6/8/2011 - Vino Hokie wrote:

Decent everyday Rhone.

8/15/2011 - Vino Hokie wrote:

Would have likely given it a higher rating, but I think this bottle may have suffered some abuse in the butcher's shop where I purchased it.

4/15/2011 - Vino Hokie wrote:

Came recommended as excellent QPR by a local wine shop. Flat and uninteresting is not a bargain at almost any price, other than to use for sauces and marinades.

5/15/2011 - Vino Hokie wrote:

Much better than expected, especially for 15 bucks. This is a subtle old-world styled wine. Seems to me that the winemaker really went with the material he had, and didn't appear to try to make the fruit into something it really shouldn't be.

6/15/2011 - Vino Hokie wrote:

Typical, but forgettable Malbec. Sorry for the short review, but I really can't remember anything that stood out about this bottle.

7/8/2011 - Vino Hokie wrote:

Highly recommend decanting for at least 1 hour before drinking. Popped, and tasted before decanting. Ruby color, more Old World nose than fruit. Completely closed on opening, and initial taste was very tart, lots of tannin, and little fruit. After an hour of decanting, really started to sing, with expressive fruit and balanced tannins. Served at a dinner party with 15 guests, and it was a huge hit, despite the fact that I was scared to death upon the initial taste. FWIW, after we ran out, opened a bottle of KJ 2007 PN Vintner's Reserve, and it was undrinkable compared to what we had just experienced. The KJ was flabby and boring and had a bunch of fruit, but absolutely no complexity, nor tannin that I could detect. An outstanding QPR. I think the Gazzi is a very good to excellent PN that will continue to evolve over the next 2-4 years. I'm wondering if some of the lower scores here may be a result of not giving the wine enough time with air before drinking.

2/24/2011 - Vino Hokie wrote:

Consistent with the previous bottle. Some noticeable oxidation, less so on the palate than in color. Again, nothing offensive, but pales in comparison to the 1995, and certainly inferior to the 1997. Faded pretty quickly over the four hours of consuming. Like a whisper - I had to work very hard to find anything that stood out. Tannins are surprisingly present, but little fruit and primarily woody notes. I'll be finishing my last bottle soon, as there's only downside from here. I would have liked to have tried this 7-10 years ago to see what the wine was at what I believe was its peak.

2/12/2011 - Vino Hokie wrote:

Decanted for two hours. Signature CDP nose, but not overpowering. Light fruit, slightly dusty and vegetal. Tannins started out softer than I expected on the palate and tongue, then firmed up nicely. Drank beautifully, and matched well with our meal of savory flavors. Though I would categorize this as "elegant", it had enough structure that it didn't fade over the 6 hours I drank it. I think this is a real bargain at $27, and I'm glad I have five more. Drinking very nicely right now and probably has a few years to grow, but I don't think waiting very long past 2018 would be beneficial.

8/22/2010 - Vino Hokie wrote:

A bit overrated, and at $45 (bought years ago when the ratings came out), overpriced. Similar to the Vine Cliff Cabs we tasted at the winery - very good, but forgettable.

10/25/2010 - Vino Hokie wrote:

This was the last of the four bottles of 97 Jack London that I had. I drank it after the Burgess 95 Cab, which is an EXCELLENT value. At $20, this is one of the best QPR wines I've had. This is a wine that's on-par with the Burgess, but with a different experience. The mouthfeel was a bit less refined than the Burgess due to the still assertive tannins, but not in an overpowering way. Well balanced, with a long finish that ended on woody fruit notes. This wine may actually still have some time left, but I don't think I'll be able to find it anywhere.

2/3/2011 - Vino Hokie wrote:

Kaboom! A bomb for sure. Big, big, big wine that is simply delicious and fun. Like a Cabernet based version of Phinney's Mercury Head. We didn't wait long on it, so I wonder how it would have been after a couple of hours. Would have been really hot if it weren't for all the fruit. I wish we'd bought more, as I think Steve Sherwin mentioned that it's only available AT the winery.

1/30/2011 - Vino Hokie wrote:

Stick a fork in this one, folks - it's done. Chalky/dusty on the palate, slight hints of fruit and the phenolic notes that create the signature of Tempranillo. This wine has lost any power it once had. It wasn't an awful bottle, but it needed to be consumed two years ago.

