A Little Break

Well, wine month was the month that was, and rum month is the month that will be. In this time between that was and the month that will be, I thought I would take a little break to wax poetic about a drink atopical, and atypical. While I wax and wane with a post, I’m afraid somewhat inane, I thought I would bring you a drink made with gin, and many other ingredients seeming quite sinful. Lemon, lime, cream, egg, orange flower water, vanilla, soda water, you have to know that of which I speak…the Ramos gin fizz. Now, everyone I heard from, read from, and fromed from praised this Crescent City libation as a drink that fueled passions and was spectacular enough to be something beyond what drinks are. I found it fell flat. It had none of that rat-a-tat-tat that makes a good drink. It could be that I mixed it poorly, but I shook it until my arms got tired, and kept on shaking a good seven or eight minutes. This drink was rich, but the richness of the drink clashed with the sourness of the citrus juices. Perhaps it needed more sugar. Ah well. Anyway, without further ado and just a bit of bugaboo I give you:

The Ramos Gin Fiz

• 2 oz. – Gin (Gordon’s)
• .5 oz. – Lemon Juice
• .5 oz. – Lime Juice
• 1 oz. – Cream (Heavy whipping)
• 1 – White of small egg
• 1Tsp – Powdered sugar
• 1 dash – Vanilla Extract (Kirkland Select)
• 2 dash – Orange Flower Water
• 2-3 oz. – Seltzer Water

Mix sugar and juice together in a pint glass, and mix until syrup is formed. Add in gin, cream, egg white, vanilla, and one dash of orange flower water. Shake dry to combine, and then add ice and shake vigorously for a long time until well combined and frothy. Double strain into a long glass and top off with seltzer. If you can put the orange flower water in any kind of atomizer, atomize on top for additional aroma.

See you for rum,

The Scribe

A Wonderful Spicing

Well, the Dramproject is now complete. It is absolutely gorgeous. It is everything I wanted and more. The sherry is spicy and peppery and kicks like a mule. It worked great in the twilight squall cocktail, and, more importantly, it is going wonderfully in soups and as part of my steak marinade (3 oz. Worchestershire sauce, 3 oz. soy sauce, .5 oz. sherry peppers for each steak, marinade for .5-3 hours). Basically, it is everything I could ask for and more. Whip yourself up a batch today!

Pictures to follow.

Take care now,
The Scribe

Together, At Last

Well guys, it’s been a long journey, but we’re here. This marks the last post of Wine Month August. I’ll be finishing up the August Dramproject tonight, and posting an update. While it’s a few days overdue, I’m posting here a comparison of the Undurraga cab sauv and the McWilliams sirrah. I think this works out to a question of pairing. As for me, I generally don’t drink wine on its own. I tend to drink beer, amber spirits, or cocktails when I am drinking without food, and, with the exception of sacramentally, I tend to drink wine only with food.

So, that begs the question, which is better with what? I think the shiraz stood up to the beef we ate it with, but I feel that the cabernet would have been a better pairing. On the other hand, I think that the Australian wine would have been better with lighter foods than the Chilean, and that the reverse would also have been the true. So, there you have it. Both were quite good quotidian wines. Neither was spectacular, but I enjoyed them both.

I’ve enjoyed drinking wine with you this month,

The Scribe

An Ocean Between Us

As I compare southern hemisphere reds these two days, I needed, of course, to hit Chile. Chile has been a staple for those of us who enjoy fine wine on a limited budget. Today I bring you a cabernet sauvignon from the Malbec Valley. Let’s take a look:

A Glass of Undurraga

Undurraga Wineries: Reserva Cabernet Sauvignon 2005 (Chile)

Tasting Conditions: I enjoyed this glass of wine with dinner one night to kick off the week. I had it in a red wine glass of approximately ten ounces volume, though, obviously, I only filled it to the bulge. The wine had been opened a day or two previously and recorked, so a little oxidation had occurred.

Eye: The wine was a dark royal purple in the glass with very slender legs. The bottle was a classic wine bottle, and the label was very square. The label was quite neutral being neither particularly elegant or artistic, nor suggestive of an inferior bottling.

