In Vino Veritas Session 1: The Basics

Posted by Edmund in Featured Articles, In Vino Veritas, Wine & Liquor | 0 comments

Having finally recovered from my Beeritas tasting, I decided it was time to go back to my forte, wine. And what better way than with another of Harvard Law’s tasting organizations, In Vino Veritas?

In Vino is no ordinary organization, either. It’s easily the most prestigious of Harvard’s food-related societies, with an application process that allows for a maximum of 40 students from the incoming class.

Trust me, there’s a reason it’s so prestigious. As I walked into my first tasting, I was shocked. Instead of a few glasses and bottles interspersed throughout the room, as you might expect at a casual meeting of friends, this was about as professional as wine tasting gets: lines of six perfectly arranged glasses in front of every seat of the 60+ seating area, 48 bottles of wine, pitchers of water and plates of fruit and cheese on each table for palate cleansing, and even a professional sommelier. I wasn’t even getting this much attention when I was visiting actual vineyards in Argentina! I guess Harvard just has to do everything a little bit better (thankfully so).

Just as importantly, this wasn’t simply a chance to taste, but also to learn. The event was meant to introduce members to the basics, but even so it was organized around a rather interesting theme, “New World v. Old World” (and yes, everything in law school does have to be framed like a court case). We were given the chance to compare two Sauvignon Blancs and two Pinot Noirs from different corners of the world side-by-side, in addition to a couple unpaired selections (a Chardonnay and a Meritage). Between tastings, our sommelier would interject with notes about the history and regional characteristics of the wines.

The main lesson of the day was “terroir,” a term with no literal translation into English. It can perhaps best be approximated by the idea of “taste of place.” The concept draws attention to the fact that wine is much more than a simple drink or taste. It includes the land, the climate, the production methods, etc.—hence why in Europe, certain grapes can only be grown in certain regions, such as Burgundy in France (though the varietal is still just a Pinot Noir).

Each varietal, moreover, will exude both the characteristics of the grape itself and the region in which it’s grown. Sauvignon Blanc will tend to be pungent, aromatic, herbal, and fruity (thus why it’s name, meaning “wild,” is so fitting). In the New World, however, the aromatics will be more pronounced, while in the Old, the wines will be more mineral-driven and subtle.

Chardonnay serves as a great counterpoint to Sauvignon Blanc, manifesting almost the complete opposite range of characteristics. Since it’s not very aromatic at all, it absorbs the characteristics of the region and, more specifically, the parcel of land from which it’s grown. This blank slate quality is, in fact, so intense that chardonnays from adjacent plots of land can taste completely different. In our tasting, we had a chance to try a French Chardonnay, termed a Bourgogne Blanc for the region from which it comes.

On the red side, the Pinot battle mostly comes down to a question of intensity and smoothness. Old World Pinot, grown in a colder climate than New World Pinot, will tend to be light and lean, with somewhat of an herbal quality. The color will also tend to be very light, approaching garnet, since Pinot Noir is a thin-skinned varietal (a wine’s color comes from maceration, which involves the use of the grape’s skin). Our fourth wine, a French Bourgogne, is about as French a Pinot as you can find on the market. Old World Pinots will, however, tend to be more intense—fruitier, earthier, and darker.

Finally, we also had a shot at a Meritage, an American wine with a Bordeaux-style blend. Bordeauxs use very specific varietals, the most prevalent being Cabernet Sauvignon and Merlot. Malbec, Petit Verdot, Cabernet Franc, and (very rarely) Carmenere are also used in small amounts. The wine we tasted came from Washington, whose terroir tends to combine New World fruitiness with an Old World wet rock, mineral quality that makes them dynamic and complex.

Finally, before moving on to my own tasting notes, I have to give a big thanks to our sommelier, Amy Ullman, instructor at Le Cordon Bleu in Boston and fellow blogger (www.justawaitress.com). Not only did she choose a great theme, provide most of the aforementioned notes, and find a very interesting six wines on short notice, but she even managed to make me enjoy a Sauvignon Blanc, a nearly impossible feat (I’d put Sauv Blanc on par with tar on my list of favorite drinks). You’ve got to be good to do that!

And, of course, thanks to all the In Vino organizers. Tastings for 60 people requires a lot of manpower and coordination, and somehow they managed to do it without a hitch whatsoever.

What I Tasted

Salvard Sauvignon Blanc “Unique” 2008

Loire Valley, France

Very clear, almost white color, with subtle hints of yellow and green running throughout. Seems a bit faint, though.

Refreshing aroma, though very light. I can smell a slight bit of fruit, especially tropical varieties like pineapples and wild berries. For a sauvignon blanc, it’s actually very nice, and it shows you that this wine packs some flavor. After you swirl it around, it picks up a very big pungency and a slight citrusy or melon-like sweetness.

The taste is rather bitter and citrusy. It has a bit of pepper and spice, too, and it ends on a very refreshingly spicy note that gives it much more flavor than you’d expect from a sauvignon blanc. The taste is slightly too bitter for my liking, and it can be a bit harsh at the end. This is still extremely flavorful for a sauvignon blanc, though.

