4/13/2024 - TKS9 wrote:

Ripe strawberries, orange peel, and a hint of crunchy red fruit on the finish. This has a bright freshness that suggests a long life ahead. I wouldn’t be in a rush to drink but no need to wait either.

3/31/2024 - TKS9 wrote:

Dark fruit, spice, and just a hint of menthol. Fully resolved, with secondary and tertiary notes emerging. Very good now, I think this has plenty of time left but not sure if it will get much better. Drink or hold.

11/23/2023 - TKS9 wrote:

This wine is still fruit forward and tannic but overall nicely balanced and drinking very well. I'm not sure how much better this will get, but it has many years left. Decant for sediment.

9/10/2022 - TKS9 wrote:

Drinking extremely well now, nicely balanced but with plenty of structure and at least a few years remaining. I’m not sure how much better this can get, but there’s no rush to drink right away.

8/6/2022 - TKS9 wrote:

Varietally correct with bright red fruit and well balanced acidity. A more than adequate daily drinker, this definitely won't blow you away but a 75 rating is a joke.

11/20/2021 - TKS9 wrote:

This was excellent and hard to believe it’s the entry level bottling, which bodes very well for the SVDs. Golden honey colored, this was medium-full bodied, layered and complex with a long finish. Candied lemon, green apple and floral notes backed by just a hint of well integrated oak.

10/30/2021 - TKS9 wrote:

The low scores below make no sense and would have to be based on scoring flawed wine or, more likely, flat out ignorance. There’s nothing particularly special about this but it’s a well made, pleasant enough, varietally correct cab for less than $15. Decent structure and red fruit with a medium length finish. Better with a couple of hours of air. 87-88.

7/30/2021 - TKS9 wrote:

This is drinking very well right now. I’m not sure if it will get much better, but I think it has a long time left so drink or hold for possible emergence of tertiary elements. Plenty of structure remaining but well balanced against red and blue fruit and a long finish. Very clean — no decant needed for sediment, but it could still benefit from a couple hours of air.

5/22/2021 - TKS9 wrote:

Bright lemon acidity and just enough weight to make this well balanced without being too heavy. Good with food or on its own on a warm day, there isn’t a ton of complexity here, but it’s definitely a step up from most mass market Sauvignon blanc.

7/29/2020 - TKS9 wrote:

This really exceeded expectations. No extra points for QPR, but varietally correct CA cab for <$10 is already a win and this goes beyond. Lighter bodied but with just enough backbone, there's nice balance, and I even get a hint of menthol complexity on the medium/short but pleasant finish.

3/14/2020 - TKS9 wrote:

This is drinking very well and is probably at or near peak. Good structure remaining, well balanced with dark fruit and a lingering white pepper spice note on the finish.

1/26/2020 - TKS9 wrote:

Corked

1/25/2020 - TKS9 wrote:

At or slightly past peak but with plenty of life remaining. Tannins are fully resolved, which may or may not be a good thing as slightly overripe fruit peeks through just a bit.

12/15/2018 - TKS9 wrote:

This is in a nice spot now but has a ton of life left. Dark
red fruit and nice structure are just about perfectly balanced.

3/11/2018 - TKS9 wrote:

Brett? In any case, this was undrinkable and ended up poured down the drain

1/9/2018 - TKS9 wrote:

I don’t quite understand the low scores here. Make no mistake, this is a simple, inexpensive wine but it’s reasonably made and, despite being a little fruit forward, acquits itself quite well versus other wines at a similar if not slightly higher price point.

8/27/2017 - TKS9 wrote:

Noticeable TCA on the cork, manifesting itself as musty oxidation on the palate.

8/19/2017 - TKS9 wrote:

Sadly, this wine appears to have peaked young and is now on a rapidly downward trajectory. A hot, disjointed mess the nose is overwhelmingly dominated by an unmistakable (and unpleasant) rum raisin element. (Smelled blind, I would have sworn this was brandy). The initial taste is slightly less objectionable but still mostly stewed fruit and harsh alcohol on the midpalate and finish. Perhaps a bad bottle, but this came from winery in the same case as several prior bottles and was well stored since, with the only variation being a few (too many, apparently) years of extra time in bottle.