Nose: The nose was surprisingly rough for wine, especially as oxidation usually smoothes out the wine a bit. However, I did get berries, and a bit of apple in the nose, in addition to the usual musty grape.

Mouth: While Cab Sauvs tend to be sweet, this one was especially surprising to me. It was quite sweet, though not to the point of being unpleasant. Otherwise, I got berries, citrus, and wineyness in the first sip and as I was finishing the glass after the meal, I also got mint and spice elements suggestive of oak.

Conclusion: This was certainly an acceptable wine. I have no idea how it priced out, but if it was around my usual wine budget, I would be more than happy to pick up a bottle.

I’m Bound For South Australia

Way back at the beginning of the summer, we had our first nice meal as a house to say goodbye to one of our housemates who was heading home for the summer. It is ironic that I post this review tonight on the eve of her return, but I saved it for a wine month, which was a concept that I was coming to even then. Anyway, this week, we are doing red wines from the southern hemisphere: an Aussie shiraz and a cabernet sauvignon from Chile. Tonight is the shiraz:

McWilliams Wines: 2005 Shiraz (New South Wales, Australia)

McWilliams 2005 Shiraz

Tasting Conditions: We enjoyed this shiraz with a farewell dinner for one of my housemates. It was accompanied by pasta, brisket, and broccoli. I enjoyed it in a standard six ounce wine glass.

Eye: A fairly dark crimson wine in a rather attractive package, though standard. One minor note, I was a bit hard pressed to find the proof of the wine.

Nose: A sweet, grape nose was evident with some berry (raspberry?) as just the slightest hint of citrus.

Mouth: This was especially smooth with barely a hint of bite. It did not come on particularly strong. The berries continued into the mouth though the citrus notes were not evident. It was also perhaps a bit nutty. I would also say this wine was almost chewy in texture. While it was nicely balanced, I would also suggest that it was, perhaps a bit sweet.

Conclusion: This is quite a pleasant vintage. When we got it, it was on special for less than $8. At that price, I would buy many bottles of this wine. It would perhaps be more fitting as a wine with red pasta than a strongly flavoured meat. This would be a great wine for white wine lover to introduce them to the red stuff, which, in fact, was also part of why we got it.

G’day,
The Scribe

Double Up

Well, I have just the tail of that wonderful bottle of Castillero del Diablo, and I’ve been watching the video of the English Invasion over at the Cocktail Spirit. So, wine, tea, and what else? A quick glance over at the CocktailDB suggested the Double Derby, a pleasant summer wine cooler…with a kick.

This wine cooler is cooling, and refreshing. It’s creamy and cool, and lush on the upside. The tea flavour is really quite lost, and the flavours are a bit muddled. I would have preferred them a bit crisper. As I feared, the cream curdled just a tad, but the curdles tended to stick to the ice, so it was okay there. I would have preferred a bit more citrus, perhaps upping the lime a bit. I tried to up the orange, and that didn’t help. I am split over the cream. On the one hand, without it, you loose the lushness which really makes this drink enjoyable, on the other hand, curdled cream is never a good thing. I guess I would shake the cream with the drink, and while you loose the wonderful effect, you also gain the creaminess. Another option might be to layer the bourbon or wine and then the cream on top, ala a pouse cafe. I would be worried about the sugar contents over the lower layer, however, in getting layered properly. If you were to try and layer, I guess I would layer the bourbon separately, not the wine, as you need the colour contrast.

Double Derby

• 2 oz. – Whiskey (Old Overholt Rye)
• 2 oz. – Claret (Castillero del Diablo 2006 Cabernet Sauvignon)
• 2 oz. – Black teal, brewed very dark
• 1 oz. – Orange Juice
• .75 oz. – Lime Juice
• 1 oz. – Blackcurrant Syrup
• .5 oz. – Cream

Shake it all together very hard, and serve over ice in a large short tumbler of at least 12 oz.

