12/25/2020 - JustOneMore wrote:

Superb QPR. Can be light on palette, but with enough tannins and fruit to make it worthwhile. A touch dry on the finish. Bought it to use in a stew, and not all of it make it into the dish.

Set your expectations accordingly based on price and you will not be disappointed. Drink immediately - don't let it breath. Let it linger on your tongue and then smack your lips a little, if you want to extract all this wine has to offer.

6/15/2020 - JustOneMore wrote:

Upon opening, pungent aroma of deep, spicy ink with hints of cinnamon and blackberry. The spiciness reminded me of a Zin.

Upon tasting, flavors of tannins and tart dark berries. About 60 seconds later, blueberry and blackberry. Pronounced barrel oak.

After being open more about a half an hour, it's obvious the dominant characteristic is oak. Too much of it.

Day 2: 1/2 bottle left on counter with cork, but no preservation system

Pronounced and pleasant aroma of barrel oak with hint of tart cherry. The first sip shows the tart cherry and oak are equal. As it opens, the tart cherry morphs into tart darker fruits. Oak is more under control than yesterday. Some notes of non-tart lemon coming through and the faintest touch of smoke. I don't want to drink today, so will try it again tomorrow. It's big enough where I think this will last 4 days on the counter without turning and may show its true colors tomorrow

11/28/2018 - JustOneMore wrote:

A supernatural nose immediately upon opening that can only be described as warm stewed apricots and pronounced spice. There's something else, and I don't have the words for it.

Apricot compote, holiday spice, touch of honey, and even less vanilla, most pronounced on the back palate. Not overly sweet. Finish easily is 3 – 4 minutes. Enjoyable but lacking some complexity.

Cork was perfect, with no infiltration. Only a centimeter or so shows discoloration on the sides. Consistency of safflower oil or maybe slightly thinner. Medium-light amber in color.

Probably should have waited at least 20 years more in the cellar or a very very long decant. From a highly reliable source, and seems like it was stored perfectly.

1/29/2018 - JustOneMore Likes this wine:

Open and drink a glass. Put cork back on (no preservation such as Vacucvin or Private Reserve gas).

Drink the remainder of bottle on day two.

12/31/2017 - JustOneMore Likes this wine:

Great value for the price. Creamy with notes of vanilla and some citrus. Just a touch too much acidity, but I definitely would buy again.

12/29/2017 - JustOneMore wrote:

Over oaked. Made a very expensive stew.

3/27/2016 - JustOneMore wrote:

A bit of harsh menthol or sweet tin midpalate. Some may describe it as barnyard, but it has a slightly metallic essence. A barnyard attack develops more pronounced after breathing.

8/16/2015 - JustOneMore wrote:

Decently structured, some fruit up front, with a spicy bouquet. However, a hint of something unpleasant is present, such as sweet cinnamon. I allowed this to breath over several hours, and until the next day, but by the time the unpleasantness is gone, the structure is gone as well.

6/7/2015 - JustOneMore Likes this wine:

Most expensive Pinot at Safeway, but exceptional QPR. Lots of very well balanced tart berry, such as cherry or raspberry. Maybe some cinnamon or other spice. Tartness is very under control, which is a requirement for me since I drink mostly aged Bordeaux. Easy 90+.

4/16/2015 - JustOneMore wrote:

Drinking beautifully right now, without any notes of excessive tartness or acidity after being allowed to breathe (15 - 20 mins). This is my second time drinking, and I hate tart wines. Lots of bright fruit, cherry. Great QPR. Drink through 2016.

Just to be clear, the first taste immediately after opening was not enjoyable.

12/28/2014 - JustOneMore wrote:

I believe it's done. Glimpses of brilliance initially with spice, cinnamon, and vanilla, but muted. Never did develop any complexity, and fruit aromas did not transfer to the palette. I felt I was viewing a damaged masterpiece at a museum.

12/28/2014 - JustOneMore wrote:

Aroma and palate of cat urine. I'm assuming the palette of cat urine, since I've never drank cat urine.

