11/12/2011 - winegr wrote:

Not sure about this one. A quality wine no doubt that I'd probably give 89-91, but this seems way oversold by envoyer's flowery prose below that might make Rimmerman blush and they seem to be "blowing smoke" at least a bit to quote themselves. I like this wine, it is an elegant claret from a fruitier vintage and not distinctly howell mtn. Mine didn't really get better with air. "This is a bottle to put alongside your other $100 bottles." - perhaps physically, but don't expect that quality taste. "There is absolutely zero sense of heaviness or over-extraction" - true, one of its better qualities is the elegance and fine tannins. " if this were slipped into a Bordeaux tasting we wouldn’t be surprised if this was mistaken for a classified growth/top vintage from gravelly Graves " Not likely, but there is a nice spiciness, but I've found $20 bdx as nice as this. "A multiple decade wine for those willing to put a $20 bottle down long-term" I'll eat my shorts if this is magnificent in 2031, but its balanced to age for a bit. "The balance, spectrum of fruits, and subtlety of nuance are as good as it gets in CA." it does taste classy but, me thinks you need to taste more good CA wines, you can find some howell mountain blends for ~$30 that would kill this. "The boys have done it again and given us the best deal on the market in domestic wine!" Nope, lots of great deals out there that compete with this. If this is in fact Arkenstone, it's an off vintage or declassified juice. I'm not that excited that I have 5 more. Trying to have a little fun with envoyer since this is not the wine I would have put totally pounded the table on, even though good. Maybe it would put the hundred dollar a bottle sourced Cameron Hughes 200 to the test:)