Drank at Sepia in Chicago for $79; light and fragrant with some fruit but a short finish, Burgundies are difficult, not a fav of the table but a decent starter wine for the meal, should be better, I expect more from a restaurant wine list, would not drink again as there are much better Oregon PN's for the price. drank with pasta with whitefish and duck.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Fine Vines Fall 2015 Portfolio Tasting (City Winery - Chicago IL): Tasting, brief note. Red and black cherry with good balance, even if still a bit firm right now. Still has upside from here. I preferred this over the Anne Parent 2012 Bourgogne just tasted. Perhaps it was vintage difference, or the couple of extra years in bottle.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Closed wine. Did not decant it for the sake of wanting to see the progression of the wine. First impression: medium minus body, muted fruit, spicy... definitely not what I am looking for in a red burgundy. Now the questions is - do I have the patience to wait until it opens up (with a fair chance that it won't) or just keep drinking? I will edit this if this bottle makes any progress.
Edit: Wine's growing on me slightly. To be fair to the wine, it's more masculine burgundy rather than seductive, and yes, more preferred style. Nothing wrong with having its own identity, however. Score stands at 86.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
-- popped and poured -- -- tasted non-blind over two days --
NOSE: DAY 1: red-fruited (red cherry jelly candies); a touch smoky – light cumin seed; hint of rhubarb; moderate to moderate+ expressiveness. DAY 2: a touch candied; strong, deep florals.
BODY: medium-light bodied; crimson color of medium-light depth; clear; medium-light bodied.
TASTE: DAY 1: initially: quite tart; lean; a bit green; somewhat watery. A touch spicy; hint of background funkiness/leather; 12% alc. not noticeable; ashy; ;light concentration of fruit flavors --- tart berry; needs more fruit; solid; good QPR @ ~$23. DAY 2: still green, tart, and lean.
B: 50, 5, 12, 14, 6 = 87
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Decanted 2 hours. Light red some sediments. Non-filtered. Light cerries and vanilla nose. Fresh, ok concentration. On the acidic side. Not very impressive fruit. Minerals. Tannins. Ok wine might improve in three years.
1 person found this helpful, do you? Yes - No
/ Comment
-- decanted approx. 30 min. before initial taste -- -- tasted non-blind over approx. 3 hours --
NOSE: initially tight and red fruit, with wafts of wet cement; Nose continued to be quite tight/simple/restrained over the course of the three hours.
BODY: clear; ruby color of medium-light depth; medium-light bodied.
TASTE: slightly tart red fruit --- cranberry & cherry; lots of mineral; quite light; fruit is not very concentrated; hint of leather/garrigue; not oaky; this wine’s sourness reminds me a bit of a lambic beer; 12% alc. is not noticeable; slight tannic grip; on the acidic side of well-balanced between acid-fruit-tannin; maybe this will put on some weight with time(?); great food wine, as the wine’s not too heavy or tannic (where it would overwhelm many dishes) or complex (where its complexity might get lost amidst being served with certain foods): this paired very well with pork tenderloin and mushroom risotto. At this point in time, I think this is showing better than the ’09, but not as well as the ’08. I’d drink this now or over the next 3 to 5 years. Will buy again.
B: 50, 5, 10, 15, 6 = 86
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
5/5/2016 - mwneil wrote: 85 Points
Drank at Sepia in Chicago for $79; light and fragrant with some fruit but a short finish, Burgundies are difficult, not a fav of the table but a decent starter wine for the meal, should be better, I expect more from a restaurant wine list, would not drink again as there are much better Oregon PN's for the price. drank with pasta with whitefish and duck.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
2/6/2016 - Burgundy Al wrote:
Domaines et Saveurs Burgundy Tasting (Knightsbridge - Northbrook IL): Tasting, brief note. All red fruit in a lighter style for the vintage. Still a few rough edges that need to soften. Last time I preferred this over the Parent Bourgogne, but today was the reverse.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
9/21/2015 - Burgundy Al wrote:
Fine Vines Fall 2015 Portfolio Tasting (City Winery - Chicago IL): Tasting, brief note. Red and black cherry with good balance, even if still a bit firm right now. Still has upside from here. I preferred this over the Anne Parent 2012 Bourgogne just tasted. Perhaps it was vintage difference, or the couple of extra years in bottle.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
6/27/2015 - JSnyderMD wrote: 84 Points
Sour cherry, rhubarb pie, mineral, medium body, dry dry dry, did not change significantly in glass over 2 hrs
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
12/20/2013 - ktrh Likes this wine: 87 Points
Very good, the best Hautes Cotes de Nuits I've tried?
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
11/22/2013 - jinatnrt wrote: 86 Points
Closed wine. Did not decant it for the sake of wanting to see the progression of the wine.
First impression: medium minus body, muted fruit, spicy... definitely not what I am looking for in a red burgundy. Now the questions is - do I have the patience to wait until it opens up (with a fair chance that it won't) or just keep drinking? I will edit this if this bottle makes any progress.
Edit: Wine's growing on me slightly. To be fair to the wine, it's more masculine burgundy rather than seductive, and yes, more preferred style. Nothing wrong with having its own identity, however. Score stands at 86.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
5/21/2013 - grafstrb wrote: 87 Points
-- popped and poured --
-- tasted non-blind over two days --
NOSE: DAY 1: red-fruited (red cherry jelly candies); a touch smoky – light cumin seed; hint of rhubarb; moderate to moderate+ expressiveness. DAY 2: a touch candied; strong, deep florals.
BODY: medium-light bodied; crimson color of medium-light depth; clear; medium-light bodied.
TASTE: DAY 1: initially: quite tart; lean; a bit green; somewhat watery. A touch spicy; hint of background funkiness/leather; 12% alc. not noticeable; ashy; ;light concentration of fruit flavors --- tart berry; needs more fruit; solid; good QPR @ ~$23. DAY 2: still green, tart, and lean.
B: 50, 5, 12, 14, 6 = 87
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
3/3/2013 - vassnesen wrote: 87 Points
Decanted 2 hours. Light red some sediments. Non-filtered.
Light cerries and vanilla nose.
Fresh, ok concentration. On the acidic side. Not very impressive fruit. Minerals. Tannins. Ok wine might improve in three years.
1 person found this helpful, do you? Yes - No / Comment
8/18/2012 - grafstrb wrote: 86 Points
-- decanted approx. 30 min. before initial taste --
-- tasted non-blind over approx. 3 hours --
NOSE: initially tight and red fruit, with wafts of wet cement; Nose continued to be quite tight/simple/restrained over the course of the three hours.
BODY: clear; ruby color of medium-light depth; medium-light bodied.
TASTE: slightly tart red fruit --- cranberry & cherry; lots of mineral; quite light; fruit is not very concentrated; hint of leather/garrigue; not oaky; this wine’s sourness reminds me a bit of a lambic beer; 12% alc. is not noticeable; slight tannic grip; on the acidic side of well-balanced between acid-fruit-tannin; maybe this will put on some weight with time(?); great food wine, as the wine’s not too heavy or tannic (where it would overwhelm many dishes) or complex (where its complexity might get lost amidst being served with certain foods): this paired very well with pork tenderloin and mushroom risotto. At this point in time, I think this is showing better than the ’09, but not as well as the ’08. I’d drink this now or over the next 3 to 5 years. Will buy again.
B: 50, 5, 10, 15, 6 = 86
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment