Chile apparently is becoming a pretty good place to have a vineyard, as well as produce and bottle a pretty decent table wine.
I've come to the conclusion that there are three or four regions in the world that will produce a better tasting red, and a lot of it has to do with the soil. In California, most of the vineyards in a borderline drought / desert area. In Italy, and France, where they have the best land, the land is dry, but not so dry that the vines struggle as much as they might in the US, or Australia. Australia is essentially No Man's Land, where grapes really have to struggle to survive let alone be cultivated, and the last place I think is South America where the temperatures are fairly similar to the US, but the terrain and humidity are different. Hence, the different taste and body of the wine.
I've been reading a lot about grapes, and how they are cultivated, and it seems that the more a vine is stressed, but cared for, the better the flavor of the grape, and the more intense the flavor. A lazy vine that has no problem feeding grapes with water, and minerals produces bland flavored wines. I think the reason for this, is that the more moisture that is pulled in, the more minerals get pulled up the vine, therefore the wine has more minerals which retard the taste.
With that said, South America has fantastic soil for just about everything. The problem that I can see with Chile is likely the abundance of water, either in the air, or rainfall. Those are two things that really can't be controlled, except through hot house growing, which essentially defeats the purpose of cultivating a particular lineage of vine in the first place.
So where are these vines grown? Well, it says Rapel Valley, which is in the heart of their wine making country. Judging by the aerial views, I'd say it's a very lush area. Which explains why the flavor to me seems a little on the flat side. Happy vines, happy grapes, blah flavor, however...
Plums, which were added to the mix, don't suffer from the same issues as grapes when they are getting sunshine, water, and plenty of nutrients from the soil, which is where the majority of the flavor in this wine comes from. You can really taste the oak cask in this wine as well. I'm guessing they probably buy their casks out of California, or possibly Minnesota. What I know is that by the taste, I'd say they've spent the time to put the right materials with the right wine.
The aroma of this wine is very sedate. Meaning it belies the flavor that's underneath the surface. It plays off your tongue, and when it hits the back part of your throat, the true flavor erupts into something very heady, with the taste of a peppery spice that for now I cannot readily identify, Raw dark cocoa, with a hint of coffee?
After having the first glass, you realize that this is a wine that is meant to be had with a meal. The reason why I say this, is that there seems to be a pretty good alcohol content for what it is. Like another wine we've tried this one sneaks up on you. It went well with the pork steaks we had. I think it would have been better with some fish or chicken tacos. Either way, it was meant to be a table wine, not something you simply drink to get plowed.
On my trusty scale of one to 5, I give this one a solid 4. The label art, and bottle were conservative, which is something I always prefer. The aroma, flavor, and alcohol content were all superb. The color of it was a bit odd, but I think that's largely in part to the fact that there are plums in the mix, and that always tends to take things to the blue.
I enjoyed this foray into the unknown. It's a wine fit for the Devil's Cabinet, that is for sure.
