The California Wine Party Franc/Merlot 2006

Vineyard: The California Wine Party
Location: Paso Robles
Type: 70% Cabernet Franc, 26% Merlot, 4% Petite Sirah
Vintage: 2006
Alcohol Content: 13.0%

Purchased: 1/28/09 - Trader Joe's, Menlo Park, CA
Cost: $4.99
Rating: 5.5/10

The California Wine Party! What a name! There is an old dude on the label screaming something - and it must be important because there are 4 microphones recording him. There is a logo which reads "For the Independent Wine Drinker." Stars everywhere. On the back, there is even a quote from none other than a famous wine pundit, "This bottle's integrity speaks for itself." I don't know who this famous wine pundit is, but he is correct.

I'd like to see more of these Independent wine drinker logos. I think they could be a big hit. It's a good way of saying, "I don't need someone to tell me this wine is good in order to enjoy it." Perfect that it is under $5, too.

I was at TJ's picking up a couple bottles after work (or before work, if you consider this my job) today, and I found myself with about 7 that I wanted to try. I figured I should try to narrow it down to 5, so I took all of the bottles out to examine them and make a decision. A very helpful man who worked there came to help me out with my decision - and he was clear that this is one of the bottles that should make the final cut. Best part was that a woman came by to listen to our discussion and figured she should grab the bottle that we were discussing. I pointed it out to her, and her response was, "This one? But it's only $5!?" I responded that price is not always the best indicator of taste.

I need a business card.

Wild Hare Petite Sirah

Vineyard: Wild Hare
Location: Paso Robles, CA
Type: Petite Sirah
Vintage: n/a
Alcohol Content: 14.9%

Purchased: 1/26/09 - Mollie Stone's, Palo Alto, CA
Cost: $4.99
Rating: 4.75/10

The rating on this one was tough. Doesn't taste all that great, let's be honest. But it doesn't taste that bad, either. It's cheap, though, and friggin' strong! It also has no indication of vintage on the bottle, and the blurb on the back of the bottle claims that it's better newer. I don't know the type of wine that is generally better newer than older, but I but there is a pretty strong correlation between quality and ability to age. Definitely doesn't taste as bad as it could considering that.

Can't really think of the right occasion for this wine. The bunny on the label is drinking a glass on the beach - I can't really think of a better setting than that. Certainly not for dinner with grandma; she'd fall asleep in her dinner after telling some story that was probably better left untold.

Black Oak Zinfandel 2006

Vineyard: Black Oak
Location: Petite Sirah
Type: Zinfandel
Vintage: 2006
Alcohol Content: 13.5%

Purchased: 1/24/09 - BevMo, Marin, CA
Cost: $3.99
Rating: 5.5/10

Well, it is nice to get a decent wine after a pretty bad run. The other two wines I picked up at BevMo were the ones I was excited about and expecting to be good. This isn't anything all too special, but at least it was drinkable.

Just boring enough to not have much else to say about it.

Stonehaven Shiraz Cabernet Sauvignon 2007

Vineyard: Stonehaven
Location: South Eastern Australia
Type: Shiraz 80%, Cabernet Sauvignon 20%
Vintage: 2007
Alcohol Content: 13.5%

Purchased: 1/18/09 - BevMo, Marin, CA
Cost: $3.99
Rating: 4.0/10

0 for 2 on the night. Maybe I should avoid blends. Is the thinking that if it doesn't taste good - why not add a little Cabernet Sauvignon to it? Why would that possibly make it taste better?

I dare you to claim that you can taste the combination...

Lodez Syrah Grenache Carignan 2003

Vineyard: Lodez
Location: St Felix de Lodez, France
Type: Syrah 50%, Grenache 30%, Carignan 20%
Vintage: 2003
Alcohol Content: 12.5%

Purchased: 1/18/09 - BevMo, Marin, CA
Cost: $3.99
Rating: 4.0/10

Further proof that making wine expensive doesn't make it good. I (regrettably) assumed this wine was going to be really good because it was a) originally $12.99, b) from France, and c) aged since 2003. I hadn't had any French wines before, but I just figured it had to be good because French people drink so much wine which they wouldn't do if it didn't taste good. Also, because it was rather pricey before being on sale - I thought it would have a good chance of being good. I've never said that expensive wine shouldn't taste good, just that there must be some good cheap wines.

But, no. Nope. Didn't taste good. And to add insult to injury, there were dregs in the bottle. Take my advice and avoid this one - even though it looks like such a good deal.

