3/27/2021 - GMC@TX Likes this wine:

Still drinking fantastic. My second bottle drunk within past 6 months so doesn't seem like a fluke (also had 8 barrel syrah, same.vintage, same result: holding up well beyond the indicated life).

Not as.over the top as I'd fear for the styling/presentation. In line with other contemporary zaca mesa offerings. Restrained, well made, balanced.

1/10/2012 - GMC@TX wrote:

Chalonnaise nose but rich style betrays the value appellation. Great Burgundy entry point for the CA chard lover.

2/5/2012 - GMC@TX wrote:

From 375. Generally as below. However, showing strong signs of age. Drink up those half-bottles.

1/29/2012 - GMC@TX wrote:

California "Macon," it feels like. Focused nose, candied apricot or pineapple taste. Maybe the real value of it is the novelty! +1 for McNeill?

1/27/2012 - GMC@TX wrote:

Probably my 9th or 10th bottle, all consumed within the past 6 months. Great this time: some cherry survives making a nicely balanced, earthy wine-- but I've had some vinegar on the way.

1/28/2012 - GMC@TX wrote:

Probably my 12th bottle. They've ranged from completely oxidized to almost fresh, but this was right in the sweet spot: deep yellow color, mature, rich caramel notes, but not too far in the evolution. Got a few more bottles, I'm drinking up since there have been a few landmines (to return oxidized bottles before retailer fails), but this may have more life.

1/26/2012 - GMC@TX wrote:

echoing notes below six years later. Third and last bottle, all three consumed within past 6 months, all excellent.

1/25/2012 - GMC@TX wrote:

Smoky nose. Juicy fruit (not the gum... maybe some muted cherry if I had to pick). Strong but inoffensive tannins. Pretty solid.

1/25/2012 - GMC@TX wrote:

Strong oxidative notes. Perhaps drinkable, but not with what we were eating

1/23/2012 - GMC@TX wrote:

Good nose. Rich color. Ample, dense fruit. Concentrated currants/raisins. Gentle tannins to my memory, decent acid balance. Going to hold on to my other bottle for a while.

1/14/2012 - GMC@TX wrote:

I never understood "stewed red fruit" as a tasting note until this bottle.

Opened immediately after purchase due to signs of heat damage but on initial investigation, while showing serious Brett (wet dog) in a stemless flute, the wine did not seem otherwise flawed. Showed an acidic backbone with little fruit. Swirled, recorked, and stuck in fridge for a few hours. Uncorked and set out an hour before dinner. Lots more fruit, some concentrated flavors on relief against the aforementioned backdrop, no sign of earlier unpleasant aromas. Tannins and acid still evident, the former becoming more prominent after an hour. Nicely balanced overall. Enjoyable if not transcendent CdN villages wine.

1/2/2012 - GMC@TX wrote:

Concur with below review. Tight, concentrated currant with plenty of tannin. Tastes fresh still. Medium body.

12/21/2011 - GMC@TX wrote:

I've had almost a case of this, first corked bottle.

12/19/2011 - GMC@TX wrote:

Concur with previous note, v insightful on round, even heavy finish. Consistent with Blanck's dry style in a less focused vintage. Aroma is a wonder with strong petrol. I think this is a well made wine not for those who insist on a tight acid finish on their rieslings. (via Cor.kz)

12/10/2011 - GMC@TX wrote:

Seemingly light body but with impressive tannins adding structure (still a little cottonmouth on the finish after some air exposure). Otherwise black olives, gamey as indicated below. Opened in the morning, recorked after a little breathing and stored for late dinner with good results. Will go buy more.

10/19/2010 - GMC@TX wrote:

Strong oxidation notes; drinkable

11/30/2011 - GMC@TX wrote:

corked

6/5/2010 - GMC@TX wrote:

An orchard in a bottle. Strong floral and honey aromas, minerals, star fruit, and sugarfree honey (oh, if that existed) on the palate. Nicely balanced citrus and acidity continue and effect the pleasing finish.

6/4/2010 - GMC@TX wrote:

Beautiful peach/pink watercolor. Much less cherry and more acidity than other Pinot rosés I have had. This came off like a light refreshing chard or white Bordeaux. Well put together.

6/3/2010 - GMC@TX wrote:

Not a careful tasting. Outdoor concert. I made sure the bottle was a nice temp, though so: lots of oak; not so much spice or fruit that you would think this is OZ; nevertheless bigger than I remembered (have had one bottle and a retailer tasting; for some reason I had the impression of not-too-much-oak and CA (or pretty heavy rhone) style syrah.

6/1/2010 - GMC@TX wrote:

Very juicy, candy red fruit on the nose and tongue. Light body. Bugspray/harsh olive finish.

5/30/2010 - GMC@TX wrote:

Uccelliera's modern style (lots of oak) evident. Drinking young still, decent body but oak prevails. Like this a great deal.

