Last Tuesday, the 24th, was the Annual Blind Tasting Competition for the school (held in conjunction with the wine club). It showed, as experienced tasters may know, that if you are not in tasting practice regularly, then it’s back to basics for you.

As I set the competition myself, I tried to make it as fair as possible to everyone by giving a broad selection of wine styles and asking relevant questions in the multiple choice format (so even a good guess may harvest the reward of a mark!).

Firstly, a competition must have a prize and this year there were three: the prize for first place was a magnum of Louis Roederer’s Brut Premier NV champagne, second place was a set of Tesco’s steak knives and the prize for last place was a bottle of chilean plonk. To call the latter a ‘prize’ is applying quite a liberal use of the word, certainly as isn’t not suggested that the receipient actually drink it.

The questions, I thought, were a mix of straightforward and difficult ones. I wanted everyone to be in with a chance of the champagne ( the plonk too) so I couldn’t have all the questions to be favouring those who hold the diploma. As it turned out, I needn’t have worried.

The evening kicked of with the first wine (sparkling) being poured for all and a simple question: did it come from Champagne or Italy or South Africa or England. All of which (even England) can make some decent sparklers but (at least I think) none make one that tastes of Champagne. Anyway, it was a champagne and only some tasters got it as such.

The second wine posed two problems; firstly, what was the grape variety used to produce the wine? It was in fact, Silvaner (not so easy) but one of the characteristics of this particular grape is that it is somewhat nonedescript. The other options were Chardonnay, Garganega and Pinot Grigio. All four received a smattering of the votes, perhaps understandably.

Wine number 3 required an origin to be selected from one of the following: Chablis, Puligny-Montrachet, Margaret River or Vouvray. It ended up being revealed as a Chablis Grand Cru ‘Preuses’ 2004 but recognised (or guessed) by only a few. ‘Margaret River’ was a popular choice (see what I mean by practice). The level of acidity in the wine would have been an important ‘tell’ there, Chablis producing wines with relatively high levels. Also, for another mark, a retail price range was required to be chosen. Many tasters thought if tasted as a wine selling for less than 32 euros but its price was in the region of 50. This looks like a big margin but the difference between these prices is often to do with supply and demand rather than the intrinsic quality of the wine itself. Either price indicates a wine of quality, I suppose.

Wine 4 was an Alsace Pinot Gris from Domaine Zind Humbercht which was extremely rich with a noticeable level of residual sugar. This caused some confusion (as intended) and although a few tasters recognised the style, many others had to resort to a guess resulting in an even spread between the other options of the Northern Rhone (Condrieu was in the mind, probably), Victoria, Australia and Stellenbosch, South Africa. A mark also went for the correct grape which caused a number of sighs in the room as the wine was tasted. Apart from Pinot Gris, the others present on the paper were Viognier, Muscat and Chenin Blanc, all of which can show some residual sugar in the wine on occasion.

The fifth wine, and the first of the reds,  was a Tasmanian Pinot Noir. It should have been recogniseable as the style was ’simple and jammy’ and, I’m glad to say it was on the whole. The other options for the origin were Burgundy, South Africa and Germany. There was another mark going for its price and most got that, I think on the basis that the group didn’t like it so it must be cheap! Dubious reasoning but it worked out for them in this case.

The next wine was poured and there was a mark for recognising the grape variety, which was Tempranillo. The wine was a lovely, vanilla-laden, Rioja Reserva 2001 from one of the ulta-traditional wineries of the region, La Rioja Alta. This style was very popular in Ireland in the past (it still is enormously with an underground movement of ‘wine-educated’) but unfortunately, many wine drinkers now prefer to have a less sophisticated and more indistinct style of rioja with lots of cooked fruit rotating around a core of oak. I suppose the person begets the style of wine. Some riojas nowadays are more suited to being supped from a bowl rather than a glass.  I’m happy (and not surprised) to say this wine was very well recognised by the group.

