Tuesday, August 6, 2013

"Jack's Blend": McWilliams Hanwood Estate ($13)

"Red Wine."

A few weeks ago, as C. and I were bravely making our way through a particularly terrible bottle of red wine, I remembered about this blog (I'm sorry, I'm sorry, baby you know I love you) and quickly snatched up the bottle to look at exactly what kind of unholy grape we were drinking.

Quick aside -- I know this is a wine blog, but you guys know a thing or two about whiskey, right? You know, probably, that a lot of the time it comes from Ireland or Scotland or Kentucky or Tennessee; you know and love/hate its burn; you know that people put ice in it, to "open up the flavor." You may also know that sometimes they are called "single malt" and sometimes they are called "blended malt" and sometimes they are just called "blended," and probably you know from firsthand experience that single malt whiskey is, like, way expensive omg. The reason for this -- stay with me, guys -- is that single malt whiskey is made from only one kind of grain and only at one distillery, which makes it more pure, and makes it taste better, et cetera.

Blends, on the other hand, are made by blending -- that is, blending different distilleries' whiskies or even different kinds of whiskey altogether. Throw everything together, and it's still alcoholic, right? Cheaper for them, cheaper for you, just try to make sure you get that shot in the back of your mouth so it doesn't hit your taste buds.

So: whiskey can be blended. That's fine. That's a fine thing. God knows I've had enough blended whiskey to be able to start a second blog. But wine, though? Wine is something different. Wine is sophisticated. Classy. Traditional. Pure.

This is what I learned from our terrible, terrible wine that night: blended wine exists!

"Jack's Blend," the label declared, and then, on the line below, by way of explanation: "Red Wine." Nothing else.

Of course, we finished the bottle. But we weren't happy about it.



VERDICT: DO NOT BUY.

Chardonnay: X Winery 2012 ($20)


Mmm!


Obviously, I got this on sale. Twenty dollars! Absurd.

However, my thrifty wine aficionados, it is with a heavy heart that I must break this news to you: this wine was, actually, pretty good! I know it does nothing to further the search for the best-tasting, cheapest wine -- any wine more than fifteen bucks had better taste good -- but, hey, if you ever see it on sale, grab it. It was sweet, but not too sweet; it was fruity, but not in a gross way at all.

If anything, it was much better than the label would have us believe; on the back of the bottle, X Winery claimed "a supple, fleshy mouth-feel."


VERDICT: Buy!

Cabernet Sauvignon: Máscara de Fuego, 2011 ($15)

Bad, yet compulsively drinkable.


God, this is actually kind of bad. And yet compulsively drinkable -- I wonder if it's more alcoholic than wine normally is, for after each sip I feel that pleasant sort of immediate fuzziness...

"I don't really drink wine," says our friend, JM. "But I like it better than most red wines I've had. So I assume it's pretty good."

Also, this wine's name means "mask of fire."



VERDICT: Oh, it'll do.