12/25/2017 - THA wrote:

Bone dry. High acidity it seems. Nicely light in weight on the palate. Not giving up much fruit at this stage. Quite unevolved. Tannins still cutting a bit of an angular, hard edge.

1/10/2015 - THA wrote:

A one-note wine of wood and black currants. Unmemorable. Not recommended.

12/23/2014 - THA wrote:

Completely agree with the recent 95 point scores from WA and Galloni. A spectacular wine! My tasting note from 2012 is entirely consistent with this bottle; but the score is easily elevated by maturity. Maturity has yielded such a memorable wine, with complex layers of sweet, tobacco-kissed earth and a rich core of perfectly ripe berry fruit. An elegant, gracefully harmonious and integrated wine. Rich, but weightless. Fires on all cylinders from the nose through the finish. You could easily expect to pay three to four times the price for a mature wine of this quality.

12/12/2014 - THA wrote:

Corked!

11/16/2014 - THA wrote:

Too woody.

11/14/2014 - THA wrote:

This is not a very good wine and never will be. Woody. Grippy. Austere. Gives up nothing. Short. Good nose, though. Not recommended.

8/9/2014 - THA wrote:

PlumpJack Cabernet Sauvignon Estate 2006 is fully mature; but has not improved into a better wine along its arch of evolution. It is inky, with a dark fruit profile. Its tannins are soft, and this wine drinks effortlessly. It has good Cabernet flavor without obnoxiously high levels of wood/oak. It is full bodied, but light weight. Easy to drink. But it finishes short, and winds up being somewhat of a one-note wine. It lacks focus, is soft, but it is not fat. Maturity has not yielded any complexity. Drink now.

8/2/2014 - THA wrote:

Consistent with my last note. Perhaps a bit softer and evolved, but still young. This will have a long arch of drinkability, and is within reach of its plateau of maturity, but not quite there yet. Drink if you want, but hold if you can.

7/11/2014 - THA wrote:

Delicious. Straddles the line between old and new worlds. Crowd pleaser. Juicy. Smooth. Good depth. Not angular, tannic, grippy, or austere. Round but not fat. Not multi layered or remarkably complex, though. Recommended.

5/3/2014 - THA wrote:

Best bottle yet. Has entered maturity. Funky, fleshy evolved nose. Rounded and soft, but not fat; stays focused. Delicious.

3/16/2014 - THA wrote:

Such a better alternative to 95% of the Merlot on store shelves today! Deep, juicy, and finishes long. Round, but not flabby. Stays focused through the finish. Well integrated and harmonious from start to finish. If there's a better pizza or burger wine out there, I'd like to taste it. Recommended.

2/14/2014 - THA wrote:

My tasting note from one year ago applies to this bottle as well. Still quite unevolved, although its grip has loosened. This time round I'll add to the descriptors: hollow core, stemmy, and a bit gritty. Bottom line: I'd be happy to have this wine on my table any night; but one needs to manage expectations with this wine -- like many wines of this vintage, enjoy it for what it is, rather than complain about what it is not. As far as drinking window goes, drink now; it will be on its plateau of maturity for many years, but will not evolve into a better wine than it is today.

1/2/2014 - THA Likes this wine:

An excellent example of (i) Cabernet Sauvignon and (ii) Napa Valley. If someone wanted to know what great Napa Valley Cabernet tastes like, I'd suggest this wine. It shows pure, fresh, Cabernet typicity (i.e., it tastes like Cabernet is supposed to taste). And it has the richness and lushness that Napa Valley should add to the bottle. I like this wine for what it is, and appreciate it for what it isn't -- it is not an over-the-top, pump-up-the-volume, hangover Napa Cab. Oak is well integrated, letting the currants and kiss of sweet cedar show through. It's rounding out nicely, and the tannins are soft. Recommended.

12/6/2013 - THA wrote:

In a good spot right now. Drinking well. Unashamedly modern in style. Smooth, lush, and deep. Glossy, toasty, creamy oak. Nice weight.

12/5/2013 - THA wrote:

Unmistakably California -- big, brooding, dark, rich, and deep. But what elevates this wine above the chocolate syrup being sold as Napa Valley Cabernet Sauvignon today is its weightlessness. For all of its richness and depth, it remains a nearly weightless wine, lending itself to a satisfying second glass. One complaint, however, is its woody, toasty vanilla oak flavors, which should have been dialed back a bit. Recent tasters who noted that this wine is in a bit of a closed phase are also correct.

11/26/2013 - THA wrote:

Served along side the Pontet Canet in the flight 2003s. Easily as good as the Pontet Canet, but a little more structured, dark-fruited, tannic, and dusty. Better depth, too. Fine to drink now, but this will mature more slowly than the Pontet Canet. Not as good as the Sociando-Mallet 2000, in my opinion.

11/26/2013 - THA wrote:

Consistent with my prior note from a month ago.

