The other Rachel likes to request wine blogs for the holidays. She forgot to remind me this year, and here I am writing the Thanksgiving blog literally a few days away from Thanksgiving. The last couple of days I've been snowed in and listening to NPR nonstop and all the programs have featured chefs sharing their turkey day tips, which reminded me of the wine blog I usually do. This year? A tad different--a few wine tips as well as my turkey tip.

WINES

this is repetitive if you've read my blogs before, especially about the holidays; but some things don't change. Our holiday meals--no matter what your protein choice is (turkey, salmon, lamb, ham, prime rib, tofurkey)--are sweet. We have more fruit on the table than we tend to--cranberry relish/jelly, dried fruits in our stuffing (dressing) or salads. The vegetables served are sweet to taste--roasted squash, pumpkin or sweet potatoes. Even the non-sweet dishes have a sweetness to them because they're so saturated in butter and cream--mashed potatoes, creamed green beans. And of course the deserts--pecan pie, pumpkin pie, roasted apples--even tend to be more sweet than say rich, chocolate based desserts. Obviously, not everyone has a traditional turkey dinner on thanksgiving--lots of people step outside the box choosing an ethnic theme (indian, chinese, thai). But even when this is done it seems our thanksgiving meals, no matter what we do, still tends to be richer and sweeter than a normal family dinner. Besides, while some people do vere away from the traditional, most do not. My family likes to do all kinds of crazy things for Christmas (last year we had a soup buffet--pots of different soup, freshly made bread and salad)...but thanksgiving we don't mess with. We all like turkey once a year. We LOVE cranberries in any form. Most of us like sweet potatoes (not in the marshmallow mess--but the kids LOVE the marshmallow mess), green beans (not creamed style, just steamed with butter)...rolls, gravy...etc. Our dinner doesn't tend to be as sweet as the traditional thanksgiving meal, but it's still sweet. And rich. And lots of food.

I just took time to write an entire paragraph about how Thanksgiving meals are indeed sweet and rich. Why? Because when I worked in wine shops I would mention this fact and people would shake their heads 'no' saying that their thanksgiving meal wasn't sweet--they hated marshmallows with sweet potatoes. OR made a cranberry relish with very little sugar...or what have you. Once we started to talk in depth about their meal they would slowly come to the realization that the meal is sweet and rich. There's the anti-sugar, healthy movement so we don't want to admit that this meal is indeed unhealthy, sweet and rich. So get over it, and realize your meal is all of the above.

So why is this fact so important? Because if you think about all these sides--which really makes the meal more than whatever your protein source is--would you want to serve a big tannic red with it? If you answered yes, well then stop reading--buy your over-the-top wine and enjoy.

If you answered no, then we're on the same track.

Try to have both reds and whites. Both will be good with the meal at different parts. And these meals tend to involve many people--some will prefer red, some will prefer white and it's nice to have options.

Whites:
Off-dry would probably be best with this meal. This means that the wines have a touch of residual sugar. This won't conflict with the sweetness of the meal--whereas really dry whites will have a sour affect on a meal of this nature. Wines that are typically off dry--the Germans; Riesling, siegerrebe (relative to gewurztraminer), gewurztraminer, and Muller-Thurgau. These wines would all be great with your meal and the needn't come from Germany. There are great Rieslings, siegerrebe, gewurztraminers and Muller-Thurgaus produced, here in the US. What's nice about all these is that they should go as well with your main meal as with your desserts.

Reds:
Low tannic wines--so we'll go spanish; granacha, tempranillo, monastrell. I would recommend looking in the Spanish section of your favorite wine shop/grocery store. No need to spend a lot of money on your thanksgiving wines--and spanish wines offer a great value, as well as the right flavor profile. However garnacha (grenache) from france, australia or domestic (that means the US) would all fit the bill. Grenache is probably thanksgiving's perfect wine--mellow, fruity, smooth. Of course, Pinot Noir is another great thanksgiving wine for similar qualities, but expect to pay more. If you're a traditionalist and only like to look--or can only find--the big three red wines (for us here in the USA)--think light merlot and syrah over cabernet sauvignon.

