Riverstone Merlot (20??): Villa Maria, Auckland

Much like the Shingle Peak from last week, Riverstone is a bottle that is always available in my Foursquare.  The $8.99 label makes me take notice every time, and the bottle stands out among the other reds on the rack, but much like the Shingle Peak, it's one I already tried out once a few months ago.  I don't really remember anything particular about it, though.  In fact, if it wasn't for the unique label, I probably wouldn't remember having bought it, at all.

I simultaneously love and dislike the label on Riverstone.  I love what they did with the topographic map pattern on the front label, reinforcing the river theme.  The shade of blue they used is really pleasant and calming.  The blue really stands out among the sea of white and red labels that make up the rest of the red wine section.  You really can't help but notice it on the shelf, even if it wasn't literally the cheapest bottle available.  My biggest issue with it is that I immediately associate the color with blueberry.  The association is so strong that there is a solid couple seconds every time I see this bottle where I think the rocks on the label are actually blueberries.  Even today, seeing it for probably the 50th time, I picked up the bottle and read the back label just to make super-duper sure that I didn't miss the blueberry reference.  I love blueberries, so I get really excited at the prospect of a blueberry wine, and it disappoints every time.

What the back label does promise are "ripe, soft berry flavours".  So, I guess that doesn't technically preclude blueberries from being involved, but I tend to read "berry flavour" in more-or-less the same way I read "citrus flavour".  That is, there's not going to be anything recognizable, here, it'll just be generally sweet.  Calling back to Wolf Blass Shiraz from a few weeks ago, Riverstone boasts of it's smoothness.  In the Wolf Blass review, I speculated that "smooth" was code for high alcohol content.  Riverstone sits at 13%, which is higher than average, but not exceptional. 13.5% seems to be the highest that is relatively common, and the Wolf Blass was 14%.  In another connection with the Wolf Blass, the other flavor mentioned in the description is "savoury oak".

Now, what we learned with the Wolf Blass was that Australia has their own species of tree that they refer to as an oak, even though it is actually a type of Eukalyptus.  However, Riverstone is a New Zealand wine, so presumably they wouldn't be referring to the same tree.  Is there a "New Zealand oak"?  Is it just referring to North American and European oaks? Once again, I'll need to read up on the common names of tree species' before I can make a final call about whether the wine meets the expectations set forth by the description on the label.

The back label rounds off with a recommended pairing of pizza, pasta, or red meat.  I'm going to give points for having the balls to recommend pizza as a pairing option on your bottle of wine, but I'm also going to deduct some points for the vagueness of simply recommending "pasta".  Every bottle of wine goes with pasta, you've gotta be more descriptive than that.  There's a million different ways to prepare the million types of pasta that exist, the least you can do is give me a sauce color.

The last interesting thing about the outside of the bottle is that it doesn't seem to feature a vintage year.  The year being on the bottle is something so ubiquitous that I had assumed until now that it was required.  For $8.99, presumably it's from within the last year or two, but it's interesting that it was excluded.  Maybe bottles from the current year, don't need to be labeled?  I'll have to keep a lookout for any 2016 bottles next time I'm in Foursquare.

Opening the bottle and pouring the first glass, it's distinctly not citrusy or sour smelling, relative to the other bottles.  It's much softer; more subtle.  Raspberry is the immediate connection that I made, but that's not quite right.  I think that's as close as I'm going to get, though.  Only so much you can get from "mixed berry".  It's a deep, deep red in color, almost approaching black.  There is no light making it through the glass, whatsoever, it's entirely opaque.  The first swig is mostly just non-descript sweetness.  There's no flavor that stands out as being particularly overbearing, or even notable.  It finishes on a distinctly more bitter note that could either be the oak, or just the alcohol.  All in all, it's much more juice-like than any of the previous bottles I've reviewed here.  I'll be back after a few more glasses...

