I have found this wine fascinating since I came across the mosto from Finca Matalian in the Pitijopos and tasted the 2013 last year. (In fact I hunted down all the wines from Finca Matalian – a really interesting set too.)

First, props to the label – Finca Matalian is apparently albariza and only 7km from the sea and the white/green/waves motif is perfect. Having said that, the 2015 has a new label again, which is also cracking, and at least helps us identify the añada (since the label cannot, I understand, indicate the year).

As for the wine iself, it has a very refined mineral, almond, and herb (rosemary) character to it, and just a hint of chalky texture. And boy is it a pleasant thing to drink – a refreshing 11% and while it doesn’t come across as acidic it doesn’t seem to have any edges either.

Like a bus in the rain, you wait ages for your first bottle of UBE and then three come along at once. Having had my first bottle on Friday here we are, not a week later, on bottle number 2, this time in the marvellous  Taberna Verdejo.

Not a lot to report against last week’s tasting, this came out with a little bit of an aroma/first impression of oxidation but it improved a lot after the first glass or so. Still those same sweet herbal (ie herbs that suggest sweetness) flavours. My lunch companion made an excellent point about the acidity – or maybe intensity – of the wine giving it a nice balance. I certainly noticed the fruit more this time.

Actually speaking about that intensity a couple of funny things happened pairing wise. We had an excellent lunch, with a couple of navajas each, half a menestra, half a callos, a wild boar escabeche and a pato azulon: so good indeed that I completely forgot about the oloroso desert I wanted to try. Anyway, we started with a manzanilla pasada, then opened the UBE, planning to move onto an amontillado, but before we knew it we had eaten the callos (which are meaty, smokey and very tasty here) with the UBE  and, you know, it wasn’t at all bad as a pairing. Evidently we are talking contrasts but the freshness of the wine cut through the rich flavours and it stood its own ground in flavour terms quite comfortably.

No doubt about it, this is serious wine (and it was a serious lunch).

There are many reasons to come to Surtopia (as discussed ad nauseam here, here and here) and not the least of them is the chance to drink singular wines like this one.

This is yet another of the fascinating projects of Ramiro Ibañez and, since the artistic photo is a bit blurry I need to fill in some blanks. This is the 2013, the full name is “Ube de uberrina” (uberrina meaning “utmost”) it is labelled “Palomino Centenario” (100 year old palomino) and it also references the kind of albariza soil involved – albariza de antehojuelas (new to me – will see what I can find out). The back label has yet more intriguing information, showing that the fruit is from a small finca called Las Vegas and the cepage is 73% palomino fino (the now dominant strain of palomino, originally from Sanlucar), 16% palomino jerezano (which I believe is aka palomino de jerez or palomino basto – originally the dominant grape but now much less common) and 11% palomino peluson (new to me). It says on the label that these are the original “roots” (by which I assume we are talking pre-phylloxera).

So a fascinating CV, no doubt about it, and the resulting wine is very fine stuff indeed. As you can see it is a pale but solid gold colour with green notes – crystal clear and appetising. It has an elegant nose with very subtle notes that are floral/herbal (honeysuckle and rosemary) and mineral (limestone rather than seasalt).

On the palate it is dry but has flavours that suggest sweetness – sweet herbs and almonds – and just enough mineral bite. Brilliant balance to it too: it is really fresh, clean and elegant. Brilliant stuff – maybe not the huge flavour profile of some white wines but classy and utterly enjoyable.

This dry 100% palomino young white wine is excellent, really good.

Here it is pictured next to its wood-reared little brother, Pitijopo #6. They are both from palomino grown by Primitivo Collantes on Finca Matalian, but whereas the Viña was fermented in temperature controlled inox (and has been a while in the bottle) the Pitijopo was fermented (by Ramiro Ibañez) in bota without any temperature control. The Pitijopo was excellent (so much so that I have spent the last few days hunting out examples of wines from the same fruit) and it turns out the Viña Matalian is a twin (not an identical twin but close enough).

As you can see above, it has a touch less green colour – it is a lovely clear gold. The nose is aromatic and fruity, full of sweet herbs and mature grapes.

On the palate it isn’t quite as lush as its brother – a little more mineral and refined, but fresh and tasty, full of fruit and maybe more character.

Really cracking wine. Apparently they are looking more seriously at making a white wine and when they do I would really recommend snapping it up.

This is quite something – a 100% palomino from the “Confitero” vines in Pago Miraflores that has been made into sparkling wine by the “ancestral method” (essentially, fermentation in the bottle using its own sugars and yeast).

It is a lively gold in colour – a hint of green. A nice nose of cider apples, citrus and minerals, cheese, even.

Not the longest lasting stream of bubbles – second glass has come out foamy more than anything. (Another mini bottle rant here – this bottle came with a beer cap which made it impossible to open without losing some – not sure if these last two issues are related.)

On the palate it is dry but there are the same fruit flavours of other palomino creations – apple verging on pineapple, turning to a bitter tonic flavour at the finish.

A white wine from a single vineyard of palomino in Pago Miraflores this has apparently been fermented in a tank and spent 7 months in a bota, no sulphites added and presumably no filtering.

The colour of it is remarkable – it is semi opaque and looks a bit like a very light style of honey. It also looks like a syrup when you pour it – a really gloopy type pour.

First opened (Saturday) I am finding it very restrained on the nose but it may be a little too cool. What there is is like the nose of a cider – very restrained appley notes. On the palate well, it has acidity no doubt, but it is carrying a lot of jammy apple fruit and seems like some residual sugar. Very like cider.

Coming back to this a day later (Sunday) the nose is in fact more like pineapple juice – it probably was yesterday to be honest. I am finding it much more similar to the Sobre Tabla that I tasted a while back from these guys. Also on the palate, a note somewhere between pineapple and grapefruit. Seems much sweeter than I remembered from yesterday.

I still struggle to understand the concept of this wine – I don’t really see what the makers are trying to achieve here. Having said that, it is another interesting experience in getting to know palomino and its characteristics – maybe there are enough crazy people like me for this to be a profitable exercise (hope so).