12/23/2014 - edwilley3 wrote:

Unqualified 100 point rating. This vintage of the PR is a stunning wine teeming with an unctuous bouquet of fruit (no lack of Wente and Dijon clone) in a succulent mid-palate, following a glorious nose jam packed with fruit blossoms and other white flowers. The balance and finish are impeccable, showing a perfect seamless structure and concluding with that mouthwatering effect (despite the high fruit sucrosite) characteristic of a perfectly poised wine with appropriate acid levels. This could be only 1 wine and a wine of this type could come only from Sonoma and from the school of winemaking embodied by Helen Turley. I've also had the Mon Plaisir, Ma Belle-Fille, La Carriere, and Belle Cote from this vintage. They are all excellent wines, but the Point Rouge stands head and shoulders above even the Ma Belle-Fille, which is a beautiful and well-crafted wine. If you drink this decanted and at room temperature, the 2012 Point Rouge will be among the best white wines you've ever tried. It will be a poignant wine experience. If you are on the list and actually bought this, you will have a hard time keeping your hands off the 2nd or 3rd bottle. Whether or not you like Helen Turley, this homage to her is quite an achievement for Mr. Morlet. Well done!

12/23/2014 - edwilley3 wrote:

Rating at 92 but this really fits at 91.5 now because it's really not ready to drink. Potential to reach 93 based on this tasting. La Cave d'Argent described the wine perfectly. If you give this some air you will be rewarded with sweet tannins with a nice structure (as I think of it) of medium acid and graceful earthiness that keeps it from being a simple pleaser without a long shelf life. Once the fruits and light florals came out to play, the olive tones faded into the background mix. I'm not sure that I understand the blend, but it seems to work. I am not sure that a touch more Petite Verdot wouldn't be a better choice than the Carmenere. But I digress. Better than the 2007 vintage at least as I recall from last Christmas.

6/16/2014 - edwilley3 Likes this wine:

First bottle consumed since Christmas 2013. Decanted over 6 hours; threw only moderate sediment. The wine really started to open up after 5 hours, showcasing a lovely bouquet of fruits (more red and blue than black) backed up up subtle smokiness and a line of savoriness (salt, a touch of meatiness, etc.) that made this wine scream for a something robustly flavored with herbs such as lamb. (I say "robust", not "bold" or "spice".) Tannins after hour 6 were quite silky, although after just a couple of hours in the decanter a person would have missed the boat on this wine completely, including finding the tannins needing more time to resolve. What impressed me more is that this wine really enters elegantly and grows continually through the mid palate and into the finish. It's undoubtedly a modern Bordeaux but it also exhibits very fine balance and a structure that while not quite seamless is very well done, provided one decants. Honestly, before it got to 6 hours I found that the palate did not meet the expectations created by the nose. I expect a long life ahead. Feel free to drink some now if you are prepared to decant, but by all means try to hold back a number of bottles.

6/16/2014 - edwilley3 Does not like this wine:

This is *not* a 90 point chardonnay with reference any style made in California. I am pretty open minded when it comes to different styles of California chardonnays, but honestly this is exactly what I do not like. It's buttery and woody, but those elements are not balanced properly by fruit, acidity, and minerality. The fruit here is a flabby, generic citrus and pineapple affair and frankly I think that the winemaker let the malolactic fermentation go too long, as the wine is flabby overall and doesn't have the mouthwatering finish I look for in a quality chard. Again, that's precisely what I do *not* want. As readers of other reviews on CT know, I do not have an objection to barrel fermented white wines. However, I expect the winemaker to leave us with enough acid to ensure some vitality. If you like Rombauer chard, which I recently detested, then you may like this. In fact, it's really a bit better than the Rombauer I tried. Candidly, the simple, straightforward L'Oliveto chardonnay is a superior wine that costs less. Perhaps unfairly, I also had the Agrapart 7 Crus Champagne this weekend which showed a terrific caliber of fruit. Flora Springs just doesn't measure up. Chill it down, drink it cold on the patio, and don't ask from it more than it can give.

6/13/2014 - edwilley3 Likes this wine:

First bottle since May 2012. This disgorgement was much improved as compared to the bottle consumed in 2012, showing a more robust bouquet, more concentrated fruit, and a better balanced acidity. It had a longer finish, too. The 25% of wine that was made in barrel and malo'd really seems to be the perfect amount to counterbalance the natural crispness of the fine quality chardonnay these guys produce. This stuff makes a great case for artisanal NV BdB. I highly recommend picking up a few bottles for your summer drinking. I just wish that it wasn't so difficult to obtain in certain states.

