Archives for August, 2007
Just so you know who you be dealing wit - a non-wine treatment for insomnia
I often find myself unable to sleep at night, I can depart this earthly world and delve deep into a dream any and all mornings and afternoons which is in fact one of my decadent allowances and luxurious privileges. The payback’z a bitch. I don’t expect an easy return to the ethereal realm but still I expect to be able to find it again after an hour or two of meditatively releasing myself from the obligations of fleshly engagements. When that doesn’t work I get creative. A common ingredient in the night time calling cocktail is a fine cognac but tonight there is none available so I turn to what’s is on hand. It’s effective enough I wonder about patenting, or at least copyrighting the formula, results guaranteed.
Ingredients
4 Trader Joes Dark Chocolate covered Almonds dusted with sea salt and turbinado sugar
4 Boars Head maple smoked turkey slices, approximately 2″ wide x 5 inches long
1.5 oz’s Russell’s Reserve Straight Kentucky Bourbon
2 oz’s Silk Mocha Soy Milk
3 ice cubes
1 10mg Ambien
Instructions
Eat the Ambien
place one TJ’s chocolate almond onto the end of one piece of Boars Head turkey and roll it up - repeat with the other three chocolates and turkey slices.
In a Highball glass place the three ice cubes. Pour the Russel’s Reserve over the ice and stir. Pour the Silk Mocha Soy Milk over the Bourbon and stir. Don’t be alarmed by the curdling - it won’t have a detrimental effect on flavor or efficacy.
Alternate bites of the turkey wrapped chocolates with sips of the drink. Be sure to mingle the multitude of tastes in your mouth. Take your time but be sure to consume all the wraps and empty the glass.
20-30 minutes from inception… sleep is stalking me, looming over my shoulder, waiting for me to stand up so it can pull me back down.
Now it’s time to say good night
Good night Sleep tight
Now the sun turns out his light
Good night Sleep tight
Dream sweet dreams for me
Dream sweet dreams for you.Close your eyes and I’ll close mine
Good night Sleep tight
Now the moon begins to shine
Good night Sleep tight
Dream sweet dreams for me
Dream sweet dreams for you.Close your eyes and I’ll close mine
Good night Sleep tight
Now the sun turns out his light
Good night Sleep tight
Dream sweet dreams for me
Dream sweet dreams for you.Good night Good night Everybody
Everybody everywhere
Good night.–The Beatles
Obversely Anthetical
Tablas Creek Vineyard specializes in Rhone blends which is why they called this 2005 Chardonnay “Antithesis.” They should have named it “Epitome” because, while it may be different from the majority of their wines, this is a very typical buttery California chardonnay. I’m tempted to scramble some eggs in it. This is a silky wine with noticeable oak, medium body and almost too-high alcohol. Tastes of butter, vanilla, pear, a tiny bit of pineapple, sweet apple and with the slightest hint of spice.
The weird thing? Checkout these tasting notes from CellarTracker.com users:
The color on this wine is “18K gold.” On the nose the wine is a bit grassy with other hints of hay and honeydew. On the palate the wine’s texture is light and chrisp but firm. There are tones of pear, honey and minerals. The acidity in the wine plays well with the fruit on the palate. (trekwars2000)
The first two sentences sound like sauvignon blanc, which this is nothing like, but I agree with the fruit flavors and acidity.
Great style of chardonnay without heavy oak; tropical fruits, minerals, fairly rich body; nice, clean finish (Anonymous)
The oak may not be heavy but it sure ain’t light. Oak and butter were the first two things I tasted.
Clear light gold color and a semi tropical nose of pineapple and citrus, and just a little minerality underneath. A touch of sweetness on entry that had an immeadiate counter balance and a bracing fruity grip at mid palate…with a pleasant finish. No oak…all fruit and very good on it’s own without food. (Tejano)
So which is it? “18K gold” or “clear, light gold”? I’m taking the easy way out and saying it was somewhere in the middle which makes them both either half wrong or half right. No oak? Then where does the heavy vanilla come from?
…without typical California-style oak or butteriness. (VegasTony)
I beg to differ.
No formal note, but this seemed to strike a fine balance between California Chardonnay and a mineral-driven, crisp Chablis. (MarkC)
Sorry, but I place this squarely in the California camp.
update, the next day - Still calling it for Cally but it’s less buttery and more spicy on the second tasting. It’s got a bite to it, and, while I liked it fine yesterday when it was fresh out of the bottle, I like it much better a day later when it’s had a little time to oxidize, however slightly.
Chateau Petrogasm
It’s an original idea and one worth watching: wine reviews that consist of a single image. Some of the implications are refreshingly clear (see 2004 DRC Eschezeaux or 2006 August Briggs Leveroni Chardonnay) while others are confounding.
I assume the destroyed television is a bad review but how can I be sure? Some people like to blow things up just as some people like metallic or chemical associations in their wine. Are we to associate the wine with the act of destroying the television deliberately or stumbling on it while taking a shortcut through a vacant lot?
I usually don’t bother to return to sites whose reviews are largely of wines that I’ll never be able to afford but I’ll visit Chateau Petrogasm again.
And Proud
|
You Are 100% Feminist |
 I am a total feminist. This doesn’t mean I’m a man hater (in fact, I may be a man). I just think that men and women should be treated equally. It’s a simple idea but somehow complicated for the world to put into action. |
Edmunds St. John, Shell and Bone White, 2004
I first wrote about this in March of this year. At the time, I called it interesting and gave it a B+. I have since dropped the silly habit of assigning grades to wines but if not, I’d bump it up to an A.
I have finally come to accept that it takes several sessions before I can really assess a wine accurately. Maybe it’s a shortcoming on my part but there it is. Many times I’ve revisited a wine that I had a very strong first impression of only to be disappointed.
Just for example, I previously described Paulinshof Reisling (2004) as “amazing” and “luscious” but on subsequent tastings felt that it was cloyingly sweet and heavy. I know I’ve said that context is important but I now also believe multiple tastings are required to really get to know a wine.
This one just keeps getting better. This is my third (and last) bottle of Shell and Bone and I wish I had more. It’s incredibly rich and complex. It has more flavors than Baskin-Robbins. It’s got fruit, oak, spice and earth. It’s got plenty of acid and a little bit of sweetness. The 14.2% alcohol sounds high but it goes down smoothly and with no antiseptic aftertaste — I guess that shows balance.
Alas, the 2004 is getting scarce but I’ve heard the 2005 is going to be just as good if not better. If you didn’t know about Edmunds St. John wines, now you do.