Streeterville Neighborhood, Chicago IL
Tasted Saturday, March 29, 2008 by Claudio161 with 1,439 views
The tasting started as a joke when one of our off-line tasting buddies proclaimed that "White Wine was a was of his liver!". So everyone rallied to get him to change his mind by assembling a tasting pairing 7 cali chards against 7 burg whites.
Tasted as part of the ”Judgment of Chicago WLTV Offline” Tasting at one of our esteemed offline colleague’s residence in Chicago on March 29th, 2008. The purpose was to compare and contrast 14 high-end California Chardonnays and White Burgundies side-by-side in a double blind tasting.
Sight: Light, pale straw color; fairly clear; medium-light viscosity for a white wine
Nose: First reaction was ‘Cotton Candy’; Lot’s of fruits- especially fleshy tree fruits; Lemon zest
Taste: A little acidic but really nice fruits; Impression is that this was a young wine and conveyed a feel as though it needed to age; Also floral aspects seemed to come through on the palate
Overall: Wow. (93 pts.)
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Tasted as part of the ”Judgment of Chicago WLTV Offline” Tasting at one of our esteemed offline colleague’s residence in Chicago on March 29th, 2008. The purpose was to compare and contrast 14 high-end California Chardonnays and White Burgundies side-by-side in a double blind tasting.
Sight: Light, pale straw color; fairly clear; High viscosity for a white wine
Nose: First reaction was ‘Great nose’; Florals and minerals; Slightly muted nose; Floral notes really stuck with me – I was not able to pick out a specific floral as the note was a mixture . . . .
Taste: Crushed sea shells; Great fruit; Floral notes coming through on the palate as well; Wet stones and pebbles
Overall: Pretty awesome. (91 pts.)
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Tasted as part of the ”Judgment of Chicago WLTV Offline” Tasting at one of our esteemed offline colleague’s residence in Chicago on March 29th, 2008. The purpose was to compare and contrast 14 high-end California Chardonnays and White Burgundies side-by-side in a double blind tasting.
Sight: Light straw color; clear; Highly viscous
Nose: First reaction was ‘Awesome nose’; Florals; Nuts; Melons; Towards the end white flowers
Taste: Oak, Malolactic butteriness; Flowery; Oak; Glycerol
Overall: Excellent. (93- {minus} pts.)
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Tasted as part of the ”Judgment of Chicago WLTV Offline” Tasting at one of our esteemed offline colleague’s residence in Chicago on March 29th, 2008. The purpose was to compare and contrast 14 high-end California Chardonnays and White Burgundies side-by-side in a double blind tasting.
Sight: Light straw color; clear; Highly viscous
Nose: First reaction was ‘Killer nose’; Florals & Citrus going all over the place
Taste: Acidic; Young wine; Minerals; Slate and stone notes coming through; ‘Lemony’
Overall: Awesome wine; clean finish. (93 pts.)
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Tasted as part of the ”Judgment of Chicago WLTV Offline” Tasting at one of our esteemed offline colleague’s residence in Chicago on March 29th, 2008. The purpose was to compare and contrast 14 high-end California Chardonnays and White Burgundies side-by-side in a double blind tasting.
Sight: Light straw color; clear; Highly viscous
Nose: Smoke; Charred Rocks; Flint; Mineral; Floral notes; Green Apples
Taste: Fruits; Citrus; Minerals; Acidity slightly out of check…perhaps some additional aging needed?
Overall: Awesome wine. (93- pts.)
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Tasted as part of the ”Judgment of Chicago WLTV Offline” Tasting at one of our esteemed offline colleague’s residence in Chicago on March 29th, 2008. The purpose was to compare and contrast 14 high-end California Chardonnays and White Burgundies side-by-side in a double blind tasting.
Sight: Light straw color; clear
Nose: Stone fruits; Grapefruit comes forward with some pith; Honey; Oak notes
Taste: Medium body; Easy tannins; Wood; length is good; Balance stood out to me
Overall: Great wine! (92 pts.)
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Tasted as part of the ”Judgment of Chicago WLTV Offline” Tasting at one of our esteemed offline colleague’s residence in Chicago on March 29th, 2008. The purpose was to compare and contrast 14 high-end California Chardonnays and White Burgundies side-by-side in a double blind tasting.
Sight: Light straw color
Nose: Beautiful nose is what hit me right out of the gate. Good integration of slates and minerals. Some lemon, but the nose set a high level of expectation that the palate did not meet
Taste: Nose was better than taste. Slight honey, some lemon zest; slate and minerals; somewhat muted on the taste.
Overall: Good wine! (91 pts.)
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Tasted as part of the ”Judgment of Chicago WLTV Offline” Tasting at one of our esteemed offline colleague’s residence in Chicago on March 29th, 2008. The purpose was to compare and contrast 14 high-end California Chardonnays and White Burgundies side-by-side in a double blind tasting.
Sight: Light straw color
Nose: Honey; Lychee; Malo butter notes; Oak
Taste: High acid, but still excellent; Medium to heavy body
Overall: Great wine, but heat/acid a bit out of balance and seems like it needs some additional age and then it should come together! (91 pts.)
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Tasted as part of the ”Judgment of Chicago WLTV Offline” Tasting at one of our esteemed offline colleague’s residence in Chicago on March 29th, 2008. The purpose was to compare and contrast 14 high-end California Chardonnays and White Burgundies side-by-side in a double blind tasting.
Sight: Light straw color
Nose: Tree fruits; Straw; Melons; Based on the nose, I pegged it to be a Burgundy – I was fooled!
Taste: Fruit; Oak; Stones; Minerals; Acidic; Will benefit from additional aging????
Overall: Very nice wine (92+ pts.)
