The Difference in Value in the Around $10 Price Point: Two Reds, Two Places, Two Quality Levels

In the "Around $10 Project," where I've been drinking a ton of wines to see if there is quality to be had, I've come across some very solid wines and some really bad ones. I've been reviewing each of them as standalone quick posts, but as I tasted two California wines - one from Sonoma and one from Paso Robles - back-to back I found it interesting to make a comparison of how the definition of"value" differs by region.

I'll make a bold, controversial statement that some of you won't like: after trying more than a few wines at this price from California (over the course of time, not all listed on the blog -- sorry!) I would posit that in general, you are going to get a much better wine for around $10 from Paso Robles in the Central Coast than you will from Sonoma County. 

If you're chomping at the bit to contradict me, hold on for a second and hear me out. There's logic behind it.

You may be a huge Sonoma fan but let's fact facts: Land is far cheaper and sun much more abundant in Paso Robles. That means ripe, juicy, rich grapes for a "drink now" wine are readily available in most vintages. Even at the lower end of the spectrum, producers can still make good wine and make money since grapes don't cost as much to grow. You can afford to use slightly higher quality grapes in a $10 wine.

Compare that with Sonoma, where the land and grapes are more expensive. For a cheap wine, you have to use the true bottom tier of grapes to make the economics work. Except in a year of a huge harvest (like 2012, for example!), to make it work you've gotta use whatever is left over after making your higher quality wines. The math for Paso Robles works in our favor and I'd pick it over a Sonoma County wine for $10 any day.

That said, in the review that follows I do have to cut Red Splash, which comes from the reputable St. Francis winery, a touch of slack on this wine. 2008 was a rough vintage in Sonoma and the bottom tier of grapes, which is what they put in this wine, was not up to the usual standard. This wine was probably one of their poorer showings.

Before I give the rundown, I must acknowledge that the grapes used for these wines are different. Still, I think that within the sphere of rich reds, we can assess general quality level easily so I think it's fair.


Wine #1: Project Paso 2010 Cabernet Sauvignon Paso Robles

Grapes: 94% Cabernet Sauvignon, 6% Petit Verdot

Alcohol: 13.5% (medium to high)

Price: $9.99

Color: Dark plum. Very pigmented grapes went into this wine. The juice stained the glass on the swirl. I expected loads of flavor. 

Smell: Lots of blackberry fruit, dark cherry, and stewed strawberry, with a little musty earthiness and a bit of green pepper, typical of Cabernet. Tons of vanilla, butterscotch, and caramel from the oak. This was going to be a big flavored wine. That said, there was a low-level Sherry-like smell, which made me think there may be something funky with the wine. 

Flavor: Nope, it was solid. Tons of fruit --blackberry, baked plum and prune, and a slight green pepper taste. A little cinnamon made the wine taste like a baked berry pie. The malolactic fermentation (turns green apple like acid into soft creamy feeling wine) made the wine feel a little buttery. It was very vanilla from the oak barrels and a little hot from the alcohol.

Note: The thing about warm places like Paso, is that the wines do tend to have low tannin and acid levels because they bake in the warm sun and lots of the structural components soften. Here it didn't make the wine flabby, but it definitely is something to watch out for in Paso wines.  

Drink or Sink?: For this price range it's a drink. The wine was better after it had been sitting in the glass a bit, but it's a perfectly good wine even if it lacks acid and tannin. I wouldn't have it with meat, it's better with lighter stews and soups, salty hard cheeses (Grana-Padano, Manchego, or Pecorino would work) tuna, or even a seasoned turkey or chicken dish.  This was impressive -- not bad for the money.

__________________________

Wine #2: Red Splash 2008


Grapes: 27% Merlot, 19% Petite Sirah, 17% Syrah, 17% Cabernet Sauvignon, 6% Zinfandel, the rest a blend of Cabernet Franc, Alicante Bouschet, and "other"

Alcohol: 14.5% (high)

Price: $8.99

Color: The wine was showing its age. It was brownish after 5 years of a life off the vine. 

Smell: The wine had a lot of dried fruit smell to it -- raisins mostly, with some dried blackberry and black cherry. It smelled like leather and then had a very sharp alcohol burn -- a cilia burner. I was becoming increasingly concerned about putting this in my mouth.

Flavor: The wine was so hot with alcohol that it gave me chills for a second! It was astringent too. The textures were really tough to take. There was a bit of blackberry and stewed strawberry (like before it turns into jam smell) and it smelled a little like a briar patch, but the vanilla flavor from the oak took over. That and the alcohol. 

Drink or Sink?: Sink. I'm not sure that this kind of "kitchen sink" blend was well thought out -- it seems literally like everything that was left over in the vineyard was put together and the grapes weren't happy about it! 

Although I disliked it, I will give Red Splash a bit of a pass because I think this wine is dead and finished. Maybe a more current vintage would be better, since St-Francis is a respected winery that usually makes decent commercial wine. 

Regardless, Project Paso was of much higher quality in the world of bold reds. I'll stand by my statement that, given the option of a Paso Robles vs. Sonoma County red at this price, I'd take Paso any day of the week. The quality of the grapes is normally going to be leaps and bounds better. 

Have you had these wines? Write a comment and let me know what you think!