5/26/2010 - GMC@TX wrote:

Disappointing nose of acetone right after pop but a quick pour into a small carafe showed a beautiful deep purple color with no indication of oxidation. Nicely integrated at this point. Maybe 15-20 minutes later, the nose matched the taste. A little plummy (prune-y?) fruit first with gentle oak and earthy tannins backing it up.

5/26/2010 - GMC@TX wrote:

This got me started on my as-aged-as-available heavily oaked Italian-made Chardonnay-Pinot Blanc-X blend kick. Got me through a hellish-because-of-the-company trip.

5/14/2010 - GMC@TX wrote:

This is absurdly belated so I will try to demonstrate some integrity and present just the facts. It came highly recommended by the barman (he wasn't the sommelier but he was the only guy in the wine bar attached to the hotel intercontinental in Siena. Young, yet extremely knowledgable and professional ) over the more expensive and definitely more famous DEI vino nobile. What I recall is my party enjoyed it and the more experienced (but no less ignorant) among us are highly prejudiced in favor of Montalcino so it was a tough crowd.

5/25/2010 - GMC@TX wrote:

Horrid nose 30 min after pop, begged for a small bowl decant. Fine on the tongue from the get-go, though (recognizable taste, I've had this before but never noticed such a strong sulfur+acetone nose before). Quickly calmed down to past esteemed performace levels. A smooth, rich cab, better with tuna than beef. Interesting to note how different (and I say better) than other vineyard bottlings of same vintage. I've heard 05 can be flabby; not this bottling but sadly, certainly other Moss cabs can be (thinking PD). What I paid for this is a secret, but less than the going rate. At my price, still pricey, would do the deal as many times as I could. The street high is merely fair for napa.

5/24/2010 - GMC@TX wrote:

Do I know the difference between this and a concoction of Welch's grape juice, Jack Daniels wood chips, and Everclear? No. Am I a phenomenally successful winemaker; or, in any position to judge such? Similarly, no. Do I know a possibly-guilty-but-I-think-perfectly-defensible-pleasure when I taste one? I hope so. Did I spell and punctuate all that correctly? Unclear, though I realize this is barely third grade language, if you except the subject matter. Do I know I sound like a clichéed douchebag with the Q&A? No question.

I don't think this wine probably goes well with much food, but I do love it by itself before or after a meal. And people I respect love it. So there. Don't make it more than it is. Go CR & DP.

5/22/2010 - GMC@TX wrote:

Caramel nose. No smoke. Pretty big but I think understated tannins at this point. Drank without food.

5/15/2010 - GMC@TX wrote:

Entirely different character than bottles a couple years younger. Acidic with a little trebbiano heaviness.

5/21/2010 - GMC@TX wrote:

A nice wine but disappointing relative to the Brunello. More than a trace of cough syrup cherry to my taste, though I don't mean to imply any connotations of that - not any sort of bad texture or thick, syrupy mouthfeel. Obviously a quality wine, but one not aligned with my ideal.

5/21/2010 - GMC@TX wrote:

Strong showing. Elegant tannins and lingering acidity. Drinks pricier than the tag. Best with a meal.

5/14/2010 - GMC@TX wrote:

Phenomenal. No oxidation. Producer website claims 2001 vintage pure Pinot Blanc in contrast the the modern blend. This came off like a judiciously oaked, carefully aged chardonnay, albeit not that full-bodied.

5/9/2010 - GMC@TX wrote:

When chilled, this ends up being extremely similar to a nice quality, sweet side-of-the-buttery/oaky-divide CA chardonnay. More trebbiano quality as it warms up. Deep golden/bronze tone similar to trebbiano. Fantastic for exploratory value.

5/3/2010 - GMC@TX wrote:

On the sweet and rich side of balance, but citrus notes, minerality/chalkiness/oatiness, and an overall light style keep it very pleasant. I got acid 'in the middle' as opposed to the attack or the finish, which might appeal to tartophobes. Oak up front but far from overdone. A little cloudy. I liked this as it approached room temp. Really enjoyed this bottle.

5/1/2010 - GMC@TX wrote:

Light body, very smooth, low to no acid, all berries. A lot of non-Pinot drinkers liked it. For the price I bought another to retry.

4/30/2010 - GMC@TX wrote:

Pleasing as always. Poor man boonfly's hill. No malolactic so light and fruity with plenty of oak. For those who like their chard piecemeal.

4/30/2010 - GMC@TX wrote:

I can't believe this was the star of the night. Oaky but not over the top. Complex might be strong but it was at least complete.

4/30/2010 - GMC@TX wrote:

No backbone. Some fruit, sure, but little-to-no focus, oak, acidity, green notes, really anything to characterize. Flabby. On the positive, didn't taste, smell, or look old. While a little sweet, wasn't thick or syrupy (I mean we're not talking Mettler here). I've tasted this before under optimal conditions but this was my first bottle.