12/7/2014 - JustOneMore wrote:

This is my third bottle, and each has been consistent. Certainly not close to a 90 rating. A bit harsh initially, with unresolved alcohol, with some cinnamon, cedar and oak. Not very complex, with the flavors not well defined. A bit dry, reminding me of an aged Bordeaux that has become very dry due to predominance of tobacco or shoe leather. Not bad, not good. Ratings appear to be product of group think.

11/16/2014 - JustOneMore wrote:

Unfortunately I believed the hype. I drink a lot of Left Bank and Ste Estephe, Ste Julien, and Pauillac, and this is not complex or worthy of anything close to 90. Vanilla, spices, and cassis, but slightly mono-focused and devolves over a day of being open.

11/16/2014 - JustOneMore wrote:

Slightly sweet grapefruit water. Must be consumed with food, otherwise overly acidic. Lacks subtlety.

3/30/2014 - JustOneMore wrote:

Pronounced aroma and flavor of smoke meats and rabbit, dry with hints of astringent leaves, and some cranberry on the back end. Long finish, light tannins, decent structure. Enjoyable. Per Kermit Lynch website, grown from 7 year old vines. S/B about $36 / bt

3/25/2014 - JustOneMore wrote:

Upon opening, a hint of classic manure aroma from good pinot. However, the lush, jammy plum predominates on the palate. This is almost like a "plum butter", taking away from structure. Won't stop me from finishing the bottle, but not my favorite pinot.

Yes, I know it's a Zin now, but you couldn't tell. On Day One, it was more like a Poorly structured pinot.

Day Two: preserved only with cork, no VacuVin. The dark plum has become more like blueberry, and some of the spiciness has developed. Still not my favorite.

3/23/2014 - JustOneMore Likes this wine:

Drinks very well right now, with good structure. Fruit forward, but not overly so. I've had two bottles, both over a period of several days each, and this wine holds its flavor. I did not use a Vacu Vin but rather just stuck the cork back in the bottle. Very good value at $30, this has become my go-to bottle for a glass of wine with dinner.

3/23/2014 - JustOneMore Likes this wine:

Upon opening, the faint aroma of Mary Jane. If you drink at this point without allowing the wine to breathe, you will be very disappointed.

After about an hour, dark dark fruit and exotic mid-eastern spices. I had to aerate it well on the tongue, but about two minutes later I sensed well-balanced stewed fruits with meat and leather on the after taste. Something about food, and specifically fatty foods, really brings out the flavors.

The medium tannins are in check. A faint bricking color is barely perceptible already.

On the second day, the flavors of tin and leather developed more pronounced, but the structure was not as defined, and a faint tartness was present until it blew off.

Some may think the 94 rating by GG1970 is not warranted, but the first bottle served to me several weeks ago definitely deserved a rating in the lower-mid 90's. My second bottle recently was very good, but slightly lower (91), so there may be some bottle variation. QPR is unbeatable.

The trick to this wine is (a) let it breathe, (b) aerate it well on the tongue, and (c) drink with food, particularly fatty foods. The wine is remarkable at this price. I haven't had this level of a Cabernet based wine at this price point since the 2000 Bordeaux Superiors.

I don't see lasting more than 5 years, as it's an Oakville. Maybe time will prove me wrong.

2/21/2014 - JustOneMore wrote:

Still drinking extremely well. See previous notes. Perhaps on the down slope, but solid.

Do not let it breathe. Finish within an hour or two of opening.

2/17/2014 - JustOneMore wrote:

Aroma of honey and worn shoe tongue with a palette to match. I also sense some smoked meats on the nose. A bit dry, the oak really comes through. Easy to confuse for an older vintage. Settles some after a few hours. Very nice bottle for the price if you like this profile.

Probably best with highly spiced foods, like Mexican or Middle Eastern. Subtle food may get lost.

Day 2 - 3: Very nice. Kept its flavors and mellowed a little. At $20 - $25, this would be a 90. Below $40, it's a good bottle in upper 80's.