2/2/2011 - Vino Hokie wrote:

On the low end of very good, but an excellent QPR at around 10 bucks. Drank over the course of 3+ hours, and it certainly improved over time. Dark earth, hints of chocolate, and dried black cherry on the nose. Tannins start out a bit firm, but soften up with aeration. This is a food wine, and would certainly work well with hearty Italian, but may not match up well with heavily spiced dishes. Think savory. It was a great compliment to my grilled asparagus with olive oil, garlic and rosemary, which can be a tough pairing.

2/3/2011 - Vino Hokie wrote:

Consumed as part of a blind vertical Burgess Cab Library selection of 1995, 1996, 1997 vintages. All bottles were opened 2 hours before tasting. I tasted each to determine tasting order, but the group of 8 tasters voted to determine preference. I have included both my own tasting notes, as well as impressions of the other participants. We tasted in the following order, which also happens to be the order that the participants preferred: 1996, 1997, 1995. For those who haven't opened an old bottle before, you need to use a cork pull, as the corks for each Burgess I've opened are brittle.

The 95 was by far the best of the bunch. It was much like the 97, but amplified in depth and complexity. The "wow" factor on this one was huge - participants had difficulty believing that this was from the same winery. Big nose, but balanced fruit, alcohol and phenolic compounds. On the palate, starts out fruit (again, blackberry and black cherry), then the "boom". Big mouthfeel, head-filling, with a very long finish. Will all that said, it was still very balanced. Everyone overwhelmingly agreed that this was an excellent wine. I wish I had more, especially given the price ($25). A special bottle, to be certain.

12/31/2010 - Vino Hokie wrote:

Consumed as part of a blind vertical Burgess Cab Library selection of 1995, 1996, 1997 vintages. All bottles were opened 2 hours before tasting. I tasted each to determine tasting order, but the group of 8 tasters voted to determine preference. I have included both my own tasting notes, as well as impressions of the other participants. We tasted in the following order, which also happens to be the order that the participants preferred: 1996, 1997, 1995. For those who haven't opened an old bottle before, you need to use a cork pull, as the corks for each Burgess I've opened are brittle.

The 1996 didn't seem to have anything left in it. It wasn't awful, but it was just a shell of what might have been a good wine some time ago. Not much fruit or alcohol on the nose. Just hints of tannins remaining. No off flavors/tastes smells,but not one outstanding facet. Granted, I've had much worse, but the QPR for this one is below average at $25, and there are much better bottles available. The tasters didn't love it, and didn't hate it, and quite frankly didn't have any feeling whatsover about it, which says everything you need to know.

12/31/2010 - Vino Hokie wrote:

Consumed as part of a blind vertical Burgess Cab Library selection of 1995, 1996, 1997 vintages. All bottles were opened 2 hours before tasting. I tasted each to determine tasting order, but the group of 8 tasters voted to determine preference. I have included both my own tasting notes, as well as impressions of the other participants. We tasted in the following order, which also happens to be the order that the participants preferred: 1996, 1997, 1995. For those who haven't opened an old bottle before, you need to use a cork pull, as the corks for each Burgess I've opened are brittle.

On its own, this is a very good wine, but was much preferred to the 1996. Little to no oxidation was noted. On the nose, the wine showed muted fruit notes, with predominate blackberry and hints of black cherry and tobacco. Tannins were smooth, but were appropriately firm. Not a very long finish, but significantly longer than the 96. This was much better than the 1996, but I don't know how much time this one has left, as the 1996 is definitely headed downhill. I wouldn't wait much longer on it. An excellent QPR at $25.

1/13/2011 - Vino Hokie wrote:

It's just OK. Nothing bad, but nothing exceptional, and certainly not warranting a mid 90's rating. When I put this up against other Napa Cabs that have been rated in the 90's by reviewers without a conflict of interest, it falls far short. I've stopped trusting reviews from people who stand to gain from the sale of the wines that they rate.

9/13/2010 - Vino Hokie wrote:

Drank this while I was waiting for a big Napa cab to be ready, and it didn't even do well as an appetizer. I wouldn't say it was terrible, but there just wasn't any dimension of the wine that came close to being a distinguishing characteristic, which I would expect for a cheap bottle of wine. It was a gift from someone who either doesn't know much about wine or doesn't like me very much, so I'm not THAT disappointed. I won't be buying, but if I receive it as a gift in the future, I'll use it for cooking, which I'm certain will be a suitable use.