 

Extras:

PINK! Pink wine is great for thanksgiving--not talking white zin, although you can do worse for thanksgiving is that's a favorite. But more along the lines of dry rose's. Might have to look in the french section for such things, especially from Rhone or Provence--but there are a lot more pink wines out there then there used to be. Some really nice ones from Argentina, Australia, South Africa and here in the US. The really great thing about rose`is that it's really under appreciated still so you're looking at $8-$13 for a really fantastic bottle of wine.

SPARKLING! I love bubbles and I think they go great with food--so serve them with your meal. But if that's too off the wall for you (or what happens to me is I'm the ONLY one who thinks it's okay to drink sparkling WITH the meal so I end up drinking an entire bottle by myself...), sparkling is a great way to begin your meal--whether to start with a toast to Thanksgiving, or just to serve with appetizers it's very festive. There are a lot of domestic sparkling under $20 that are quite good--Domain St. Michelle from WA state, Gloria Ferrer from CA, and Gruet from New Mexico (yes, new mexico and yes it's fantastic). Otherwise look again towards the spanish--cava's that range in the $8-$15 and are wonderful, or Sparklings from Burgundy or Loire--a lot cheaper than champagne, but quite good.

BEER! yes, beer. Beer's great with Thanksgiving dinner, but go outside the box. Get some growlers from a local brewery (and ask for their suggestions). This is a good time of year to pick up some fun beers as winter specialty brews tend to make their appearance now. My local breweries have their spiced whit style beers out as well as barley wine. There are also lots of speciality brews--chocolate stouts and what not that would be great for your dessert rather than your main course. OR, splurge. Buy some large format beer bottles from speciality brewers like Rogue, Stone Brewing Co, Northcoast Brewing CO, and Dogfish Head. I mention these as I feel their distribution is widely available. Think of them like bottles of wine and purchase a few different styles to try with your meal. Finally look towards THE beer country--Belgium. Many grocery stores/bottle shops carry large bottles of belgium brews. People have mixed feelings about the belgiums, I've noticed. They are high in alcohol and tend to be sweeter tasting--more malty and the use of sugar beet sugar to increase the alcohol content is widely used in that country. with food, though, there are few beers that go better--especially with a rich, sweet meal like thanksgiving. If you go this route, which i suggest highly, see if you can get someone to help you with the available belgium beers at your local store--rather than trying to guess what might be available to you.

 

 

---

 

My turkey tip

I don't think I've done this before, but i have to admit that I roast the best turkey in the west. I really do. In college I roasted a few turkeys and had college friends tell me I needed to teach their mother's how to roast a turkey--which was the highest praise because as well all known when in college there are no fonder memories than your mother's cooking. I've brought roasted turkey to parties where people exclaimed that they actually liked THAT turkey--normally a meat they don't care for because it's dry. And whenever it's my year to roast the turkey for thanksgving or christmas, there are exclamations of how juicy and good the turkey is.

So what do I do?

Nothing.

And I mean that. When I was in college roasting turkeys and everyone was exclaiming how good it was--i knew they liked them (and I'll add here that the reason why I roasted multiple turkeys in college was that a local grocery store would sell them for like five cents a pound after thanksgiving so we'd stock up and roast them at various time throughout the year for parties/sandwiches), and were giving me the highest praise--I just figured they were starving college students. It took me years to realize I did actually have a knack for roasting birds--especially the biggest bird of all.

I roasted one for a party in which a few world class chefs attended and they told me it was the best turkey they had ever had. What'd I do?

Nothing.

But what does that mean, they asked. And it made me think as well. So here's what I do.

Turkey--I honestly don't think it matters one bit if the turkey is organic, free-range, frozen, fresh, full of hormones--for taste. All the 'free-range' chickens/turkeys i've had from the store still don't taste free range to me and i question what the labels means to the producer. A true free range chicken/turkey (which I have had) is going to be tough because they're actually using their legs and have a fairly strong taste. And if you're getting one of those kinds of turkeys--i'd cook it completely different just like I roast those chickens completely different. But this is an extreme rarity these days. If you want to buy a fresh, organic turkey--more power to you. But if you're looking for a bargain like our $5 turkeys in college, I obviously was able to impress people of the quality regardless of the price.

Follow the directions. Seriously. Look on the turkey packaging and see what they say for length of cooking time, temperature. I tend to roast the majority of my meats at 350º (I like it fast and hot), so that's my go-to temperature. However, I've just followed the directions on the packaging before and had great success.