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Tasted as part of the ”Judgment of Chicago WLTV Offline” Tasting at one of our esteemed offline colleague’s residence in Chicago on March 29th, 2008. The purpose was to compare and contrast 14 high-end California Chardonnays and White Burgundies side-by-side in a double blind tasting.
Sight: Light straw color
Nose: Nose gave me the impression of a California wine; Floral and citrus notes; Tree fruits
Taste: Butterscotch; Fruits; Smoke; Malo notes; Oak
Overall: Awesome, but a BIG wine…. Should be paired with food (92 pts.)
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Tasted as part of the ”Judgment of Chicago WLTV Offline” Tasting at one of our esteemed offline colleague’s residence in Chicago on March 29th, 2008. The purpose was to compare and contrast 14 high-end California Chardonnays and White Burgundies side-by-side in a double blind tasting.
Sight: Light straw color; Clear wine
Nose: Toasted Oak; Lemon zest; Some ocean bay notes – minerals, crushed shells
Taste: Lively and fresh; Medium light bodied wine; Clean clear and crisp minerals; Lemon sprite
Overall: Great lively and light wine. Well balanced. May even need some additional age. (92 pts.)
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Tasted as part of the ”Judgment of Chicago WLTV Offline” Tasting at one of our esteemed offline colleague’s residence in Chicago on March 29th, 2008. The purpose was to compare and contrast 14 high-end California Chardonnays and White Burgundies side-by-side in a double blind tasting.
Sight: Light straw color; Highly Viscous
Nose: Grapefruit; White flesh fruits; Some petrol; Granny smith apple hints
Taste: Peaches; Lychee; Soft and muted on the finish – not an ‘in your face’ wine (a good thing)
Overall: Smooth and integrated – very nice. (91 pts.)
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Tasted as part of the ”Judgment of Chicago WLTV Offline” Tasting at one of our esteemed offline colleague’s residence in Chicago on March 29th, 2008. The purpose was to compare and contrast 14 high-end California Chardonnays and White Burgundies side-by-side in a double blind tasting.
Sight: Caramel yellow; medium viscosity
Nose: Caramel and Melon notes
Taste: Toasted notes; Brown sugars; Some melon patch
Overall: Very nice, albeit a slightly quick wine considering all the sugars (90 points)
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Tasted as part of the ”Judgment of Chicago WLTV Offline” Tasting at one of our esteemed offline colleague’s residence in Chicago on March 29th, 2008. The purpose was to compare and contrast 14 high-end California Chardonnays and White Burgundies side-by-side in a double blind tasting.
Sight: Honey colored and medium-low viscosity
Nose: Honey notes, muted nose
Taste: Chemical taste; Some pear; Sugary/highly sweet; Good density of fruit notes
Overall: Personally like other Sauterne houses better. (89 pts.)
Post a Comment / 1 person found this helpful, do you? Yes - No / Report Issue
Many surprises of the evening.... overall California won the popular vote. Some California chardonnays were taken to be Burgundy wines - and some vice versa as well. I was amazed how well California showed in the tasting. We can analyze the results 6 ways to Sunday.... but the cards fell where they did and California was the winner (not by a landslide, but yet still the winner). Chris, our host, was most gracious and offered an amazing environment and the utmost in hospitality.
© 2003-24 CellarTracker! LLC. All rights reserved. "CellarTracker!" is a trademark of CellarTracker! LLC. No part of this website may be used, reproduced or distributed without the prior written permission of CellarTracker! LLC.
2004 Kistler Chardonnay McCrea Vineyard 93 Points
USA, California, Sonoma County, Sonoma Mountain
Tasted as part of the ”Judgment of Chicago WLTV Offline” Tasting at one of our esteemed offline colleague’s residence in Chicago on March 29th, 2008. The purpose was to compare and contrast 14 high-end California Chardonnays and White Burgundies side-by-side in a double blind tasting.
This wine was the Kickoff Wine for the evening’s lineup. It is worth noting that this wine was opened 4 hours before traveling a short cab ride to the tasting. Upon the initial pop of the cork, I found the smell of the wine to be slightly offensive – buttery malolactic notes and oak chips from a wood chipper! I was sure that I would be able to pick it out of the lineup – boy was I wrong.
Sight: Light to light straw yellow; fairly clear; medium viscosity for a white wine
Nose: Initial reaction was that it was a great nose! Thought it was a burgundy for sure. Good fruit on the nose: Lychee, Melon, Lively Citrus (mostly lemon); Some honey notes as well
Taste: Smooth wine; Nicely integrated; Just gives you a feeling overall as “really nice”; I also tasted some honey and citrus notes on the palate in addition to the nose.
Overall: Excellent wine – strongly recommended (93 pts.)
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
1992 J.M. Boillot Puligny-Montrachet 1er Cru Champs Canet 92 Points
France, Burgundy, Côte de Beaune, Puligny-Montrachet 1er Cru
Tasted as part of the ”Judgment of Chicago WLTV Offline” Tasting at one of our esteemed offline colleague’s residence in Chicago on March 29th, 2008. The purpose was to compare and contrast 14 high-end California Chardonnays and White Burgundies side-by-side in a double blind tasting.
Sight: Light to medium straw yellow; fairly clear; medium-light viscosity for a white wine
Nose: First reaction was ‘Classy’; Muted nose; Elegant; Clove spice; Heavy citrus; Apricot; Green apple
Taste: Medium bodied feel; Apples; Some hints of honey; Slight smokiness; Flutter of petrol; Smoothly integrated and acid in balance
Overall: Excellent wine – slightly stronger than wine #1 Would suggest pairing with stronger foods such as grilled salmon. (92+ pts.)
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue