Comparative tasting: Wines from Clos d'Argentine

Yesterday I compared three inexpensive wines from Clos d'Argentine purchased at Grocery Outlet. I had had all three before and liked them but thought one better than the other two. I was going to stock up but, by the time I thought about it again, I'd forgotten which of the three I had preferred. So, I bought one of each and determined to compare them. I tasted them not quite blind. I knew what the wines were, but I covered the labels and tasted them in random order. Tasting notes and some conclusions follow.

Wine 1: 

Color: Medium ruby, tending toward magenta. Looks young. Color quite thin at the edges. Nose: Hints of raspberries but also something darker. Not smoky. A suggestion of cocoa perhaps. Later leather. Palate: Fruity. Light tannins. Distinct vanilla flavor, but not oaky. Moderate length. Seems fairly high in alcohol, but not excessive. Easy, appealing, everyday wine. Not especially complex, but seems well made and, although I would rank this third among these three wines, this is nevertheless tasty.  

Wine 2:

Color: Medium ruby, but deeper in color than Wine 1 and without the magenta tint. Nose: Immediately fruitier than Wine 1. Appealing red fruit scents, but also something suggestive of peaches, which is a bit of a surprise in a red wine. Vaguely floral as well. Nose most open and appealing of the three wines, at least at first. With a little time, began to suggest dark cherries.  Palate: Less overtly fruity than Wine 1. Seems light at first, but has more tannin than Wine 1. Seems younger. Has good body, and the finish is considerably longer than that of Wine 1. Surprisingly closed on the palate at first considering how expressive it is on the nose. Suggests it will develop nicely with time, and, during the tasting the wine opened up to reveal riper, slightly jammy fruit flavors, again with hints of vanilla and leather. It reminded me (in a good way) of those old-fashioned cookies with a disc of jam in the middle. Later began to vaguely suggest cassis and cocoa. My favorite of the three wines. 

Wine 3:

Color: Deep ruby. Almost opaque. Nose: Seems fairly closed at first. Less fruity on the nose than the first two wines. Attractive but hard to pin down. As it opens up, hints of dark cherries. Later vanilla, but not oaky. Palate: Rich and round. More concentrated fruit than either of the other two wines. Seems more mature, but also has good (soft, milky) acidity, suggesting it will continue to improve with time. Nicely fruity, ripe, round, and immediately appealing with delicate tannins coming to the forefront on the mid-palate before fading on a long finish. My second-favorite of the three wines.

Wine 1: 2020 Clos D’Argentine "Winemaker's Selection" Malbec Gran Reserva (Mendoza, Argentina, 13.5% alcohol, $9.99)

Wine 2: 2021 Clos D’Argentine “Winemaker’s Selection” Malbec Reserva (Mendoza, Argentina, 13% alcohol, $6.99)

Wine 3: 2017 Clos D’Argentine “Winemaker’s Selection” Cabernet Sauvignon Reserva (Mendoza, Argentina, 13% alcohol, $6.99)

Some thoughts after the reveal: I thought it interesting that Wine 3, a Cabernet Sauvignon, didn’t seem typical of that variety. The three wines gave the impression of all being made from the same grape. In this case, the producer and the land seem to have had a greater impact on the result than the grape variety, which is unusual; grape variety usually is the single most important factor determining the general taste of a wine. The Cabernet is seven years old. That's not especially old, but, as wines age, their flavor profiles tend to converge to some extent – perhaps a minor factor here as well? 

The terms “reserva” and “gran reserva” are most familiar from Spanish wines. In Spain, a wine designated “reserva” has spent at least three years aging with a minimum of one year in barrel. A “gran reserva” has been aged at least five years with at least two years in oak. The rules are less restrictive in Argentina where a red “reserva” need spend only 12 months or more in barrel and a red “gran reserva” need spend only 24 months or more in barrel (six months and 12 months for white wines). In theory, a gran reserva should be superior to a reserva, but, in this case, the reverse was true (at least in my opinion). That said, all three wines are tasty and a good value at my local (Santa Rosa, California) Grocery Outlet, ranging in price from $6.99 to $9.99. I can recommend all three.

