1/20/2017 - geeky? not sure wrote:

Agree with the most recent notes. This wine is in such a great place. Tannins have melted away, while nice fruit remains. Buffered by notes of black tea and a very, very slight hint of NSG earthiness. Lovely.

6/13/2016 - geeky? not sure wrote:

A little too much oak for me. Nice exotic fruit beneath, but needs a lot of time.

6/13/2016 - geeky? not sure wrote:

I haven't had a Brunello in years, but this has me questioning why that is. What a fun and delicious wine.

Plums, chocolate, coffee, tobacco. Grapes!

Clearly very substantial, but not heavy. This seems to me to be very much in balance and tasty to boot. The wine is itching for a huge slab of red meat.

Need to expand my wine horizons and go this direction a little more often.

6/13/2016 - geeky? not sure wrote:

Dark-hued but still visually transparent.

Nose is awesome. Super fragrant. An intoxicating perfume, kind of masculine. A little bit like sandalwood, but that's not exactly right. After 2 hrs, an intense spice tingles the schnozz. I love when that happens.

Flavor is very much all about the tart red fruit, cranberry and raspberry, with a serious black tea component. Acidity is high and just right. Becomes very savory with time. A touch of earth. Attractive bitter element on the back-end.

This is why I drink burgundy.

Great now but has years ahead.

6/13/2016 - geeky? not sure wrote:

Hermitage in a Burgundian vein.

Surprisingly light color. Medium weight on the palate (lighter than I expected), but packs a lot of punch. Power w/o weight, yadda yadda.

Flavor-wise: significant licorice element. Normally that's not my thing, but here it plays a consistent, supplementary role that just worked for me with this wine and provided a great deal of interest.

With time, smoke and green olives come out, with the smokey element taking center stage with food - grilled bone-in ribeye, a great pairing.

Great experience with a lovely, lovely wine.

4/15/2016 - geeky? not sure wrote:

I think Isaac's note below is spot on, and I got a good dose of lychee/exotic fruit as well. But if I were to give this wine a number score, I'd definitely go higher than 87 (probably more like a 91). Wines like this make me regret not cellaring more Riesling. So good.

4/15/2016 - geeky? not sure wrote:

I had heard this could be a bretty mess, but didn't any brett. Rather, a rubbery/meaty/reduction aftertaste thing (kind of like synthetic bresaola) that I sometimes get with "natural" wines.

Ahead of this funk was nice fruit and a good earth component, but not enough to save it.

4/15/2016 - geeky? not sure wrote:

Not bad at all: cranberry fruit, nice acidity. Far exceeded expectations.

4/4/2016 - geeky? not sure wrote:

Day 1 had me swearing off California PN forever. Tasted overly fruity and sweet, but in an underripe way, if that makes any sense (like they picked too early from a site that was looking to express more fruit).

Day 2 the fruit subsided and black tea component came out that added a beautiful savoriness.

Will hold my other bottle for a long while and see if something good happens.

4/4/2016 - geeky? not sure wrote:

Too much brett - blew off a bit overnight in decanter, but still too much. Bought at auction so could have been bad storage.

3/18/2016 - geeky? not sure wrote:

Had high hopes for this, but was generally disappointed. Still very much alive and vibrant. Some bricking but not as much as I'd expect from a 25-ish year old wine. Good acidity. Not at all muddled.

Flavor-wise, though, it was just meh. Stems were a little too prominent, but without adding much in the way of savory interest or complexity. No real tertiary interest.

Better with food, though, still not memorable.

Better on Day 2, where it picked up some textural interest and chewiness, along with toned down stemminess. Still not great.

3/9/2016 - geeky? not sure wrote:

Much more open for business than I expected. Very St. Jo / Northern Rhone: meat, flowers, salinity/brine. Not too heavy, but good fruit. Very nice. I didn't find the tannins overbearing. Good.

2/8/2016 - geeky? not sure wrote:

Love these wines. This started out with some nice dark fruit, but fruit receded with air and gave way to tons of olive brine-y character and a general savoriness, with a slightly bloody component. Would like to see a little more fruit, but I think it will come back with time.

Not at all heavy, but definitely a little weightier than a Gonon. I prefer that little bit of weightiness in my Syrah.

2/8/2016 - geeky? not sure wrote:

No detailed notes, but very nice wine. Melon and pineapple - a little bit tropical. Good acid but not too racy. Very enjoyable.

2/8/2016 - geeky? not sure wrote:

Darkish golden colored. I found this to be very oaky/buttery, verging on buttered popcorn. Very big. Not my thing when it comes to chardonnay.

2/1/2016 - geeky? not sure wrote:

Really enjoyable. Super bright (almost to a fault). Bright cherry fruit dominates. Tertiary development starting to peak through, with savory/smoky notes emerging, but still very youthful. Seems like it has a long life ahead of it. Sad that it was my only one.