6/18/2017 - TKS9 wrote:

Probably not quite at peak, but close, this is drinking well with nice integration of fruit and structure and a bit of added complexity versus younger bottlings.

4/21/2017 - TKS9 wrote:

Better, in my opinion, than prior scores suggest; this isn't anything groundbreaking and perhaps not even a great value for Chilean cabernet, but at just under $15 it's well made and highly serviceable. More oak on the nose than on the palate, this has a good, medium weight balance to the relatively bright red fruit and a longer, more pleasing finish than most cheap red wine.

2/11/2017 - TKS9 wrote:

Still very interesting and enjoyable, but I think this is fairly advanced along it's downward trajectory.

12/22/2016 - TKS9 wrote:

Certainly highly drinkable and a great value for $13, but there's a reason juice like this gets declassified. This has a decent red fruit core but finishes hollow and seems to lack any real structure that would allow for improvement with time.

12/2/2016 - TKS9 wrote:

Needs a good amount of air for the heat to dissipate. Much improved on day 2.

11/19/2016 - TKS9 wrote:

Brett? In any case, something wasn't right here.

9/25/2016 - TKS9 wrote:

Wow. This is probably the best chardonnay I've ever tasted, displaying candied lemon peel, nicely layered acidy, and an extremely well balanced touch of oak. Plenty of life left on this and I wish I had another bottle or three.

8/20/2016 - TKS9 wrote:

Fairly generic NZ SB, this is unoffensive and entirely unremarkable but an acceptable value at ~$10. Still, I wouldn't seek it out again and I think there are better options for cheap SB.

8/5/2016 - TKS9 wrote:

Although not a bad wine for what it is, David Hill's definition of a "slight amount" of residual sugar differs greatly from mine.

4/1/2016 - TKS9 wrote:

Flabby and sweet. Most of this went down the drain.

2/16/2016 - TKS9 wrote:

This could probably use a year or two to really settle down, but there's plenty of red and black fruit to offset the structure, creating a very nicely balanced wine, even now, while completely avoiding the one dimensional sweetness that often accompanies a wine of this price. If this had a Napa designation, it could easily sell for twice as much and still be a reasonable value. No extra points for QPR, but it's a phenomenal value at $16.

2/15/2016 - TKS9 wrote:

Although I like this better than the RRV bottling, with more varietal typicity, it may be a bit too overdone and one dimensional for my tastes.

2/12/2016 - TKS9 wrote:

Consistent with prior note (9/4/15)

2/6/2016 - TKS9 wrote:

Decent enough for a $13 CA cab and almost varietally correct even, but the obtrusive sweetness on the finish is a bit too off putting. Probably would not buy again except perhaps as a higher quality cellar defender for the type of person who enjoys Apothic Red.

1/19/2016 - TKS9 wrote:

This has really settled down in the bottle over the past six months and seems to be hitting its stride now. Bright red fruit with nicely integrated structure -- very good in its own right and an extremely good value.

1/2/2016 - TKS9 wrote:

The nose on this hints at a complexity that doesn't show through on the palate, at least at this point. Enjoyable, if a little simple, this might integrate a bit better with more time.

12/26/2015 - TKS9 wrote:

Stylistically lighter, this has a well balanced core of red fruit and just the right amount of structure. Excellent with food, I could see it coming off as a bit underwhelming on its own.

12/19/2015 - TKS9 wrote:

This wine, though well made, is apparently O'Shaughnessy's answer to the question: What do we do with all this extra fruit that probably should have been dropped? It's still young, but four hours in the decanter don't bode well for the future. Astringent red fruit dominates and none of the power, structure, or nuanced complexity that is typical of mountain fruit shines through. Spend the extra $15 for the Howell Mtn.

12/12/2015 - TKS9 wrote:

This needs time -- maybe a lot of time -- for the fruit to fade a bit and/or for the wine to gain more structure. As of now, the fruit is a bit too primary resulting in a wine that is enjoyable enough but still too simple and grape-y. A few hours of air does help though so I'm optimistic that this may improve.