Wines I'm Drinking: Four Inexpensive Bordeaux Wines from Grocery Outlet

It's been quite a while since I sat down and did a comparative blind tasting of cheap wines from Grocery Outlet, but, as 2015 was such a good year in Bordeaux, it's likely that even small, little-known producers made good wine. I tasted four wines from my local Grocery Outlet in the hope of discovering at least one gem worth going back to stock up on. Brief tasting notes follow.

2015 Château Jalousie Beaulieu Bordeaux Supérieur
Medium ruby red. Typical color for a young Bordeaux. Fairly closed at first, with vague hints or red fruit—cranberries, perhaps—and oak. Later something a bit metallic on the nose. Initially seems quite ripe on the palate but with pronounced tannins on the mid-palate that fade into a fruity, moderately long finish with decent acidity. Not exciting at first, but balanced, and with promise. With a little time in the glass, began to suggest cherries and roses on the palate, becoming richer, more approachable.  $6.99

2015 Château Saby Bordeaux Supérieur
Again, a medium ruby red. Typical color for a young Bordeaux. Closed at first, but with distinct earthy notes not present in any of the other wines. Later, some floral scents. Has considerable body and presence on the palate. Round, fruity, and with light tannins. A bit hot for a Bordeaux, and, checking the label, I see that this is 14%, the most alcoholic of the four wines. Immediately appealing for its up-front fruitiness, but could do with more tannin and a bit more acidity. Seems somewhat unbalanced—too alcoholic. Likely to appeal to California palates used to big, fruit-forward wines. This one is 100% Merlot. $7.99

2015 Château du Peuil Bordeaux Supérieur
Medium ruby red. Fairly typical color for a young Bordeaux but this was the palest of the four wines. Flowery, perfumey scent at first, with leather and candied citrus rind in the background, fading later in the direction of woody scents. Less fruity than the other three wines on the palate, at least at first. Flavors tending toward wood and leather with the citrus element present on the palate as well. Overall, light, very soft tannins, and a little low in acidity, yet with enough nuance in the flavors to make it interesting. My favorite of the four wines on first tasting (also see below). Only $4.99 a bottle.

2015 Château du Pin-Franc
Medium ruby red. Again, fairly typical color for a young Bordeaux but this was the deepest in color of the four wines. Initially very closed. Little scent on the nose at all. Later developed suggestions of cherries and wood. Quite closed on the palate as well. Good tannins. Likely to need time to develop. An attractive push of red fruit on the finish, but, ultimately, not very approachable at the moment. Would be interested to try this again in about five years. $6.99

Any of these four wines is a decent value. Ranging in price from $4.99 to $7.99, it would be hard to fault any of them. My initial impression was that the cheapest, the Château du Peuil, is the best, but given a little time to open up, the Château Jalousie Beaulieu began to seem more interesting than at first. The Pin-Franc may improve with time. That said, coming back to them the morning after, the Château du Peuil still seemed most appealing. Although it's a bit disappointingly light in body, it has a resiny, citrusy quality that I liked. I went back for more.

[Subsequently, I tasted two other inexpensive 2015 Bordeaux wines from Grocery Outlet: see also this post for details.]

I have no financial or other connections with any producer or retailer of wine. For more wine reviews, use the "Wines I'm Drinking" label at top right

Wines I'm Drinking: Six Inexpensive Rosés

I don't know why some people turn up their nose at rosé. They seem to think only red wine is serious wine, but who ever said wine always has to be serious? In my view, wine always has to be pleasurable, and that's all. And what could be more pleasurable than a beautiful pink wine in a sweating, crisply chilled bottle on a spring or summer day? I love to watch the glasses frost up with condensation when the cold wine is first poured.

