I’m back! I’m renewing my commitment to post more regularly to this blog. If I got at least one post in per week, I’d be very happy. So we’ll see how well this goes.

I opened a bottle of Barefoot Cabernet Sauvignon to have with dinner this evening. The very first thing I noticed about the bottle was that I couldn’t find a vintage printed anywhere. I only have two clues. The first is a sticker on the front of the bottle says “Award winner: Over 20 awards since 2005.” The back label has a copyright symbol preceding “Barefoot Cellars 2003″. So I really have no idea what the vintage is.

The wine pours a very dark purple, almost black. The nose is more fruity than I am used to for a cabernet, but not at all in a bad way. It’s heavy on the berry scents, with blackberry the strongest and a little bit of plum thrown in. It’s a heavy bodied wine, as most cabs are, and it has a nice spicy finish, with the plum again showing up at the end.

The Barefoot is enjoyable, but it doesn’t blow me away. I would rather try a new cabernet than get a second bottle of Barefoot. That’s not a great test, though, because there is such a variety of wine out there that I almost always want to try something new. Regardless, I would have no problem serving Barefoot Cabernet to a bunch of friends over for dinner. If I was trying to impress someone, I would probably try to find something a little more interesting than this particular wine.

I bought a six pack of the Mackeson Triple Stout at Trader Joe’s last week. I hadn’t bought a stout to have around the apartment in a little while, so I decided to pick this one up on the fly. I am not disappointed in my decision.

This beer is brewed and bottled by the Whitbread Beer Company in Cincinnati, Ohio. If I had to have guessed immediately after tasting the beer, I would have gone with Portland, Oregon. It definitely has the microbrew vibe going, and the evident use of hops would have led me to guess Portland. I don’t know anything about Cincinnati brews, so I have no idea how they should compare to those of the Pacific northwest.

On the pour, the Triple Stout develops a thick, tan head that very quickly disappears to a thin rim around the glass. The aroma is of dark chocolate or cocoa, and it has a noticeable toasty element. I get the usual roasted flavors in the taste, and it has a dry and slightly bitter finish to it.

It’s a very pleasant stout, but it doesn’t have a “wow’ factor to it like some of Rogue’s darker offerings. But it was very enjoyable, and I recommend it to those who enjoy the occasional dark, dry beer.

I’m currently in position of Jackson’s Bar & Cocktail Companion, on indefinite loan from Roger (thanks Roger!) and Ultimate Beer, a gift this past New Year’s from Paul and Ellen. Ultimate Beer is an exquisitely photographed collection with short tasting notes on all kinds of different beers, few of which I have yet tried. It’s a remarkable collection that makes for a wonderful coffee table book.

Today’s a sad day in the world of beer, wine, and cocktail writing. Fare thee well Michael Jackson.

I tried the Baltika 6 porter for the first time tonight. It was actually a birthday gift I received almost exactly a year ago. It’s been “aging” in the fridge since then. I’m not exactly sure what that does to a beer. But I figured it was worth making known before I offer my review.

This porter pours an opaque black, as dark a black as I can remember seeing from a beer. It has a very thin white head that dissipates quickly. The aroma is of roasted coffee. It’s a heavy bodied beer with a creamy mouthfeel. The carbonation is very active on the tongue. I was most surprised by the taste. For the most part, it’s just dry and moderately bitter. I couldn’t pick up much in the way of roasted coffee or dark chocolate or hints of cinnamon in the taste. In fact, I’d describe the taste as boring.

But I’m worried that keeping it in the refrigerator for a year muted the taste. I’m not sure it did, though. I’ve had similar porters that were equally bland. I’ve spoiled myself on the porters that try to achieve something in the way of complexity, and I’m very rarely disappointed. So while I did not dislike this beer, it’s a bit boring, and I’d prefer something a bit richer on the palate.

It’s been quite some time since anyone’s made a post, and even longer since there’s been a wine post. Maybe this will get things started again. (By the way, Jeff, we need a category for rose wines.)

I’ve recently been trying quite a few cheap wines (under $12). Long story short, I seem to like Austrailian Shirazes, among others. I was looking around and saw the Mattie’s Perch “White Shiraz” and decided to give it a try. I’ll warn you that my taste for wine isn’t very refined. I’m much better at describing beer than I am at describing wine. Unfortunately, it really doesn’t matter for this post.

Mattie’s Perch “White Shiraz” is Australia’s answer to the popularity of White Zinfandel. Unfortunately, the result is a wholly disappointing wine. There’s nothing bad about this wine other than that there is nothing particularly good about it. The label mentions “fresh strawberries and sweet vanilla flavors”. Neither is particularly distinct. The mouth feel is moist and refreshing. But then, so is a cool glass of water.