11/26/2013 - THA wrote:

I've had this wine a few times now, and each time it does not disappoint. Perhaps it's a matter of managing expectations, which often makes these little unclassed gems more satisfying than their big-gun neighbors. This wine is tired and faded, but satisfying. Recommended.

11/26/2013 - THA Likes this wine:

I really enjoyed this wine. Old school. Earthy, almost funky, aromas layered over a core of delicious fruit. A masculine wine. Fully mature.

11/30/2013 - THA wrote:

I've bought my last bottle of Gloria. I've never had a Gloria that met expectations, much less exceeded them. I've been reading that the Gloria 2007 is in a sweet spot right now -- a classic claret on its plateau of maturity. It has a nice core of fruit, but its grittiness and astringency get in the way of a satisfactory wine. I found it somewhat disjointed, and lacking integration and harmony. It's a good wine, to be sure. But, in my opinion, there are several better options for $50 in Bordeaux.

11/29/2013 - THA wrote:

The SHL 2004 has a wonderful nose - a cocktail of earthy fruit and tobacco yielding to early maturity. Old-School. It has freshness, is smooth, and is drinking well now. My complaint is the sharp, gritty edge it cuts on the finish, which, I hope, will fade with more maturity. This does not ruin the wine, but makes the experience less harmonious. Two bottles were opened, and both were the same. Looking at my CT note from a little over a year ago, this note was consistent.

11/9/2013 - THA wrote:

An outstanding wine. Complex and long. Each sip different from the last. Highly recommended.

11/7/2013 - THA wrote:

A good drink. Neal Martin's 2013 note is accurate. Tired and faded, and straightforward; but aromas, flavors, and texture of maturity keep you coming back for one more sip. Surprisingly deep color. From magnum.

10/26/2013 - THA wrote:

Remarkably consistent with my last tasting note a little over a year ago. Same note.

10/25/2013 - THA wrote:

Delicious. Really nice lift. Refreshing. Good weightlessness.

10/20/2013 - THA wrote:

Drinking wonderfully now. Early maturity has yielded integration, harmony, and a rounding around the edges. It has depth and length. Delicious, but homogeneous and lacking singularity.

10/20/2013 - THA wrote:

A soft wine with a core of fruit still intact, and less faded than expected. Not a complex wine; actually quite simple. Surprisingly little sediment.

10/12/2013 - THA wrote:

Decanted for about five hours, and drank over the following four hours. This wine was soft and juicy, yet dry and focused. Well integrated and harmonious. It had nice elegance and weightlessness across the palate. Thankfully not dominated by wood. I was disappointed that it was not more complex. Although it was quite simple and straightforward, it was also delicious.

10/9/2013 - THA wrote:

Really drinking well now. Early maturity has yielded a soft, round wine with nice flesh. Great purity with a red-fruit core layered under excellent Pauillac aromas and flavors. Recommended.

10/4/2013 - THA wrote:

This wine underwhelmed. It was fully mature, gave great aromas and flavors of maturity, and is an unmistakably styled traditional Bordeaux. But it was hollow with a dried out core of fruit, and did not drink as silky smoothly as one might expect from a mature wine. Rather, maturity yielded a sometimes rough, gritty texture. I think this wine will peter out over the next five years.

8/18/2013 - THA wrote:

From 375. As good as I remember. The 375 has been good to this wine at this stage of its evolution. I have a feeling it would be a totally different wine from a 750. Well integrated. As big, deep, and lush as you would ever want out of a Napa Valley red blend, but not heavy. Almost weightless. Delicious.

8/3/2013 - THA wrote:

1er Cru Gevrey-Chambertin 2009 (Nos Caves Vin): This was the unanimous least favorite of the group. Not to suggest that this is not good wine. It's very good, but was not on the level of the Jadot Estournelles St. Jacques or the Lignier la Justice. Everyone agreed that the Faiveley was a one-dimensional/one-note wine. It has great focus and purity, and a light-to-medium body. It lacked depth and complexity. I don't think this wine is worth its price tag. Paid around $75.

8/3/2013 - THA Likes this wine:

1er Cru Gevrey-Chambertin 2009 (Nos Caves Vin): This was the unanimous runner-up in the tasting, with all tasters agreeing that it is a delicious wine. I found it to be quite rich, with an almost California-like profile. It's deep, and has great length; but it simply did not offer the complexity of the Jadot Estournelles St. Jacques. Although the tasting was intended to be limited to 2009 1er Cru Gevrey-Chambertin, this wine was included because of the general opinion that la Justice is of 1er Cru quality. This wine would appeal to a lover of a New World style.

8/3/2013 - THA Likes this wine:

1er Cru Gevrey-Chambertin 2009 (Nos Caves Vin): This was the unanimous best of the three wines. Easily the most complex, with extraordinary earthy aromas and flavors layered over its rich, deep fruit. Wonderful integration. Great length. Outstanding. Highly recommended.

