The Soft, Supple World of Merlot

Just this week we blind-tasted a group of Merlots right before we tasted a similar group of Cabernet Sauvignons. The close relationship between the two grapes might seem to make them bosom buddies, but, as in the past, we again found that comparisons between these two grapes are not always kind to Merlot.

In a way, they are too similar, which is probably why they fit together nicely in the typical Bordeaux blend (most red Bordeaux are blends of several varieties--most notably Cabernet Sauvignon, Merlot and Cabernet Franc, with Malbec and Petit Verdot usually as small fractions if present at all).

Yet, particularly in blind tastings, it is the differences that are most noticeable. That is where Cabernet shows its muscle and complexity while Merlot shows its softer, supple side. The typical reaction among tasters is to choose the sturdier and often deeper Cabernets. In fact, that is why Cabernet Sauvignon is the leading wine for collectors of California wine.

It’s not that some California Merlots, especially those blended with Cabernet Sauvignon or Cabernet Franc for backbone, cannot age well. Some are quite capable of holding and improving for 10 years or more.

But age-worthiness is not what Merlot is about. Merlot is about drinkability. It is on the dinner table, where the standard becomes one of hedonistic pleasure, that Merlot shows its mettle. Merlot is not popular because of its power.

Merlot is not popular because it will age forever and ever. It is not popular because it is wonderfully complex. Merlot is popular because it is a pleasure to drink. And how bad can that be?

* 1997 Barnwood Vineyards “Reserve,” Santa Barbara County, $27. Merlots from this neck of the woods have not always met with the same critical success as their more northerly counterparts. Yet here is a wine--admittedly in short supply--that is worthy of your attention. It captures nicely ripened black cherry and dried plum aromas filled out by moderate oak and hints of dried brush. Wrapped in a rounded, fairly supple texture, this wine is easy to like from front to back.

* * 1997 Beringer Vineyards “Bancroft Ranch,” Howell Mountain, $75. Year in and year out, this wine is one of the best Merlots in California. Its mountainside vineyard contributes to its depth and to a fairly firm structure for Merlot, and the addition of 5% Cabernet Sauvignon and 4% Cabernet Franc add their own bits of muscle and complexity. Admittedly, its price and its need for cellar aging limit its general attractiveness, but those looking for a great red wine to lay away should keep this firm but exceptionally well-proportioned Merlot in mind.

* * 1997 Duckhorn Vineyards “Estate Grown,” Napa Valley, $53. Almost as pricey as the Beringer Howell Mountain, and just about as well known among collectors, the Merlots of Duckhorn have been among the leaders in California for the two decades in which the grape has come into prominence locally. In fact, I took a bottle of the 1978 Duckhorn Merlot to a post-holiday dinner, and it was spectacular. This bottling could also live that long. It is a deeply fruited and beautifully proportioned wine, from its expressive ripe cherry and rich oak character in the nose to its long, tasty finish. Its closing roughness signals the need for some forbearance, yet the wine seems destined to reward those who wait patiently for it to open up.

$ * 1997 Fetzer Vineyards “Barrel Select,” Sonoma County, $13. Although it is neither the biggest nor the deepest Merlot around, this bright, balanced, eminently fruity wine is certainly one of the best values. Clean and fruity with a bit of sweet oak in the mix, this wine shows the kind of easy-to-taste character that makes Merlot so popular. It could improve for a couple of years, and it would not be the worst idea in the world to lay away a few bottles of this tasty and price-worthy effort for another day.

* 1997 Franciscan Estate, Napa Valley, $18. Here is a lovely, straightforward wine whose first impressions of accessibility come with an added layer of richness and a bit of underlying firmness. It can certainly age a bit, and it is worth remembering that it is just enough bigger and deeper in style to warrant a few dollars extra in price.

1997 Kendall-Jackson Vineyards “Vintner’s Reserve,” $17. We often recommend Kendall-Jackson’s “Vintner’s Reserve” line because it offers good price and broad availability for wines that are pretty tasty. Not so here, and so we suggest that you beware of this modest, mild, perfectly pleasant but wholly unremarkable wine. Despite making 400,000 cases, Kendall-Jackson has priced it just too high for what the wine offers.

1997 Quatro Winery, Sonoma County, $12. You will have noticed by now that there are not very many great bargains in Merlot--especially as compared to Cabernet Sauvignon or Chardonnay. This pleasant wine, while not quite qualifying for as a great find, does at least have the virtue of smelling and tasting like Merlot and not costing too much. It lacks, however, the supple, sweet, immediacy that Merlot can pack, and it would be a better choice as a companion for steak than as a stand-alone glass of red.

$ * 1996 Sebastiani Vineyards, Sonoma County, $15. This very pleasant wine delivers a mix of creamy oak, sweet spice accents and ripe fruit aromas. It is very well-balanced and invites immediate drinking. Sometimes, wine does not need to be any more than that.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Definition of Symbols

* * * A world-class wine, superb by any measure, the top 1% to 2% of all wines tasted.

* * An exceptional wine, well worth the effort to find, 10% to 12% of wines tasted.

* An admirable wine, tasty, focused, attractive, about 25% of wines tasted.

No Rating: The best are quite pleasant and can be good buys when moderately priced.

$ Good value for the money.

x Below average quality, to be avoided.