Wine Tasting Note: Tamerici Sauvignon, 2002, Salento, Italy. Add/Read Comments
Related Posts:
Scarbolo Le Fredis Pinot Grigio, 2005, Venezia Giulia, Italy
Combinations: Matching Baked Mackerel With Wine.
Chimney Creek Sauvignon Blanc, 2004, Marlborough, New Zealand.
Wine Tasting Note: Cecchi Litorale Vermentino, 2004, Tuscany, Italy.
Wine Tasting Note: Dashwood Sauvignon Blanc, 2005, Marlborough, New Zealand.
Wine Tasting Note: Haras Sauvignon Blanc, 2001, Maipo Valley, Chile.
Related:
Snooth Wine Search:
Six wines I have sampled today; and they were all pants. Apart from one. Over-doing it at a Hallowe'en shindig last night didn't help; tequila rosé and me do not mix. But with six mixed provenance bottles sitting on the counter-top I was still uninspired and frankly disappointed. This white isn't too bad actually, certainly lifted itself above its drossy neighbours.Wine Tasting Note: Piana del Sole Tamerici Sauvignon Blanc, 2002, Salento, Italy.
Oddbins £5.49.
I thought this region of Italy (Puglia/Apulia - the heel of the boot) was red wine country; so a white - from a mix of Sauvignon Blanc and Malvasia - peaked my fancy immediately. The area has a reputation for rustic (rough and ready), cheap wines usually shipped off for bottling elsewhere but there is a widespread regeneration occurring across the region utilising traditional varieties such as Primitivo, Uva di Troia and Malvasia Nera. This Sauvignon is, of course, not a native grape but it is blended with 15% Malvasia Bianco (the white version of the Nera). The aroma is faintly yeasty which is echoed on the palate. But there is more to taste - minerally, unripe apples and an edge of lime skins. Its crisp and, as the oddbins site says, nervy. Left over chicken is waiting to be thrown into a risotto with a handful of carrots and some herbs. This should be the perfect accompaniment.
Scribblings Rating - 92/100
ADD A COMMENT (4)Previous Post: Thinking of Starting a Cellar? Next Post: Wine Blogging Wednesday #15 - Small Production Wines.
Comments
i have a problem with your ratings system. in my opinion it is not as granular as it needs to be, so i dont know what you actually rate and what you don't. are you afraid of giving a bad review? the reviews always hover between 88 at lowest and about 93 for something you really like. why bother with a 100 scale if you're really only using 1 to 5? or am i missing something.
Written by: james governor | on November 2, 2005 10:02 AM
I dont really see the point in writing up wines that dont make the grade - is it not better to review wines that I think people should try?
As for the rating system - it does seem over the years to have settled into a 86/88 try it, 90/92 really should try it and 94+ dont miss it.
Perhaps I should just use a dont bother/try it/really should try it/dont miss it four star system?
If you roll the mouse over the green text you should see the 'criteria' drinkability, interest, value and enjoyment. Each rated out of five. Because of another computer system I use to use (over on UKWinesOnline) I had to find some way of creating a score out of 100 - hence the adding up the individual 1-5 ratings, doubling it, and adding 60. Just adding the 4 scores together gives it is a 1-20 scale.
Written by: Andrew | on November 2, 2005 11:41 AM
knowing what you dont like is an important part of understanding your taste. if everything is a positive review, how do I know I can trust you. and actually i have seen reviews where you werent enamored, and yes still gave 88 or something.
to my mind 88 is a bloody high rating for anything.
Written by: james governor | on November 4, 2005 1:05 PM
Ummm, I shall ponder whether I should devote my limited time to the recording of poor wines. I would have thought people would rather have mention of the good stuff though.
Have you tried any of the wines detailed here? Did your experiences coincide with mine?
Written by: Andrew | on November 4, 2005 5:14 PM