So, I've had about two-thirds of the bottle.  It still is mostly just playing as fruit juice.  The bitter ending has given way to a little bit of a more sour note, though not mouth-puckeringly so by any means.  It's been a pretty easy to get down drink since the start.

I looked into oak trees, as well.  There is a tree that was once referred to as the "New Zealand oak" relatively commonly, but it's more commonly know by its Maori name, titoki, now.  It's from a genus that I know nothing about, native exclusively to Southeast Asia and Pacific islands.  So, I can only assume that the savoury oak found here is in reference to North American and/or European oaks.

I also did some research on vintage dates.  I've always assumed that the vintage of a wine referred to the date it was bottled, but apparently that isn't the case.  It actually refers to the year the grapes were picked, and it's not uncommon to have grapes from multiple years in the same bottle.  When that occurs, it's not uncommon to not give a vintage.  I couldn't find anything specific to New Zealand, but apparently getting other fruit besides grapes involved also complicates the process of putting on a vintage date in some places.  Who'd have thought I'd actually learn some wine stuff while reviewing wines?

Final grading time.  Just looking at the bottle for pure aesthetics, it's very strong.  It's minimalist, but something about it really draws me in.  I might just be a crazy person with all my associations with that particular shade of blue and blueberries, so I won't dock too much for that.  I think a B+ feels about right.  I really like the topographic map label.  For the actual drinking, this is a wine that's made to be drunk like I'm drinking it.  Just crack the bottle, and drink until you don't feel like drinking, anymore.  There's no subtlety to the taste, there's nothing gained from putting extra effort into appreciating it.  It doesn't have any delusions of being anything more than a means of someone getting drunk.  As someone who is a big fan of crunk music, I can respect that mentality.  Not every bottle needs to be a transformative experience for the drinker.  Sometimes people just want to get shit-faced, and there needs to be products to accommodate that.  So i think I give the drinking experience a B.  That puts the average somewhere between a B and B+.  I'll give it the B+ bump because of the educational x-factor. I learned about both trees and wine vintages this week!

Red Label Shiraz Cabernet (2015): Wolf Blass, South Australia

I know this is supposed to be "Kiwi" wine tour, but tonight we actually have a bottle from our friendly neighbors across the Tasman, Australia.  It's a brand I hadn't seen in Foursquare before, and for $8.99, I just couldn't resist.  Not to mention it's raised the bar for what I previously thought was possible for alcohol content, up to a whopping 14%.  I didn't even notice the "2015 Winery of the Year" award that it modestly presents on the neck.  I'm torn as to how I feel about the rest of aesthetic of this bottle.  I can't tell if it's bold and eye-catching, or just tacky. I feel like if someone just showed me the label with the wine references edited out, my immediate assumption would be that it was from like a candy bar, rather than a wine.  I immediately noticed it on the rack, which I guess is the ultimate goal, so I really can't fault it too much for presentation.

Reading the description on the back of the bottle, it seems the red label indicates that it is part of Wolf Blass's "Smooth Blends" series.  The front label also boasts of its smoothness.  The first things that come to mind when I think of alcohol that presents smoothness as a primary feature are Red Dog (Uncommonly Smooth), and Hurricane 40 (Brace for the smooth taste!).  As far as I'm concerned, that's good company for an $8.99 bottle of wine.  Oddly enough, those two are also feature relatively high alcohol content for a beer and malt liquor, respectively.  Maybe that's a trend I need to put more research into.

As far the flavors advertised,  we have a "bouquet of fresh red fruits, spice, mint, and balanced oak".  It describes itself as "soft, fruity, and full of flavour" and recommends drinking it "young and fresh" with a "rich, hearty dish".  The part of this that I'm immediately drawn to is the "balanced oak", for a number of reasons.  First, I don't know what it means by "balanced", but I'm excited to learn.  Second I'm curious as to weather they have oak trees in Australia and if so, how they differ from my familiar red, white, and burr oaks of America.  I can only assume that oak flavor basically translates to acorn flavor, since that's the only part of oaks that is at all edible, and the acorns I'm familiar with do not taste good.  I also appreciate the mystery around "red fruits" and "spice" as flavors.  They could be anything!