7/25/2013 - THA wrote:

A solidly delicious drink. Great candidate for a crowd pleaser. Straightforward and pure. Good core of sweet fruit. Excellent lack of woodiness. Maturity yields a soft texture, but unfortunately no complexity. In the end this is still a one dimensional wine. I prefer mature Medoc with at least some tertiary aromas, which this does not.

4/19/2013 - THA wrote:

Just as good as the 2009, and I wouldn't argue with anyone who concludes that it is better. The difference is style. This Chateau explored the boundaries of the vintage with this wine, and the result is a riper, more modern- or New World-styled wine. It has great stuffing. A deep core of fruit and big, mouth-coating tannins. Finishes smooth. Drinking well already, but will easily cellar for years. From a 375ml.

4/20/2013 - THA Likes this wine:

Very good. Fully mature, with wonderful aromas of leather and tobacco. The fruit is fading, but the acidity and tannins are still keeping this wine remarkably youthful. Still focused and precise, maturity has not yielded a overly round or flat wine. Recommended. From a 6L.

3/24/2013 - THA Likes this wine:

Wonderful. Pretty, floral perfume of all sorts of goodness. Perfectly balanced and integrated. Impressed. Refreshing! Weightless across the palate, which is on the short list of factors I look for in outstanding wine. Glossy layer of sweet oak adds complimentary complexity, but does not overpower. Could use a longer finish, but I'm not complaining, just observing. Wish I had cases of this. Reminds me of the effortless richness, silk, and elegance of Altamura. Mature. Drink now, but no urgency.

3/4/2013 - THA wrote:

Sweet, fruity, and smooth. Dusty, green, soy, and mint notes add subtle layers of complexity, keeping this wine from being one dimensional or boring. Easy going, and maybe even too soft and round. I like to see a bit more focus and precision in my Cabernets. Unequivocally modern in style, but not so much as to be heavy or palate-fatiguing.

3/3/2013 - THA wrote:

Simple, fruity, and [prominently] woody. Fresh and clean. Little character. Easy going, but with an underlying grip of the vintage.

3/3/2013 - THA Likes this wine:

Impressed. Great purity, depth, and length. Wonderful red fruit profile. Easy going, smooth, and round; but not fat; stays focused. Recommended.

2/28/2013 - THA wrote:

I admire this wine's purity and depth. But it's ultimately a one dimensional wine that lacks much in the way of character. I disagree with those who wrote that this wine is ferociously tannic, closed, or inaccessible. I found it to be open, smooth, and round. I didn't find much in the way of structure. It's also very sweet on the entry. This is my first Tannat, and it reminded me of an easy going Merlot with a dollop of Syrah for spice. Agree with "TWARD" review below. The winery's own review is also accurate in my opinion ("lingering finish vibrates between sweet fruit and dusty, loamy earth", "surprisingly pretty, pure and seamless").

2/24/2013 - THA wrote:

Shows the modern style of the vintage. Full body. Deep. Rich. Heavy. Sweet.

2/14/2013 - THA wrote:

This is an awesome wine. Period. Along side the Langoa Barton 2000, the Leoville Barton hits a notch above on all counts - nose, palate, and finish. When I think of Bordeaux, this is on a short list of definitive examples. So much depth, and yet weightless. So powerful, and yet silky. So expressive of its terroir. So perfectly integrated. So perfectly balanced. So seamless. Awesome.

2/16/2013 - THA wrote:

Give this about 4 hours of air, after which it softens and opens up to show the ripeness and grip of the vintage. A tasty wine? Sure. Is it worth $20? Sure. But that's where it ends. It lacks character, singularity, and any expression of place. Fails to impress. Unmemorable. I've had several recent vintages of Caronne Ste. Gemme, and, except for a very good 2002 in my opinion, I don't remember any of them. If this 2010 is said to be the best this estate has to offer, I doubt I'll ever buy one again. Ch. Senejac is still the Left Bank to beat for $20.

2/14/2013 - THA Likes this wine:

Quintessential St. Julien. Excellent wine. Drinking effortlessly well. Best of both worlds -- drinkability of maturity and energy and focus of youth. Wish I had more. Recommended.

2/6/2013 - THA Does not like this wine:

Not impressed

2/9/2013 - THA wrote:

Surprisingly unevolved. Dark color. Lacks complexity now, which I believe is because it fools you with its youth. Still, you can coax the underlying layers of smokey tobacco and cool stones of St. Estephe. Also surprising depth and fruit for the vintage. If you had this wine blind, you'd never peg it for a 2002. Nice wine.

1/18/2013 - THA wrote:

Proper claret, but probably the least expressive Sociando I've had. No faults, and should please fans of Sociando, but it also will not excite them. Less evolved than I expected. Needs generous air at this point. The third day of being open (and stored in the refrigerator in the interim) was the best.

1/11/2013 - THA Likes this wine:

Proper claret. Elegance and finesse. Easy to drink. Pleasure to drink. Refreshing. No faults, and nothing negative to say, but this wine lacks singularity. Less robust and masculine that most Pauillacs. Recommended.