The next wine tho’ did cause some confusion. It was a Cotes du Rhone-Villages St Gervais 2004 from one of the very best producers of the appellation, Domaine Sainte-Anne. Unusually for cotes du rhone-villages, this wine uses about 60% Mourvedre with equal parts of Syrah and Grenache. Typically, 70% to 80% Grenache would be used by most other producers of the wine. Consequently, the quality, character and depth of Mourvedre showed through giving an intense leathery, earthy feel to the wine. There was a lovely style to this wine which you just don’t get with the red fruit and white pepper simplicity from the wines of other producers. The fact that the wine was 6 years old helped too. Many of the tasters recognised the aged quality of the wine but didn’t get it from the Southern Rhone as Sicily was the most popular choice  of answer.

Wine 8 was a Shiraz 2004 from Chateau Tahbilk in Victoria in Australia. This producer is unusual as far as this country is concerned as it is quite traditional in its approach and consequently, in my opinion, makes interesting wines. The style is miles away from the typical, overcooked,’ jam & juggernaut’ style churned out by many of this country’s other shiraz producers. There was a mark going for recognising the origin and another for getting the alcohol content correct. The most popular origin selected was Chateauneuf du Pape perhaps because the alcohol was 14.5% which many recognised.

The next wine was from Bordeaux, which the group was told, but they were then given a choice of 4 different appellations from within the region to choose from: Pessac-Leognan, Pauillac, St. Emilion and Moulis. The wine was a 2004 Chateau Grand Puy Lacoste which is a wine that really couldn’t be more ‘Pauillac’ in style.Again, quite a spread of answers which surprised me as we taste quite a lot of Pauillac in the club. For the extra mark of recognising the year 2001 seemed to be the most popular out of 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2004.

The penultimate wine was a pure Sangiovese from Tuscany, namely, Chianti Rufina Riserva ‘Bucerchiale’ 2006, one of my favourite Italian wines. There were 3 marks available on offer here: one each for recognising the grape, the alcohol and the price (within a range). In general, most of the group did well when they got the grape but fell on the other two hurdles as the alcohol level was 14.5% but was thought to be less as the wine was particularly well-balanced and although the wine sells for around 28, it was generally considered to be in excess of 33 euros.

The last wine, I had thought would be a ‘gimmie’ but not so. It was the Senior Tawny Port from Niepoort and there was a mark going each for recognising the wine (the choice was: Port, Maury, Banyuls or Australian Liqueur Muscat) and for the price (less than 15 euros, 15 to 25, 25 to 33 or more than 33 euros). Most thought that the wine was other than a port and too good to sell for less than 25 euros. The retail price is around 18- 19 euros. Certainly, it is a real bargain and, judging from the group’s reaction during the unveiling, quite a few will be seeking it out for personal consumption.

It was a very interesting night and like last year, there were many surprised faces when the details of the wines were revealed. Of the 22 marks that were available, only 2 tasters got into double figures and, as they both achieved 13 marks, there was a taste-off with an extra wine. Let me just say that it was Caroline who went home with the Champagne and Albert had to settle for the steak knives. Who got the chilean plonk?, I hear you ask. Well, I won’t say who but a total of 2 marks snitched it! I think a small taste of that wine will encourage some work to be done for the next competition.

As I sit down here to begin this piece, a faithful companion resides beside me, namely, a glass of well made and not too expensive, red burgundy. More specifically, it’s a glass of St. Aubin Premier Cru from the terrific 2005 vintage, fairly priced at about 20 euros. It has a good depth of fruit, is reasonably complex and is well-balanced in terms of alcohol, acidity and tannin.

 But could this wine taste better, I wonder? Perhaps in the company of food? After all, isn’t that the true position of wine, to partner food? Actually, I no longer wonder about this question as I’ve spent enough time with it. The conclusion that I’ve reached is that ‘Good wine doesn’t get better with the ‘Right’ Food’. The ’Right Food’ for good wine is ‘No Food’. Of course, if the wine being consumed is not particularly good, and by this I mean lacking something essential character (or too much of another), then to partner it with food is probably the kindest thing to be done, other than not drinking it at all, that is.

I’ve often had the taste of good food improve due to being had with good wine but, with only one or two exceptions, I feel the reverse is not the case. To do justice to good wine, drink it by itself. Slowly.

