6/10/2010 - saribo wrote:

This rang up for $10, and I'm glad because I would have felt ripped off at $20. Totally generic. I wasn't really paying attention once I realized it had absolutely no character, so I don't have much to say about it. CDP should mean something, hard to believe it's from that appellation, let alone a fantastic vintage. I seriously can't believe they managed to make such sub-par wine in that area in that vintage. Avoid. Although if it rings up for $10 for you too, it will be the cheapest CDP you ever buy, so why not.

12/15/2009 - saribo wrote:

We drank this a couple months ago. We thought this was phenomenal, really vivid and focused, a great bottle of wine. We spent an hour talking about it. Grab some if you find it.

11/17/2009 - saribo wrote:

We enjoyed this. Something funky and engaging on the nose, and very well balanced on the palate, with clean, pure fruit.

10/20/2009 - saribo wrote:

I thought this was pretty good. A bit of mouvedre gameyness on the nose. It mostly settled out into a good version of a homogenized cheap spanish red. I think I might have paid $10-14, which means it's not a great QPR, but alright.

10/11/2009 - saribo wrote:

We found this to be very tannic and tightly wound. Decanting over the course of a few hours didn't make a dent. I enjoyed it for the underlying quality and for novelty, but definitely a far cry from a typical aussie bottle. Not sure what to rate it, I don't have much experience with wines like this.

10/8/2009 - saribo wrote:

Ridiculous oak juice, not sure if I've ever had one this over the top. Buttery vanilla oak dominates the nose, and the palate is over ripe stewed fruit, with a distinct creamy root beer component. I had my first bottle a few months ago, funny to see how much my tastes have changed in just a few months, I think much less of it now.

10/5/2009 - saribo wrote:

Intriguing nose of dark fruit and wood. More subdued on the palate, with surprising tannin structure. I'd hold this for a little while, could be better in the future.

10/3/2009 - saribo wrote:

Had another bottle, the nose really sings, and I was appreciating the purity and depth of the fruit more on the palate tonight. RP 91?

10/3/2009 - saribo wrote:

What a treat, so atypical for Australia, old world but very expressive.

10/3/2009 - saribo wrote:

Maybe a bit better on the second night, it's mellowed a little. Still some of that artificial / cheap taste though. Drinkable, it's somewhere in the lower 80s for me.

10/1/2009 - saribo wrote:

The guy at the wine store suggested a few of these at $5 a pop to round out a case. It has a manufactured / artificial taste that reminds me of cheap Spanish wine. Not very good, but it'll do for when I get off work and want a drink.

9/28/2009 - saribo wrote:

Thanks to the wonders of the Utah state alcohol bureaucracy I picked up a few bottles of this for about $6 a piece. Wish I had bought a case, great value.

9/27/2009 - saribo wrote:

I liked this. Very warm and new world, lots of dark fruit. Plenty of oak, but I thought it worked well.

9/27/2009 - saribo wrote:

I wasn't sure what to expect from this. It turned out to be quite tannic, very dark color, and pretty austere. It opened throughout the evening, but definitely never became friendly. Interesting.

9/24/2009 - saribo wrote:

Continued to develop over three nights. A gorgeous dark, brooding cab nose. Great mix of old and new world on the palate, strong tannins on the finish that subsided the more days it was open. Great wine.

9/21/2009 - saribo wrote:

I always enjoy the herbal, floral notes in this wine.

9/14/2009 - saribo wrote:

Enjoying the last sips of this now. A pronounced raw meat on the nose and palate that has subdued after a few hours open. Great old world dark fruit framed by dry tannins. Unique and delicious.

9/13/2009 - saribo wrote:

This was disappointing, tasted like a cheap bottle of wine. One dimensional nose, and just not much happening on the palate, thin, but with a bracing dry tannic finish. I concur with up4wine.

9/5/2009 - saribo wrote:

Definitely delicious

8/28/2009 - saribo wrote:

A nice wine, but I was having trouble getting much from it, very restrained. Slowly opened over the course of a dinner, to a nice nose of strawberries. Some heat from the 14.5% alc. , but it was well balanced and integrated overall. There just wasn't enough going on for me to put it in the 90s for my palate.

