Sunday, November 22, 2015

Double Gold.

Whilst reading wine-writer Dan Berger's column in this past Friday's 'On Wine' section of the Napa Valley Register I noticed that his 'Wine of the Week' was a Barefoot, NV, Zinfandel (California).  Hmmm, interesting.  I like Mr. Berger's columns and I like Zinfandel, so, with the wine's suggested retail price of a mere $8.00, I resolved that I had to try this wine - which proved to be easier said than done.
I went to three different supermarkets, but there was not a bottle of Barefoot Zinfandel to be found.  Each store carried a different selection of Barefoot wines, including; Cabernet Sauvignon, Sauvignon blanc, Merlot, a Rich Red Blend, a Sweet Red Blend (perhaps wanting to steal Conundrum Red's market share), Pinot noir, Pink Moscato (ouch!  Just typing that makes me wince), Pinot grigio and a White Zinfandel (erm, no thanks). Undeterred, I finally found the Zinfandel in a CVS drugstore - for $5.00.  Five, dollars, people!
In the same section of the Register it was reported that Wine Spectator had recently named their No. 1 wine of the year: a Cabernet Sauvignon from Peter Michael Winery (Sir Peter, actually), the 2012 Au Paradis (Oakville AVA).  Incidentally, just in case anybody is interested, the Au Paradis garnered a 96 on the Speculator's scale.
Do these two wines have anything in common? Yes, both wines are wet, red, Californian and alcoholic.  However, one of these wines would set the consumer back about $160 - $180 (if you could even find it, which is highly unlikely), and the other is currently a fiver at CVS (though, almost just as hard to find if my experience is anything to go by).  And how did the Barefoot Zinfandel taste?  One would be justified in expecting this wine to taste fabulous, after all it won Double Gold at the '2012 Ultimate Wine Challenge'.  (Please, don't get me started on the merits and demerits of wine competitions.)  This perfectly quaffable wine proved to be very fruit forward with an abundance of sour-cherry, a slight ripe-raspberry component and a nose-pleasing pepperiness.  Vinomaker commented that the nose reminded him of Necco Wafers, a candy from his youth. Although a tiny bit low on acid for my liking, and with perhaps the faintest suggestion of residual sugar, I nevertheless ended up pouring myself a second glass.
WWRPD, or think?  No matter, it's a fait accompli.  And besides, I don't really care.

4 comments:

Dennis Tsiorbas said...

VG, is it apathy now ("I don't really care")?
"WWRPD" What Would Ron Paul Do? I'm a little (a lot) slow, but help me out here!
Well, you hunted it down and the two of you drank a Barefoot wine, which in my book makes you guys 'reverse wine snobs'! applause

Thomas said...

Yes, 'splain WWRPD, please.

Re, Barefoot Zinfandel: I've tasted that wine many times. It is in fact worth its price (you know it's a Gallo product, right?). I've tasted most of the Barefoot line (except the Moscato, which I refuse to try). The Zinfandel is the only one I thought had any merit.

Oh, and tell Vinomaker that when I was a child, my mother rewarded me for shopping with her with a packet of Neccos. I loved the green and yellow ones, so I'd open the package that looked like a roll of quarters and rearrange the colors so that green and lemon would be saved for last. And yes, there is a Necco-like aroma from the Barefoot Zinfandel.

Thud said...

My cider came third in the bumscratch golden apple cider cup,there were two entries.

Vinogirl said...

NHW: Not apathy, more like there is nothing that any reviewer could say that would have an effect upon me.

Tomasso and NHW: I was being silly: WWRPD - what would Robert Parker do, or drink.

Tomasso: Yes, I know Gallo owns Barefoot. The whole Bynum Barefoot history makes for a good story.

Thud: Was your third place by a large margin? And exactly how many samples had been consumed before the final vote was in?