Community Tasting Note

• msuwine wrote: 94 points

  November 12, 2019 - In drinking these 2017s right now, one of the many questions is whether they are young or bad or both. I think I've had 2017s in all of these categories so far, but this one... well, this one is promising, but not there yet (so, for the record, it's young, but not bad). This has the density I expect out of the O.G., with enough tannin to support the fruit, so I'll hope / believe that it will work itself out in another year or so.
  
  Dark purple in color and full in body, the wine offers aromas of cherry pie, graphite, rock candy, and menthol. Tastes of blueberry peel, graphite, pine needles, and mocha, with a sweet and acidic finish that carries plenty of tannins. 14.9% alcohol. I'm going to try to wait to drink another bottle until 2021, or at least late 2020. 93-94 for now, with potential (though certainly not guaranteed) upside in a few years.
  
  I agree with Cristal2000 that this is not the O.G. of the 2012 to 2016 vintages, which - to be fair - were some of the best Napa Cabernets I've ever tasted. This 2017 has plenty of fruit - as do many wines from this vintage - but it also has enough mid-palate depth and tannic structure to integrate and develop over time. In other words, the 2017 OG is neither top-heavy nor green-acidic, and it's surely as good of an OG as you could make in the vintage. Here's hoping it matures into a good, maybe great wine, regardless of the vintage.
  
  P.S. I know second-day valuations can be wildly unscientific, but this one was at least promising the next evening. Many 2017s have seemed more unsteady or juicy on the second day, but this one seemed to have dropped into the right gear - more floral, more integrated, more, just, OG (cue the Ice-T). I bumped the rating based on the second day, so - even if it's illusory - there's hope!

  4 people found this helpful 4,112 views

3 Comments

• Mark1npt commented:

  11/13/19, 10:24 AM - Great notes, dude! Thanks.....and I think I'm gonna sit on my few Carter '17s til next year and hope. My fear with this vintage is we paid the prices for 98-100 pointers and got 93-95 pointers. At least that what all signs thus far point to.....Mark

• msuwine commented:

  11/13/19, 6:50 PM - Yeah, that wouldn't be the first time in Napa history that we pay for more than we get! Well, maybe it's the first time in the post-2011 history of Carter, but still... I get your point.
  
  I actually bumped my rating from 93-94 on the first day to 94+ on the second day. This really did switch into a good place after a night in bottle. I know the second day isn't a reliable proxy for aging, but it's different than many 2017s, which have seemed to lose their balance (instead of gain it) on the second day.
  
  I also agree that waiting is the best course. After all, drinking (and writing about) crappy 2017s just gets kind of old after awhile... time will tell! Take care my friend.

• Mark1npt commented:

  11/13/19, 7:41 PM - Lol...winesearcher price $271 for a 93-94 pt wine.......like I said back in Jan '19.....we'd better just resist buying the '17 vintage given all the issues. I have about a dozen Turley zins/syrahs.....and maybe another 20 bottles of '17s overall.....glad to not have much more than that.

Add a Comment