1/21/2016 - geeky? not sure wrote:

Nice bottle of wine - good workhorse Burgundy at this stage. Tons of spice, light mouthfeel, plummy fruit. Presented much more advanced than I would have expected - good acidity, but faded fruit (more plum than red-fruited), together with significant bricking. Not sure I need more of this, but it was a very pleasant drink and well worth $40. Glad I have one more.

1/21/2016 - geeky? not sure wrote:

Very, very tasty - really enjoyed this. Great core of fruit. Dense, but not heavy. Ever so slight hint of green, but seemed like it would integrate with time and add an earthyt/herbal element rather than a distraction. Wonderful wine - would love to try "better" vintages.

1/21/2016 - geeky? not sure wrote:

Way too stemmy - presented like chinon or very green 2011 burg. Fruit was nice, but overwhelmed. Light bodied spatburgunder.

12/26/2015 - geeky? not sure wrote:

First time drinking a Faury VV with any age on it. In my limited experience, these wines are so tightly coiled (almost unpleasant) young, so it's nice to have confirmation that cellaring these guys is a rewarding exercise.

Still a good deal of structure, but the tannic wall that you hit with these VV bottlings early on is not present. This is very friendly and drinkable out of the gate, though no real tertiary development/characteristics yet.

Nose has a hint of mocha and that licorice-y St. Joseph thing (not in an overbearing, offensive way, but definitely present).

Very flavorful and grapey (again, not offensive - this is made of grapes after all!). Very different from a Gonon. The fruit is front and center and it's grapes, not cherries or other red or darker fruits. Earth and stems and some salinity frame the fruit and add character, but this is still very fruit-driven at this stage.

Palate/mouthfeel is intense and viscous without being heavy. A little bit of heat or herbal intensity on the backend.

This is honest wine. Not profound, but a very, very nice wine that has a long life ahead of it, still. Have one more and will hold on to it for a good while.

12/15/2015 - geeky? not sure wrote:

Still very youthful. Some secondary development (some browning, a little bit of campfire), but overall still pretty structured. May have been slightly corked.

12/7/2015 - geeky? not sure wrote:

Very nice and a good QPR. Opened with dessert and the (more prominent than expected) RS ended up pairing well with macarons and other pastries. Very floral - serious nose.

12/7/2015 - geeky? not sure wrote:

Still very tight. Didn't speak to me of Chianti, but seems to have a good deal of structure and likely to last a long while.

12/6/2015 - geeky? not sure wrote:

Could have been the very noticeable wood element throwing me off, but I think this was slightly corked, particularly bc the fruit wasn't as vibrant or heavy as I would have expected.

12/6/2015 - geeky? not sure wrote:

I've been a little down on A-R whites recently after a couple of underripe chards, but this was crazy good and I'm now kicking myself for not buying more of this wine from each vintage. Acidity has calmed down a bit, allowing the floral and spicy aromas to come to the fore. Could sniff this for hrs. Wonderful, mouthcoating - but not oily. A real hit with some folks who had never had A-R before, which was fun to see.

12/6/2015 - geeky? not sure wrote:

Not a rockstar, but way outperformed expectations given the vintage and modest village. There's been some development , but I found this fairly fresh and even a little tight. Good acidity and tannins still very present. Cranberry fruit and a hint autumnal. Glad I picked up a couple at chambers for under 20 per.

11/24/2015 - geeky? not sure wrote:

Love these - joyful complex wines at a great price.

11/24/2015 - geeky? not sure wrote:

Really very nice, and nicely resolved. Much less animale/rusticity than I expected. I would call this tame and even "smooth". Like an aged CDP, almost, with restrained fruit.

10/17/2015 - geeky? not sure wrote:

Much better on day 2 when acidity calmed down and this took on a greater degree of richness and toastiness.

10/17/2015 - geeky? not sure wrote:

Nose was amazing. One of those situations where the smell of flowers fills the room while the wine is decanted. Roasted meats and coffee follow. Really spectacular nose. Texturally, tannins are still present but mostly resolved. Very mature and ready. Flavor-wise, though, it was something of a disappointment. It wasn't as if the fruit had disappeared -- fruit was still there along with some earth -- it just presented as kind of flat. Not bad, but boring. Didn't really improve with air. Had higher hopes for this bottle.

10/16/2015 - geeky? not sure wrote:

This is a serious overachiever - a joke at $24.

If served blind, I might have pegged this as CA traditionalist due to the bright and rich red fruit when first opened, but would be a tough call as this definitely straddles the line between Old World and restrained New World at first. Fruit integrates further after about an hour but is present (and lovely) throughout. From start to finish, very nice subtle herbal/minty/mentholly/stemmy elements on the back end, adding interest. Very, very, very fine tannins, and on the whole a very smooth mouthfeel.

Not super complex and not a long term ager, but this should provide enormous pleasure, and maybe some positive evolution, over the next 8-10 years. That this can be had for less than many Bourgognes and less than half the price of a crappy CA pinot noir is mind-boggling. This wine really defines QPR.