Mas de Caralt Penedes 2005

Vineyard: Mas de Caralt
Location: Torrelavit, Spain
Type: Penedes
Vintage: 2005
Alcohol Content: 13%

Purchased: 11/30/08 - BevMo, San Francisco, CA
Cost: $4.99
Rating: 4.25/10

And another sub-par wine. It's not bad enough to quit before the bottle's empty, but it's also no where near good enough to think about a second one. It's flavorful, which I prefer to the tasteless wines that fall into the not-so-good category, but nothing unique about it.

Aquila D'Oro Chianti 2007

Vineyard: Aquila D'Oro
Location: Tuscany, Italy
Type: Chianti
Vintage: 2007
Alcohol Content: 12.5%

Purchased: 12/17/08 - Trader Joe's, Mountain View, CA
Cost: $4.99
Rating: 3.5/10

There is something wrong with this wine. I choose the word "wrong" carefully here; I didn't say "bad." However, there are certain things that you don't want to taste like something else. This wine is a good example of that. If you told me I was about to drink a new Gusher's fruit juice, I would have told you that it tastes great. Drinking a wine, however, this flavor is not what I was hoping for.

This idea makes me think about the whole expensive v. cheap wine paradox. Studies have shown that people can't tell (or in fact prefer) cheap wine to expensive wine when the label is covered, but at the same time prefer the expensive label to the cheap label when the same wine is in both bottles. When you are expecting great and you have a positive result, you might respond "great". Whereas if you were expecting good, and you have the same positive result, you might just respond "good". In this case, were I expecting something tart, I would have responded "great", but with wine, I'm gonna just have to go with "tart".

Maybe there should just be a "Drink By" date on the label....

Lindemans Shiraz 2007

Vineyard: Lindemans
Location: South Eastern Australia
Type: Shiraz
Vintage: 2007
Alcohol Content: 13.5%

Purchased: 12/31/08 - Save-Mart, Tahoe City, CA
Cost: $4.99
Rating: 3.0/10

Well, not much positive to report about this guy. Starts pretty bad with a smell of alcohol, and it finishes with something I can't put my finger on - but it's definitely not something one would want in wine. Too bad, cause I thought you could always count on a Shiraz.

One tip off might be the label - most of the Aussie wines I've had the good fortune of trying for this blog have had fun/goofy labels. This guy, on the other hand, is trying to be serious, which makes me think (and unfortunately, after the fact) that it is trying to hide something from us. Yeah, next time I'm going for something with funny font and a kangaroo on the bottle.

Estrella Red Table Wine 1.5L

Vineyard: Estrella
Location: Napa, California
Type: Red Table Wine
Vintage: N/A (I'm gonna guess 2008 though) - it says Lot No. 3 on the Bottle
Alcohol Content: 12.5%

Purchased: 1/5/09 - Mollie Stone's, Palo Alto, CA
Cost: $4.99
Rating: 5.25/10

Well, to start off with - it's a big bottle. You can see this in the picture. In fact, it's two bottles in one, which makes it twice the deal! Make sure you know what you are in for, however, before attempting a feat such as the 1.5 L Estrella! I know what you are thinking: "I've had two bottles before. It's no biggie." Sure you have, but usually you have the option of opening a second bottle or deciding that tonight should really just be a one bottle night. Not with this feller. With this one you have to commit to drinking two bottles before having a single drop. But hey - I say do it, live on the edge.

The wine is surprisingly not bad. Full of smell and taste that I tend to enjoy - namely a little spicy and non-offensive. No idea why they named it star as this is as earthy of a wine as I have tasted - but I also realize that my job is rating wine not coming up with names for vineyards. I do have a slight urge to get out of my comfortable, warm bed and go to the cold outside where I can fall asleep in an awkward position under the stars....

Archeo Nero d'Avola 2006

Vineyard: Sicilia
Location: South-western Sicily
Type: Nero d'Avola
Vintage: 2006
Alcohol Content: 13%

Purchased: 12/17/08 - Trader Joe's, Mountain View, CA
Cost: $4.99
Rating: 6.5/10

While the cork proved to be a quite worthy opponent, the wine itself is really quite good. It is interesting enough to sit around and play the whats-it-taste-like game and still be interested to play the whats-it-smell-like game afterwards. Of course, I'm no where near good enough at those games to publish my results, but I'd love to hear yours.

Definitely up there with the best I've had so far. There are distinct tastes, unlike some of the crap that I've opened lately. No one could accuse this wine of being weak or timid. Someone who likes spicy food and their meat cooked rare is probably going to like this more than others. Enjoy.