2/11/2014 - JustOneMore wrote:

You will not beat this QPR. I think WRMCCALL nailed it, hints of cocoa and cinnamon. Nice fruit. Smooth but not flat. More complex than most at this price range and does not suffer from too much oak or sweetness.

Probably would drink it within the next two years at most.

11/9/2013 - JustOneMore wrote:

Needs more time in the bottle. Started to open after an hour decant.

Upon opening, aroma of spice (cinnamon?) and roasting meats. Nice fruit and perhaps some bacon. After an hour, herbs and meats, and the fruit becomes more defined as plums. Explodes when paired with fatty meats.

Very enjoyable but will never be a blockbuster.

9/10/2013 - JustOneMore wrote:

Opened on Saturday, drank half, and then pumped with VacuVin. Today is Tuesday, and there is considerable cedar, with some vanilla and maybe some cinnamon. Moderate tannins. leaning on the dry side. Decently structured.

Good bottle at this price.

9/2/2013 - JustOneMore wrote:

Reminiscent of a St Julien with a little age on it. Some nice tin or minerality. Atypical of a California fruit bomb. Almost elegant, particularly for this price point.

I'm not a Heitz fan normally, but this one is well done. Easily 90 - 91.

6/3/2013 - JustOneMore wrote:

Cinnamon on the nose upon opening. Chocolate and hint of blackberry on the palate. For the first hour to hour and a half, the wine has an almost Zinfandel like zest because the alcohol is not fully resolved for this young wine. After the first hour, when aerated on the tongue, I got distinctive notes of Pepsi cola and again some chocolate. Lacks some complexity. I felt it devolved a little as it breathed past the 1 1/2 - 2 hour mark.

6/1/2013 - JustOneMore wrote:

I'm not a huge fan of Rose wines, because I find many overly tart (acidic), but the Paradigm drinks smooth. Coming from a Bordeaux background, it's hard to describe the flavors. Probably a citrus and some faint hints of wild strawberry. Not a blockbuster, but a very nice way to spend a warm summer evening.

5/27/2013 - JustOneMore wrote:

Tart non-descript red berry; astringent leaves; hint of cardboard; dry. I probably would not drink this without food.

However, the wine complemented beef with thyme and rosemary (bourguignon or stew). Enjoyable, but needs the right food.

5/23/2013 - JustOneMore wrote:

Not very complex. Perhaps it needs more time in the bottle. Hints of mint or herb. Some where in the far off distance there is some cherry or cassis. On the first day, there was tobacco, but not very pronounced, and it disappeared on day two. Slightly chaulky mouth feel.

It don't think it will improve significantly with time. It devolved a little on the second day. Also, for a Bordeaux, I feel it has a little too much acidity, particular on day two. Certainly not an acidic wine, but not what I'm looking for on the Left Bank.

You can do better at this price point. For example, the 2009 Eliz. Spencer and 2009 Stag's Leap Wine Cellars both have better fruit right now, and are better structured and more complex.

OMG, I hear 2015 Bordeaux is the vintage of the century! LOL.

5/5/2013 - JustOneMore wrote:

Santa Cruz? Any rough edges have been smoothed. Medium bodied, almost Pinot-esque. I sensed chocolate and herbs, very little acid, and pleasant tannins. Not terribly complex, but the smoothness plus the fruit make this a worthwhile bottle. The wine has a lot of life left. Drink 2013 - 2023

4/28/2013 - JustOneMore Does not like this wine:

Not terrible, but the tartness makes it much less enjoyable. I would not drink this again.

4/28/2013 - JustOneMore Likes this wine:

A bit grapey and not very complex, but very a solid California Cab in the price point. Drank the next day with absolutely no change in flavors.

4/22/2013 - JustOneMore Likes this wine:

Drinking beautifully right now, no decant required. Reminiscent of a smokey Saint Estephe or a very good Bordeaux Superior. I normally rate wine solely on its own, but this bottle amplified the smoked meats we ate and made the meal. I tend to think the 1997 Montelena could be on its way down, because a certain complexity of flavors was missing, so would drink additional bottles by the end of 2013.

