Wine and Food: The Sequel

The issue of wine and food pairings won’t go away.

Two weeks ago I tossed into the discussion the question of texture, both of the food and the wine, and how it might be possible to serve a red wine with seafood and a white with beef if the textures and intensities of the wine and the food matched up--even if the flavors weren’t compatible.

Then two things that hadn’t occurred to me entered the picture. First, a number of callers and acquaintances asked whether award-winning wines from major wine competitions weren’t the best hedge against not knowing which wines would work with the widest variety of foods.

And some said: “So why don’t you give us a list of wines that work with food and a list of those that don’t?”

The first answer is simple: Wines win awards for a variety of reasons, one of which is that they are very good and will be good with food. However, in some cases, wine competitions reward wines that taste best on their own. The issue of compatibility with food is rarely discussed.

*

That is a pitfall. You may not know which wine got its gold medal for food compatibility and which got it for showiness.

The fact is, showy Chardonnays and Cabernet Sauvignons, with their loads of oak and high alcohol, often do win honors, but they may match rather oddly with food. Less-showy wines that offer better balance are usually more welcome with meals. So although I don’t ignore the gold- and silver-medal winners, I often find that bronze-medal wines do better with my dinners.

As for recommending specific wines that work with food, I staged a series of double-blind tastings to find wines that went best with meals. This meant making a number of assumptions that wine competition directors rarely mention.

One of those assumptions is that wines that are noticeably higher in acidity usually work well with traditional foods, since acidity stimulates salivation, which helps us perceive more of the subtle flavors in our foods.

Conversely, a few white wines that are very soft and nearly sweet would work well with very spicy foods (Asian in particular) that otherwise overwhelm the palate with intensity. The softness and sweetness of the wine has a cooling effect that contrasts with the spice in the food and helps us appreciate the food more.

*

To make recommendations from these tastings, we first ranked the wines. Then the tasters discussed each one with a view toward how it would work with food. Some wines were then tasted with food. I was not terribly surprised that most of the winning wines were cheaper (and--not coincidentally--had a lot less oak flavor).

I will start this series of columns with Chardonnay, even though I once wrote that I felt Chardonnay was a pretty poor match for food. OK, I was wrong. I’m learning. Chardonnay can be food-friendly, though it must have fruit and balance to have a chance of holding up at table.

Years ago when I stated that most Chardonnays were clumsy, lacked fruit and had too much oak and not enough acid, I was commenting on the “me-too” school of winemaking that had generated a lot of weighty, oaky, flabby wines. They were simply poor choices to go with much of today’s lighter cooking. That’s still true for many producers (see “not recommended” wines, below).

Yet today a number of well-made Chardonnays can be found that suit many dishes. In general, richer foods, especially those using cream sauces, work with richer wines. Still, I prefer my Chardonnay to have strong fruit and good acidity.

Lighter, more delicate Chardonnays work with lighter foods, which is what we’re eating a lot more of these days. It’s not easy to find truly delicate Chardonnays, but it’s possible.

In blind tastings of 50 Chardonnays recently, the following wines emerged as the most food-friendly:

* 1993 Trefethen Vineyards ($18)--Amazingly stylish fruit that tastes (surprise!) just like Chardonnay grapes and has a bracing acidity level to complement delicate foods, but with just enough creamy texture that it’s not austere. A great wine with halibut in a mild red pepper puree.

* 1993 Woodbridge by Robert Mondavi ($9)--Fresh melon aroma with a trace of citrus in the background, and a hint of oak. A lovely, balanced wine with graceful fruit, for matching with plain roast chicken and pastas in light cream sauces.

* 1993 Acacia Winery ($16.50)--Despite having more oak than I like, this wine has a lovely fruit base and good acidity. Good balance makes it a good match for seafood stews.

* 1993 Kenwood Vineyards ($14)--Lovely fruit with a spicy note and a quite soft but balanced finish. I’d like it with seafood topped with a fruit salsa.

* 1993 Atlas Peak Vineyards ($16)--Not a mainstream aroma: a minty/spicy element gives it intrigue, and the elegant texture makes this “small” wine appealing with light seafood dishes without cream sauces.

* 1993 Grove Street “Vineyard Select” ($7)--Decent fruit, soft, fresh and tasty. Not a big wine, but attractively priced. (A second brand of Belvedere Winery.)

* 1993 Rutherford Ranch ($9)--This brand, produced by Round Hill Cellars, always is good value. The ’93 turned out beautifully, with a creamy aroma surrounding nicely spiced fruit. A balanced wine that is soft and would work well with highly seasoned seafood, such as blackened fish.

* 1993 Dunnewood Vineyards ($9)--A bit richer in body than most and much softer, but tasty with kung pao chicken.

*

Chardonnays that I felt would not complement many foods, and the reasons:

1992 Robert Mondavi Winery “Reserve” ($25): Smoke and skunk aromas, a flavorless finish.

1992 Chateau Julien “Private Reserve, Sur Lie” ($15): Asparagus and butter notes, very tired fruit.

1993 Talley Vineyards ($18): Pineapple and other tropical fruit, but sweet, oaky finish.

1993 Kenwood Vineyards “Reserve” ($18): Butteriness overpowers any fruit; dull finish.

1993 Chalk Hill Winery ($18.50): Honey, sweet tropical fruit, loads of oak.

1993 Landmark Vineyards “Damaris Reserve” ($18): Too soft and oaky, lacks fruit and acid. 1993 Franciscan Vineyards “Cuvee Sauvage” ($30): Smokey, petroleum aroma, too soft and tasteless.

1993 Ernest and Julio Gallo “Estate Bottled” ($30): Aromas of coconut, oak and buttered rum dominate meager fruit.

*

In general, from my tastings of the wines and conversations with winemakers, 1993 appears to be a better vintage for California Chardonnay than 1992. This means better fruit, better balance and wines that appear better suited for foods.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Wine of the Week

1994 Georges Duboeuf Viognier ($10)-- Viognier is a legendarily hard-to-grow white wine grape native to France’s Rhone Valley. It yields a racy wine with spice elements similar to Gewurztraminer, but with a milder aroma. Since the grape typically produces small crops, not much of it is grown anywhere. In California, however, acreage is increasing, mainly at small, quality-oriented wineries, and many small producers are making Viognier because they like its peach nectar aroma and its textural richness.

Unfortunately, most domestic Viogniers are fermented in French oak barrels and made like Chardonnay, so they lack distinctive fruit; some are indistinguishable from Chardonnay. To justify the more expensive technique, these wineries are charging $25 to $30 a bottle for this aberration of a wine.

Duboeuf, the master of Beaujolais, has planted nearly 300 acres of Viognier vines in the Ardeche region of France. He ferments this Viognier in stainless-steel tanks to preserve fruit. There is no oak to confuse the flavors. This wine is balanced, extremely fresh; it has a delicate floral note with lovely aromas of the grape and a lush texture in a dry, food-friendly wine.