4/18/2009 - Tory Griffin wrote:

My first Harlan, so was not sure what to expect, especially from a 2000. I was blown away by this wine. Dark color, great bouquet. Actually I don't remember so much about the specifics of the bouquet other than it was classic Napa cab. Probably the reason I don't recall the bouquet so much is because the wine, in the mouth, went on and on and on. Again, I couldn't believe this was a 2000. It had so many layers of penetrating flavors that evolved over the course of a minute, easily, so it's hard to identify more precisely the actual flavors. Was this really a 2000? Not a huge wine, but not what I'd call elegant either. I can't imagine this getting better with age. If a 2000 Harlan was like this, then I need to save up for one from a "good" vintage.

5/5/2009 - Tory Griffin wrote:

What else to drink on a night alone with my Napa-born thus bordeaux-disliking wife out of town? One of the first 2005s I've cracked, and for a young bordeaux at $20 I was impressed by what this one delivered. Classic bordeaux dirty and steely nose, medium-ruby color, and good tannic structure. Plenty of fruit, but by no means a fruity wine. Got better as the night went on, over 3 hours (or maybe that was just my impression because I killed the whole bottle myself). Still I enjoyed it, and for $20 it's a very worthwhile experiment with a young bordeaux. Probably will be better in 2-3 years.

5/3/2009 - Tory Griffin wrote:

Open an hour and ran through the vinturi before drinking. The thing that struck me most about this wine was the evolution of the bouquet...it had just so many things going on it's hard to describe. Interestingly, this was not an over-the-top fruit bomb wine, but rather was medium-full bodied, silky, jammy, and had a good backbone and acidic profile. Balance is an overused word but really here it is appropriate. This was a fun wine to drink on its own. Very good stuff.

4/21/2009 - Tory Griffin wrote:

Really like this wine. Dark brooding color, not completely giving on the nose quite yet, and still a bit rustic at this stage, but it clearly has the fruit and stuffing to be much better in a year. It has amazing concentration for a wine of the price. My experience with this wine is consistent with my experience with the 06, which after a year was just a dynamite wine for the price. Good now, especially with some decent time in the decanter, it will just get better.

2/27/2009 - Tory Griffin wrote:

Very different from prior vintages. Not the big, dense, juicy mocha-infused wine like the 2004 or 2005. This wine had a remarkably pure cola/berry bouquet, and creamy cola and red fruits in the mouth. Medium bodied with a moderate finish. Different, and good, but not up to the quality of prior vintages.

2/18/2009 - Tory Griffin wrote:

Dark as night, with classis petit verdot bouquet, dark dark fruits with a touch of spice. A pretty big wine for the modest price ($20), with dark dusty, not to sweet fruits leading to a somewhat tannic finish. Stuffing to last several more years. This wine presents a very good way to try a varietally-correct petit verdot at a reasonable price.

2/13/2009 - Tory Griffin wrote:

Light ruby in color, which is deceiving given the wine's mouthfeel. Great bouquet of cherry/vanilla and spice. Almost weightless on the palate. Everything here seems to be in balance. Not a fruit bomb or an overpowering wine, just a silky smooth, palate caressing, pure pinot. My first try with this winemaker's pinots, I was impressed.

2/13/2009 - Tory Griffin wrote:

One of my favorite Napa cabs that consistently delivers for a relatively modest price by Napa standards. Medium-dark ruby color, nose of dusty red and dark fruits, and palate-caressing silky flavors. The sweet red fruits dominate and lead to a fairly long finish that screams Rutherford. Good complexity. Tasted blind, one would be shocked to find out that this Rutherford cab can be found for in the mid-$30s. Great value.

2/13/2009 - Tory Griffin wrote:

Here's an underrated wine from an underrated winery. Dark purple color. Good nose. Spicy and sweet dark fruits, good structure, and a moderately long finish. The syrah/cab blend makes for a very unique flavor profile, with the darker plummy fruits and spicy syrah component really showing through, yet the cab provides good structure to the wine. For a Napa wine in the low $30s, this wine totally overdelivers.

2/13/2009 - Tory Griffin wrote:

Burgundian in style, with scents of pomegranate and cherry. Good crisp acidity and structure. More pomegranate and red fruits on the palate, with a silky, slightly chewy mouthfeel. A far cry from many of the syrupy, unstructured California pinots. Nice wine. Probably will continue to improve for another 2+ years.

