For this tasting we chose two sparklers, one made using the Traditional Method (i.e., Méthode Champenoise) and the other using a less labor intensive production process (i.e., stainless steel pressurized tanks) known as the Charmat Method. For the first time during the course of this semester there were only two of us tasting. Here are my notes:
This bottle did not want to give up its cork! After fighting with the heavy bottle for about 5 minutes I was finally victorious and was awarded with a lovely light, golden hued effervescent tulip glass of “bubbly”. Attractive aromatics welcomed me with a subtle touch of apples, grapefruit, hint of yeast, and what can best be described as apple blossoms. Nice and unexpected. On the palate this California Sparkler was bright, lively, dry, and slightly acidic. Food friendly. Mostly pleasant lingering aftertaste with just a bit of bitterness. There was a trace of grapefruit pithiness after swallowing but overall, a very nice and affordable sparkling wine. Very drinkable.
Richly saturated with gold, this traditionally styled California Champagne sparkled with delight as I took my first sniff. The bouquet announced something special as I delved in deeper to a complex of apple orchard blossoms, fermentation tank, and yeast notes. The complexity grew as I transitioned from olfactory to gustatory appreciation, with rich layers of lively yeast, creamy caramel, eliciting round earthiness reminiscent of mushroom. Intriguing. Full and interesting. What makes this wine truly remarkable is the long and incredibly fascinating finish. An amazing finish that lasted and evolved, first with satisfying creamy textures and then transforming into sweet strawberry fruitiness. Delicious.
Post Tasting Notes: what a pleasant tasting! We had two very different exemplars of sparkling wine, one (Barefoot) that emphasized the fruity character (aromatically-driven) and the other (Korbel) highlighting winemaking techniques (bouquet-driven). If I had to pick a favorite it would have to be the Korbel…but, the Barefoot Bubbly is a close-second!
A couple years ago I read a book by Eric Arnold titled, “My First Big Crush: The down and dirty of making great wine down under” and was immediate taken by his off-color, and frequently irreverent perspective towards the wine industry. His story is a personal account of working the crush during one of New Zeeland’s biggest harvest years as an aspiring author, turned would-be cellar rat. I was inspired by his adventure and captivated by the idea of an extraordinary Sauvignon Blanc – and thus, I began my tasting with high expectations.
Each of my tasting notes, unless otherwise indicated, is designed as a vertical blind tasting. Four of us were gathered around a square table with five wine glasses, atop of white paper, in front of us. We tasted silently (as silent as we could) and took notes. Then we discussed.
1. 2008 Sauvignon Blanc. Angeline, Russian River Valley (CA). Source: ?, cost: ?)
At 13.9% alcohol, Angeline displayed a light straw color and gave off a delicate, almost imperceptible floral fragrance and a touch of melon. Other than a full, round mouth-feel, this wine lacked substance with the exception of a slight perception of sweetness and a hint of oak. The finish was long and unpleasant with its high alcohol. Some of my comments: “nondescript, burns, high alcohol, kind of boring”.
An intriguing golden-hued wine greeted me with prototypical floral characteristics and wisps of fruit, citrus and pineapple were predominant. A nicely balanced, yet thin, pleasing green-apple flavor lasted just long enough to leave me wanting more. Comments: “light smoky quality, guessing this is a French wine. Maybe some oak” Delicious.
Crystal clear and pale yellow, this Barefoot Cellar represents a good wine gone bad! At first glance this bottom-shelf wine gave rise to a light spritz as evidenced more by visual inspection than by taste. This hint, a clue to a possible fault, should have stopped me right here, but instead I dove nose first into what can best be described as olfactory overload! First sniff reminded me of one of my earliest jobs working in the paint shop of a Chevy dealership in Grand Rapids, Michigan – yes, a paint shop aroma! Leaving good sense behind the tasting continued, my notes read: “thin, unpleasant chemical quality, possibly turpentine”. If the smell and taste wasn’t bad enough, the lingering finish left my mid-palate begging for a cracker and a rinse.
4. 2005 Sauvignon Blanc - Reserve. Rancho Zabaco, Russian River Valley (CA). Source: Hy-Vee, cost: $5 on sale).
This California Sauvignon Blanc, golden-yellow in color, initially overloaded my sensory neurons with a familiar smell. I’ve heard about the aromatic compound of this varietal, frequently cited in the literature, but as they say, I hadn’t experienced it firsthand. Cat pee. Apparently, wine science geeks who study such things have identified the odor as “p-mentha-8-thiol-3-one”(a sulfur compound) that does strikingly, in fact, smell an awful lot like cat pee. Once I composed myself from the initial shock of the aromas (now, I’m being nice), I took a slurp and found a powerhouse wine full of grapefruit, medium bodied, seductively balanced and dare I say…Interesting. Frankly, the more I tasted (I returned to this wine several times) the more complex and interested I became. My $5 sale rack wine was a hit!