Cracking the bottle, I'm greeted with a sickly sweet aroma, of no particular distinction other than "unmistakably red wine".  Pouring the first glass, I'm noticing that it falls deep into the purple spectrum, as far as color.  It looks more like grape juice than wine.  Further sniffing reveals nothing more to me other than "red".  This must be what the label meant by "red fruits".

The first drink is immediately a sensation very different than previous wines I've had.  It doesn't swish in my mouth so much as it slithers around.  I'd almost liken it to milk.  It's not an entirely unpleasant feeling, but it certainly caught me off guard.  As far as taste, there's no sourness, no tart, no vinegary to be had.  It's just the sweetness of the fruit, and the bitterness of the alcohol, and they hit one right after the other.  The aftertaste is just nothing but alcohol.  I definitely wouldn't describe it as "soft".  One thing that I do need to give it credit for is that smoothness that it bragged about.  I don't think I've ever had a wine that goes down as easily as this does.

So, first glass down, first impression is that this is definitely going to be a bottle that gets easier the more I drink.  Right now that alcohol taste, is pretty overbearing.  I guess it's not inconceivable that the alcohol flavor I'm tasting could be that oak.  Acorns are bitter as hell.  At any rate, I'll come back after a few more glasses to wrap this up.

Alright.  I've had about half the bottle, now.  As expected, the alcohol bitterness has subsided, significantly, making drinking an overall more pleasant experience.  I still can't pull any particular flavors out, though.  It's just kind of generic fruity sweetness.  Also, I did some research on oak trees.  Apparently, Australia does have trees that they call oaks, but aren't actually closely related to the oaks of North America, Europe, and Asia.  They're a type of Eucalyptus.  So, I'll probably never know what that balanced oak was supposed to be, for sure.

So, for final grade, I'll give the presentation a C+.  The color of the label caught my eye, and I liked where they put the award sticker, but the wine, itself, looks kind of grossly artificial and the design of the label just feels low-end.  For drinking experience, I'll give it a C.  Smoothness can only get you so far, eventually you have to have some flavor to back that up, and this wine just doesn't.  There's no complexity to be found here, it just kind of just feels like a shitty mixed drink, like a vodka and cran-raspberry, or something like that, where the fruit flavor is just there to take the edge of the alcohol taste.  Overall, I'd give it like a C, I'll bump it up to a C+, because I learned some fun tree facts.

Estate Merlot Cabernet (2014): Mills Reef Winery, Hawke's Bay

Today, we actually have a slightly more expensive bottle than my standard fare.  I wasn't on the ball enough when I bought it to remember the exact price, but it was on sale, and I was enchanted enough by the awards that the bottle boasts to be willing to drop an extra couple bucks.  The bottle features not one, but two separate bronze stickers, one for the 2015 New World Wine Awards, and one for the Air New Zealand Wine Awards.  The latter is even a "Pure Bronze" award, which I can only assume is better than just regular old bronze.

One of the first things I look for in a bottle of wine is alcohol content.  As far as I can tell, 13.5% is the peak that gets sold in my local Four Square, and this bottle meets that mark, so it's already starting out strong.  The label promises "lovely blackcurrant and blackberry aromas and flavours, complimented with delicate floral notes, subtle leather complexity and a lingering star anise finish."  I'm immediately suspicious of these claims.  Outside the blackberries, my frame of reference for these things ranges from "that is definitely not a thing I'm supposed to be tasting" to "I don't even know what that is", to "I've only ever seen this in wine".  I must admit that I am excited to experience that subtle leather complexity, though.