2/14/2009 - Tory Griffin wrote:

This wine REALLY improved after being decanted for two hours. Dark ruby/purple color with scents of espresso, clove, raspberry and cassis. The bouquet just soared from the glass. Very nice. This also had a great mouthfeel. The initial attack on the palate was amazingly sweet, then folded into a velvety midpalate with layers of red and dark fruits. Finish was moderately long, with some refined tannins. I loved the way the wine improved with each sip. The way this wine opened up suggest this wine will easily continue to develop for several years. I wouldn't be afraid to drink one now with decanting but also look forward to having this wine in another several years. Great fruit, excellent Pauillac for a great price.

2/9/2009 - Tory Griffin wrote:

I was worried about this wine in my cellar for some time--probably because I paid $ 15 for this at, of all places, Target (the one and only bottle I've ever purchased there). It exceeded my expectations by a long shot. Still a dark ruby purple color on this one. It was giving up little bouquet, a tad more with some coaxing. But wow did it deliver on the palate. Several layers of dark red fruits--black cherry, cassis came to mind--rolled across the palate. No noticeable tannins, just good, balanced and structured wine that was amazingly complex for what I paid for it. A very nice surprise from 2001. Drink now or hold for 5 more hears.

2/8/2009 - Tory Griffin wrote:

Great bouquet, sweet ripe and slightly steely fruits jump from the glass. Interestingly, in the mouth this wine is young, much younger than expected given the bouquet. There is good fruit here, but it is wrapped in layers of finely grained tannins that coat the entire mouth. It's almost like you're drinking wine with a super-fine grated chalk dust in it that leaves a gritty feeling everywhere. Suffice it to say that I think this wine needs at least another year, perhaps 2 or up, before it becomes more civilized. The fruit is definitely there, as is the acidity for aging. I was shocked to find that this $10 red was in need of some good cellar time! Certainly we can almost never say that for American wines.

2/7/2009 - Tory Griffin wrote:

First tried this one at the winery a few weeks ago and bought a few due to the good QPR ($26). This one didn't disappoint tonight. Dark ruby purple color, very nice floral bouquet (from the cab franc). In the mouth this had good fruit, was a tad rustic (rutherford-like personality), and a medium finish. Very enjoyable but not terribly complex. Probably not much of an ager but solid table wine right now. Had with grilled burgers and it paired pretty nicely.

1/21/2009 - Tory Griffin wrote:

What you see is what you get--a dark, big, super jammy, ripe wine with dark fruits dominating the palate. Pop and pour, a heavy, syrupy wine, I don't think it gets much better. Nor do I think it's got enough acidity to be a great food wine, but on a cold winter nite, sitting by the fire, this one is fun to sip.

1/17/2009 - Tory Griffin wrote:

Disclaimer -- I typically don't like Sangiovese, and probably one looking for a "traditional" sangiovese would not be too into this wine. That said, I really, really llked this for what it was. Interstingly, it came off almost like a very ripe, creamy pinot. Strawberry/vanilla jam on the nose, and just layers of similar flavors on the palate. Ready to go, no aging necessary, this is a huge crowd pleaser--"a meal in a glass" proclaimed one of my guests. Well, it's not a big wine, so a "meal" in and of itself it is not, but still it was a complete wine from start to finish that keeps demanding additional sips. Shockingly, me, a cab/bordeaux lover, love this wine. Call it my dirty little secret.

1/18/2009 - Tory Griffin wrote:

Same secondary fermentation problems reported by others. Gave it the biggest possible MD shake, then let it rest. On day 2, it still had a little of the brightness from the secondary fermentation, but it came off mostly as a wine with good acidity, blackberry, wet rocks/graphite flavor profile. Probably 87-88 points on day 2. Interesting.

1/18/2009 - Tory Griffin wrote:

Still love this wine. Amazingly sweet, cocoa berry nose. As smooth as can be in the mouth, yet with good grip. Silky finish. A fantastic crowd-pleaser. Can't wait to try the 2006.

1/18/2009 - Tory Griffin wrote:

No fruit, way too tannic and tight. Ran it through the vinturi and decanted. Even on day two nothing. What happened? I have 5 more. Hope this was on off bottle. Not corked.