Meat thermometer--get one. A good one. Especially when concerning chicken/turkeys. We're really scared of raw turkey, and there's a good reason for it. But this means that people always over-cook their poultry which makes it dry and uninteresting. 165º is the goal. This means you can actually take your turkey out of the oven at 155º or 160º (breast meat temp)--cover it with foil and let it rest--that large of a meat will continue to cook.

Season--don't stuff. I love stuffing as much as the next person. And the stuffing that's in the bird does taste the best. But....BUT...there's always very little of that stuffing and while i love it, it always seems to be really gummy and ugly compared to the stuffing that's baked in the oven separate. And while i like it, I'd rather have moist turkey to gummy stuffing.

So in greater detail, this is what I do.

Get a turkey--thaw it if needed. I clean it out--meaning pull the fun goodies out of the body cavity (do whatever you like with those, i do boil them, but separately. Hearts and liver get boiled for the dogs and the neck gets boiled for a broth to add to the drippings to make a gravy because I do not like turkey liver/heart). I rinse the entire bird really well and then pat it dry with several paper towels.

Next I smother the entire bird with butter. If there is left over butter I throw it in the middle of the bird. I then put some veggies in the cavity--onions, celery, carrots, garlic, maybe lemons. Sometimes I use herbs like rosemary and thyme. I do not stuff, however. Then I salt, pepper and drizzle olive oil over the entire bird.

Bird goes in my preheated oven (350º--or whatever the package recommends). I put the bird in a roasting pan, breast side up--but I know some people swear by breast side down--whatever pleases you. And I roast away. I don't check on it for at least an hour and a half--but more likely I leave it alone completely for two hours. if you've got an oven with a glass front and a light--that's perfect for you to peek on your bird without opening the oven. For those first two hours my only concern is that the breast could be getting too brown--or more likely, too hot. If that happens I put a piece of foil lightly over the breast--but leave the legs exposed.

After two hours, i check the breast temperature. I always look for 155º, because i feel confident the bird is cooked at that heat, properly. When the breast is close to that I turn up the oven to 425 and let it cook at that high heat for 15minutes to half hour (and yes, sometimes I leave the foil over the breast for this period of time because the goal at this point is to get those legs nice and cooked, but keep the breast protected. This will help brown the skin to a crispy brown. Then I take the bird out--put the foil over it and let it rest.

That's it.

To me the two keys are 1) I don't over cook it by 'under-cooking' it to some people's opinion. 2) I give it a hearty coating of fat with the olive oil and butter in the beginning and let it be the rest of the cooking time. The more consistent the cooking temperature (ie don't keep opening the oven) and the less poking and prodding you do of the bird, the less juice will be released.

This is also ideal as I've managed to cook turkeys in two hours. The whole four hour/all day long turkey thing is a total myth--especially if done in this fashion. But please make sure it's cooked fully.

As for brining--sure go ahead, but I don't think it makes any difference with poultry and just takes more of your time. But that's just my own theory on this.

 

Good luck and happy thanksgiving

 UNDERSTANDING THE INITIATIVES

 

No. 1100, AKA “THE COSTCO ONE”

Costco supports measure 1100, as it would really be advantageous to retailers, especially larger retailers. Safeway and a few other grocery stores have also backed this measure, investing money into its campaign. More than 1105, this initiative is more about deregulating. Not only would it disband the current WSLCB set up (no liquor stores, no regulation on what alcohol is allowed in the state, etc) it would regulate the WSLCB role solely to ‘education and enforcement to protect the health, welfare, and safety of the citizens’.  Section 6 of the measure specifically states that “the board [WSLCB] will have the power to make regulations in accordance with the provisions of the administrative procedure …regulations adopted by the board must be to enforce the licensing requirements of this title, collection of the tax on liquor, the prevention of underage drinking of liquor and alcohol abuse, and managing the board…” This is a far cry from the current regulations the WSLCB enforces.

 

In addition to this, the measure would allow licensed stores/restaurants to purchase directly from producers, rather than going through an agent or a wholesaler who’s importing alcohol across state/country lines.

