to thread closure and worse.

Thank you.

Closed for moderator review.

cblaisd
Co-Moderator, Dining Buzz

We will have to agree to disagree. I don't think there is any value to Opus One in comparison to an enormous array of comparable quality wines, both young and aged, that cost substantially less. While you see my "attack" on Opus One as being comparable to yours on me for having Colgin and Bryant, I don't see it that way. Please also note that I didn't mention any our wines in THIS thread AT ALL; you are co-opting this thread to comment on posts I made on ANOTHER THREAD.

Colgin (of which we order much but not all of our allocation) and Bryant (of which we order very little, maybe a bottle or two except in exceptional vintage years due to its price relative to other 100% cabs that we prefer more) are certainly expensive--but there are few New World cabs/cab blends that can compete with these for complexity, ageability, and boldness of flavor IMO, especially at a significantly lower price point. There are FAR more wines that cost less yet offer the same quality as Opus One IMO.

I was not lecturing when I offered my opinion on a single wine, Opus One. I offered my opinion in a short statement. You have argued with me about this since I shared my opinion. Yet you haven't once shared anything to disagree with my assessment of Opus One. You simply expounded on my Opus One assessment and delivered commentary on many other wines. My posted advice at the beginning of this thread is perfectly appropriate advice for any wine consumer, and you even agreed with some of my points. I'm not sure other than my opinion of Opus One where we disagree on the advice I provided in this original post.

In fact, I hadn't mentioned ANY wine other than Opus One below in this thread. You are mentioning wines I mentioned ordering in ANOTHER THREAD. I have yet to dismiss any non-ageworthy labels here or elsewhere. The only label I've dismissed here is Opus One, which is ageworthy but incredibly overpriced and overrated IMO. I have repeatedly asserted that not all people enjoy aged wines, and so it makes complete sense for them to purchase less pricey wines that don't have the track record to age--since they don't care about aging them! I've not done what you've asserted, but I believe your dislike of my opinion of Opus One has colored the rest of our exchange.

You are entitled to be as skeptical as you choose to be. Just because I happen to have a negative opinion of Opus One relative to many other better wines/values and happen to enjoy the ageworthiness and qualities of the expensive wines I mentioned does not mean my advice on choosing wines for their "value" relative to people's tastes/preferences/budget isn't appropriate.

Yes, there are MANY malbecs that are wonderful for much less than we pay--and I've never stated otherwise! You have somehow interpreted my opinion for Opus One and have applied it to all other wines as if I've commented on other wines...and I have not. I love the boldness and density of the Malbecs we order more than others; other people might not similarly like those qualities or not want to pay for them, or find other less expensive Malbecs more exciting than I do. I'm fine with that and I've said so. There is no perfect taste or style that is absolutely better.

I think my opinion on Opus One somehow got us off on the wrong foot. Just because I dislike Opus One and think it's overrated doesn't mean I think that of any other particular wine. To be honest, I can't think of another specific wine that I've had the good fortune to try that I can compare to Opus One in being so overrated for me.

Otherwise, you sound like you also have a great deal of experience with wine, and I think that's great. I'm happy to engage with you about our differences of opinion. But that doesn't change the fact that I think Opus One is incredibly overpriced and overrated.

The only wine opinion that matters, in the end, is that of the drinker!

I agree. Thanks!

So you agree that someone who enjoys Opus One and thinks it's worth the cost has an opinion that's every bit as valid as someone who enjoys Colgin and Bryant and thinks they are worth the money?

In any case, I wouldn't give much credence to EITHER of those people when they purport to give guidance to others on buying wines based upon "value". It's one thing to have an opinion, and to hold to it, irrespective of how popular it is. It's quite another appoint one's self as a maven of unsolicited wine advice, when one doesn't even follow that advice themselves, as the OP did with this thread. Maybe if someone PMs you asking for wine advice, you can PM them back, instead of posting a thread that implies you have any qualifications to be giving such advice broadly to the audience at large, just because you drink some of the most expensive wines that are out there in every category and you've taken some courses at Davis.

And again, I was only pointing out that Opus One is not any more over-hyped and over-priced than Bryant and Colgin. If your critique of Opus One and the folks who enjoy it has validity - accept the fact it has no MORE validity than the identical critique applied to those wines, which are even MORE costly than Opus One, while not being any more ageworthy. The fact is, the analogy of Opus One with Bryant and Colgin is EXACTLY on point, they are three peas in a pod, with one difference: Opus one would be a perfectly decent wine if it cost 1/4 as much as it does.

BTW, I'm not a big fan of Opus One either - but I would be if it cost $60 to $80 a bottle (I've generally felt that Mondavi's Reserve Cabernet was better value). OTOH, I wouldn't choose to drink Bryant or Colgin even if they were in that price range, as opposed to being vastly more expensive than that.

If you like Opus One, have at it! I still think you can find many less expensive wines that offer even better taste that you'd enjoy more. But if you don't think so, then so be it. I'll respect that you might like Opus One more than I do.