For those that think otherwise I ask, what is missing from the wine that is supplied by the food. Having asked this questions of others in the past, the most common answer I receive is that the effect of the tannin element in red wines is lessened by the food. This is true. Chemically, tannin molecules from wine bond with the protein molecules in food and thereby reduce the sensation in the wine. For those who have a problem with sensing tannin in wine, perhaps food matching is the answer. For me, in general, I don’t find a bit of tannin sticking out of the wine to be a negative aspect. The flavours of the wine are what is important.

Having wine with food is like watching television while having sex. Both pastimes suffer from giving neither your full attention. You must ask yourself; “What is missing from one that I must suppliment it by adding the other element?” As far as good wine is concerned, it must be able to stand alone or else it’s not ‘good’ enough!

For instance, how do you enjoy a mature, quality red bordeaux wine when it’s in the process of being assaulted by a mouthful of prime fillet in your mouth? The taste of the beef may well be improved by the wine but how could the complex wine flavours be improved?

However, there are certain classic food matches for wine such as: Goat’s cheese (especially Crottin de Chavignon) with Sancerre, pork with Fleurie, Roquefort cheese with Sauternes or even Foie Gras (wonderfully politically incorrect) with Sauternes. 

Perhaps most suitably, Doner Kebab (with all the sauces available) with inexpensive Chilean Cabernet Sauvignon where the strong garlic sauce and melted fat from the kebab neutralise the equally powerful, shoe polish esters of the wine. I have to admit right now, that I have never tried this combination and as there is a limit to the extent that I am prepared to suffer, I shall have to remain satisfied that the theory works here.

The reason that these combinations (with the exception of the latter example) work so well is because a range of ‘new’ flavours have been created by the ‘marriage’. The wine isn’t tasted on its own, nor is the food. What has happened is that a hybrid range of flavours has been created (which I rarely think of as an improvement) and so, diners think of this as an improvement. It is simple: if I want a glass of wine then I’m predisposed to the taste of (good) wine not food, if I’m hungry then I looking for food.Life isn’t possible without wine. At least, not for me.

I think that the idea of having food with wine has really developed out the necessity of having some sort of drink with a meal. Water being too insubstantial, beer being too unsophisticated what’s left is only wine seems to fit the bill. More often than not, as far as good wine concerned, justice isn’t done. My advice is to choose your wine carefully and drink it before your meal and afterwards. During the meal, try drinking water at room temperature.

I like the traditional style of Rioja. It’s quite difficult to find nowadays because Rioja, like so many other wines, has succumed to the ‘international’ style of winemaking. What do I mean by ‘international’ in style? Well, concisely put, it means wines with a heavy use of new oak and high alcohol. For me, this means too much oak and too much alcohol. The first time that I noticed a Rioja with more than 12.5%  alcohol was back in 1996. Up until then, all Rioja that crossed my path didn’t stray upward of that figure. Now, I would be hard put to find even one that was less than 13%.  

Since then, it’s become apparent to me that there is a very definite and conscious move by wine producers to increase the alcohol in wine right up to whatever it can (and sometimes can’t) take.  No longer is alcohol just one element or characteristic supporting and balancing a wine but it seems to be the driver directing the wine down the wine drinker’s throat with the foot on the accelerator.

For me, and I mean from a personal point of view, many wines have too much alcohol. By this I mean that the amount of alcohol in these wines is such as to detract from my enjoyment of the wine. I recognise this by the alcohol burn at the back of my throat and if it’s too much, it spoils the enjoyment of a wine for me. If the alcohol dominates the wine, then it’s too much. Simple.

I don’t have a particular alcohol abv (alcohol by volume) that’s acceptable because for me, it’s not about the particular strength but how well the alcohol is balanced in the wine. For example, many Barolos have an abv of 14% and, in general, balance the wine very well whereas many wines made from the Barbera grape variety from the same region of Piedmont in Italy seem to have up to 14.5% but don’t have the substance in the wine to have adequate balance at all. These wines would be better served with 13%.

So why are wines being produced with this level of alcohol? Well, the reason seems to be very simple: wine producers are giving the consumers what they want. According to wine producers that I’ve spoken to on the subject, this is what consumers are demanding.

The rise in alcohol levels has been particularly marked in wines from the New World, and from what I’ve noticed myself, the country in the forefront in this is Australia. More than any other country, Australia is in tune with the ‘likes and wants’ of the wine drinker or, at least, the ‘likes of wants’ of a particular brand of wine drinker.