 

Finally, to address lost revenue issues; retailers who apply for a license to sell alcohol will pay $1,000 annually for said license. Distributors will pay an annual fee of $2,000; wineries, breweries and distilleries may now operate as their own distributors (pay same fee). The ‘mark-up’ for liquor will be eliminated, but a tax on alcohol would remain and it’d be up to the legislature to determine that tax.

 

No. 1105, AKA “THE OTHER ONE”

1100 has gotten more play recently as it has some big name backers, as well as plenty of money and since it is about deregulation, many people are speaking out against it, more so than 1105—I’ll get to specific arguments for and against, later. But because of this, 1105 is just kind of ‘the other’ initiative.

 

It’s much simpler (and better written/easier to read—although probably more vague); basically it’s disbanding state run liquor stores and opening up other retailers to sell liquor. It keeps the board intact more so than 1100 suggests, and states ‘the people direct the liquor control board to present a report to the legislature by January 1, 2011on a recommended rate of taxation, to be calculated at a per-liter basis and to be paid by spirits distributors, on all spirits sold to spirits distributors within the state. The liquor control board is directed to recommend a rate of taxation that, along with other spirits-related revenue sources, would project to generate at least the same annual revenue for the state and local jurisdictions as under the current state control system.” Much of the measure is written in this way in that there should be recommendations from the WSLCB on how to move into privatization of the booze peddling business—with help from the legislature.

 

THE DEBATES

 

Most people are for both of these initiatives, or either one. I’ve heard a lot of people say “I’m backing the Costco one”, probably because they’ve heard (like I have) from my Californian friends on what a great deal they got on Grey Goose at Costco. A lot of people like the convenience of being able to buy hard alcohol along with their Christmas ham and are irked that the government controls what they have a choice in drinking. If you’ve been watching any political news lately, you’ll notice there’s a huge anti-government, pro-privatization movement right now, period. 1100 falls in line with that as well.

 

As mentioned earlier large retailers are in favor of 1100 knowing that they could by-pass wholesalers and buy directly from the producer if they so wish. This would disband the established, or fair-pricing, system in that if Costco wished to purchase 5,000 cases of wine from Winery X for $2/bottle when it normally sells at wholesale price for $10/bottle if Winery X is willing to make that cut for a Costco sell, they can do that.  By taking out the middle man, it’d make things more affordable, usually—as it works now wineries typically sale their products to wholesalers at less 50% and wholesalers add back 20% to sell to retailers who then mark it up 30% to reach the posted price of what the winery retails it for (although price posting has gone out the window lately because of state cutbacks). If wineries continue to sell at 50%, retailers could potentially make 50% profit—but that’s assuming there’s some form of regulation on this which, under 1100, there would be none.

 

Wineries and breweries-in state-are unabashedly against 1100. I think for some there’s the issue that they’re worried if vodka is sitting on the shelf next to a six back of beer, some consumers might start picking up the vodka (especially if the price drops drastically on hard liquor because of the deregulation). But more of the resistance comes from the fact that most are worried about the ‘pay to play’ policy that has come up in some states with less regulations on how alcohol (or, really any product) is sold to retailers. Because restrictions would be deregulated, many are worried that retailers will start charging for shelf space—either in the form of substantial discounts or perks. Large breweries/wineries/wholesalers could give gifts (including cash prizes) to influence stores to provide more shelf space for their products. Obviously, little self-run guys would have a hard time competing in that kind of environment.

 

There’s also a worry that because the liquor tax/mark up (on hard alcohol) would go away, there would be a widespread increase in taxes already paid heavily by beer and wine producers—making a more level playing field for booze prices. If vodka is the same price as that six pack of aforementioned beer, would the beer still sell? And anyone (ok, blanket statement, there could be some WSLCB employees in favor of this) who works for the WSLCB is against either of these measures; as it would surely mean job losses. Many newspapers are in support of neither, siting worries about the loss of state revenue during such poor times for our state’s budget.

 

Finally, advocacy groups concerned with liquor consumption are worried about this, thinking it will make liquor more available to underage drinkers and increase the amount of alcoholism and fatalities due to alcohol.

 

1100 VS 1105

 

I kind of glossed over 1105, primarily because it’s less of a HUGE change. Still, a big change in that the selling of liquor would be privatized, but it wouldn’t deregulate so many of the current rules about fair pricing, wholesalers and gifting.