I tasted six inexpensive rosés from Grocery Outlet blind today--more of the wines from Grocery Outlet I've been tasting ahead of one of that company's twice-annual wine sales (20% off all wines March 30 through April 3). The six rosé wines I tasted were:

• 2006 Blue Cove Rosé (South Africa, Cabernet Sauvignon)
• 2007 Julian Chivite, Gran Feudo Rosé (Navarra, Spain, Grenache)
• 2008 Clos du Bois, Sonoma County Dry Rosé
• NV Enjoie Dry Rosé Wine (Napa, California, Grenache/Barbera)
• 2006 Giacomo Montresor Brolo Alto Bardolino Chiaretto
• 2008 Frias Family Vineyard Napa Valley Rosé 

Today I'm posting notes for the first three. Tomorrow I'll post notes for the remaining three. We enjoyed these wines with grilled herb-stuffed trout and herbed mashed potatoes, both made with chives, oregano, parsley, rosemary, and thyme fresh from the garden (left).

2006 Blue Cove Rosé (South Africa, Cabernet Sauvignon)

A very pretty salmon color (a fairly deep orange-pink). The nose offered dusky strawberry scents and a hint of sulfur that was a bit worrisome at first but blew off quickly. With a little time I got the pleasant scent of linseed oil with the strawberries and a suggestion of cranberries. Medium body on the palate. Sweet but with a good balancing acid bite. Sweeter on the mid-palate. Gives an impression of richness. Quite long and with an interesting hint of tannin on the finish, including a little bitterness that was not at all unattractive. My initial impression of this wine was favorable, although with food, the comparative sweetness made it less attractive than some of the other wines. Perhaps best on its own? Still, this was among my favorites of the evening. Good value. Not especially nuanced, but recommended for everyday drinking if you prefer sweeter styles of rosé or if you're looking mostly for a stand-alone sipping wine. Good value at only $3.99 a bottle. To be clear, this is not a sweet wine, just a bit less dry than some of the others I tasted in this group of rosés. 

2007 Julian Chivite, Gran Feudo Rosé (Navarra, Spain, Grenache)
Very pale rose pink. Looks quite thin. Powdered sugar scents. Raspberries. Raspberries and cream. Sweet cake-like scents. Not very distinctive on the palate, though. Fairly short. Crisp, but not a lot of flavor. A bit sour on the finish with tartness lingering on the tip of the tongue. Overall, seemed thin and somewhat sour. Not a favorite, although it began to seem more interesting later, with food. While this is not a bad value at only $2.99 a bottle, there were better wines among the six I tasted. I preferred both the Blue Cove wine and the Clos du Bois wine (below) among the first three. Again, hard to argue with this at only $2.99 a bottle, but not among the better wines of the group of six. 

2008 Clos du Bois, Sonoma County Dry Rosé

Pale rose pink again, but slightly deeper in hue than the Julia Chivite wine. The nose was vaguely suggestive of candy apples, but generally fairly closed. Light in body on the palate. Moderate length. Sweetish but with adequate balancing acidity. The lingering impression is one of simple ripe fruit. Sweetness made the wine seem a bit heavy on the finish, but later and with food, this seemed more focused and interesting. Not a favorite, but quite acceptable for everyday drinking. Fairly priced at $3.99 a bottle. 

More wines from Grocery Outlet tomorrow--specifically, the other three rosés. Of those I tasted today, the Blue Cove wine was best, but my favorites of the six rosés were both among the second group (see tomorrow's notes).

GIFT CARD GIVEAWAY: I'm giving away a $50 Grocery Outlet gift card this week as part of the promotion. To be eligible to win, all you have to do is comment on one of my Grocery Outlet reviews this week (March 22-26), Tweet about one of the reviews or post a message about one of the reviews on Facebook. The winner will be selected at random from all eligible readers. The winner must agree to blog or tweet about what the card ends up buying at Grocery Outlet. That's all there is to it. Good Luck!

(For more information about the promotion, see my initial post on the subject. See more wine reviews by clicking the "Wines I'm Drinking" label in the bar at right. While you're at it, feel free to explore the rest of my blog. I write about many topics.)

Wines I'm drinking: Carménère (Follow-up)

I recently wrote in these pages about three Carménère wines I tasted with friends (you may want to start with that post). The tasting fueled my curiosity. I quickly located another five 100% Carménère wines from Chile at Beverages and More. Tasting notes follow. My post of January 4 (linked above) gives some background information about this intriguing grape.

