11/20/2016 - pmarin wrote:

Cheap but not worth it. Initial taste is not unpleasant, I'd say standard Sangiovese qualities, but just not much "there" there. No body or finish to speak of. It's not intolerable like some "two-buck" domestic wines, but, even for $5 or so, you can probably do better.

The description on the label "with a long, soft, smooth finish" makes me wonder what the Marketing guys were trying to pull. By "soft" and "smooth" I think they mean "imperceptible" and the "long" means you can keep trying for a "long time" but still not detect it.

4/14/2015 - pmarin Does not like this wine:

Bought at a grocery discounter (probably because it was a 2012 vintage which is getting old for a budget sauv blanc.). Fairly dry and moderately acidic, both are expected in a sauvignon blanc; it was good that it wasn't as sweet as many other "budget" CA SBs. There was a strange "funky" nose and aftertaste -- almost green-peppery; that was not particularly pleasant to me. Also I suspect there is no such thing as "Willow Springs" as this is not a vineyard-designate, just "California."

4/13/2015 - pmarin wrote:

Light-to-medium body, not much on the finish. A bit of a strange woody note. Label does not indicate if it's 100% Grenache, and doesn't say much about the style the Winemaker intended. It's just cute psyco-babble words "Embrace the havoc," this sort of marketing seems characteristic of cheaper Australian wines pushed to the U.S. market. I generally avoid Australian wines with animals in the name, but should probably avoid all "cute" names.

4/21/2011 - pmarin wrote:

Heavy bottle and natural cork. Nose is inviting with pineapple, citrus. But disappointed in the taste. There is a lot there, but it seems muddled; most of all, too much sweetness lingers on the finish. Overall seems out-of-balance. It probably doesn't help that I also had a Murphy-Goode North Coast Sauv Blanc 2009 to compare it to (more expensive at about $10, but excellent.) In comparison this did not hold up.

3/31/2011 - pmarin wrote:

natural cork; deep, dark ruby color. I'm not good at naming aromas, but I will agree with the previous review noting blue fruit & vanilla. Medium complexity, pleasant lingering finish. Enjoyed with strong cheese but this is would be a good "red meat" wine. Should cellar well for a few more years.

3/31/2010 - pmarin wrote:

Tasted after buying again at G.O. 20% off sale. Wish I had made notes before, because this time I think it's not so good. I think I'm going to check the "flawed" box because it seems to have a slight oxidized character. synth cork (so cork was OK -- go figure). color is clear pale straw yellow, but after a taste, I looked for (and thought I saw) a faint tint of amber. It could just be the style of this wine, and it is a 2006 -- so it's been sitting for a few years. [edit:] the label does say "rich fruit, full body, and smooth finish" -- which are actually NOT things I would expect in a Fume Blanc (which I think of as a very austere Sauv Blanc). I wonder if it is a bit of malo-lactic going on, but then, again, either intentionally or not, I don't think that's something the winemaker would want in a Fume Blanc.

3/30/2010 - pmarin wrote:

Was skeptical about low price, probably because of its age (2000). Funky "limited edition" numbered bottle & hang tag.
Natural cork was in fine shape. Color is a dark clear red, light hint of brown on edges, no cloudiness. Aroma of chocolate, some berry & tobacco. Taste is a bit muted, not bad at all but somewhat lighter than I would expect. I expected some general softness because of the age in the bottle, but there was not a lot of depth or complexity to go with it. Still a very decent deal for a basic red at this price, but given the age and the other good deals around, probably won't buy more.

12/7/2008 - pmarin wrote:

Had this around for a few years. It is NV and doesn't state what the components are. I found that their website was still up and they had a current newsletter (Nov '08) and still show the same wine in Red and White. Not sure if they are continuing to produce more or if they still have inventory from earlier. Anyway, their site says this is
"...a blend of Petite Verdot, Merlot,
Syrah and Petit Sirah."

It tastes like it might very well be this blend. Deep garnet/purple color. not cloudy. nose of cherry/plum.

Actually I didn't like this as much when I first bought a few bottles, about 2004. Now I'm sorry I think this is my last bottle. I think it has still has some forward spicyness, but has developed some smoothness and subtlety; or maybe I'm just more accustomed to the taste of the varietals in this blend. At the time I was more familiar with cab and cab-heavy blends and probably didn't appreciate the PV and PS character. I will give this an 88 which is a few points higher than I would have given it on my first impression a few years ago.

Note that they still have a website and show it as available, but since it's NV I can't be sure it is the same product.

11/12/2008 - pmarin wrote:

not very experienced with rieslings so won't assign a score. Initial impression is very dry, minerally. surprising complexity on mid-palette and finish. I have not had one like this before but definitely it's quite nice.