The label also recommends pairing this with a pasta dish.  This is an interesting disparity from most bottles, which typically recommend pairing with a particular meat.  I can only assume I've stumbled upon a vegetarian wine, here.  The proudly featured "Sustainable Winegrowing" certification could lend credence to this assumption.  Unfortunately, I already ate dinner tonight, so the wine is just going to have to stand on it's own merits.

Pouring the first glass, I immediately like the color.  It sits a solid couple shades darker than most of the other reds I've bought.  I have no idea what implications this has to mainstream wine connoisseurs but in my rubric, color matters, and for some reason, I associate dark with class.  As far as scent, nothing in particular stands out.  I've also had a perpetual stuffy nose for the last 20 years, so I'm probably not the best judge of that particular metric.  It's entirely possible that those floral notes could just be too "delicate" for me to fully appreciate.

I know during wine tastings, you're supposed to swish it around in your mouth for a period of time, so I'll go ahead and follow that procedure.  I assume the purpose is to pass it over different parts of my tongue, because of the whole "different parts of the tongue taste different flavors" thing, even though that's been debunked for years.  There's probably something to be said for different tastes coming in in a specific order, as well.  This bottle does make note of a lingering star anise flavor, which I can only assume means it's one of those tastes that shows up fashionably late and sticks around.

First swig, it's immediately sweeter than what I'm used to in red wines, I might even go so far as to say it's bordering on sour.  It's distinctly not vinegar-y though, which is something that plagues cheap red wines.  I can't say I'm surprised.  It doesn't really taste distinctly like blackberries to me, but blackberries do run pretty sweet, even as far as berries go.  I also associate black currant with being relatively sweet, just based on other wine that I've had.  I'm noting that holding the wine in my mouth for more than a few seconds is physically painful.  There's a definite acidity here that I'm gonna have to deduct some points for.  We're not about the thrill of painful tingling here at Kiwi Wine Tour.  Ultimately, the sweetness gives way to a flavor that feels like it can't decide whether it wants to be bitter or tart, and gets progressively more bitter as an aftertaste.  I'm reminded of black licorice, but less awful.

Early impression is that this bottle is mostly style over substance.  It seems like the first glass is always the worst with wine, though.  I'll report back after I've had a few more.

Alright. Half the bottle down.  The acidity is still a major issue.  My esophagus is definitely feeling the strain, and the sides and tip of my tongue are tingling like I just ate half a pineapple.  Maybe this is a bottle that isn't meant to be drunk all in one sitting, but that's not the Kiwi Wine Tour way.  The bitterness at the end has lost some of its edge, with the tartness coming to the forefront a bit more.  I'm on board with tart being the predominant sensation over bitter.  For me, tart is the perfect balance between bitter and sour.  It's got that little bit of an edge to it, just tor remind you you're drinking something alcoholic, without pounding you over the head with it.  It's not something I really associate with wine as much, but the idea of "I'm just going to make this as bitter as possible, and say you have poor taste if you don't love me for it" is something that plagues the beer sphere (looking at you IPAs).  There's a subtlety to tart that I can appreciate.

I've now finished the bottle, so time for scoring.  I've gotta give the presentation of this wine a solid A.  As I said, I was wooed to buy it by the award stickers, and I loved the way it looked in the glass.  You can't go wrong with a white and gold label, either.  There's a sort of lattice pattern on the label that is actually raised, as well.  The effort required to have 3D elements of your label is something I just can't ignore.  As far as the actual in-mouth experience, I can't be quite as gracious.  There is a certain progression of sensations that I experience with every drink, from sweet to sour to tart to bitter, that is more complex than what I generally see in like $10 merlots.  I can appreciate that complexity, but I'm not sure how much that actually adds to the overall pleasure of the drinking experience.  Also, the acidity is a definite problem.  I'll give the drinking experience a C+, approaching B-.  I've definitely had reds that I've enjoyed more, for cheaper, but this was enough of a diversion that I'm not mad about it existing.  Overall, it comes out to like a B.