As I said, it's not worth what it costs. It is a better wine than Colgin and Bryant are, but none of them are even remotely close to wines I would choose to buy and drink.

The Napa Cabs I buy, cellar, and drink are:

Chateau Montelena Estate, Forman, Robert Sinskey Reserve, Siverado Vineyards Reserve, Stags Leap Wine Cellars SLV, Grgich Hills, Franciscan Magnificat, Dominus, Niebaum Coppola Rubicon, Joseph Phelps Eisele Vineyards, Signorello.

In earlier vintages (say 1970s and 80s) I would add: Sterling Reserve (back when Rick Forman made the wines, from '74 to '78), Diamond Creek - all vineyards, BV Georges de LaTour Reserve, and Mondavi Reserve (invariably better than Opus One, at half the price), and Caymus Estate (I stopped when they started to bottle ALL of their Estate cab as Special Selection at triple the price).

The '78 Sterling Reserve Cabernet - Ric Forman's last wine at Sterling - remains the finest California Cabernet I've ever consumed. I have bought it in 750s, Magnums, Double Magnums, and 6-Liter. I still own 2 Magnums, 1 Double Magnum, and the 6 Liter - the 750s are gone, but the last one I had a few years ago was fading. I paid an average of $27 per 750 ml bottle of the stuff, mostly bought at auctions. Ten years ago, I put a magnum of it in as a ringer in a tasting of First Growth Bordeaux from the '70s through 1990 vintage, and it was the consensus best wine of the tasting, ahead of '82 Latour, '82 Lafite, and '86 Mouton. The 6-liter bottle, which I paid less than $300 for about 18 years ago, is, quite simply, the treasure of my cellar - which I prize over some high end Burgundies and classified growth Bordeaux that are worth 4-digit prices now.

You are committing several fallacies in your comments.

First, I haven't appointed myself as anything other than someone offering advice (as with all advice constantly provided on FT!). If you don't like the advice , you are welcome to ignore it. Yet you are arguing with me about not the advice but about posts I made on another thread. The two are not related.

Second, I do follow my own advice--but in a different price range than you might, perhaps. I said:

That doesn't mean that all expensive bottles are not good! That also doesn't mean that a more expensive wine might not be better--just that that isn't necessarily true for everyone. Just because I like some expensive wines, too, doesn't mean I'm not following my own advice.

What would suggest that I'm not following this advice is if I only drank very expensive wines relative to what I can afford. Since I can afford quite a bit, I buy very expensive wines like Harlan and Colgin (cellared so they can age a long time) and much less expensive wines like Pahlmeyer and Jaysen. That may be a more expensive range for you, but it's still quite a range--from $550 Harlan to $48 Jaysen red. Yet I rarely purchase the super expensive Bordeaux (I have 3 bottles of 2005 Chateau Margaux, for example, but also 6 bottles of 2005 Pape Clement that I got from Costco!) I love Saxum syrahs and Dehlinger pinots, costing from $35-85, and these are far less expensive than any Rhone or Burgundy wines. If I can afford $550 for Harlan, then I can also afford $300 for many Rhones and Burgundies--but I choose the cheaper US options because I prefer them (and because they're less expensive!).

I also offered:

I stand by what I said, as I follow what I've said--relative to MY experience, and maybe not yours. I have available to me First Growth Bordeaux and most of the Grand Cru Burgundies, but I rarely purchase those (I've never purchased a Grand Cru or Premier Cru Burgundy for our cellar, in fact, other than rarely at a restaurant). I choose the wines that I LIKE the most for the price points I can afford...and almost always choose the less expensive of those when I like them comparably. Your version of hype is awfully all-encompassing, but it is not global. In your experience, all of my wines might be "hyped" but in Newport Beach where I live, I am am the exception that doesn't place stock in the Bordeaux and Burgundies that everyone around me can afford and has.

You are making the mistake of judging my wine tastes as being based on hype and price when that is not the case. There often is a reason why some wines are hyped and cost more--and that doesn't make them a bad wine! You are assuming that all wines that are expensive are wastes, and that is your prerogative. But that isn't a fait accompli by any stretch of the imagination.

Opus One costs $235 per bottle. Pahlmeyer Proprietary Red costs $150 per bottle--or $85 less, the same amount less that you would pay for Opus. For us as members of the Pahlmeyer Club, it is $127.50 for every bottle. I spend less for a less hyped but better wine. You also don't like Opus One. I rest my case.

No problem! I don't encourage anyone to spend more than they're comfortably able to afford for wine--as I said originally below (and repeated above) in my advice. But the fact that we're fortunate enough to be able to afford to drink Colgin and Bryant and the like doesn't make us into hype or name, either. You're begrudging us the ability to purchase the wine that WE can comfortably afford to buy with your comments--as if somehow being able to afford such wine is obviously bereft of all reason. When you can afford such wine prices, you can either simply buy by the hype or buy by the preference, and we buy by preference. We love Colgin (and Bryant less). We can afford Colgin. So we buy Colgin--among many, many other wines, most of which is much less expensive. That doesn't mean my advice is any less sound.