2/3/2009 - Tory Griffin wrote:

Lots of potential here. Dark almost purple color, good legs. Wasn't initially giving up much on the nose, but after being open an hour or so started to give up some dusty, dark fruit flavors. Good structure and balance in the mouth, with espresso and dark fruits dominating. 88 points on day 1, but given how the 2006 blossomed after a year (see my recent CT note), and given how I prefer the 2007 to the 2006 at the same stage of life, I am expecting very good things in about 6-12 months. My view is informed by the fact that on day 2, the bouquet was jumping out of the glass, chocolate/blackberry spices, while still maintaing the great balance and structure in the mouth, with a fairly firm tannic grip. Given how it behaves on day 2 I should say that I would give this another 12 months before starting to tackle my stash. Knowing me, however, I'll break into one or more sooner than that. It's very enjoyable now, with air, and promises to get better.

1/30/2009 - Tory Griffin wrote:

One of those wines you can just smell all night long. Still a dark ruby purple color, amazing classic pauillac bouquet, not a big or overpowering wine but had major finesse while still having penetrating flavors. A remarkable food wine. Still has time left on it, but I love its present state.

1/28/2009 - Tory Griffin wrote:

This young wine was open for business. Medium ruby, aromas of cherry and baking spices, good grip and length in the mouth with more of a typical spanich grenache profile than the quaffer cherry pie wines in 05 and 06. Nice wine, great complexity for the price. A crowd pleaser.

1/17/2009 - Tory Griffin wrote:

A pretty darn good merlot. Adequate structure, a nice bouquet filled with espresso/spice, and nice balance in the mouth. Dark fruits and cocoa, medium finish, a well made, thoroughly enjoyable wine. Nothing light or thin about it.

1/18/2009 - Tory Griffin wrote:

A big, bold cab franc. Dark ruby/purple, penetrating bouquet, layers of ripe, rich fruit, chocolate, raspberry-liquer, long long finish for this very big luscious cab franc.

1/11/2009 - Tory Griffin wrote:

I was initially surprised by the dark purple color given the inexpensive price tag for this wine. A big, penetrating bouquet of sweet raspberry/cherry liquor, with a hint of vanilla spice. A tad rustic in the mouth, medium-full bodied, good lingering finish. Although it is a different varietal, for whatever reason the flavor profile of this wine reminded me of an El Nido Clio--more scaled back and not as full-throttle as the Clio, but a similar flavor profile.

1/14/2009 - Tory Griffin wrote:

Great value. Dark, dark color, sweet bouquet that wasn't giving up much initially but which got better as the night went on. Big, juicy, layered purple and black fruits, mostly blackberry, lingered on the palate. Very smooth but with good acidic backbone. A good food wine, but also good on its own. Excellent value.

1/9/2009 - Tory Griffin wrote:

Decanted 1 hour before drinking. Good dark ruby purple color. Wonderful bouquet with good mix of earth, spicebox and fruit. Well structured, earthy black currant fruit, with a profile that is far different from a ripe, flabby cabernet. Complex and slightly earthy with good length on the finish. Great second wine from Seavey.

1/10/2009 - Tory Griffin wrote:

Dark, dark purple. A viscous, full bodied, full throttle wine. Sweet/ripe raspberry/blackberry on the nose, with a touch of pepper. Tannins are still very prevalent, but not overly drying. Tremendous amount of dark fruits, good midpalate and structure, and a moderate finish that will certainly get better as the wine ages and the tannins subside. A very good value in Napa Petite Sirah. Can drink now with sufficient decanting (1+ hours) but will be better with a year or two of bottle age.

1/8/2009 - Tory Griffin wrote:

I can't see this as a 92 point wine, at least not right now. It was dark, but very tight and youthful. Nose had a funky minerality to it which seemed a tad off; not wet stone or graphite, but something brighter. Just not my thing. Plenty of dark/blueberry fruit lurking in this wine, but the finish was still somewhat drying so I think it needs a few years to calm down before it can be in balance. Decanted and poured through the Vinturi, not a pop & pour. A better food wine at this point than just a drinking wine.

