Two by Two

Over the last few weeks, I've been trying to strengthen my apprehension of regional characteristics. What difference is there between two Grenache-based blends from the Priorat? Given it's proximity to the bottom of the Cote de Beaune, how different is a good bottling of Rully than a basic bottling of Puligny-Montrachet? How different can two full-fruited, extracted shirazs from Australia be? What distinguishes Bual Madeira from Malmsey, in the hands of an outstanding producer? My subjective impressions follow.

We're pouring the Marge Celler de l'Encastell 2004 at work right now, so I decided to pick up another Priorat bottling, the Celler Cecilio, Negre 2005, and taste them alongside each other. The Marge has a more agressive cepage, with Cabernet, Merlot and Syrah bolstering its spicy, full bodied Grenache base. The nose offers baking spices and raspberry jam, while the almost rustic palate has monstrous raspberry and cassis fruit, along with a dose of mint, which points to its secondary grapes. The finish is brooding and tannic. On the other hand, the Celler de Cecilio has a less aggressive nose, with cassis, a mild tinge of game and a grassy freshness. The tannins are plush, with a green palate of snap beans, basil and black plums in amicable balance. The carinena seems to softem the Cabernet, giving this bottle a more subtle fruit profile.

The Moillard Puligny-Montrachet is the epitome of a stately, balanced white Burgundy, with its nose of creme anglaise and stone fruits, and its creamy, banana-kissed creamy, citric palate, with a balanced acid backbone that leads into a beautiful finish of lime zest and ginger root. The Matthieu de Brully, Rully "Mollepierre" 2006 is quite the opposite. While the subtle nose suggests dill, lemon peel and even coconut, the reason for this becomes clear in its weak palate. If it tasted like anything, this wine tasted like lemon water that had been steeped with a tea-bag of oak chips. It took three days to drink, which is never a good sign.

At a Southern Wines tasting on Thursday, I had the chance to try two gigantic Shirazs. The first was the Heathcote II HD Shiraz 2005. With a rich fruity nose laced with eucalyptus, a palate of mocha dusted blueberries, and a ruby-black, extracted coloration to it, this was not a wine to trifle with. Dry enough for a marbled cut of steak, and big enough to eat with dark chocolate, I could not bring myself to spit it out, in proper fashion. The Two Hands "Bella's Garden" was also fantastic. A long-time aficianado of their wines, from the "Angel's Share" to their second label "Lucky Country" Grenache, I expected big things from this wine, and it delivered, with a nose of raspberry-filled truffles, and a meaty, horse-blanket palate of cinnamon and plums, with a definitive yogurt-like acidity, which only brought home just how chewy and creamy a wine it is.

Sampling two bottlings by the Rare Wine Co. Historic Series, I was similarly taken by both their wines. I sampled the Bual and Malmsey, and may just buy a bottle of the Sercial, just to see what they do with that grape. As Madeira proves, oxidation, like rot, is sometimes a good thing. The Boston Bual has a lovely caramel nose, with a palate of baked peaches, freshly-baked brownies and even grapefruit. Funny thing is, these disparate flavor notes come together deliciously. The sweeter New York Malmsey was the stand-out of the two, however, with a funky, toffee nose and a balanced palate of caramel, clove oil and nectarines. The long sweet finish cries out for pairing with a chocolate and nut dessert.