8/26/2009 - saribo wrote:

Thought this was great. Very ripe, high quality fruit, delicious. No alcohol on the nose or palate, a very even and good initial, mid palate, and finish that flow very well.

8/26/2009 - saribo wrote:

Good quaffable shiraz. It had some nice qualities, but I was having trouble finding much depth in it. The viognier was fun to pick up as a touch of acidity.

8/21/2009 - saribo wrote:

Hmm, interesting. This was one of the first wines I really liked when I first started getting into wine a year or so ago. Humorous going back to it now. I'm really not digging it, and it doesn't match with my memories of other bottles. I'm getting a very south african type rubber on the nose. Palate is meh - no focus, slightly sour, lacking tannins. Reminds me of a Lindeman's South Africa Shiraz I had a while back, would have hoped for a little more from this.

8/19/2009 - saribo wrote:

We weren't too crazy about this. I mentioned it as being "light on it's feet" at first, but eventually decided it was lacking in fruit - oak and dry tannins seemed to predominate. The tannin structure let me know it was a pricey bottle, but I didn't really feel like it delivered beyond that.

8/19/2009 - saribo wrote:

I liked this. Nice focused red fruit and spice box going on. Plays well with food - but fruit forward enough that it is pleasant to drink by itself too - a nice balance. A rhone blend I'd recommend to anyone wanting an easy drinking, new world example that's not over the top. I'm looking forward to my other bottle of it.

8/16/2009 - saribo wrote:

We thought this was great. Nose is big dark fruit, classic cab. Big dark fruits on the palate, great mouthfeel, great development and arc of flavor as it develops on the palate. Dry somewhat strong tannins that are well concealed until the finish.

8/12/2009 - saribo wrote:

When I first opened this, it was a bit cold and had a cheap tanginess to it I didn't like. However the second day that had disappeared and it was drinking pretty well.

8/8/2009 - saribo wrote:

Good concentration and focus of fruit in the nose and palate. The underlying quality was there, but I found the alcohol to be pretty out of hand - 15.5%!?!. I didn't think the wine was big enough to handle that, it came out quite prominently on the finish, and a little on the nose too. Oddly, it paired well with the spicy food we were having, the spice in the food and the heat in the wine went well together.

8/5/2009 - saribo wrote:

Not bad. This is my 2nd bottle, 2nd night it's open. The air has toned it down some, and in a good way. A ton of oak on the first night, much more balanced out now. It's a nice juicy simple cab. Don't know about QPR, guess it depends what it's selling for. It holds it's own against $10 bottles IMO, but I could see wanting more if you were paying $15+ for it.

8/4/2009 - saribo wrote:

After finishing the bottle - this was really thin and had way too much heat. Popping a bottle of similarly priced cali cab afterwards and realizing how much better that was also made me realize 86 was way too high for me. 80 at best considering how much we both struggled trying to find anything to like about this.

8/3/2009 - saribo wrote:

I'm not thrilled, but it's ok for the price. It's put together fairly well, but quite a bit of heat on the back. I don't understand how this could be a 92 pt wine, (a rating I saw in the store), there's just not enough there. Drinkable and pleasant overall, like any number of $10 bottles, and this cost me $14, so meh.

8/2/2009 - saribo wrote:

An old world wine that plays well with a lot of different food. I was happy to have picked this wine for a surf and turf dinner tonight after remembering how well the last bottle went with different food. Great rustic nose of leather, earth and subdued fruit. There are some dry and bitter tannins on the back end that could clash with delicate fare, but it's very versatile.

8/1/2009 - saribo wrote:

Perhaps I'm just not used to a pinot in this light of a style, but this was a bit of a surprise for me. Color is very light. Nose reminds me more of a white or rose, lots of acidic green fruit. The palate is well balanced and round, but that doesn't strike me as too much of a feat since the wine is so light. Again, more acidity on the palate than I would expect even from a pinot. Slight tannins, very light, tasting this blindfolded I'm not sure what I'd call it.

7/27/2009 - saribo wrote:

I wasn't able to get much on the nose, very restrained. I enjoy it on the palate though. A bit too much fruit up front for me to think "old world", but other than that it is tasteful and balanced in an old world sort of way that I like with food.