1/8/2009 - Tory Griffin wrote:

Still youthful and a bit tight, consistent with my experience with prior vintages of this wine. Dark color, good body, substantial tannins, semi-sweet midpalate, and a moderate-long finish. I rate it 88 now, which is how I initially rated the 2005, but after a year in bottle the 2005 was singing! I expect the same for this one too, so will buy more and let it rest for at least 6 months.

1/4/2009 - Tory Griffin wrote:

Well-made wine, dark color, but never really came around. Drunk over several hours. Decent, but the 2006 Louis Martini Sonoma Cab was better at this stage. Perhaps this one will improve in a few years.

1/3/2009 - Tory Griffin wrote:

Purple color. Not the usual ripe/sweet Pride CF bouquet; nice but not jumping out of the glass as in prior good years. Dark fruits on the palate, medium finish, not tannic or acidic. A nice, very nice, bottle of wine but not nearly the quality of the 2001 or 2002. This one was also seriously outclassed by the 2005 Wolf Family CF (had the previous night), which sells for the same price.

1/3/2009 - Tory Griffin wrote:

Gorgeous, huge cinammon/clove/spice box bouguet. The flavors carry through on the palate. Perfectly balanced and sweet midpalate, with a long finish. A weightless wine that manages to penetrate the palate with flavor after flavor. Great stuff.

1/3/2009 - Tory Griffin wrote:

Very nice. Medium bodied, good depth, no hard edges, moderate finish, can't ask for much more for $12. A great everyday wine.

12/27/2008 - Tory Griffin wrote:

Huge. Dark purple color, amazingly sweet aromas of vanilla, spice and brown sugar jump from the glass. This wine is very thick in the mouth, penetrating and, amazingly, did not seem at all tannic or alcoholic. They are all hidden by the fruit. A very rich, penetrating wine, with no hard edges and wonderful red and purple fruits.

12/27/2008 - Tory Griffin wrote:

Not very expressive on the nose. Dark purple color. Sweet, dark fruits, medium-long finish, this one took a while to open up in the glass and start showing its stuff. Never really developed much of a bouquet though. I liked it but expected better.

12/27/2008 - Tory Griffin wrote:

Amazing. Dark, rich, expressive, complex, this wine had it all. My first 04 Wight and it did not disappoint. Perfectly balanced, lengthy finish, this one completely filled the mouth. Great stuff.

12/27/2008 - Tory Griffin wrote:

Rich, smooth, a tad more restrained at this point than the 2005 887 vineyard. Sweet cocoa on the nose. Very nice, but I expected better.

12/22/2008 - Tory Griffin wrote:

Not nearly as good as prior bottles. Sort of sour, flabbly, with a short finish. What happened? No sign of being corked, just not nearly as good as prior bottles.

12/22/2008 - Tory Griffin wrote:

Dark color. Not very giving on the nose. Perhaps still too young? Good grip on the palate, dark fruits, moderate finish. I prefer the Rutherford PS from Elyse, which has been a knock-out for the last several years, but this was a nice bottle nonetheless.

12/19/2008 - Tory Griffin wrote:

This was the kick-off wine for the night, followed by a 1999 Verite La Muse, 2001 Ramey Jericho Canyon, and 2002 O'Shaughnessy Mt. Veeder Cab. Dark ruby-purple color still, with fairly heavy sediment in the bottle. The nose bordered on bordeaux-like, dirty-juicy in profile. This one had plenty left in the tank. It was not decanted that long before drinking, and definitely benefitted from some extended air time (and running it through the Vinturi). Great midpalate, almost sweet/spicy raspberry liquer, firm tannins on the moderately long finish. In its prime, hard to believe it will get that much better. If I only had one bottle (and I do!) I'd opt for drinking soon, within the next few years, but that's just because I prefer to drink my wines too "soon" rather than too "late." A very very nice wine. Perhaps without the competition on the night I would be glowing about it more. We'll see with the next bottle.

12/19/2008 - Tory Griffin wrote:

Stiff competition for this wine tonight -- 95 Seavey, 2001 Ramey Jericho Canyon, and 2002 O'Shaughnessy Mt. Veeder Cab. By FAR the most "french" of the lineup, dirty/earthy bouquet. Silky, mochoa/espresso on the palate. Medium/full bodied, moderate/long finish. We came back to this wine after having some of the Ramey and O'Shaughnessy, and OH BOY this was a dead-ringer for a ripe St. Emilion. Since I very much like that style, I enjoyed this wine very much. Not a fruit bomb, not a huge, overripe, extracted tannic beast, but a classicly made, artistic wine that, drunk side by side with its competition tonight, really held its own while showcasing its unique personality.