10/2/2015 - geeky? not sure wrote:

Very nice - bright, bright fruit and acidity lending nice structure. Hint of bitterness on the backend, which I've gotten before in my limited Persan experience. This reminds me of Beaujolais but with more interest and slightly more structure....and I actually like it.

10/2/2015 - geeky? not sure wrote:

Pleasant, straightforward Santenay. Nothing too notable but worth the $15 I paid for it.

10/2/2015 - geeky? not sure wrote:

Less pleasant than last time. Mostly jammy and hot with too much sweetness on the fruit. I was too bullish on these bottles.

10/2/2015 - geeky? not sure wrote:

My favorite of the series (05, 06, 07 Great Oaks) but not great. Started off nice as the fruit had settled down. But acidity began to dominate after an hour or so and it became shrill.

10/2/2015 - geeky? not sure wrote:

Good. Clearly Saumur. Not a bad QPR, but probably not a rebuy.

10/2/2015 - geeky? not sure wrote:

Damn that was great. INCREDIBLY youthful: very, very fresh without any muddled character. Beautifully delineated. Very light bodied. Lots of acid, with very, very fine (but present) tannins in the background. Still a good deal of structure. Cherry/cranberry fruit.

Changed a great deal over the 3 or so hours consumed. Started bright and vibrant, closed down a slight bit (with structure taking over) and then took on a charcoal/campfire character at the end which was also very pleasant and interesting.

Great wine and seems like it has at least 20 years ahead of it.

9/21/2015 - geeky? not sure wrote:

So good - classic Saumur nose, smooth, seamless palate (fine tannins) with great fruit concentration. A little chalky. Would love to see what these guys can do with a riper vintage.

9/17/2015 - geeky? not sure wrote:

Great, classic nose and nice smooth palate presence, but not much flavor.

9/17/2015 - geeky? not sure wrote:

Tastes like natural wine.

9/17/2015 - geeky? not sure wrote:

Still a TON of structure. Decent fruit, but not as much as I would have liked. Relatively youthful. Pleasant overall.

9/12/2015 - geeky? not sure wrote:

Insanely good. Citrus and tropical fruits. A bit of brioche/dough. Mouth-filling. I've been on a champagne kick lately and this is far and away the best I've had in a while. Have to get more of this.

9/2/2015 - geeky? not sure wrote:

Good, but nothing special. A bit of tobacco and moss. Cherry fruit. What seemed like wood tannins on the backend. Pleasurable and worth the $20 but not particularly exciting.

9/2/2015 - geeky? not sure wrote:

This wine was a game changer for me. I drink very little white burgundy (esp outside of Chablis) and this knocked my socks off. A ton of melon and exotic fruit. Slight citrus/tangerine. Beautiful subtle hint of oak, framing the wine perfectly. Hint of smoke. Palate/texture was round and generous, but with adequate acidity to keep it fresh. Perfect on a summer night at the Bowl. Wow. (Oh, and I paid about $21 on closeout, so that made it extra sweet.)

8/31/2015 - geeky? not sure wrote:

A lot of brett at first, but this blew off and integrated after about an hour. Generally exceeded expectations. Tasted and smelled distinctly of Cote Rotie and not only "old wine". Roses on the nose, nice acidity. Held up over night in the decanter, though lost a little something.

8/24/2015 - geeky? not sure wrote:

Wasn’t super impressed with this. Had a lot more heft than I expected and felt a bit advanced. Tomato leaf with a bit of ocean air/salinity. Not much nuance. Maybe needs a lot more time, but based on prior CT notes, that doesn’t seem to be the case. I bought 2 of these at auction and, though this didn’t taste completely cooked, I think there may have been some storage issues.

8/24/2015 - geeky? not sure wrote:

When I opened this at home to decant, it was a bit of a mess. Absolutely no fruit, with a metallic, irony thing going on that verged on overbearing. But after a few hours (we downed this about 3/3.5 hours after opening and decanting), this really did come into its own and was very much alive and well. Still more about the structure than the fruit, but dark, brooding fruits (didn’t expect that from SLB) did emerge and balance out the strong acidity and the remaining tannins. Not spectacular, but very nice -- others liked this more than I did. I think even a few more hours in the decanter would have done this some good. Very interesting and a good lesson in opening older Burgundy.

8/24/2015 - geeky? not sure wrote:

I found this to be much more tannic (pretty coarse tannins) and reserved than prior notes. Not sure what I expected from a 6 year old Barbaresco. Enjoyable but needs a lot of time.

8/24/2015 - geeky? not sure wrote:

Very nice wine. Juicy, but not overdone (particularly given the ripe vintage) - I'm finding this to be the case with all of the Joguets I've been trying and I'm really becoming a big fan. Great Chinon character. Improved a great deal with time open and the last glass was by far the best. Not a long term ager, but should improve with 5-8 years, maybe longer.

8/18/2015 - geeky? not sure wrote:

Not as much complexity or mid palate as I expected, but very nice on an exceedingly hot day.