 

Who backs 1105? Why, wholesalers, of course. A couple of their biggest backers are distributors—one based out of California. They’re worried about loosing their position in that retailers can buy direct from producers. So to counteract this movement they wrote their own initiative that would privatize, but wouldn’t deregulate nearly as much. Their measure is also written in a way that would require more interaction from the current WSLCB and legislature in establishing revenue and existing regulations so that it’s a smoother transition (potentially).

 

This measure isn’t getting as much play time because most producers feel so-so about this. They don’t like the idea of backing a measure that’s supported by wholesales (while we need them, we don’t like THEIR monopoly on the game), but they also feel better that it wouldn’t deregulate the system so much that they would be worried about the ‘pay to play’ type system that might occur should 1100 be approved.

So while some of this is true, I still feel like there are lot of overly snobby people. As well as people not really understanding 'good' wine from 'bad' wine. To me it's flawed wine vs unflawed wine--and anything else just falls under the 'subjective category'.

This comes to me as summer has literally hit with a bang here in my neck of the woods. We'd had a horribly cold, windy and rainy spring and just the past week the temperature has soared into the upper 90's making the crows and sheep pant with the sudden heat.

I've been dealing with a Seattle wine shop in procuring some wine and they referred to a wine I was looking for as mediocre. It kind of upset me. Not because they aren't correct--it is 'mediocre' wine, but if you have low expectations and just want something refreshing this wine is actually pretty fucking good wine.

What is it? I speak of Vinho Verde from Portugal.

I, oddly, first learned about Vinho Verde while living in Texas. There are two things Texans know better than anyone else, I'm convinced--besides the obvious over-patriotisim for their state. They know how to deal with heat (find a porch and just relax by cooking some slow bbq outside with a cold drink) and what to drink in the heat.

Some of my favorite summer time drinks came from Texas. Michelada--the weird concoction of domestic (or mexican) lager, hot sauce, lime and a splash of steak sauce. Mojitos--not texan by nature but served everywhere in varying ways. One of my favorite? Thai Basil and lime Mojito curtesy of a brazilian restaurant there...and of course the 'national beer of texas' would be a simple, yet satisfying, domestic lager--Lone Star. I learned to love lagers while in Texas, because there really is nothing that beats the heat like a cold lager.

Except for one thing and the rest of Texas was keen to it--but being new I had no idea. One day we got in two pallets of the same kind of wine. I was flabbergasted. Two pallets? Same wine? that's a shit ton of wine to try and sale. Plus the wine came in kelly green bottles (bad choice for a wine bottle--looks cheap and usually houses cheap wine) and had a freaking crab on it.

The wine was $5 a bottle. And we sold out by the next week. People came in and took cases away. Everyone asking for 'the crab wine'. It took me a while to figure out it was this crab animal wine they were looking for, not just 'any' wine that would go well with crab. Finally, I asked a customer what was so special about the wine. They said "It's hot here. Take it home, put it in your freezer, crack it open just as it's about to freeze--you got to drink it as cold as you can get it--and put in a slice of lime. There's nothing better on a hot day."

I took their advice and I was an immediate convert. The wine? Santola Vinho Verde.

I recently taught a class on Australian/New Zealand wines. I, also, recently returned from a trip to Australia.

I've been known to steer people away from wines from these countries. It's never because I dislike them (quite the opposite), I usually just want people to venture into the unknown a bit more. And New Zealand and Australia are quite known.

Bad grammar, but true.

Australia makes about 4% of the wine in the world, yet it's the 4th largest exporter of wine. That's HUGE. New Zealand exports around 80% of all their wine made. In the US it's not hard to find a relatively small producer from one of these countries. That's pretty cool, really. Not only is it foreign, but it's foreign and small production. Whereas a lot (not all) of other foreign wine tends to come from large production wineries/chateaus/bodegas or negociants.

Therefore when people say "I had this great Australian shiraz called _____ ....can you suggest another Aussie wine?" I can't help but roll my eyes, sometimes, and suggest they try a syrah from WA or CA or Rhone.

But, whenever I sit down and taste--and really taste--wines from Australia (and New Zealand) I recall why people love them and want more suggestions from these countries. They're solid wines in more than one way.

