A blind testing

Hi forum! ... impossible to keep up with even one Verema.com when work gets really pressing, two ";veremas"; is really tough! ... anyway, I’ll try to alternate.

just arrived into USA (the following day) I was pleasantly surprised with a blind wine tasting. It was quite fun, although the wines where not so good. I can’t introduce proper TN’s because I have no details about the wines. Plus I had been working non-stop from 6:00am thru 3:30pm, so I just planned on relaxing, chat, unwind, enjoy the wines, and let the stress go away ... probably I was not in great conditions for testing, but anyway, here go my impressions.

We were presented with 8 wines, 4 whites and 4 reds, all bottles covered. We were only said that there were different varietal wines (Sauvignon blanc, Viognier, Riesling and Chardonnay for whites, Pinot noir, Shiraz, Merlot and Cabernet Sauvignon for reds). We were supposed to identify them :-0 !!. I do not really believe in these exercises, but ... The second part was more fun: we were told that 6 of the wines ranged between $19 and $26, most of them around $20, but two of them costed $7-$8 (actually we were told ";outregously cheap";; I am glad I asked for clarification :-))) to me ’outregously cheap’ means something else). We were suppposed to identify the cheapo. In general, I liked much better the whites than the reds (even though I am a red-adict). Here are the wines, the confusing (blind) notes I scrabbled, and the rating. As a good spaniard :-D, I use our own 0-10 scale: bellow 5 is failure, 5-6.9 correct, pleasant wine, 7-8.9 very nice wine, outstanding, 9-9.6 wonderful, 9.6-10 out if this world, to die for.
(I think that if Spaniards can figure out what the Parker rating means, other people can also figure out ours; wine lovers are all inteligent people :-D )

Reverdy Sancerre 2002 ($20) Pale and brilliant, very subtle nose. fruity, grassy, dry; a bit bitter at the end; correct aftertaste. Fresh. Quite nice. (Sauvignon blanc) 7.5

Montpellier Viognier 2002 ($7) Flowers in the nose, also pale and brilliant. very aromatic, a bit gliceric. Fresh, round and nice, but a bit short. 6.7

Marc Kreydenweiss Clos Rebberg Riesling 2001 ($26) Also very pale and very brilliant (they all looked exactly the same). Citrics and herbs in the nose. In the mouth is gliceric, lacking some acidity, but still fresh. I bit ’heavy’ but very nice. 7.3

Olivier Savary Chablis 2001 ($21.5) Pale and not very aromatic (it gave me herbs, no butter at all). Dry and fresh, correct aftertaste, very dry, lacks accidity and structure. Pleasant by short. 6.8

Mietz Pinot Noir 2002 ($19.5) Pale and very ’dirty’. In nose is puer oak at first, with some fruit afterwards. Taste is sweet, plane, somehow intriguing. 7

Montpellier Syrah 2001 ($8). Again oak in the nose, but also quite fruity. Sweet mouth, a bit bitter at the end, very present oak, not a bad aftertaste, some acidity, but it is quiten plane. 5.7

Lambert Bridge Merlog 2000 ($20) Wonderful nose, fruity. Very nice, deep color. Mouth is a bit rough, a bit bitter, but quite pleasant. It is not very integrated, but quite oakie. 7

Forestville Reserve Cabernet 2000 ($18) Very sweet, oaky, plane. No structure, no acidity, no anything. I do not really like it much. 5.

How did I do?? ... well, way better than I thought (since I thought I would not get a single one, honest :-)). I identified the cheapos fine (although in the reds I was almost 50-50 with the cab). Then distinguising between the Riesling and the Viognier was a close call (I never thought that the Riesling could be so gliceric, so ";fat";). Also, I must admit that the Chardonnay was there as the only possibility: I would have never recognized it as a chardonnay. And I switched Merlot and Shiraz ... but I certainly had fun, and forgot about work for a couple hours :-0

MaJesus