So, while this wine may be cheap, there is no other particular reason to buy this wine. You’re better off looking somewhere else instead.

Hopefully I’ll be able to review some good wines in the near future.

That’s right, what we’ve got here is a classic IPA aged in cedar casks. In this case the strength of the hops is a perfect counter-balance for the strong taste of cedar. Well, actually, I have to assume its cedar as it’s unlike anything I’ve ever tasted. The dominant flavor comes across as a peppery spice, but I think it really is coming from the aromatic wood. The cedar aging is inspired by sake brewing.

It’s hard to say more because the finish was so strong and dominant. This paired well with a spicy Japanese curry, not many foods could compete with the strong flavor. It’s probably not an every day drinking beer, but definitely worth a try. I look forward to going back to Hurry Curry to try the amber and belgian style from the same brewery, Kiuchi.

I am not a huge fan of Sierra Nevada. I find their beers too hoppy. The Sierra Nevada brewery is one of the best known and most respected microbreweries in the country, though, so I find it hard pressed not to try one of their beers when I haven’t done so before. The wheat beer recently fell in this category.

This beer pours a nice dark, golden yellow color. It immediately looks like it has some body, some complexity to it. The head is thick and foamy with a lot of large bubbles immersed in it. The smell is mostly grainy, with a hint of a grassy component. Just from looking at the beer, I could tell the carbonation was very active, and my tongue verified this prediction.

The taste was disappointing in that it was bland. It had a bitter finish to it, but the finish dominates this beer. There is just a hint of grain in the taste, but I would not call this a well-balanced beer. This one, like the others I have tried from Sierra Nevada, definitely leans toward the hoppy end. I was disappointed because I like a little citrus in my hefeweizens. It seems like the grain and the yeast take a back seat to the hops in this one. So I’d say it follows the trend of what Sierra Nevada likes to do with their beers, for better or worse.

I am a member of a Dinner club in which we different countries and make traditional dinners from appt. to deserts. We also try to have traditional drinks and I am looking for a good Argentian beer. Any ideas which beer and where I can find it in San Diego Area.

The only Argentinian beer I can remember having is the Quilmes lager, and I had it at an Argentian restaurant here in downtown Pasadena (CA). It’s certainly authentic, in that it is brewed and bottled in Argentina.

You might not get a huge number of points in the originality department. It’s a pale lager, not unlike the Budweiser, Original Coors, or Miller Genuine Draft you’ll find at any grocery or corner store here in the States. From what I have found online, the Quilmes has a higher percentage alcohol by volume (6.5% compared to say 4% or 5% for most of the domestics), so it will have a little strength the domestics lack.

It’s a refreshing beer. If you’re serving it with grilled meats or something that has a somewhat strong, identifiable flavor you’ll be in good shape, as the Quilmes will cut through the taste after each bite and cleanse the palate nicely for the next bite. If you’re hoping the beer will complement the meal with its own contribution, it’s better to go with an interesting ale of some sort, and I don’t know of any Argentinian ales.

I recommend going with the Quilmes. It’s a general crowd pleaser, and it plays well with food.

I have to admit that, until I sat down to write this post, I had the Censored Rich Copper Ale confused with the Undercover Investigation Shut-Down Ale. The latter beer has an interesting backstory. The article to which I linked gives the details. Here’s the gist:

But when Lagunitas Brewing Co. founder Tony Magee decided to go public with his protest against state alcohol regulators, he naturally chose the medium he knows best.

The result is Undercover Investigation Shut-Down Ale, a new “especially bitter ale” brewed to commemorate a bust at a brewery party last year and a subsequent 20-day suspension of its state brewing license.

It turns out undercover police officers attended some tasting parties at the brewery at which pot was smoked and/or dealt. That’s neither here or there. The Censored Rich Copper Ale is one of Lagunitas’ standard offerings and is not the same as the Undercover Investigation Shut-Down Ale.

Now onto my review. The beer was a translucent copper color in the glass. It has a thick head which dissipates very quickly. The only way I know how to describe the beer is consistently hoppy throughout. It has a slight floral aroma, but the smell is largely neutral. It’s a medium-to-heavy bodied beer.

As I state time and again, I’m not a huge hop fan, so this beer didn’t win me over. Any malt presence was just too weak for me to enjoy. I would choose plenty of other beers before I have this one again, not because it was a huge turn off, but because it had very little to offer me in the way of a nice balance between a noticeable malt and a crisp, clean malt.

If you’re a hop head, this one might be up your ally.