11/5/2008 - pmarin wrote:

synth cork; an everyday red with a difference -- cab franc. Noticeable varietal characteristics like spices, cloves comes through. Not a lot of depth or complexity, though.

11/4/2008 - pmarin wrote:

synth cork; nose of tight apricot, some butterscotch but not extreme. No sweetness; a bit astringent but not harsh. Overall a nice Central Coast chard. Trying it without food but would recommend a with a seafood or spicy dish, or hard cheese.

7/5/2008 - pmarin wrote:

Burst of raspberry jam, and some leather on initial taste. Despite the berry burst, it is not a "fruit bomb." Very nice, medium complexity, pleasant finish. No complaints, really. This is a very nice blend. Continued to be enjoyable over next 2-3 days.

6/27/2008 - pmarin wrote:

Dark red-purple PS color. Basic PS characteristics -- but not overly complex or intense. For a "bargain" PS -- it is quite pleasant. At least as good as some of the more mass-marketed ones. (not that PS is every really that massive of a market, but...)

6/28/2008 - pmarin wrote:

Still like this one, but it is "unusual." Intense leather/tobacco/wood with lots of of dark cherry. Deep purple-red color. I can see why many wouldn't feel comfortable with this one; I can't think of many other wines like this. And from OAKLEY of all places... Cline does some pretty neat stuff. But it seems that by now, some of the fruit character has diminished, even though the spice (good) remains, so seems more unbalanced than previous tastings.

6/28/2008 - pmarin wrote:

Nice cherry-berry hints, but without in-your-face fruit like some trendy Australian shz. The 25% cab adds a nice balance. Very nice wine for the $12-15 target market, and even better at clearance prices. Benefited from some decanting, and very pleasant the next day as well.

6/26/2008 - pmarin wrote:

I think the 2004 is at "drink now, if not sooner!" Tart and maybe a bit astringent -- but that's not uncommon in an SB like this, and not necessarily bad. Something a bit strange in the nose -- almost musty, though I don't think bottle was corked. But I recall that the Vina R SB's never really "clicked" for me, so won't score it based on that.

6/26/2008 - pmarin wrote:

Barry brought from his wine club subscription. Natural cork. Enjoyed with Jarlsberg, smoked salmon and bread. Light citrus, peach, grapefruit. Basic Sauv-Blanc characteristics without being excessively sweet or tart. Not a big "flavor punch" wine -- and not intended to be. Very smooth, lingering finish. Was well-liked by wine-drinkers (me) and mostly-non-wine-drinkers alike. I'm not very familiar with White Bordeax blends -- but this seems like a nice introduction. The fact that all purchases seem to come from the same club makes me this this was a bulk purchase from the producer and only marketed this way in the U.S. In any case I'd like to try more wines like this in the future. It also helps me better understand the similar white blends (Sauv Blanc / Semillon ) from my local WA state. I was never a big Semillon fan but it works well here.

6/22/2008 - pmarin wrote:

When I bought this, didn't realize that there was both the well-acclaimed "House" series and the "Table" white which I assume to be cheaper -- that's why I thought $5 was a good price. I'll say it's an "OK" price -- tastes like about a $5 chard. (OK, well maybe $6-9 at retail) Pale yellow color. Nose of apricot, pineapple. Not altogether unpleasant. A bit too much sweetness lingers for my taste -- something I've found in other WA low-price-point chardonnays (and of course in almost all CA low-price chardonnays, which is why I avoid those like anything!)

Really not bad, just not my thing. I would say you can get far worse wines out there in this price range. My brother-in-law likes the sweeter "fruitier" wines and seems happy with this one.

[Edit] researched the producer website, found this: Chardonnay 88%, Riesling 10%, Muscat Caneli 2%. That makes sense. I definitely could taste "something" other than chard -- the Riesling isn't unexpected but the Muscat, even at 2%, probably helped give it some more of that forward flavor. Many will like this, and for me, it was just not my thing. Overall, I think it's not at all a bad blend for people "who like this sort of wine." It's a decent white for people who want, I guess, a "White table wine." Oh, wait, that's what it's called.

6/23/2008 - pmarin wrote:

Synth cork. Medium pale yellow. Nose of apricot and grapefruit, but also something strange. Maybe a hint of oxidation noticeable in nose and taste, perhaps even slightly in the color. Harsh and tart, not necessarily in a good way. This 2003 is definitely past its prime, though not certain it ever had a prime! OK I wasn't sure at first but I'm going to check the box for flawed/defective, even though I'm not sure it's anything specific about this bottle -- more likely something characteristic of the whole batch.

6/19/2008 - pmarin wrote:

Still amazingly not terrible. Weak but OK with a summer meal.