5/16/2014 - edwilley3 Likes this wine:

Bottle was over the hill, although the cork showed no sign of failure. Suspect some heat damage at some point in the past. Still showed some really lovely fruit notes and was ok with dinner (Thai), but was disappointing based on anticipated quality of the 2004 vintage and the normal lifespan of Peter Michael chardonnay, which seems to last longer than many other chardonnays from California. Unless you know that your bottles are really well preserved, drink up.

5/30/2014 - edwilley3 Likes this wine:

A perfect bottle decanted for 12+ hours, this wine really was better than I expected. It was around hour 14 that the wine became truly seamless and nearly flawless. If you have a bottle as well preserved as the one I drank, there is no doubt that the apex for this wine will not come for another several years. This was consumed from a Riedel Vinum Extreme Shiraz class after rejecting others - the wine is simply too big for a small white wine glass and the aromatics will not show well in, say, a standard Riedel white wine glass. The nose is packed with tropical fruits and floral perfume, giving way to a palate of tropical fruits, candied orange, citrus marmalade, and nectarine. This is undoubtedly fully oaked and spent plenty of time on the lees, but it tastes less leesy than some Aubert and Krug. It's through proper airing that the fruit/floral nose, luscious palate, and oak balance perfectly, transitioning gracefully into an expansive finish. As large as this wine is, if you do not give it lots of air or do not use a larger than normal glass, you will miss most of the action. I'm sorry to hear that some had bottles past their prime. However, I think that those drinkers who gave the wine just 30 minutes of air and drank it chilled really would have had a much better experience if they'd decanted fully and consumed at room temperature. This is clearly 98+ wine if given a chance to show its true colors. As a note, Paul Michael, son of Sir Peter, told a group of tasters a month ago that Nic Morlet - present Peter Michael winemaker - likes to decant PM wines for a day. That's "food" for thought.

5/16/2014 - edwilley3 Likes this wine:

ID: 112008 - Winter 11/12 Disgorgement, 44% PN, 19% PM, 37% Ch. Youngest (base) wine: 2005. Oldest reserve wine: 1990. 134 wines in the blend.

Consumed from Riedel white wine glasses and allowed to remain outside of chill as the bottle was consumed. Power from the get go and the expected lees aroma; as it opened/warmed, sweet fruits and nuts uncoiled, with a distinct floral note note floating above the mix (one pro review said Lily of the Valley, but I don't have an extensive mental catalog of floral smells). In the next wave was a strong black cherry flavor permeating the palate alongside typical candied citrus. After all, a good portion of the wine is over a decade in age and I would expect some candied citrus. As a fan of the heavy duty California chards, I think that Krug occupies the same space in the Champagne pantheon as Aubert does in California. The unabashed use of oak in fermentation with no shortage of lees contact makes for a wine that is not so much exuberant as it is intense, structured, and powerful, yet somehow still elegant, at least to some of us. I would never recommend Krug to a bubbly novice or to someone who preferred more citrus/light floral driven Champagne. For the record, I greatly appreciate wines such as Salon BdB, Piper Heidsieck (Rare, especially), Dom Ruinart, Vilmart, Charles Heidsieck of all stripes, and more. Krug is just in a space of its own. If you like that space, by all means proceed apace with consuming the Winter 11/12 disgorgement. But if you can, do try to hold some back for the future. I'm guessing it will be in prime drinking territory for 10-12 years.

5/16/2014 - edwilley3 Likes this wine:

A simply enormous wine, probably the biggest boned wine of any type that I've ever tasted. Tastes like someone distilled most of the essential flavors of multiple wine grapes and created an elixir. Yes, the alcohol is big and the wine is incredibly dense. Without at least 12 hours in a decanter you would be wasting your time. The wine probably was dark purple at one point but is fading slowly to a deep red. What's the reward? Amazing depth of flavor completely saturating the palate, seamless transitions from nose to finish, very dry but with tactile sweetness from the fruit essences, and a finish that lasts over a minute. Speaking of flavor, there are deeply concentrated red and blue fruits, intense espresso, mocha, and spices such as cardamom. It's my guess that it will hold another quarter century or more if well kept. Scoring 98 because it has a long life ahead and surely will deepen more if that's actually possible. Helen Turley was the winemaker of record in this vintage and did her typically stellar job getting the best of the grapes available, which in this case happen to be from the famous Jackass Hill Vineyard, whose vines at that time were 103 years old. I'm confident that it would be impossible to make "subtle" wines from that vineyard.

