6/7/2016 - NoSwill wrote:

Extraordinary carignan. Bramble, pepper, tobacco, leather, dark, tart cherry, lots of Acidic drive. A serious and seriously good wine. Drinking great now. Should only get better.

11/17/2014 - NoSwill wrote:

Unlike the Tendu red, this works. Charming little quaffer with an interesting musty nose. Palate is a little light, simple but correct for a vermentino.

11/15/2014 - NoSwill wrote:

Over the hill. Faint nose of barnyard and leather. Light, Faded sour fruit with a gritty mouthfeel. Acid is about the only thing left. disappointing purchase from Kermit Lynch, who touted this as something special.

11/15/2014 - NoSwill wrote:

Tart, sour, candied cranberry acidic swill. Like a bad beaujolais. Awful.

11/15/2014 - NoSwill wrote:

Tastes like sour, candied cranberry acidic swill. Like a bad beaujolais. Awful. I can't believe Mathiasson would sell something like this. Why is this wine rated in the 80s here? Every reviewer so far hates it. 80s means good to excellent, people!

10/30/2014 - NoSwill wrote:

This is really tough to take. Tastes like a blend of India Pale Ale beer (WTF?), syrah and maybe a zinfandel rose with the overwhelming taste of hops and pepper and a nose of maybe old ladies' perfume. I really hate beer flavors in my wine. This bottle is going down the drain. Waste of $30. The only reason it's not a 50 is it seems to be well made, and you may want to try it simply because it is such a freak show. But, grignolino from this example seems to be simply - to borrow a phrase from someone I usually don't agree with - "a god forsaken grape."

9/22/2014 - NoSwill wrote:

You've heard of an oak bomb? This is an acid bomb. Overwhelming acidity. I thought we were "in pursuit of balance," these days. Pendulum has swung way too far in the other direction on this one. Burns going down. Can't finish the bottle.

8/1/2014 - NoSwill wrote:

Tart, acidic and yeasty on the palate with cidery or beer-like aromas. Is this chardonnay cider or beer? Really bad.

7/7/2014 - NoSwill wrote:

Flat, dark fruit, simple, heavy on the palate, short, somewhat hot finish turned to burnt rubber after being kept at 55 degrees, vacuum sealed, overnight in cellar. Very disappointing. Solidly average, which is a ridiculous joke for a wine that costs this much. Perfectly cellared since purchasing from mailing list. Wake up people!

5/15/2014 - NoSwill wrote:

Badly faulted with mercaptans - overwhelming smell and taste of burnt rubber that does not blow off and is unaffected by a copper penny.

2/14/2014 - NoSwill wrote:

Marvelous big nose of truffles, forest floor. On the palate farily full bodied wtih tart fruit and hints of brett and oak.

2/11/2014 - NoSwill wrote:

Oxidized? Secondary fermentation? Browning/bricking in color, cloudy, rough on the palate, flat taste, slightly spritzed upon opening, hollow fruit. Tasted over several days, stored in-between at cellar temp, vacuum sealed, but the wine never changed. Previous bottle drunk several months ago was fine, nothing like this. Terrible.

1/28/2014 - NoSwill wrote:

Charming, quaffable, slightly fruity but still well balanced pinot with good acidity and hints of mineraltiy. Drinking well already though it seems like it could develop a little complexity with a few years in the bottle. Priced too high at $40. Would be a good buy at $28.

10/14/2013 - NoSwill wrote:

Brett was out of control. Terrible.

10/2/2013 - NoSwill wrote:

Pronounced smell and taste of yeast and sour, rotten fruit. Heavily carbonated.

8/24/2013 - NoSwill wrote:

Lip stinger, huh? I don't know why picpoul (aka lip stinger) is primarily used as a blending grape. But, if this one is any indication, it may be because it's pretty tough to take by itself. It's got nice acidity, but the taste is foul - like an off-tasting, artificially-flavored green apple blended with wax and an aspartame chemical aftertaste or something. We tried it over several days with various recommended foods and ended up pouring it down the drain. One of the worst tastes in wine I've ever had.

8/23/2013 - NoSwill wrote:

Someone mentioned Band-Aids and "menthol-like funk." Indeed, there is something along these lines that is overwhelming and exhausts the palate. (Brett anyone?) It's reminiscent of an over-hopped micro-brew (all too common these days). Someone else who loved it said, "wife didn't feel the same." Well, neither did we. Tried it over three days to give this a chance. But, in the end we couldn't deal with it, and poured it down the drain.

8/20/2013 - NoSwill wrote:

I don't think this wine is ready for drinking, yet, without decanting. The vintage isn't even a year old, and upon opening it was spritzed with the taste of tart lemon and a slightly bitter finish. After several days vacuum sealed in the refrigerator, the spritz and bitterness bled off, the tartness mellowed and the wine came together and was great. It's very light and refreshing but needs to be paired carefully, I think with food you would spritz a lemon on. For example, it went great with crab rolls and grilled white fish. I also think it would go well with fish tacos.

8/19/2013 - NoSwill wrote:

Really solid, versatile wine. Hard to do better than this for $20. Nicely balanced. Plenty of fruit to drink by itself but great as a meal accompaniment, as well. Perfect for a Sunday brunch al fresco or a weeknight salad.