I hope you enjoy,
The Scribe

Like Apples And Oranges

So, the problem with this comparison is that is like comparing apples and oranges. While both sherry and port are classed as fortified wines, along with madeira, marsala, and a half dozen other styles, they are very different types of wine, the same way that apples and oranges are both fruits, but taste quite different. Further, the sherry I tasted was a low end cooking sherry, while the port was a high end vintage port. While both were on the sweeter side for wine, the port was, as port often is, very sweet, almost to the point of being sickly. The sherry was a lot less sweet, but also a lot less complex. Which is better? Damn if I know. It’s all a question of what you are up for. A fine celebratory desert wine? Go with the Bogle port. A simple quotidian apertif? The Taylor sherry will fit the bill just fine. In addition, tonight I enjoyed Grahm’s Six Grape Ruby Port and the 1999 Reciotto della Valpolicella from M. Castelli. The port was reasonably ordinary with nice berry and subtle nutty notes. The Valpolicella was interesting. While my father remarked that he had never had Manischewitz served cold before, I found the wine surprising. While it was indeed quite sweet the wine had an unexpected roundness to it, but the shocker was the finish. The finish felt like eating a fresh raspberry. If I could only drink one wine for all time, I guess it would have to be the sherry or the Valpolicella, just because the ports were both too sweet, but, to be honest, I would really want to limit my enjoyment of any of the wines to a less common-place thing.

This probably hasn’t been the most useful comparison, but I will say that between the two, the Grahm’s port was just as good as the Bogle, and likely much cheaper, so I would go with that. I will compare the sherries as soon as I crack the Barbadillo.

Keep your spirits (and wines) strong,

The Scribe

If You Won’t Do Madeira, M’Dear

Perhaps sherry will lift your cheer? As you ought to know by now, I have been infusing with sherry, trying to make some complex sherry peppers as a sort of spicy cocktail bitter, as well as for cooking. Now, in such an application, starting with something interesting, like a fortified wine or an amber spirit, adds complexity to the finished product. On the other hand, since the end product is going to be basically a complex refined hot sauce (mmm…sherry pepper Buffalo wings…yum!) I wasn’t going to shell out for really good sherry here. I used fairly inexpensive cooking sherry. Of course, I still needed to see how it was, and I was quite surprised. Let’s take a look:

A Glass of Taylor Sherry

Taylor Wine Co.: Golden Sherry (New York, USA)

Tasting Conditions: I had this glass of sherry as an evening night cap after a reasonably easy day. While I poured the second to last drink from the bottle, I opened the bottle the same day this review was made for infusion purposes. I drank from a Ministry of Rum tasting glass of six ounces which should still work fine for sherry.

Eye: The wine is a redish amber honey color in the glass. A swirl generated thick, very slow forming legs. The bottle was reasonably attractive with a square-pentagonal label that was not unattractive, even if it was not very elegant. I was pleasantly surprised to see that the wine came with a cork, though it didn’t fit as well as I might have liked.

Nose: The nose was quite sweet with raison and vanilla aromas. It was not particularly complex, certainly not in comparison to some spirits, but I also found some oak in there after a little sniffing.

Mouth: This sherry was everything sherry is supposed to be. In fact, I was rather pleasantly surprised given that I am used to this being a cooking sherry. It is quite sweet, with good grape taste. There was also a hint of vanilla, and none of the oak I got from the nose. To my palate it was a bit watery however. In fact, compared even to some beers, it had a very watered down mouthfeel.

Conclusion: This sherry was surprisingly good, given both the price, and the intended usage. I got a sherry primarily for infusing into sherry peppers, but this sip suggests something that I might get again for an evening sip. It is not necessarily what I would serve to guests, but I suspect that it will work quite well both for myself and as a quoditian aperitif or digestif as well as in a cocktail.

Come back tomorrow for the wrap,
The Scribe

Not Just Any Port in a Storm

Thinking myself particularly refined, I decided to celebrate my 21st with port rather than Champagne. What can I say, humility was never my strong suit. In retrospect, I should have gone with the sparkling. However, I did enjoy my bottle of vintage port, even if I did regret it a little.

Regular readers of my blog (both of you) will note that I am posting a review on Monday, not Wednesday as is my custom. For these theme months, what I am trying to do is to run a line up of items within a similar grouping over the course of a week with a comparison on Wednesday. This week, I’m running fortified wines. I have a port tonight, and then sherry for tomorrow and Thursday.