6/13/2008 - pmarin wrote:

I don't feel right giving this a score because it was possibly a flawed bottle. However, it did not seem oxidized. Cork OK. Color was nice: medium-deep clear red.
It just did not have much of the expected fruit and mouthfeel that others reported. There was a strong note of oak, that seemed out-of-balance with the rest. Did not really sense the cherry/currant that I'm used to from other Columbia Valley Syrahs (Syncline, for example). I bought this bottle on clearance at a local grocery store, so not sure of its history. It was the 2004 and matched the Appelation; the label was different and does not match the CT photo.

6/4/2008 - pmarin wrote:

On the first day I compared this to the Chilean "Cono Sur" and found the latter more enjoyable. I believe this needed some time to breathe -- also, it's a few years older (other was 2007). On second day this seemed mellower with a bit more going on. I'm not the PN expert so will hold off on giving this a number rating.

6/3/2008 - pmarin wrote:

Dry but thin. Not a lot of depth or finish. Not bad overall but perhaps it's just borderline past its peak (though not spoiled in any way.) The label mentions "can be cellared for up to 3 years" and that's probably true -- this didn't have the structure to be a long-term cellar wine.

6/4/2008 - pmarin wrote:

I like dry whites but this didn't do it for me. Strange, tart but light, almost chemical-taste. (tastes like it might make a versatile household cleaning product.) However, I haven't had any experience from other Trebbiano "grapes." (their label says "from the popular Italina Trebbiano (TREH-bee-ah-no) grape varietal"). I've also heard that no real wine people ever call them "grapes," -- it's "fruit." All I can say is, "treh-bee-AH-NO" it's not for me. I would welcome a chance to try a higher-quality (i.e. less mass-market) version of this varietal. Wont give it an official score but I'm thinking 76-80 ish.

6/4/2008 - pmarin wrote:

Semi-synth cork. Light yellow color. At first opening (room temp), nose of orange, apricot, maybe a bit of "heat." Taste matches nose: orange, apricot, seems to have noticeable oakiness, almost too much (maybe appropriate given the name Foolish Oak.) Tart, maybe a bit 'harsh." Certainly not bad at the $3 clearance price. Will update after some time to sit and chill a bit.

6/3/2008 - pmarin wrote:

The store had this labeled as "best Pinot Noir for under $10," and, knowing that there really aren't many good PNs in that range, I gave it a shot. There's definitely plenty of BAD PNs in that range, and it's safe to say this ISN'T ONE OF THEM. Decent PN fruit character, a bit light but really nothing "bad" about it. Did not have that "cheap red wine" taste. Went well with blackened salmon.

Note that the label is not the one in the photo. It does not have a bicycle, just "Cono Sur" and a wiggly line symbol. And, of course, the name is a "pun," Cono Sur for "Southern Cone" (Tip of South America), and a play on "Connoisseur." Cute.

5/24/2008 - pmarin wrote:

Surprisingly nice. Good PG characteristics. Not too tart, not too sweet. Perhaps a bit light but respectable.
This one is only listed as "California." The previous version (according to CT) was listed as Monterey.
This is a mass-market blend but meets or exceeds what I would call with the mid-level expectations of the Blackstone target market. (Supermarket wines in the $8-15 range). A bargain at $4 and I'll be glad to pick up some more, esp at that price!
Semi-synth cork. Moderate weight bottle.

5/17/2008 - pmarin wrote:

Nice Calif SB characteristics. Tart and refined -- no sweetness (good). Great value at Grocery Outlet price of $5. I prefer this one to the "Line 39" SB I bought in Calif for a similar price (2/$10 I think). If I wanted a nice SB but was tired of the NZ style, I'd definitely pick this one. (not sure if I'll ever get tired of NZs but sometimes a change is nice)

5/4/2008 - pmarin wrote:

Typical of the inexpensive wines available in southern Europe. Clear deep garnet color. A bit of cherry and berry. No real depth and quick finish.
Probably not bad for a $4 wine -- better than $2BC reds which are abominable. But I think for a few dollars more (and a bit of luck,) you can find something with more substance.

4/29/2008 - pmarin wrote:

Nice SB. Decent flavor, not much sweetness (good), a bit tart (good). Though not a knock-yer-socks-off wine, it is a very drinkable and pleasant SB, without the sweetness or absence of flavor common in most SBs in this bargain price range. Will probably get some more at this price.

4/29/2008 - pmarin wrote:

Basic chard but not a lot going on. Fairly light; not impressive in any way (but not really objectionable either.) Would not buy again for $6.

1/17/2008 - pmarin wrote:

Seemed like a respectable mid-line Columbia Valley Merlot. Found in my inventory; not sure where/when I got it. Not as intense as the premiums, or Hogue Genesis, but quaffable without that "cheap wine" taste.

12/29/2007 - pmarin wrote:

A fine example of a Grenache Rose. Beautiful pink/orange/red color -- hard to describe. No sweetness (good). Surprising depth and complexity for a Rose. Tasted with Swiss Alps herb cheese.