I bought this deeply discounted at a closeout despite unenthusiastic praise from a trusted industry source ("...people at the tasting liked it" / 'no, I won't turn down your $'). Later we were sternly cautioned by Ramey staff not to consider aging it (I didn't ask). Who would we be were we swayed by omens?

It is a testament to DR that his minions can scrape the bins containing his designate-destined fruit deliveries, ferment etc. and still come up with passable booze (It certainly didn't ruin the night). But this is no little brother to other Ramey cabs (ok maybe Vincent to Pedregal's Jules; it doesn't even taste like it is from CA), and probably shouldn't be distributed.

4/25/2010 - GMC@TX wrote:

Given the Italian heritage I would have expected a different style. In fact CA style. On initial drink I was struck by its balance. Will retry.

4/24/2010 - GMC@TX wrote:

Only thing to add... Cloudy. Profits from a little air. It was nice warmer than lighter pinots. Good wine.

4/21/2010 - GMC@TX wrote:

Informed restaurant purchase. Two neighboring places put on a common wine-tasting of their mid-priced bottles (these places are independent-of-each-other high-end-mall instances of separate venerable Dallas restauranteur empires (loosely)). At least 20 wines, Italian and S American, this was top two. We chose this bottle with subsequent dinner; good wine, excellent value. No careful notes, only that this is a safe NdA, nice balance between too much cinnamon and too generic. Below notes sound reasonable.

4/17/2010 - GMC@TX wrote:

Restaurant value play (out of prod. Barbaresco langhe Nebbiolo) after already a wine-soaked Saturday. Fit the bill, typical solid "budget" choice from banfi (well it wasn't that brunello), would be happy to retry under other circumstances.

4/22/2010 - GMC@TX wrote:

Orange notes with clay undertones and cosmological-constant-level-precision use of oak conspire to give... Baby aspirin. Highbrow South American baby aspirin. Citrus-y acid finish of medium length.

Made the mistake of serving too cold, this wine can take a higher temp, which killed the nose.

This is a positive review, if you couldn't tell.

4/21/2010 - GMC@TX wrote:

Gentle CA Chardonnay nose (people mentioned Pineapple, creme brûlée etc.). Gobs of oak paradoxically effects pleasant toast not overwhelming wood (if it is buttered toast it is weight-watcher style, pretty light on that front). Not quite integrated, the ethereal fruit follows. Didn't make notes so will only mention redundantly qualities like delicate and subtle for these flavors. Finish does come together nicely. Not much acid but citrus notes were enough for me. Drank without food. I bought more and will retry, may stick some in storage.

4/20/2010 - GMC@TX wrote:

large-bowl decanted 2.25 hrs prior to drinking with meal; not enough. This bottle showed hints of everything you'd want it to be after a few hrs but I was constantly wondering whether it needed more time or was just a tease.

I do have no regrets as it was food friendly.

Nose vinegary at first, became floral after 1.5 hrs. Good acid throughout. At 4 hrs drinking pretty nicely, getting fruit and more of a finish.

4/19/2010 - GMC@TX wrote:

The previous notes express my sentiments better than I could. Only thing to add is by ABV this is definitely CA not old world but it wears it well, just a touch on the nose, the effect is indeed surprisingly delicate and nuanced.

4/19/2010 - GMC@TX wrote:

More crisp relative to estate line. Still a nice balance, not too much oak, apples and citrus show through. There is nothing to be afraid of here, though I would hesitate to pay full price. Blows away its price-point peers when deeply discounted.

4/18/2010 - GMC@TX wrote:

Nothing to add to below except on the margin and to dispute politely and respectfully the notion this wine is anywhere near done. CR: QPR is a singularity. Don't know if it can age but it all tastes like it would.
If you like OZ/CR a solid buy. Not for the strictly old world crowd.

4/18/2010 - GMC@TX wrote:

Hot. Just very alcoholic. Strong heady fruit to match pinot-like appearance on initial taste after pop, made the mistake of a 30-min large bowl decant (too long, too short, not sure) as it lost the edgy part of the fruit, leaving the vector. Nevertheless I loved it. Tempted to say if you like CR wines you will like this but my lady is a fan and it wasn't her fave. So, qualified: if you love CR wines you will like this. Had it with rare fatty salmon and it paired well (even lady agrees even if particular instance of grenache not getting her love) despite a complete lack of acidity (or maybe sublimely integrated?). It still showed comforting sweet fruit and a long finish throughout the meal even if there was always an everclear attack.

So: fruit-forward & alcoholic, if you like OZ/CR a win otherwise beware.

4/15/2010 - GMC@TX wrote:

Beautiful amber tint. Apple cider on the nose and juice on the tongue. Some caramel. Also a sourness that could be uncharitably characterized (I suppose it tastes a little like old apples can smell) but I find it pleasant. Amid all this a bit of chalkiness (not so strong in previous tastings) that adds complexity.

Not a sweet wine. Not everyone's taste but an incredible value. I have no context for this wine so no scoring but I like it!