3.0/5.0

Mohua Sauvignon Blanc 2009

Marlborough, New Zealand

Almost identical to the last in color, but just a slight bit stronger, brighter, and murkier. Even so, it again has that faint white typical of a sauvignon blanc.

The aroma is again on the tropical, fruity side, but this time it’s far weaker than the last. I mostly got some pineapple and mangos on the nose, and perhaps some kiwi. Not terribly complex. After you move it around, it picks up some earthiness.

Light and elegant, with far less bitterness than the last, but still with a strong bit of tropical fruit that makes it actually quite enjoyable. On my first taste, I thought it was a bit weak, but it does have a tendency to grow on you. The clean finish leaves you refreshed, while the overtones of passionfruit and peppery citrus give it some complexity. Also, this has a surprising amount of body and substance to it, esp. for a sauvignon blanc. A bit dry at the very end, and a bit too watery.

3.5/5.0.

Maison Champy Bourgogne Blanc 2007

Bourgogne, France
White Burgundy, i.e. Chardonnay

Side Note: This chardonnay is barrel-fermented. Most chardonnay is not. The barrel gives the wine a bit of a brioche, buttery quality. It can be a bit too much in most chardonnays—too buttery and bready. In this case, the wine retains some acidity, balancing out the butteriness.

The nicest color among the whites. Misty, but much stronger than the last, with numerous more hues of yellow and an almost golden look to it. It isn’t too impressive, but it’s getting there.

There’s almost nothing on the nose. The aroma is too faint to really do much more for me. The wine, though, does pick up some aroma as you swirl it, mostly of earth and minerals.

Normally, I’m not a big fan of Chardonnays, but this one does indeed have the right balance: just enough acidity so that it’s not abrasive but at the same time gives the buttery brioche-quality a bit of a kick. I also love the body on this. It feels like you’re drinking something with some substance. Yet it’s elegant enough that you’re left refreshed, rather than bogged down. It’s not terribly long, but it does leave the palate with a nice buttery coating that I find refreshing nonetheless. Very smooth, very refined, and deceptively light for something with so much body (for a white).

4.0/5.0

Maison Champy Bourgogne Rouge, Pinot Noir Signature 2006

Bourgogne, France
Red Burgundy

Surprisingly, very light-looking for a red. The color is almost garnet or light ruby, without too many strong overtones or depth. Still, it’s rather nice, though it seems faint.

A weak aroma for a red, but there’s still some nice tannin and a bit of fruit here. The smell of ripeness pervades throughout, as of berries. A lot of earth and dirt comes out, too—and I mean that in a good way.

Very, very smooth—and that smoothness does not come at the cost of flavor, either. It seems a bit light at first, but it picks up a fair bit of oak and especially pepper as you savor it. That pepper is never abrasive, though, and it doesn’t come through much in the end. Instead, you’re left with a mouth-watering pucker. To be fair, this isn’t the most flavorful wine, but you do get a fair bit of earthiness out of it. Nice legs, too. Just a bit too light for me.

4.0/5.0

Barnett, Tina Marie Vineyard, Pinot Noir 2007

Russian River Valley, Sonoma

Getting darker and darker in color. This pinot has a darker ruby color to it, with purple running throughout. You can see the intensity—rather unique for a pinot.

A lot of oak emerges in the aroma. The aroma is just a tad light for a red, but it’s still nice. When you move it around, the aroma picks up a lot of very interesting notes, namely a combination of chocolate with wild berries and dried raisins, like a chocolate cake with raspberry sauce, all covered with just a bit of mud. It’s, in a word, delicious.

And the taste is nearly as brilliant. Expect tons of flavor. Whereas the last was about elegance and silkiness, this wine has much more emphasis on sheer, wild fruitiness, though it also retains a fair bit of smoothness to keep it from becoming abrasive. It is, by far, the most complex of the bunch that I’ve had so far. Sweet raisins on the nose, sweet raisins on the palate. Mix that with dark chocolate, some earth, and just a bit of wild raspberries, and you have the makings of success. Very intense, at the cost of a bit of smoothness (though thankfully it has a nice body and roundness). But sinfully good for something only 4 years old.

4.4+/5.0. Great on all accounts: aroma, taste, body.

CMS Red by Hedges 2008

Columbia Valley, WA
46% Cabernet Sauvignon, 48% Merlot, 6% Syrah

The darkest of them all, but almost identical to the color of the last. Ruby, with purple and just a bit of black. A bit of orange on the sides.

Aroma is weak for a red, but I do pick up some nice tannins and an overtone of minerals/wet rock, with just a slight bit of sour cherries. Almost sylvan.

A bit rough on the way down, but it still has tons of body. Somewhat monotonous for my taste, though, as it lacks the complexity of the other reds. There is, at least, a nice bit of berry fruitiness that comes through near the end and clings slightly to the palate. I do, moreover, pick up a lot of tannins as I taste it more and more. This isn’t, however, the longest wine, and the mineral/oak taste is a bit strong.

2.5/5.0