Evolution of a palate. Part One

As a wine newbie, my original preferences were likely determined by a Cola-trained palate.  Mateus and Lancers, popular Pinks of the day, were soft, very palate-friendly, and inexpensive, plus they had the added cachet of being imported.  But it didn’t take long, noting in the “savor” tasting step, that they weren't savory, they were sweet!

My pursuit shifted to California whites, and I started sniffing and sipping Chenin Blanc. Somewhat off-dry, but not as overtly sweet as the Portuguese Pinks, it was a bit more “serious” because the varietal seemed to lay claim to French provenance, which is where the day’s action was in upscale food and wine.  Also, it was soft and easy to drink.  

Sensing that I was a budding wine Geek, a friend with far more wine experience than I, offered me this sage advice: “For reds, drink Cabernet Sauvignon, and for whites, drink Chardonnay. The Cabernet goes with meats, and the Chardonnay goes with fish. You don’t need anything else.”  

Foodies know that depending on herbs, spices and sauces, those ancient axioms are reversible.  And like all free advice, it was worth what I paid for it. There had to be more interesting options available.

Another friend, definitely more wine savvy than the first one, introduced me to Robert Parker’s, Wine Advocate, bimonthly newsletter. The issue he loaned me was Parker’s historic review of the 1982 Bordeaux vintage, which has been credited with launching him as the most successful wine critic ever. 

Because of the seductive, adjective and verb-laden enthusiasm with which he described the wines, I immediately signed up for a membership.  If those wines were THAT good, I had to experience them.

With Parker’s wine reviews and ratings (plus his subsequent books) serving as my “wine consultant,” I devoured the appellation and producer details of Bordeaux, Burgundy and the Rhone Valley (North and South) that he published. My palate became more informed and broadened, and I was loading up my recently purchased wine vault. Moreover, I was developing a hobby.   

As a confirmed “Parkerite,” my palate was in sync with his. I came to love rich and ripe, deep and dark, low-acid reds, with lavishly oak-derived aromatics and flavors,  But as I very slowly came to appreciate, much of the overall palatal impact came from other than the wine’s underlying grapes.  It was stuff from the winemaker’s tool box that dressed up those highly rated crowd pleasers.

However, the dinner recipes my wife and I prepared did not, for the most part, work well with that robust and intense style of wine.  The food became, in effect, background music to the muscular, attention-demanding wines accompanying them.  In time, I sold most of my reds at a wine auction and traded the proceeds for future purchases (of alternate reds) that offered the promise of being equal in Quality but more food friendly.

Rhetorically speaking, “What kind of wine might that be?”  For starters, how about something lighter bodied and less intense? Instead of being black as motor oil, maybe one with an engaging ruby/red color?  Possibly one with less intrusive oak?  Or, if you can imagine it, even no oak?  And perish the thought, one with more palate-cleansing acidity? And finally, a wine that is savory, suave and just plain delicious?   Forgive me, but there’s a bit more to the rant.  Please stay tuned.