7/9/2013 - NoSwill wrote:

Full bodied, syrupy, oak bomb. Heavy layers of creamy oak with dark jammy fruit and hints of chocolate. Silky tannins and a medium finish. Sounds great right? Maybe if it were port. Fully integrated and ready to drink, but the clobbering oak and sweetness renders this unrecognizable as sangiovese. Unfortunate style I've encountered too often from Napa where little regard seems to be paid to varietal character or terroir, and the wine is instead amped up with oak and extraction in an apparent attempt to make everything taste like an overripe cab or zin. Easy drinking, but varietally absurd. There is little here that resembles sangiovese.

6/17/2013 - NoSwill wrote:

Unfortunately, the wine had pretty difficult-to-tolerate brett problem.

6/14/2013 - NoSwill wrote:

Formulaic, valley-floor Napa cab. You're smacked in the face with over-ripe blackberries and oak on the palate. Fully integrated tannins and full bodied, but there's no complexity. Bottle age apparently hasn't done anything for this wine. Cellartracker says 80 - 84 is "good." Though boring, this is better than your average plonk. But, there's nothing here to qualify as "very good to excellent" (85-89) or "outstanding" (90-95) in my book.

5/22/2013 - NoSwill wrote:

Bottle seems flawed. Too much volatile acidity? Mousy taint? Solvent, nail polish on the nose that blows off after a day or two, but a bitter metalic finish that does not. Otherwise tart, thin, acidic, harsh tannins, short finish.

4/17/2013 - NoSwill wrote:

If you're going to drink this now, decant, decant, decant! Day 1: Was hoping to find something akin to a nice Bandol. But, this was a one-dimensional fruit bomb dominated by uber ripe, concentrated blackberries and blueberry syrup. (77) Day 2: Vacuum sealed and stored at cellar temperature overnight. What a difference a day makes! The intensity of the fruit has dialed back, and while still fruity (but not obnoxiously so like on day 1), the wine has transformed into a well-balanced, multi-dimensional wine with subtle spices of cinnamon and pepper with some mineral and earth and perhaps a hint of leather. Medium to full bodied with smooth tannins and long finish. Beautiful. (90)

4/8/2013 - NoSwill wrote:

Major fruit and oak bomb. Overwhelming taste of blackberry jam and oak. A very dull wine compared to several inexpensive ($25 to $35) yet mature (8-10 years old) Bordeauxs I've had recently.

4/4/2013 - NoSwill wrote:

Would agree with Ben and Stewart below and would add lovely mold flavors to go with their comments. Poured two bottles down the drain.

4/3/2013 - NoSwill wrote:

Tight, acidic, minerally, tart raspberry, grippy tannins, steely, light body, short finish. Made partially in stainless steel and doesn't seem to have gone through malolactic fermentation. Tastes like a red wine that's been made as if it were an unoaked white wine. Best drunk slightly chilled. Picnic wine.

12/4/2012 - NoSwill wrote:

It started out innocently enough. Simple fruit, big oak, medium body, short finish, no minearlity or complexity. Not that enjoyable, but nothing offensive. Before the glass was finished, a lingering aftertaste of harsh tannins and sulfites began to build. Half hour later I still couldn't get rid of the cottonmouth and sulfite aftertaste. Awful. This was once a decent wine, but now that Precept owns it, it seems to have become worse than plonk - the equivalent of rot-gut alcohol. I'd be embarrased to serve this to anyone. Tasted on day two after storing vacuum sealed and at cellar temp and it had become completely artificial and foul tasting. What are they putting in this wine? Drink at your own risk.

8/18/2012 - NoSwill wrote:

Very nice mature, classic Chianti. Great nose of cherry, old world must and leather. Well integrated fruit, tannins and acidity. Delightful!

8/17/2012 - NoSwill wrote:

Wow. Beautiful wine! Great nose of forest floor and black cherries. On the palate, dark stone fruits, slight hint of leather. Perfect balance of fruit, minerality and acidity. Mild tannins. Long finish.

8/14/2012 - NoSwill wrote:

Day 1: Popped and poured through vinturi and soiree. Pretty good. Tastes a lot like another Michel Rolland/Reignac wine, Balthus. Day 2: stored overnight vacuum sealed at cellar temperature. Tannis much smoother. Typical Bordeaux nose and fruit. Very nice. Great with chicken piccata. Score is based on day 2.

6/25/2012 - NoSwill wrote:

Day 1: 88. Popped and poured. Mouthfeel on the front is a little light. There's a little tartness mid palate. The finish is beautiful. Nice acidity. Day 2: (Stored overnight at cellar temp (55 degrees), vacuum sealed) 89. A little more integrated. All the positives were more at the forefront, any "negatives" diminished. Day 3: (Stored overnight at cellar temp, vacuum sealed) 90. Everything's really nicely integrated now. Outstanding.

This is a Pinot that can stand up to some +$40 Pinots, but was about $25 at release. I'd consider decanting it for most of the day or even overnight to let it reach it's peak integration. But, it's still very good from the get go. This seems to have the stuffing to age beautifully, as well. Love the earthy spice flavors of the Oregon Pommard clones. (Also has 707 clones, I think.)

