Grape Value

Show us a sawbuck, and we'll show you a solid bottle of wine.

by Peter Burwasser

	print	email	reply	rss feed

Published: May 2, 2007

WINE

Wine lore is rife with stories about neophyte drinkers walking into the back aisles of liquor stores 40 years ago and picking up Château Lafite for $10. Yeah, sure, but new cars cost a couple of thousand bucks then, and row homes in Bella Vista � yes, the ones that now fetch a cool half-million � were not much more. In a relative sense, good wine has never been cheaper than it is today.

For the most part, this is merely a function of Econ 101 rules: The increased demand has driven the supply, which has pushed down costs. But another crucial element is the rapid pace of improvement in the technical aspects of vinification, spearheaded by American (especially West Coast) vintners and picked up with vigor by Australian, South American and supposedly tradition-bound European producers. Wine-making is now considered as much a science as an art, and because of that, quality control has improved dramatically in the last couple of decades.

Of course, there is no substitute for great fruit and a caring, hands-on approach. It is doubtful, for example, that we will ever see a decent pinot noir in the sub-$10 category. But relatively hearty grape types, such as Riesling and syrah, do not require the kind of quirky, labor-intensive cultivation that necessarily pushes the price upward.

The stratification of the wine market would make for a great MBA dissertation: There is still a sizable mass market wine segment, including the stuff sold in cardboard cartons and peddled in women's magazines. But there is also the super high-end, where $100 is the median price and conventional marketing concepts are replaced by cultlike devotion and sheer snob appeal. This is wine as an exotic hobby, not as a beverage to enjoy with a nice meal. For that, there is also the happy middle ground, at up to about $25. This is a great place for wine lovers to be these days � you could park here and throw away the keys, and never really have to worry about missing the opportunity to sample great wine.

The purpose of this tasting was to test the waters at the lower end of the middle ground. In making these selections, we took care to avoid wines made in ways antithetical to classic technique, but there are some suspicious contenders here that nevertheless offer attractive products at rock-bottom prices. Serious wine lovers deplore such practices as putting oak chips into aging vats to imitate the effect of actual oak casks or mixing mass-produced wine base from bulk vineyards of different vintages to make a single product. But at this price point, it is perfectly reasonable to accept that the ends justify the means.

Tasting ground rules: All of the wines had to be available at the Stalinist state stores, and they had to clock in at under 10 bucks including tax (ruling out a plethora of $9.99 bottles). One wine axiom certainly came to the fore here: It is easier to make a cheap, reasonably palatable white wine than a red one. Another caveat that should apply to all wines: The truest criterion is how well the product matches up to food. We had a bowl of crackers at the tasting, but the ultimate test is at home with a backyard burger or out at the latest Mexican taqueria.

Here we go, in descending order of preference (eight tasters):

Even the best Riesling is a bargain, so no surprise to find this delightful German quaff at the top of the cheapskate list. Classic balance of tart and sweet in the mouth, grapefruit and yeast on the nose. Fun, easy and classy.

No vintage, stupid name, but astonishingly likable. Smooth, even buttery, with a charming aroma mixing citrus and herbs. Supports the truism that it's easier to make cheap white wine.

A fine, classic Rhone blend, mainly Grenache, with syrah, as well. Earthy, laden with mineral tones and dried fruit, especially prunes. Smoky. "Bring on the grilled meat," offered one taster.

Smooth, light and fruity, with vanilla on the nose. As a summertime quaff, you can't go wrong. Happy, but not totally crappy. Aggressive grassiness for the host.

This Australian is rough around the edges, with an off-putting acidity. Nice complexity for the price, though, with plenty of mint and tar tones. Should be a good food wine, especially at the barbie.

Big nose, as most tasters noted, but odd balances, including a touch of cloying fruitiness expressed as cherries and currants. The host asks, where's the merlot?

Not user-friendly. Strong, biting and too tannic for most. The host broke from the pack, enjoying the earthy, dark tones of roasted plums. This one must be accompanied by food, such as red-sauced pastas.

Very dry, musty, kind of odd. Flowers and spice. Inky color � even bloody. But not, by any means, a bad wine. Bring it to your favorite BYOB soon.

(p_ burwasser@citypaper.net)

 

All reader comments are subject to our Terms of Use. By clicking Post Comment, you acknowledge that you have reviewed and agree to these Terms.

Name	please enter your name
Email (will not be published)	please enter a valid email
Comment	please enter a comment
Enter the security code on the right in the textbox below.
Security Code	please enter the code
	Join the City Paper Mailing List

Green Party
Raw Talent
Feeding Frenzy
The Week In Eats
Bistro 7
Brilliant Bathrooms
You Ask We Answer
Small Bites