Bogle Winery: 2000 Vintage Limited Release Port

Tasting Conditions: I enjoyed it fresh from the store. Traditional 8oz brandy snifter. I enjoyed it shortly after lunch on my twenty-first birthday.

Eye: I can’t say too much about this since I have drank port perhaps once before. The legs appear reasonably middling in thickness. The wine itself is a deep ruby red, almost the color of black currant. The bottle itself it quite nice. A traditional desert wine bottle. I will suggest that the plastic fake wax is a pain to get off and in my pulling it off may have damaged the cork.

Nose: The nose it a bit more potent than most of the wines I am used to, in keeping with the fact that it is fortified. One the other hand, it seems relatively grape-y without too much additional flavor.

Mouth: It’s quite sweet, again, in keeping with the fact that it is port, and incredibly smooth. Unlike most sweet wines I have enjoyed, the sweetness is not cloying, and, indeed, is rather pleasant. The end is nice, with a pleasant caramel flavor, while the front, as I mentioned is quite sweet as well, with an almost apricot tinge. In between there is the slightest bite of the alcohol, which tells you what you are drinking.

Conclusion: This is quite nice. I bought it as a treat for myself on my birthday, and, to be honest, it’s a bit outside the price range of what I would get under any other circumstances. However, it’s also extraordinarily good. I don’t have much experience at all with lesser ports, so I cannot make a very good comparison, but I think this bottle will go a bit quicker than it needs to.

Keep it sweet,
The Scribe

What I Have to Work With

I have mentioned, from time to time, the package stores near me where I go buy the stuff that gets reviewed here. Since I’ve paid the vast majority of them far more than I ever have for a single bottle (which is unsurprising, given, you know, statistics), I thought, as a service my local Bostonians, I would review the six or seven liquor stores I go to, or no longer go to, in the order I visited them in.

• Hillside Wine & Spirits (Medford: 323 Boston Ave.): This is the first liquor store I ever went to, and they tried to ensure my loyalty by bribing me with my first shaker. At the time, it was the closest packy to me. This is really just you basic neighbourhood package store. The selection is a tad better than your average neighbourhood store, but really nothing spectacular. The prices are okay, but not great, even for Massachusetts. Joan, who runs the store, is quite nice, and I still go there for kegs, but that’s the only thing to get there.
• Downtown Wine & Spirits (Somerville: 225 Elm St.): If there’s something I absolutely can’t find, Downtown is where I go. They have lots bitters, lots of interesting high end cordials and liqueurs. However, everything they have (with the exception of some cheap vodka an rum for us college kids) is premium or ultra-premium, and thus, a bit outside my price range unless it’s my last shot. One thing I should also mention is that if a beer can make its way to Massachusetts, they have it. Interesting Belgians, local microbrews, English real ales, they’re all Downtown. I go here rarely, especially now that I found two new stores.
• Kappy’s Liquors (Medford: 10 Revere Beach Pky.): This is the local big-box package store. Pretty standard for what it is. Decent but not stellar liquor selection. Okay beer selection. Pretty good wine selection. Pretty good prices.
• Ball Square Fine Wines (Somerville: 716 Broadway): I discovered this local packy the other day, and it has quickly become my choice, at least for short notice quick stuff. Their liquor selection is exactly what I am looking for, though they’re a bit shy on rum. Friendly, helpful staff, excellent prices, and wonderful selection: I’m in love. They have El Dorado 15, Mount Gay XO, and the list goes on. Lots of interesting stuff.
• Liquor World (Cambridge: 13 White St.): I just discovered this store today, and, as the name suggests, they have lots of liquors, for wonderful prices. Wine and beer are pretty awful, and the service sucks, but this is where I will go for most liquors.

If it’s not on the list, and it’s not Main St. Liquors in Medford, and it’s in the area between Medford Square and Harvard Square, I’ve probably been there, and it’s not good enough to get a full review. I’ve been to DOMA, Harvard Fine Wines and Harvard Wine & Spirits, and they’re all pretty bad.

Let me know about any other goodies,

The Scribe