1/10/2013 - JustOneMore Likes this wine:

Nice fruit, cassis, and burnt tobacco or burnt coffee flavors up front. Also some classic tin or minerality of a St Julien. Doesn't need a lot of breathing, and if you can't wait to try a bottle go for it. It's drinking well right now. Not the best bottle I've had, because there's a lack of structure or definition in some of the flavors, but still a very enjoyable bottle of wine. I don't see the structure necessary to improve over time, although it may smooth out. Not silky or gentle as some have noted, but not a backwards monster either.

1/2/2013 - JustOneMore Likes this wine:

Drinks and looks like a Pinot. Acidity and tannins well under control. Some mild sweetness initially, which lessens as it breathes. A nose of forest floor after a recent rain. Lemon, alcohol, and some herbaceousness on the finish. After an hour, the lemon turned to wild cherry. The alcohol will burn off with some bottle age. A very smooth and easy drinking wine.

Updated: After being preserved with a Vacuvin pump for two days, this wine is still holding its own. Exhibiting a pleasantly musty nose, with a hint of Jolly Rancher Green Apple. The faint sweetness and the hint of sour (acidity) are in harmony. Drinking side-by-side with a quality fruit forward '09 California Cab and giving very unique flavors, although it's a subtle wine. A very nice effort by a small chateau.

12/27/2012 - JustOneMore wrote:

This note is for the Dry Fino, but unfortunately it's not listed in CT and the add-a-bottle feature is not working properly.

I bought this bottle from my local wine store because I was too lazy to get a bottle of cheap cooking sherry from the grocery store. This cost about 2.5x as much ($12 vs $5), but the result of my modified Chicken Coq au Vin was exceptional. I make it about once every two weeks, and the better sherry definitely produced better results. Very smooth. Of course, I would never drink sherry.

12/24/2012 - JustOneMore Likes this wine:

Delicious fruit at this price range, berry and a little non-descript spice with some oak. Will go well with any meal. Still great on the second day. 2009 seems like a good year for California Cab.

12/16/2012 - JustOneMore Likes this wine:

Consistent with my previous note. This vintage of Ch. Eliz. Spencer may be the best California Cab under $100 for this year.

Drink upon opening. Loses some of its charm the next day, but certainly still enjoyable. I would drink in the next year or two. I don't see bottle age helping the profile.

11/27/2012 - JustOneMore wrote:

The cork used to bottle this wine is extremely dense and does not appear to breath. There is the faintest of purple hue on the bottom of the cork with no saturation at all, which is more typical of a wine less than a year old - not a six year old wine. I note this because each bottle I've opened appears to have a defective cork or been "corked".

Road dust on the nose. Moderate red fruit or berries but with an astringent and bitter after taste. Slightly too much tartness on the fruit. Some pine and road dust on the after taste as well. 85 points if the winery had not gone cheap on the corks.

11/27/2012 - JustOneMore wrote:

Overly acidic for a Bordeaux, with a very bitter aftertaste. Although I marked this bottle as flawed, I waited to try a second bottle of the same vintage before posting and some of the same notes were present but not as amplified. Perhaps it was "corked". Perhaps it was bottle variation. Might was well have gone synthetic.

11/26/2012 - JustOneMore wrote:

Surprisingly good bottle of wine at this price ($37). Ripe red fruit and chocolate liqueur. Aftertaste of about 20 seconds. Lighter tannins which are in perfect proportion to the flavors. Darned good on its own, and even better considering the price point.

Blackberry flavors exploded when consumed with braised meat. As always, my review is for the wine alone without food. Otherwise, I'd increase the score a point or two.

I surmise if the vintner had better distribution, the bottle would sell for double. 88% Cabernet Sauvignon, 11% Merlot ,1% Cabernet Franc

11/23/2012 - JustOneMore wrote:

This was a monster of a wine back in the early 2000's. I remember opening a bottle, and the aroma of smoke filled the room. This was one of my favorite wines of any vintage, appellation or chateau.