2007 Natura Valle Colchagua Carménère 

Very, very deep blackish red. Darkest of the five wines. Strongly scented. Attractive right off the bat. Citrus scents, leather, roasted meat, graphite. Not much overt fruit, but a hint of raspberry with a little time. Later seemed more like black raspberries and a little oak became apparent. Crisp and fresh on the palate. Rich, good body, good acid as well, and has quite a long finish for a wine in this price range. Nice chewy, grainy tannins on the finish. With some air, gained an interesting, slightly raisiny flavor. Gained a nice core of restrained fruit. Very tasty. The best of the five wines in my view. (Beverages and More, $9.99, $6.99 with members discount card)

2007 Cono Sur Valle Colchagua Carménère 

Medium-deep blackish purple. A bit thin at the edge. Floral, perfumed scents. Lily-like scent. Roasted meat. Something reminiscent of a wool rug (reminded me of my days selling oriental carpets). Rather closed on the palate. A bit nondescript. No obvious faults, but very closed still. On the tart side--probably good with rich meat dishes. Grainy, gritty tannins on the finish. With a little time, the wine opened up to reveal citrus scents. Slowly gained in length and body, but still quite closed. Needs time. I tasted all five wines again the following day. This was still tight, but really not bad at all. Will be quite drinkable with a little patience. Probably my second choice among the five--but see the notes on the Explorador wine. (Beverages and More, $8.99, $6.99 with members discount card)

2005 La Playa Valle Colchagua Block Selection Estate Reserve Carménère

Similar in color to the above wine. Very different on the nose, though. Scents of passion fruit, vanilla, and perhaps lime. Meaty scents as well. A bit flat at first on the palate. Not a lot of fruit. Fine, grainy tannins again. Fairly short, but comes back with a certain lingering spiciness at the back of the tongue. The initial impression it left was rather austere. This wine developed a nice chocolatey scent and more apparent acidity on the palate with time, but remained rather unchanged even the following day. (Beverages and More, $8.99, $7.99 with members discount card)

2006 Casillero del Diablo Rapel Valley Carménère

Very deep purplish black, but not quite as deeply colored as the Natura wine. A hint of mint and the scent of wool rugs again. Later meaty scents and something floral that I couldn't pin down. Vanilla scents. Oak. Light-bodied, but balanced on the palate. Pleasant fruit, bright acidity, light tannins. Moderate length. Attractive subtle sweetness on the finish. Not a lot of up-front fruit, but more immediately approachable than either the Cono Sur or La Playa wines. Later strong scent of leather and oak scents more pronounced. Light, but tasty in a delicate, easy sort of way. Still later the oak scents seemed even more pronounced and I began to detect a hint of lime. Overall impression is of light-weightedness. I have also tasted the 2007 version of this which had more character--reminiscent of boysenberries, milk chocolate, and roses. The 2007 had better fruit as well, with a smooth chocolatey finish. (Beverages and More, $7.99, $5.99 with members discount card)

2007 Explorador Central Valley Carménère 

Medium-deep purple. Rather closed nose but with a little mint and citrus. Smelled noticeably alcoholic, which made it seem a trifle out of balance, but, at 13.5%, this wasn't the strongest of the five wines (the Natura is 14%, the Casillero del Diablo 13.8%, although label values have to be taken with a grain of salt. I think the label percentage only has to be within 1.5 points of the actual alcohol level. Wine producers use that latitude for a variety of reasons). Light and grapey on the palate. Not a lot of tannin. Seemed fairly short, but with nice suggestions of raisins on the finish. Also a slight, attractive bitterness that reminded me of Valpolicella. Had what seemed a masked core of fruit likely to come forward with time. This wine had changed more than any of the others on the following day. I kept coming back to this one. With air, it gained a balanced sweet fruitiness on the palate that was very attractive. I liked this about as well as the Cono Sur wine. I would buy it again.  (Beverages and More, $7.99, $6.99 with members discount card)

Having recently tasted these five wines, the 2007 Casillero del Diablo wine, the three wines of the earlier tasting and the Carménère rosé mentioned in my January 4 post, I can say that Carménère is capable of good things at very attractive prices. The wines all seemed to be marked by distinctly meaty, leathery scents. The other characteristic they shared was finely-grained, almost gritty tannins on the finish. Wines to explore further.