6/25/2012 - NoSwill wrote:

Day 1: Slight bitter green notes on the palate caused disappointment. Take those out, and this is a very nice wine. Day 2: Vacuum sealed and stored at cellar temperature overnight. Green notes are gone, but the fruit has diminished somewhat and the alcohol is more pronounced now causing the wine to taste a little hot. Still, better than Day 1. (This was a 77 on Day 1, 85 on Day 2.) Day 3: Boy DID this finally come together. What a transformation. Outstanding. This is a big, young mountain cab, and I'd consider opening it maybe a day before drinking. I'd guess additional age will benefit this, as well. Rating is based on Day 3.

6/25/2012 - NoSwill wrote:

My bottle was solidly below average, thus the 72 rating which per cellartracker equates to "below average." Decanted and drank over several days (stored at cellar temp and vacuum sealed) hoping it would improve, but it never did. The fruit really tasted dead like bad plums or something. Maybe my bottle was cooked. But, I would not buy this again for any price. It was labor to get through the bottle, and I ended up pouring out the last glass. Throws a ton of sediment. Life's too short and there are too many wines to try to waste drinking one like this.

6/8/2012 - NoSwill wrote:

This wine needs a lot of time to decant. Day 1: Decanted with a Vinturi and and a Soiree, tried to drink over a couple hours but it never opened up. Lots of oak, acid and tannins, weak fruit, weak body, short finish. Vacuum stored overnight at cellar temperature. Day 2: Much improved with the fruit finally showing well, fuller body and longer finish. Tannins and oak better balanced. Better with food, as well. Day 3: about the same as Day 2.

6/6/2012 - NoSwill wrote:

An odd assortment of austere fruit, weak nose, high acidity, medium body, medium finish and unresolved tannins yield a disjointed bottle of wine. But, thanks to the acidity, it is ok with food (actually paired great with milk chocolate). The 5 verietals in this blend (cab, merlot, cab franc, malbec, petit verdot) seem like two or three too many. (I think it may be the malbec, especially, that I don't like.) Would not buy again.

5/14/2012 - NoSwill wrote:

Decanted for about 4 hours, served at the proper temperature. Perfect provenance. The fruit comes through stronger on the nose than on the palate. On the palate the fruit is pretty restrained, but the alcohol, at 14.6%, is not, which makes the wine taste a little "hot." The acidity is pretty strong, as well, and needs food to cover up the disjointedness of the wine. It's much more Bergundian in style than a typical California pinot. But, this was an emperor-has-no-clothes experience for me. I don't see how this is a 96-point wine according to Robert Parker. I also don't understand all these mid 90s scores on CellarTracker because if you read the reviews, many of them are NOT very complimentary (yet give a high score anyway). I've had better Pinots for $40, yet this costs triple digits. It's no wonder Allen Meadows is no fan of Marcassin. Said Meadows of the 2005 Blue Slide Ridge: "Burnt vinyl, alcohol and menthol... hot and short finish... difficult to like... 79." That's along the lines of what you're getting here.

4/16/2012 - NoSwill wrote:

Drank over the course of two days (vacuum sealed overnight and maintained at 55 degress). Wine didn't change much. Good but pretty unremarkable wine. The nose is muted. On the palate, dark fruit, oak, a bit of cherry, hint of chocolate on the finish, which is pretty short and not particularly silky. I doubt I'll buy more. There are a plethora of Napa cabs like this for $35 - $40 (and definitely not worth the $65 - $80 WineSearcher is showing at many places).

4/13/2012 - NoSwill wrote:

Day 1: 74. If you like your wine to burn like schnaps and have amped up oak, this is for you. It's not for me. Way too much heat and oak. Flabby structure, as well. Hoping to find some use cooking with it. Otherwise, it's a drain pourer. A waste of $20. Day 3 update: Stored at cellar temp (55 degrees), vacuum sealed. Tried this one more time before planning to pour out, and what a transformation. The alcohol had blown off, the oak integrated and wine was finally showing really well. So glad I gave it one more chance. I had originally scored this a 74, but I am raising to an 89. I really enjoyed this on Day 3. I'd consider opening this wine a day before you plan to drink it.

2/12/2012 - NoSwill wrote:

This is a really high quality, satisfying food wine. I love the old world, "leathery" taste. Went well with both lamb and margherita pizza.

2/2/2012 - NoSwill wrote:

Day 1: Tannin and oak bomb. Decent fruit but at this point it's kind of overwhelmed by the tannins. Short finish. Not complex. Day 2: Stored overnight at cellar temperature, vacuum sealed. Not much change. Day 3: Again, stored overnight in cellar, vacuum sealed. What a transformation! The tannins and oak have finally calmed down and are in balance with the fruit. Smooth with cherry and vanilla flavors. Really, really nice now. Rating is based on Day 3. Decant this monster in cellar for maybe a day before drinking.

1/7/2012 - NoSwill wrote:

Major tannins and oak with not-that-ripe fruit. Needs food.