12/5/2015 - TKS9 wrote:

With not quite enough structure to counterbalance all of the sweet red fruit, this comes across as a bit simple and hollow on the midpalate. Finishes short with a bit of heat. I'm not sure if this is already past peak or if this is all the potential there ever was, but it's a bit disappointing and I don't necessarily see it getting any better with time.

11/23/2015 - TKS9 wrote:

For $11, my expectations were already fairly low but this still managed to underwhelm. Completely out of balance, there's a hint of overly sweet red fruit buried under a bitter and overwhelmingly medicinal core. Life is too short to drink wine like this.

11/21/2015 - TKS9 wrote:

Nice balance of black fruit, spice, and a hint of menthol on the medium-long finish. This needs a bit of air time to open up fully but is likely drinking at or near peak now. At $30, this Cab dominated blend continues to be one of the better values for mountain fruit from Napa.

11/6/2015 - TKS9 wrote:

Well balanced with dark fruit and decent structure, this is held back only by a touch of heat and a short finish. Not overly complex and the nose is more interesting than the palate, but this is still a fairly good value at ~$25. Probably drinking at or near peak now.

10/3/2015 - TKS9 wrote:

Unable to decant, which didn't allow this to be at its best but it still delivered once it opened up a bit. Initially very tight and nearly inaccessible, this wine eventually showed nice dark fruit and good structure, almost reminiscent of an aged cab, except for the still mostly unyielding tannins. Several hours in a decanter and/or a few years in the cellar and this should be drinking very well. Would score a 90 as consumed, but the potential is easily there for 91-92.

10/4/2015 - TKS9 wrote:

This has a nice red fruit core with ample acidity, but is a little thin and finishes a bit short. Overall, it's well made a fairly good value, if somewhat unremarkable.

9/29/2015 - TKS9 wrote:

Just being a varietally correct California cab at ~$12 makes this a great value but even tasted blind it would hold its own against wines cost twice that, or more. This shows a nice red fruit core with ample structure. The finish is a bit short and overall this wine is a bit on the simple side, but not in a way that's entirely different than a higher quality cab drunk this young.

9/12/2015 - TKS9 wrote:

I'm not sure I get this wine. There is an interesting red fruit core with decent structure but it's largely hidden by obvious heat on the nose and palate and an off-dry sweetness. I'm not sure I could tell this apart from Apothic Red if tasted blind and that's not a compliment.

9/4/2015 - TKS9 wrote:

All I'm really getting is lots of lemon acidity from this. While it's pleasant enough and seems well made, it lacks the minerality to really tie it together, let alone add enough complexity and take it to the next level. Disappointing, especially for the price (~$30).

9/3/2015 - TKS9 wrote:

A few months and a slightly longer (and more aggressive) decant have helped tame the oak in this wine immensely, resulting in much better balance to the mostly red fruit core. I stand by earlier comments about value and I'm still not convinced this is a long term ager, but it's a solid, well made wine for drinking now.

9/2/2015 - TKS9 wrote:

A ton of heat on the nose upon initial opening thankfully doesn't come through as much on the palate and blows off eventually. This is a nice summer red delivering lots of red fruit (strawberry and cherry) and a touch of savory complexity in a not-too-weighty package. Recommend serving with a very slight chill.

9/2/2015 - TKS9 wrote:

The nose on this wine promises bright tropical fruit with perhaps a light touch of oak treatment but the palate is different altogether and not in a good way. Harsh acidity dominates whatever fruit is lurking in here and the end result is a thin and fairly generic white wine. Disappointing based on prior vintages that I've had.

8/29/2015 - TKS9 wrote:

I would have guessed that this saw significant time in new French oak, though the winery notes indicate that no new oak was used. Still, oak predominates the palate initially though a good dose of apple and pear fruit does eventually come through. I'm not sure this is quite my style and I got tired of drinking it halfway through the second glass, but it does seem to be well made.