Mk i of the Tier I affordable Zinfandel tasting is in the record books.
The Contenders:
2006 Rosenblum Cellars Rockpile Road Vineyard Rockpile Upper Dry Creek Valley Zinfandel, 14.8% abv, $31.99
2006 Summers Villa Andriana Vineyard Estate Bottled Napa Valley Zinfandel, 14.2% abv, $19.99
2005 Rosenblum Cellars Snows Lake Vineyard Lake County Zinfandel, 14.9% abv, $29.99
2006 Four Vines Winery “Maverick” Amador County Zinfandel, 14.9% abv, $24.99
Mystery I: 2006 Bella Vetta Jack’s Cabin Vineyard Rockpile Sonoma Zinfandel, 15.2% abv, $29.99 (reg. $39.99)
Mystery II: 2006 Rosenblum Cellars Harris Kratka Vineyard Alexander Valley Zinfandel, 14.7% abv, $33.99
Please read about it here, then come back to put in your 2 cents below!
05/04/2009 at 6:04 am Permalink
Man – I would really love to join some of these tastings. Love me a good zin.
Hey badman, it seems the highest rating you give to a zin is still under 90. I see some 90’s from Tally Ho – but nothing that high from you, in spite of some very positive comments. Curious, does a zin get slashed 10 points off the top just for being a zin? (or NOT being a classic old-world varietal)
Your scores in general are “low” – not that I am criticizing. I agree that WS and even AP are a bit too generous.. Though perhaps they started lower and wine is simply getting better and they want to remain historically consistent.. (sorry, rambling)
06/04/2009 at 2:35 pm Permalink
This is true – but no slam against Zin. Similar in film rating, or any art form for me. With movies I’d be hard pressed to give a 9 on a scale of 1 to 10. With Cabs and Merlots (my favourite varietals, the latter being my absolute pinnacle of wine) you won’t see many ratings above 90 either. The rating should be independent of varietal – so no, although I don’t care at all for Pinot Noir I’ll still rate the best examples I come across in the high 80s, or even 90. In fact we had a Pinot tasting last Friday and I rated the one I felt the most deserving an 89.
In general I am pleased my scores are low – my standards are quite high. Like when I rate bootleg music recordings – if something sounds like it was recorded three doors down in the toilet, I give it an F, not a C- like most people seem to. I think awarding wines points across the spectrum from 60-90 has a lot more merit, and imports a lot more meaning to the score. Let’s face it: most Wine Spectator scores are 86 to 91. What exactly is the point of that? Why have the rest of the numbers there at all? Why not just have a 5-star system then?
Which brings us to Bad Man’s quote of the day: “Numbers are too precious to not be used.”