5. 2008 Sauvignon Blanc. Allan Scott Family Winemakers, Marlborough (NZ). Source: Johns Grocery (I.C.), cost: $9.99
In my lead in to this posting I introduced you to Eric Arnold, the author of the book I read, but what I didn’t mention was the fact he worked at Allan Scott. I was thrilled to find this brand at my Iowa City store and couldn’t wait to taste it. Visually, a nice green-to-yellow tinted wine gave way to a lackluster hint of citrus and melon on the nose. Not a strong starter aromatically and gustatorily speaking, provided an equally disappointing bitter, almost a pithy grapefruit quality, much like chewing the white flesh of a grapefruit. On a positive note, this Marlborough Sauvignon Blanc wine did offer a full, rich and almost creamy mouthfeel that I wasn’t expecting. My notes read: “not terribly memorable, some lingering post-swallow heat, bitter taste”. Honestly, after revealing the wines I was disappointed, not because it was necessarily bad, but because I had such high hopes for a wine (and wine company) that felt I knew.
Post Tasting Notes: For me, this tasting was less interesting than the previous two (i.e., Chardonnay and Riesling) and I am not really sure why. Perhaps it was due to my high expectations for this varietal or maybe it was the result of poorly chosen selection of wines. In any case, my favorites were the California, Rancho Zabaco (surprisingly!) and the French, Sancerre (Domaine Franck Millet) – both very yummy!
Barefoot Cellars is one, of a many, lifestyle products whose aim is align its consumer offerings with a particular way of life.
As noted on their web page, "Barefoot Republic is a community of people who share an enthusiasm for living life barefoot, exploring and relaxing, living and loving, making a difference and for making new friends, preferably over a glass of Barefoot wine."
Their web site also features links to Beach Volleyball (which they sponsor) and beach cleanups (a good thing to pick their empty wine bottles, I suppose).
Surveying the wine producers, this sort of lifestyle marketing is not widely adopted. Leading the adoption curve can be a good thing if you can lock consumers up for the long haul. It won't be long until some other winery matches their eco-sports niche. Barefoot Cellars will need to protect their eco-sport leadership with additional market share as their success is bound to draw imitators. It will be fun to watch.
My impressions: Medium plum in color. Cherries are very pronounced when the bottle is first opened and fade a over time. As the cherries fade the spice-box opens up dramatically. Soft - almost no tannins. Low acidity. Short finish. Tasty.
I paired this Merlot with homemade Beef Vegetable soup and the wine was complementary . The fruitiness and barely-there acidity balanced easily against the beefy soup.
This Merlot is, taste-wise, somewhere between the highly quaffable Australian Yellow Tail brand and the more traditional U.S. brands.
The wine is very tasty and is, perhaps, best when enjoyed by itself. I have doubts that it would hold up well with the heartier traditional Merlot-pairs such as beef roasts, steaks, bison, etc.
Bottom line: A very good value.
I don't have much experience with Barefoot Cellars, and based on this experience I think I'll start drinking my way through their product line.
$5.99 (on sale from regular $6.99) at CVS for the 750 mL bottle.
I am re-reading Roy Jenkins’ book, “Churchill, A Biography” which I recommend highly. As a result of reading about Churchill and his copious consumption of Champagne, I have found it necessary to return to sparkling wine (can’t afford the real stuff) and have recently enjoyed two bottles of California sparkling wine and one from France.
I have enjoyed, to varying degrees, the following NV sparklers:
1. “Cooks” Brut Sparkling Wine. I paid $6.99 for this 750 mL California sparkler at a grocery store. It had a very distinct yeast scent and was quite bubbly. I was disappointed at the taste as the yeast overwhelmed any fruit that might have been hiding within. Not recommended by itself. Might be okay in a mimosa.
2. “Barefoot Cellars” Brut Sparkling Wine. I paid $9.99 for this 750 mL California sparkler at a grocery store. I was not aware that Barefoot Cellars was producing sparkling wine, and this was the first time that I’d ever seen it on the shelves. I am aware of the brand and see it as trying to define itself as a low-to-mid priced wine with above average quality. The wine itself had no yeast on the nose or palate. It showed expressive citrus bouquet on the nose followed by loads of melon on the end. I was very pleasantly surprised and would buy it again. Recommended.
3. “Jean-Louis Cuvee Blanc de Blancs” Brut Sparkling Wine. I paid $10.99 for this 750 mL French sparkler at a beer and wine store. The nose was profoundly pineapple with a little citrus – very nice. The finish was smooth and easy and there was pineapple again at the end. I have gone back and bought three more bottles of this one. Strongly recommended.
