To learn about wine, it helps to learn what's in it. A complex of elements—acid, alcohol, tannin,
all sorts of particles suspended in water ( things called phenolics, aldehydes and worse ) and
water itself—make up even the most delicious and ethereal of wines.
I've put together a tasting of four wines, two white and two red, that you can duplicate for
yourself as a way of learning more about more numerous wines. These wines represent
types, and you needn't replicate the tasting exactly. A good wine merchant will help you pick
out similar wines.
Pour small amounts ( 2 ounces, say ) of 2001 Wolf Blass Gold Label riesling, South Australia
( $11 ) and 2001 Cave de Tain L'Hermitage marsanne ( $7 ) into two separate wine glasses, side
by side.
Now get a look at them. The riesling appears much lighter than the marsanne. By sight alone, it
looks as if it will taste lighter in body, too, and that turns out to be the case.
That's because there's more 'gunk' in the marsanne and lots less in the riesling, as it should
be. Rieslings are made from a thin-skinned grape, while marsanne is a thicker-skinned grape
that ripens and develops body for a long time.
Stick your nose down deep into each glass and get a good whiff of each. Very different
aromas, both pronounced, from each wine: riesling's appley, peachy smells and marsanne's
normal apricoty, honeyed aromas.
Now taste them. Note how the tastes of each wine confirm what you sniffed in them, and how
they also 'feel' different ( because of their different structures, having much to do with levels
of acidity ) . The riesling is snappy, crisp and fresh; the marsanne, round, fat and rich.
Each wine is a perfect example of its type, and together they give you two more points of
reference against which to compare other types of white wines.
Now pour a small amount of 2001 Georges Duboeuf Julienas Beaujolais ( $9 ) and 1998
Chateau D'Aurilhac, Haut Medoc ( $12 ) into two separate wine glasses.
Do the same things: look, sniff and taste.
The two wines could not be more different. Like the white wines, these two are perfect
examples of their type. The Beaujolais is medium-bodied, extraordinarily aromatic, fresh-fruity
and low in tannin. The Bordeaux is terribly serious: fat with fruit and scented of new wood,
somewhat tannic and lengthy on the palate.
That's because the two wines are made up of several of the same elements, but in varying
degrees.
Tannin, for example—that puckering element in red wines—is moderately high in the Bordeaux,
low in the Beaujolais, not only because the Bordeaux is made from grapes higher in tannin than
those that make Beaujolais, but also because it was aged in small oak casks while the
Beaujolais was not.
The fresh-feeling acidity of the Beaujolais is higher than that in the Bordeaux for two reasons:
gamay grapes, from which Beaujolais is made, have higher acidity than merlot and cabernet
sauvignon ( which make the Bordeaux ) , and such acidity has less to 'work against' in a
medium-bodied, fruity wine like the Beaujolais than the ponderous fruit in the Bordeaux. It
shows up more easily, that's all.
And, of course, in the mouth the two reds taste and feel completely different, too—and
suggest different meals at which to enjoy them.
The Beaujolais is that quintessential slamming wine, good with a range of casual foods: chilled
meat and fish salads; charcuterie; even sandwiches. If you drink this wine with a prime rib of
beef, you'll be disappointed in both the wine and the meat.
The Bordeaux is looking for more serious eating: especially fat-rich roasted meats such as leg
of lamb or grilled strip steak. Combine blood proteins and fat with the tannins in the Bordeaux
and all are tamed. They're delicious together.
On the other hand, if you had this wine with a bologna sandwich ( which is perfect for the
Beaujolais ) , you'll get the feeling you're wasting the wine.
And you will be.