7/25/2009 - saribo wrote:

At first pop and pour this had a ridiculously rich nose and palate of dark fruit and oak, to the point we were saying it seemed way over the top. After a little in the air it calmed down a bit. A fun shiraz for sure, very much a fruit bomb. I have a hard time imagining drinking it with food, a much better after dinner wine or something.

7/23/2009 - saribo wrote:

Kind of a dirty nose, I don't hate the nose, but not what I'd expect. Middling fruit and oak followed by surprisingly strong, dry tannins, that stick out like a sore thumb. I've had plenty of cheap Spanish wine I like, this one's not very good.

7/23/2009 - saribo wrote:

Thanks for the heads up from everyone on cellar tracker to grab more of this before I had a chance to try it. Definitely a great deal for under $20. Very well integrated, smooth and balanced, with a great nose. The integration and roundness in the mouth clearly bumped it up past the 90 mark for me.

7/20/2009 - saribo wrote:

It also has a certain amount of bright acidity, sort of like a pinot, so it may pair well with some lighter foods.

7/20/2009 - saribo wrote:

Candy red fruits on the nose, with some interesting spice I like. Red fruit also dominates on the palate, my favorite part may be the finish, it's brief but trails off with something interesting I can't quite put my finger on. I'm picking up very light tannins, I would drink it now, it is what it is, a pleasant $10 bottle of wine.

7/20/2009 - saribo wrote:

Jammy fruit bomb, with good dark fruit, nice acidity, and subtle but present tannins. Seems to be getting thinner quickly the longer it is open. The kind of thing I'd expect from a jammy aussie shiraz priced in the low teens, but I was hoping for something more than that from this bottle.

7/19/2009 - saribo wrote:

Drinkable on a camping trip, tastes like a decent cheap french wine (which it is).

7/18/2009 - saribo wrote:

I give this a big thumbs up. I thought it was well balanced and had the right amount of oak for me. I was very surprised how good this was, a real treat on a river trip, I'd buy again for normal drinking, even when I don't need the novelty of a tetrapack.

5/12/2009 - saribo wrote:

I'd have to agree with the Wine Spectator score. I'm glad someone posted that, since I was starting to question my judgement when everyone else's scores are only in the high 80s. We loved this, a gorgeous, floral wine. Great acidity, balance, wonderful and light on the palate.

7/12/2009 - saribo wrote:

I had this a few months ago, I just bought another one for an upcoming river trip. I thought it was passable last time. Kind of what I'd hope for in a cheap french wine - not a whole lot going on, subdued, thin - but unobjectionable and easy to drink. I hope the tetra packs aren't going bad as these reports seem to indicate.

7/12/2009 - saribo wrote:

Great rich pinot nose. Unfortunately not quite as inspiring on the palate. It was well rounded and balanced, but a bit heavy, no brilliance that I would hope for in a pinot of this price. During the meal, I got hints of what I was hoping for, there were a couple of times it seemed to take on a greater clarity in the mouth, which is why I'm bumping it up to 90.

7/10/2009 - saribo wrote:

Quite a bit of oak, but I like it better than most over-oaked wine, warm and a lot of vanilla. Spice and heat on the finish are a bit too much, but not disasterous. Maybe it helps that I paid about 1/2 price for this, but I'd go with more of an 85 point score. It's warm and pleasantly oaky, with enough dark fruit to fill it in a bit.

7/5/2009 - saribo wrote:

A rustic, muted, easy drinking rioja as others have mentioned. I did have an issue with bitterness on the finish though, not sure whether I'm still traumatized from the last bottle I drank - a beaujolias that was disasterously bitter... I don't think I'll score it because of that.

7/5/2009 - saribo wrote:

I like how this this shiraz drinks. I find it enjoyable, although nothing really jumps out at me, which at least indicates balance. I like the amount of oak used. The heat is noticable as others have mentioned, but it wasn't a major problem for me. This was my last bottle, and I doubt anyone is cellaring it, so a bit of a moot point now.

7/5/2009 - saribo wrote:

Bitterness overwhelms the palate, majorly flawed. Both of us agreed this was unenjoyable.

7/2/2009 - saribo wrote:

Drank over 3 nights. Nice for a $6 bottle. There's something unusual on the nose and the palate - rubber maybe? I doubt that's right, but that's the best I can put it into words. I don't mind it too much, just interesting. At this price, it's drinkable, I'll take it.