• AU and NZ take great pride in their modern winemaking and viticultural practices and avoid tainting their wines with anything. Therefore if you read my blog about bad wine--you usually don't find it in these countries. They avoid brett and have switched the large majority of their bottles to screw tops to avoid TCA problems. 
• Really good climate for wine--mean temperatures in summer seem to be around 64 degrees (F). If you've ever been to Australia you know (sometimes miserably so) that it gets well above 64 in the heat of the day--this means that they have cool evenings and cool periods. This is needed to give the sugar making a rest in the grapes to get the acidity back up to balance.
• Government has their back--the wine industry is heavily subsidized and promoted in these countries. This means that their wines are extremely affordable AND both these nations are the goto learning places whether you want to intern as a wine maker at a winery or enroll in a wine marketing program at a university.

All the wines we had for the class were outstanding. Not only was there no discussion about any flaws in the wines--everyone loved them thanks to their complexity, balance and just pure deliciousness.

And, to top it off, the most expensive bottle was a $20 sparkler from Tasmania (had the pleasure of visiting this winery a  few months ago); well worth the $20.

Some of our favorites:

2006 Four Sisters Shiraz, $10--Australia
Might be hard to find the '06, but if I did, you probably will be able to as well. However, I would champion any of their wines. It used to be one of my Aussie Shiraz 'goto' wines, when people were looking for a 'different' aussie shiraz in that price range. One problem that I have with shiraz from Australia is that they tend to be too juicy--too ripe tasting. I don't mind that, but I prefer balance and subtle complexity in my wine. I'm a fan of 'food wines' verses 'fruit bombs'. Australia seems to be a country of fruit bombs. But not this one. Don't get me wrong, there is fruit: lovely aromas of rich dark fruits (plums, dark cherries, blackberry) and subtle notes of spice. It's just not...in your face, so to speak. Way more elegant than other $10 aussie wines.

What makes a wine bad?

Or maybe what makes a wine good?

The answer is often "whether or not YOU like it". Which, is something I promote. Traditional wine critics are scoring wine towards their taste preferences; if you find a critic that you agree with then you can assume you have the same tastes. But just because Mr. FancyPantsCritic says a wine is good or bad, doesn't mean you'll find it good or bad.

That said....there is such a thing as good wine and bad wine. Good wine is clean wine--meaning there are no flaws and that it's well made; should "last" a significant time in the bottle (more on this). 

I've been drinking a lot of 'bad' wines lately that are deemed good by critics--well known, well paid critics. And it's kind of pissing me off. I'm only going to talk about two flaws...there are many more out there, but start to get very specific and unless you can sit down and discuss these with examples, very boring to read about.

---

Before I continue I do want to reiterate that if you like it--good for you. Drink it. I know someone who loves oxidized wine...wine that's gone bad. If it's been open for days, great, she'll drink it! Her favorite winemaker in the area is someone who reuses REALLY old barrels--so all his wines are somewhat oxidized and noticeably flawed. She loves it.

Good for her. As I told her, that's great, but she's in the small percentage who actually like oxidized (bad) wines. And that it's important for her to understand the faults. She concurs.

Likewise, a lot of people like a little (or a lot) of brett in their wine (I'll explain), because of overtly earthy tones it gives. Again, great! But the importance in knowing what brett is, exactly, and what it does to wine is HUGE here as the wines with this flaw will not last. So you find a brett infested wine you love one week--buy a case of it--and the next month it's already showing signs of being bad and a year down the road it's complete trash.

So while liking flawed wine isn't wrong, it should be noted it's flawed and there should be praise for good, clean wine. Because it's hard to make wine with no flaws. It takes serious dedication, attention towards cleanliness, and good product management.

---

A common bad wine problem is 'corked' wine. This is a big problem in the industry as more wine is being produced, the quality of available, good, cork is being stretched. Corked wine is wine where the cork has been tainted--surprisingly in the cleaning process (TCA)--sometimes the actual cork is not so much at fault, but it could be a weak cork (porous) and TCA is passed through the cork. I've even had 'corked' synthetic cork wines.  Corked wine smells like wet dog. Musty. Moldy. Bad. And while it doesn't hurt you--it sure makes the wine taste like crap. And that can be very disappointing.

But this is why understanding good vs bad wine is important. If you open a bottle of wine and it smells like wet dog, mold, wet newspaper--those kind of awful, musty smells...you can probably assume it is corked. The good thing about this is that you can return the bottle from its source (most places should accept a return) and get a new bottle. It also should mean that the next bottle of the exact same wine should be okay.