Upon opening, only a small part of its former self remained. Smoke, leather, tobacco are present in muted amounts. A slightly tannic and gritty mouth feel develops after breathing an hour or so. The following day it became slightly acidic. Perhaps if I had let it breathe for three days, the outcome may have been different.

If the bottle was priced at $60, like the first bottles I bought, I may give it a higher score. However, at over $200 / bbl, it's a disappointment. Unless you purchased at release, I would avoid purchasing from any source other than directly from the Chateau no matter how much the seller proclaims the provenance.

11/12/2012 - JustOneMore wrote:

Unremarkable, almost fruitless, dry, chocolate water. Lots of Oak.

After breathing a while, it became acidic. Did not improve significantly on Day Two.

11/10/2012 - JustOneMore wrote:

Oak dominates this wine, but behind the wood the wine is fairly complex. Chocolate, tobacco, eucalyptus, and perhaps some forest floor. Just that darned oak hides a lot of it. However, I'd lay this down for at least 5 years. Hopefully the complexity will survive the wait.

Day 2: Delicious, but less complex than yesterday. Starting to thin out a little. Wow, I don't sense any tannins, but that oak is really making me pucker. In fact, I may not be able to finish the rest of the bottle. I hate when they go crazy with the oak!! 88 - 89 points, only because the wine was not bad yesterday.

Giving this wine a rating of 94 - 97 in the barrel is like giving a first grader a college degree because he aced a spelling test.

11/9/2012 - JustOneMore wrote:

Predominant flavors of blackberries and blueberries, with faint secondary flavors of oak and raspberries. Fruity, reminiscent of the 2007 BV Tapestry Reserve. Sweet, but not quite too sweet. I suspected that this had a good percentage of Merlot, but the Coppola website says it's 100% Cabernet Sauvignon. Light to medium tanins. Overall, well balanced for what it is, although I prefer less fruit and sweetness of aged Cabs and Bordeaux. Very good quality to price. I probably would not drink this past 1/1/2014.

11/4/2012 - JustOneMore wrote:

Again I was very impressed with the longevity of this wine. I knew from my previous bottle that it's critical to let it breathe in a decanter for at least 2 hours. I then put it back in the bottle. Aroma and flavor profile of decaying wood, cedar, mushrooms, and leather. After another 1 - 2 hours back in the bottle, I'm sensing the essence of honey. This wine has been very reliable over the past year. If you want big fruit, you will want a more recent vintage.

Note, there is an unpleasant funk and some sourness before it has time to breathe. I almost thought I had a bad bottle until I came back to the decanter after about 2 hours.

10/29/2012 - JustOneMore wrote:

Upon opening, the nose shows spice, dark berry, and a very musty alcohol. I expected the unresolved alcohol because it's a 2009, so that did not bother me.

On Day 1, moderate, indistinctive fruit. Not very complex. 88 points. On Day 2, a bit harsh and toucing on overly acidic for my taste. 87 points. Not a bad bottle of wine by any means, but I'd prefer to take my chances with a different bottle at this price point. Definitely does not live up to the legend of a 2009 vintage.

10/24/2012 - JustOneMore wrote:

Faint black cherry and plum. Almost like drinking flavored water. At least it's giving a buzz.

10/23/2012 - JustOneMore wrote:

Perfect bottle stored perfectly. Flavors are dead. Not bad but no real flavor profile either. Moderate to heavy tannins.

10/21/2012 - JustOneMore wrote:

Immediately upon opening, the wine tastes of very watered down coffee and pronounced toffee flavors. It is fully bricked, but definitely has a lot of life left. As the wine opens more, I get a hint and then moderate honey flavors of a well-aged Cabernet, but as it breaths and onto the next day also a faint hint of putridness familiar to Merlot develops. However, the faint off taste is not enough to interfere with the enjoyment of the wine and fades on the next day. Lighter tannins. I'm very impressed with the longevity of Chateau Soutard. Not a blockbuster, but certainly a steal under $50 as of this date. I'll probably let the next bottle breathe for 2 hours, and then consume it over the next 3 hours.