Now, don’t think that I have it in for Australia. It is simply that it is usually the first to react to consumer demands and it does seem to be maximising the alcohol in many of its wines, particularly the mainstay, Shiraz, which represents almost 30% of Australian vineyards. It’s not unusual to see wine from this grape labelled with 15% abv. This alcohol level in a standard bottle equates to eleven and a quarter units of alcohol. (This latter fact is just for those of you who are concerned about your liver.)

Much of the rest of the world has followed suit. It is particularly noticeable in those regions whose wines had, in the not too distant past, balanced alcohol levels such as, Tuscany in Italy, Rioja in Spain and the Languedoc in Southern France. Also,  much to my disappointment, among some of the less refined wine producers in Burgundy where the former standards of ‘elegance and terroir’ have been replaced by the bywords of ‘power and oak’. The ‘international’ style raises it head again.

The style of winemaking is enabled by the inequitable system of tax on alcohol here. The excise duty, which is how the government taxes alcohol,  on a bottle of wine in Ireland is 2.47 euros. This is regardless of where the wine is produced and it covers all (non-sparkling) wines up to an alcohol level of 15%abv. Any wine that has an alcohol of 7.5% (there’s not many but they do exist) attacts the same tax, even though the wine has only half the alcohol present. If you think that this example is a little extreme because there aren’t many wines with that low level of alcohol about what about wines with 12, 12.5 or 13% ? Do you think that these wines should subsidise the 14, 14.5 or 15% bruisers? If customs and excise duty is about taxing alcohol why isn’t there a fairer system in place for wine. After all, such a system exists for beer. The higher the alcohol present in beer, the more excise duty it attacts. The rate increases with each percentage point the alcohol goes up by, so a beer with 6% abv is liable to more duty than one with only 5%. As it should be.

If the government wants to be more equitable, then it should implement a similar system for wine as it does for beer.

Balanced alcohol wine to try: Rioja Gran Reserva 1994, Bodegas Franco Espanol, 12.5% abv. (Deveney’s Off Licence, Dundrum village, 29.99 Euro). Great wine, great vintage.

Imbalanced alcohol wine to avoid: Tesco’s Finest Chenin Blanc (Ken Forrester), 14% abv. (Tesco’s, 8.99 Euro).

To get the most ‘wine bang’ for your wine buck, it’s worth looking at the amount that the actual producer of the wine gets. This usually is a much better indicator of the true or intrinsic value of the wine rather that the retail price which includes taxes, transport etc.

Ireland’s tax regime is such that whatever pleasure is available for purchase, the consumer is going to end up paying a sizeable chunk over to the Revenue Commissioners. With wine, we have to be particularly careful because with the cost of transport, profit margins taken by the wholesaler and retailer along with the high Irish customs duty and value added tax, the actual cost of the wine from the producer is a relatively small amount of the retail price.

Let me give you an example to illustrate the point:

Wine One: Standard bottle* retailing at 9.99 euros.

Here is a breakdown of that price:

Value Added Tax (21.5%)          1.77
Customs Duty                              2.47
Profit margin (wholesaler)        1.15
Profit margin (Retailer)              2.47
Transport                                      0.30
Total costs                                    8.16

Subtract this from the retail price and you can see that the total cost of the actual wine (i.e. paid to the producer) is only 1.83 Euros.

Wine Two: Standard bottle* retailing at 19.99 euros.

Here is the breakdown of that price:

Value added Tax (21.5%)            3.54
Customs duty                                2.47
Profit margin (wholesaler)          2.30
Profit margin (retailer)                  4.94
Transport                                        0.30
Total costs                                    13.55

(*standard bottle of non-sparkling/fortified wine as these styles attract a much higher tax than amount shown)

From this you can see that the price paid to the wine producer is 6.44 (19.99 minus 13.55) euros.

If you compare the two wine costs (that is, the price paid to the producer), the more expensive wine gives much better value than if 2 bottles of the cheaper wine were purchased. In fact, if you buy the wine for 19.99 you get 3.5 times the ‘wine value’ of a 9.99 bottle. So what are you waiting for?