I've heard horror stories of wineries getting complete batches of tainted corks...but that's more rare than the 1 in 100 tainted corks (making this statistic up) that seem to be the case. It also means that if you see screw top wines you shouldn't turn up your nose--these are producers who are looking for an affordable alternative to poor quality cork, hoping to avoid cork taint.

Just as a side note, besides corks...other things can taint wine. I worked for a winery where the winemaker was very diligent, clean in his winemaking (and a good one at that) with an advanced science/lab background. Whole cases were tasting 'off'. Not as bad as corked--not musty, but the fruit was gone in these cases vs other cases that were fine. He did various lab tests to look at the various levels in the wine. The bad cases differed from the good cases.

What he concluded was that those cases were either from the top or the bottom of the tank after blending the wine for bottling. And that something happened--some sort of something (technical term, that) got into those cases, all of them, as a result, cases were bad. Extremely unfortunate.

Luckily not all the wine was bad--but if something goes wrong in one step of the wine making process it can ruin an entire batch of wine.

---

What is brett?  Brettanomyces is a yeast that likes fruit. It's a problem not only in the wine industry, but it has also caused havoc in the beer industry as well.

Yeast is needed in winemaking, obviously, to create alcohol. And brett is a yeast that causes debate in the industry as well as out and out panic.

Because brett is a natural occurring yeast that is on the fruit to begin with, it's hard to always call it a flaw. Some people & winemakers (because we all know winemakers aren't people) like brett in their wine. In freshly bottled wines it can mellow the acids & tannins, give the wine a very earthy structural background (everything from mushroom to barnyard aromas) and tone down the fruit a bit so that you don't feel like you're drinking 'fresh' wine.

Not so bad eh? And, really, it's not. A lot of old-world wines get that descriptor because of the obvious presence of brett...this earthy, old, taste. Some wineries in these parts of the world do a very careful, good job of controlling their brett contamination so that it's 'just' right.

I, myself, like a little brett sometimes.

So what's the problem? Too much brett and the wine smells like a barnyard. It can be powerful stuff. It also seems to break down the wine very quickly--so in young wines it tones it down, but a few more years in the bottle and the stuff is overwhelming and you feel like you've just poured a dairy yard into your wine glass. Once you actually taste the wine (if you can get past the aroma), it can taste too sour and the tannins feel extremely dirty on your mouth because they're breaking down in the bottle quickly.

Most american winemakers consider brett a flaw, period. The reason is that it's really hard to control--entire wineries have been torn down and rebuilt because the yeast got everywhere. This has happened in the beer industry as well.

Brett is added to specific beers to give them a sour, unique taste (belgium lambics for example). But, again, too much goes too far and some breweries found their brett out of control, contaminating everything--and have had to start over.

It is, whether you like it or not, a spoilage yeast. This is my main problem with brett, personally.

---

Back to my opening paragraph. There are a lot of other problems with wine, but these are two that are pretty common--one being an obvious flaw (cork taint) and the other being a questionable flaw.

I purchased some $20 bottles of Southern French wine that Robert Parker had reviewed, giving it an 89 (good score from him), describing it as great wine. The reviewer (not sure it was Mr. Parker himself or not--I know he's hired a few helpers) said about the wine (a 2007) "this understated wine will not only offer highly versatile enjoyment over the next 3-4 years but should blossom further as well". Great I had it in 2009, should be good...maybe not at it's peak.

It was horrible. The brett was way over the top--the tannins were gritty and completely falling apart, the aftertaste was not only sewer-like, but had a touch of band-aid as well.

Not saying the reviewer is an idiot, or that his review of the wine was incorrect...AT THE TIME. Perhaps he had this wine upon it's release a year earlier than I had it. At the time it could've been quite pleasant. But this is where I get pissed at wine critics.

The wine is flawed...and it should've been noted. Even if at the time of the tasting the wine was quite good, a critic SHOULD be able to understand there was too much brett there. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be promoted--but the 3-4 years bullshit? No way. Drink it young and fresh.

As it was the two bottles of $20 wine felt like a complete waste of $40 on my end. Maybe that's why I'm really pissed...