It isn't often that I'm totally speechless when I try a drink, but it happened today. Usually I love or hate something, think it is boring or want to yell from the rooftops how much I think it is tasty, but trying an Ice Cider today confused the hell out of me.
The Neige Premiere Ice Cider is a confusing wine. Made from McIntosh and Spartan apples, it has a bright, fresh apple juice aroma, then with some muskier notes and a hint of apple pie pastry coming off as well. The palate is similarly pleasant, with fresh apples, then slightly stewed fruit flavours coming off with a very clean, slightly tangy, drying cider like finish. It almost has a touch of quince jelly as well. I think it is a perfectly nice product. 88pts
The problem is why would you buy it? Costing £22 to £25 for a half bottle, it is firmly in good Tokaji and Sauternes territory, so I can't imagine anyone buying it as a dessert wine. If you want a sweet apple flavoured alcoholic drink, you could buy a 500ml bottle of good cider for a fifth of the price and if you just wanted a sweet apple drink, there is always apple juice to consider and you wouldn't be disappointed.
There is nothing wrong with this, I quite like it, and could see how it might be nice with a cheese board, but wouldn't ever consider buying a bottle as there are better products out there from the categories that this is trying, but not being overly successful, in inhabiting.
Neige Website
Housekeeping
Over the next week or so, I am attempting to update the part of this blog that contains my extensive number of tasting notes, so there may not be any posts until late January. Then the tasting season begins, and there will be posts from tastings including importers Hallgarten, Wine Importers, Liberty wines and the annual pilgrimage I make to Manchester for the SITT event.
#436 Wine Web Watch - Michael McIntyre on wine snobs
Michael McIntyre, quite rightly, mocking the absurdity of the wine theatre in restaurants.
#435 A quartet of dishonest beer
Stella Artois, Heineken and Miller Genuine Draft. Three mass produced beers, internationally available and made in the millions of litres every day. If beer had a "tap water" category, these brands would be in it. I don't say this with any disrespect to these beers, they provide thirst quenching beery goodness for millions of people every day and don't cost that much. I enjoy a Corona on a hot summers day and when sitting in Copenhagen I found myself supping on a Heineken and enjoyed it tremendously. They don't pretend to be anything other than what they are - honest, commercial beer.
Similarly, producers such as Mikkeller and Kernel make interesting, flavourful beers that not everyone will like. Their small production lends itself to making different styles and therefore there will be inconsistency, either in quality levels, flavours or appreciation from the individual drinking the beer. That is the point of these smaller brewers, they are honest, artisan beer.
And then there is the middle ground and this is occupied by Innis & Gunn. A big producer (fourth largest in the UK), with aspirations of more, yet still producing beers with (and I quote from their website) "depth of flavour, complexity and mellowness". I tried four of their beers and this is what I found out.
Smells like Stella Artois that has been concentrated a little. Confected sweetness with a little bit of soap coming off. The palate is thin, with some soap, foam bananas with a bitter finish. Really not a good beer. 72pts
Innis & Gunn Blonde
Light, floury with some more soap. There is even more foam bananas on the palate with some light, pathetically weak flavours. A really dirty finish which is strange for something that tastes of nothing. 68ptd
Innis & Gunn Rum Cask
Brown sugar, a dirty aroma with some burnt caramel aromas. The palate is full of dark, bitter sweetness with a total lack of any form of complexity and depth. It is as if someone has simply added terrible caramel to a bad beer. Awful. 60pts
Innis & Gunn Irish Whiskey Cask
Like 'Tesco value Guinness', there is a terrible flowery aroma with some darker sweeter smells coming off. The palate is unbalanced, reminds me of undiluted orange barley water. There is a bitterness on the palate, a really long terrible finish that is both bitter, sweet and fat. Awful. 66pts
The beers I tried were pretty bad. I can forgive the rum and Irish Whiskey cask beers as they are simply point of difference beers that are pretty rotten. The blonde is just dull, but it is the Original, the beer that I thought was the best of the quartet, that I dislike the most. This beer is totally dishonest. It is marketed as an interesting beer, well integrated and yet is anything but. It is like the full fat version of a mass produced lager, like Stella Artois, but lacks any of the honesty that the Belgian beer has. If they marketed this as a cheap beer with added flavour, I wouldn't object so much, but this is trying to be an interesting beer when it really isn't. It is dishonest, and that is the problem.
#434 Six Questions with... Doug Nalle
Starting as a cellar worker in 1973, Doug Nalle's winery is on land that has been in his wife, Lee's, family since 1927. A real family run business as not only is his wife an equal partner, their son Andrew makes the wine with his father and other relatives run the vineyard. He graduated with a Masters degree in Enology in the late seventies, and served his apprenticeship at Balverne Winery, before taking full control of the company bearing his name in 1990. His wines are small volume production, high quality wines, of which their Zinfandel is most famous.
What marks the Nalles out from other producers is that their wines are always lower alcohol, with levels around the 14% mark, enabling Doug to show elegance in varietals that may not be normally known for that quality in California.
I asked Doug six questions...
What is your first memory of drinking wine?
At home at the age of 14. My mother enjoyed a glass of Lacryma Christi now and then and so did I. My dad was a good ol' Kentucky boy who preferred Jim Beam.
What do you think is going to be the biggest challenge for Californian Wine in the next couple of decades?
With climate change, warmer nights have lowered acidities (not a good thing in my opinion). Non-irrigated vineyards have fared better. Many newer vineyards are dependent on irrigation. With imminent water shortages winegrowers may be forced to limit irrigation which could, ironically, improve wine quality.
If you had to make wines in a different country, which would it be and why?
New Zealand, especially Hawkes Bay region which is similar to Sonoma County where, exposure, soil and proximity to the Pacific Ocean allow for myriad microclimates.
Aside from your own wines, what do you like drinking?
Champagne, Cru Beaujolais, Bert Williams' Pinot noirs, dry Alsatian Rieslings.
Describe yourself in three words.
Introspective, self-motivated, irreverent.
Name three people, real or fictional, living or dead that would be guests at your dream dinner party, and what would you be drinking?
Jesus of Nazareth, Chairman Mao, William Shakespeare. We'd start with water which Jesus would transform into a 1955 Krug Jeroboam. I'd ask Mao to choose a Burgundy (what do you bet he knew the difference between Corton and Chambertin?) and Bill his favorite grog; then we'd go straight to a magnum of 1959 d'Yquem. Wouldn't much matter what we ate. Maybe some sashimi and Belgian fries for ballast.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)