12/18/2007 - pmarin wrote:

vivid deep red color. on taste, nice initial burst of cherry/berry. Nice Zin character, not too much sweetness or heaviness (but not thin either). synth cork.

10/8/2007 - pmarin wrote:

Not a pinot expert so not going to give it a number. Until now I've only had low to mid-priced Pinots, some drinkable. Some not. I've heard that you really have to get to a $30+ Pinot to start to get something nice. Well, this is something nice indeed. Great depth of flavors; lingers nicely. No objectionable tartness or sweeness -- just right, I'd say.

9/27/2007 - pmarin wrote:

Had this from the '04 trip. Not usually a Riesling drinker, but had some fondue and figured it was time to use it. Was very nice, not too sweet. Wife liked it. (think I'll stick to other varietals myself.)

9/23/2007 - pmarin wrote:

Not terrible, but not very good either. Light, basically nothing, but at least no cheap-red grapiness.

9/23/2007 - pmarin wrote:

Nice; no "cheap pinot" taint. Would buy again at <$10.

9/23/2007 - pmarin wrote:

Very nice as previously reviewed. Glad I got a few left.

8/11/2007 - pmarin wrote:

Generally "good" but not "great." Agreeing with most of the mid-line reviews here. Pale yellow color. Not a lot of depth or complexity, but no "cheap chardonnay" badness, i.e. not too sweet, tart, or otherwise icky. Good for Summer. A pleasant wine I'd feel OK serving to others (without having to apologize), but not in the same class as Abandon, for example. A very reasonable deal at the price offered, but would feel bad if I'd paid much more for it.

8/12/2007 - pmarin wrote:

Excellent. Perfect dryness without some of the bitterness or "bite." Don't know where I found this, but it had a $2.99 sticker on it -- must have been a mistake. The other review mentions $10 and at that I'd say it's a fine deal.

8/5/2007 - pmarin wrote:

This was an old bottle I had around for a long time. Just proves that "cellaring" a mediocre wine results in "an older mediocre wine." A good BV would be different, but this is BV Coastal, so "it is what it is."

8/3/2007 - pmarin wrote:

Nice grapefruit, apple, kiwi?, misc citrus, tart, clean. Despite listing all that fruit, it isn't fruity (which is good). Little apparent sweetness (which is good). I've found many PGs to be a bit too sweet or fruity (in a bad way). This one doesn't have any of that. Very nice for a Summer afternoon, to sip on while updating CellarTracker.

8/1/2007 - pmarin wrote:

A basic drinkable pleasant SB; fine for the price. Dry, somewhat tart. Did not have much fullness or fruitiness that I could detect. I'm comparing it to a WA state mid-line Barnard Griffin Fume Blanc of the same year I also tried recently. It was a different style, but overall, I think it had a bit more going for it, hence I gave that one a slightly higher score.

7/31/2007 - pmarin wrote:

Very nice accessible Sauv Blanc (Fume). Not the crisp austere style, a bit fuller in initial taste. (creamy, fruity come to mind.) A bit more sweetness than I'd expect, but not bad. Agree with the comments (and rating) of the last review.

7/21/2007 - pmarin wrote:

This is a very nice chardonnay. Expected pretty good from the Don Sebastiani folks; don't let the screwcap fool you. It has nice fruit initially, not too sweet, moderate oak & buttery, but not overdone. I'm not good with all the wine terms, but I'd say it's a medium-heavy-bodied chard. As a 2002, it's held up well but of course these should probably be consumed pretty soon. The screwcap might help a bit here in minimizing the risk of corked bottles.

7/15/2007 - pmarin wrote:

Very nice deep "buttery" chardonnay. An excellent example of this style without being "too much" in terms of malo-lactic or oak. This was a bottle I bought on clearance and was a bit concerned about it being a 1999, and who knows how it was stored all those years. Turned out to be very nice after all. Of course, would buy more at that price, but not likely to find anything like this for $7 again!

6/30/2007 - pmarin wrote:

Opened at Eric's. Synth cork. Pink to slightly orange-y color. First impression is that there was a slight hint of oxidation going on. Did not seem that bad, but would have liked to compare to another bottle. Otherwise, nice Grenache chaaracter, not excessively sweet. But think this bottle was a flawed so won't give it a # rating for that reason. I'd agree with the other reviewers: drink 'em (now) if you got 'em!

6/18/2007 - pmarin wrote:

seemed slightly oxidized. yellow-gold color. synth cork OK -- don't think it was a "bad bottle," but rather that this is the way this wine ended up.

6/16/2007 - pmarin wrote:

med straw color. synth cork. fairly light flavor, a bit tart, not objectionable, but really no complexity or depth. less sweet than typical Calif PGs in the "value price range."
Might buy again as a bargain quaffer, but not at the $7-10 range these usually retail for.