The contenders for the tasting of big gnarly massive current release affordable Merlots were:
2004 Querceto di Castellina Podalirio Indicazione Geografica Tipica Toscana Merlot, 13.5% abv, $41.99
2005 Gargiulo Vineyards Money Road Ranch Oakville, Napa Valley Merlot, 14.8% abv, $39.99
2004 Swanson Vineyards Oakville Napa Valley Merlot, 14.8% abv, $35.98 (2 half bottles)
2005 Sullivan Vineyards Estate Bottled Rutherford Napa Valley Merlot, 14.7% abv, $50.00
And the results are IN. Be sure to come back and post your comment below.
11/03/2009 at 2:53 pm Permalink
Hark! We have dissent amongst the Royals and the cause of the discord is which $50 and under Merlot wins TRTBs stamp of approval.
As you can see from the Wine Tasting Results page and Badman’s blog comments on the “prep” post, he chose the ’05 Sullivan Vineyards Estate Bottled Rutherford for the top spot in this Merlot tasting. I tasted this gnarly spice bomb for the first time during our Spring ‘08 Sonoma/Napa trip (read about it in Crush Quest parts 1 & 2 on this venerable site). At the time I loved the aggressive, unapologetic style of this bigger than life Merlot and was really looking forward to revisiting this massive monster on our Assaggio Majoralus, fully expecting this effort to win my heart and be my favorite of the four contenders. Imagine my surprise when I put it in 4th place! In my defense my tasting notes support that the nose was nice (well not the late arriving green bean element) and it had good acidity and crazy, gnarly tannins (not necessarily a bad thing in Tally’s book, for the record). I loved the chocolate, brambly fruit and warm spice flavour profile and the long finish. However, I thought the balance was awkward and youthful. In all fairness I think we popped this wine too soon for it to show really well, much less to reach its full potential. Given another shot at this wine in a few years, I predict it would get my top vote.
So what Merlot did I chose as best of show, you ask? I loved the 2005 Gargiulo Vineyards Money Road Ranch from Napa. This wine has a beautiful nose, bright acids, and integrated tannins. It’s full and lush in the mouth with chewy chocolate covered berries, warm spices with a slight dusting of cocoa. The finish was warm and long and the tannins and jammy fruit presence leaned to the rustic style I prefer. I found this wine complex yet accessible- a highly rewarding wine with a much better fruit showing than the 2004 and less jangly tannins.
This leaves the 2004 Querceto di Castellina Podalirio Indicazione Geografica Tipica Toscana Merlot for my #2 pick and the 2004 Swanson Vineyards Oakville Napa Valley Merlot taking the third place “Bronze medal”.
Unlike some of our other tastings, this was a tightly pack field of strong contenders, any of which I’d be thrilled to find in my glass “of an evening”. I hope Gargiulo takes The Royal admonishment to heart and puts the brakes on the steep price inflation they seem to be adopting.
These big bold reds stood up well to two large perfectly prepared medium rare filets, homemade mashed potatoes and massive amounts of sautéed Swiss chard (since we fight over this veggie when quantities aren’t ample). It was all in all a lovely evening: good wine, lively conversation, great meal – what’s not to like about that.
12/03/2009 at 8:36 am Permalink
If the Sullivan needs more time, and I would agree with you there, then it will develop into quite the spectacular Merlot.
It’s interesting that you felt the Gargiulo Money Road Ranch was so lovely. I’ll stick by my analysis, resulting in the conclusion that it was the only Merlot in the tasting I wouldn’t want to drink again. This is my review: “Low tannins but present, nice fruit. Too much of the red fruit profile. Light in body, overripe fruit.” I would not expect that you would like it due to its simplicity, its lack of structure, and especially its non-rusticness – although you claim it is rustic and complex, neither of which I detected to be the case with this ‘05. The red fruits I find unappealing, and unlike what you wrote above I remember the ‘04 structure and tannic style to be far more compelling.
It seems we are in concurrence more often when it comes to Zinfandel, probably because the spicy red fruit in Zin is the norm. I’m guessing the two Zinfandel tastings we here at The Royal Tannin Bombs are conducting over the next two Fridays will find us back to fighting over the same perceived “winners”. It is of course not necessary for us to like the same wine in a tasting, and that’s the value of the unbiased blind format, but it’s also fun to arrive at the same conclusion.
12/03/2009 at 11:06 am Permalink
The Sullivan will be something to be reckoned with if we could get our hands on another bottle of this vintage and display the patience necessary to sit on it for a bit before revisiting.
It is interesting how far a field we are on the Gargiulo. I agree that the 2004 was the more tannic of the two. Maybe my experience of the “05 was positively colored by the order of my tasting and the GV “borrowed” the best elements of the other wines on the table. Also, we cannot forget that your loathing of the red/cherry fruit profile is key to your tasting experience. I on the other hand, having been known to drink and ENJOY a good Pinot or Burgundy, am not averse to this fruit signature. Although I prefer the dark fruit stylings of a classic Bordeaux/Cab or a Zin, I don’t feel the urge to dump when red fruits waft my way. Maybe that’s why we were at odds with our results. Either way, it’s all good. We like what we like and it’s not always the same. Long live individuality amongst the Royals!
12/03/2009 at 11:12 am Permalink
True true. Well spoken.