12/19/2008 - Tory Griffin wrote:

Had this one in a lineup with 3 fabulous wines -- the 2002 O'Shaughnessy Mt. Veeder cab, 1999 Verite La Muse, and 1995 Seavey Cab. For my tastes, while all of these wines were very different from one another, this one was my favorite. About as pure a wine as I've ever had. Dark ruby purple, scents of mochoa and, after a while in the glass (decanted about 2 hours prior), a HUGE boquet of chocolate-covered cherries. Layers upon layers or dark fruits, seamless, nothing heavy or overly tannic, yet structured with a beautiful midpalate. This one kept changing as we drank it, evolving in the glass, almost from sip to sip. The grilled filets unlocked additional flavors, and, while this was great with the steaks, I actually preferred it on its own...it was just too pure to blend with anything. Really showed why Ramey is my favorite producer, anywhere. LOVE this wine. Amazing. Can't wait to try the next bottle of the 2002.

12/19/2008 - Tory Griffin wrote:

Had this with a stellar lineup consisting of the 2001 Ramey Jericho Canyon, 1999 Verite La Muse, and 1995 Seavey Cabernet. All very different. Of the 4, this one was the most structured. Nearly blue in color, darker than the Ramey, though less giving on the nose. Just seamless on the palate, silky, but silky on steroids since there was nothing pretty or delicate about this wine. It attacks and coats the palate, fine midpalate, blue fruits throughout, and a long finish. 3 hours in the decanter and this one still was evolving/opening in the glass. I wish I had another one of these to try in 5 years, but by no means regret opening it now. Fabulous wine.

12/18/2008 - Tory Griffin wrote:

Dark, dark, dark. Lots of sediment too. I either drank this too young or did not give it enough air time, since it was not giving up much at all on the nose. Dark raspberry, still somewhat tight, I think this will be much better in 2+ years. I did like it, and at times it was very enjoyable, but overall I am convinced I should have waited to drink this.

12/12/2008 - Tory Griffin wrote:

This was my second try with this producer, first try with this vintage. I think I drank the 2002 too early, since this one was far superior than I recall the 2002 being. The nose was muted at first, and while it did improve it never fully developed. Very firm in the mouth, with smooth but chewy tannins. Very silky, espresso/spice dominated profile. Not a fruit monster at all, but developed nice complexity over a few hours. Really started to stick to my cheeks. At first, I would give this an 87 or so, but at the end of the bottle after about 2+ hours in the decanter, this one had really improved and merited a score in the low 90s. I will wait another year or two before popping the next one and expect very good things.

12/13/2008 - Tory Griffin wrote:

What a solid wine. The bouquet just jumps out of the glass, even with little airtime. Scents of mocha and dark fruits. Just smooth as can be on the palate with a very nice, medium-long finish. Not tannic, this was ready to go now. I can see this lasting for several years but can't see it getting much better. This went very well with, and stood up to, braised shortribs. One of my favorite go-to wines when I'm not sure if the crowd will appreciate a big cab and am not sure what time of opportunity I'll have to decant.

12/10/2008 - Tory Griffin wrote:

I love this wine. One of my favorite daily drinkers, mostly because it carries the price tag of a daily drinker but doesn't taste like one! Much creamier than other spanish mouvedres, and not as harsh as many US mouvedres, this wine delivers on the bouquet and on the palate. Well-balanced, structures, decent finish, moderate finish, this is a great wine for the price. I find that the Juan Gil's need about a year of bottle age to hit their stride, and then they sing. This is my 6th bottle, and all have been consistent. Can't wait to try the 06. If I rated simply on QPR, the score would be much higher.

12/6/2008 - Tory Griffin wrote:

Big, sweet, candied bouquet. Very round in the mouth. A touch of eucalyptus, dark fruits, low acid, low tannin, moderate finish. Very enjoyable. In it's prime now.

12/6/2008 - Tory Griffin wrote:

Not very good. Opened about an hour before drinking. This one was lacking in all aspects. Little fruit, muted bouquet, somewhat harsh, clipped finish. I think the tannins will always outweigh the fruit here. I expected much better.