5/16/2014 - edwilley3 Likes this wine:

Consumed at dinner after opening around lunch. Big fragrance out of the bottle as soon as the cork popped out and with air the nose just got bigger. Citrusy notes dominated and the fully decanted nose was lovely with a heady citrus blossom perfume that I don't expect at this price. Oak is evident but the intense fruit and floral notes balance it such that it's not heavy handed. On the palate, this is not as seamless as the best Brewer-Clifton or, say, Martinelli, but it's still a pretty big wine that coats different parts of the mouth and has a medium-long finish. As to the alcohol, I asked my dinner companion what the ABV was and her response was 13.5%. So, yeah, it doesn't taste hot if you give it a chance to open. The bottle I had anyway was far from tired and the acid level made me think it had years to go. Right now I would say it's a flexible chardonnay that can satisfy a California freak like me (my favorite chards are from Peter Michael and Marcassin), lend support to dinner (a juicy herb roasted chicken expertly prepared by my friend), or stand alone as a refreshing but succulent aperitif. If you don't like the 2008 B-C chards, feel free to give your bottles to me. This is not as good as the 2008 Sweeney Canyon bottling (96 pts personal rating), but it's still good. In my view, this wine is extremely well made, showing many elements I look for in a big league chard. The difference I think is that the grapes weren't quite locked in at full ripeness. Close, but not quite.

3/1/2014 - edwilley3 Does not like this wine:

Approximate tasting date indicated. Look, for $70 anyway, a sauv blanc had better be pretty impressive. I have been impressed by the differently styled but quite tasty Jonata and Peter Michael offerings. I really like Sancerre and Pouilly-Fume. So really I don't dislike the grape in the least. BUT I really found this wine majorly disappointing. I got general grapefruity citrus notes with cat pee in the background. The mouth feel is nothing special, the finish was a little unpleasant. With increasing air it got increasingly worse. Not worth the money, at least in this vintage. A person who recommended this to me also recommended the Jonata Flor. What a difference there is between the wines. Score is based on my palate - many would put it higher.

4/29/2014 - edwilley3 Likes this wine:

Surprisingly pleasing wine for the jammy style of California zin. This is a solid 91 to me, showing a broad, dry palate and lots of tactile sweetness. It was a fine accompaniment to a beef medallions (with mushroom/wine sauce) at an Italian restaurant. I worried it might be too sweet for the dish, but was wrong. It was not as bombastic as I would have thought based on vintage, alcohol, and position in the Tobin James hierarchy. It's not in the same league as a Turley Rattlesnake (hardly a shy wine) or a better Biale, but I would have no problem drinking more of it.

5/1/2014 - edwilley3 Likes this wine:

Tasted sometime in November over dinner. Uncharacteristically, it was a pop and pour. High side of 93. Over about an hour the wine opened up nicely to reveal a comparatively full palate of fruits and was quite satisfying. It is not the greatest chardonnay I've ever had, but its relative richness without being heavy was a good complement for pretty robust food (South American). I would certainly enjoy this outside of dinner. Pricewise it comes in on the higher end of what I would pay for a wine of this quality level, but I did find it quite satisfying as someone who is a big believe in Sonoma chardonnay. Ma Douce is instantly recognizable as part of Sonoma school of unfiltered, unfined chardonnay.

4/26/2014 - edwilley3 wrote:

I'm hard pressed to call this 92 points, although given what else seems to pass for 91 or 92 points I think this is in the zone. Seriously disappointing for the money and the previously demonstrated skill level of Luc Morlet. Tastes disjointed, flavors are fleeting, and transitions are abrupt. It got worse with air, not better. It would be beaten in head to head by a DuMol without question. All things considered it's not better than the less expensive Ma Princesse and costs another $50. I'm really scratching my head on this one.

4/25/2014 - edwilley3 Likes this wine:

First go at an Art Series. Bought a bottle with dinner at the Fairmount in Dallas which has a noted wine list.

This is clearly a well made wine - enough oak to round out the palate, major minerality (wet stone), persistent finish, palate-coating, very even wine with a finish that clearly flows from the entry. My hat's off to the winemakers. That's the good. What's the bad? It tastes too green and herbal. I prefer riper chardonnay and don't like having to struggle to pick out the fruits. I'm not saying you can't find the fruit and floral elements in this wine. I'm just saying that they are not as obvious as I would expect from a warm climate wine and at this price point. For $75-80 (retail), I'll take a DuMol. In this case, I have to disagree with most of the official reviewers.

4/20/2014 - edwilley3 Likes this wine:

First Morlet of the 2012 vintage and first bottle of Ma Princesse I've sampled. I came away somewhat confused. Based on the provenance, I expected a more full bodied chard and, based on the 2012 Peter Michael La Carriere, something fatter and richer. This is comparatively lean and crisp, although people not accustomed to bigger scale California chards may still find it pretty forward and oaked. After an hour and change in the decanter it was frankly still zesty. I found myself wondering why Morlet didn't continue the malolactic fermentation to bring down the acid. This is a less full chardonnay experience than I've had with the lower level Ma Douce chard (previous vintage). After over 8 hours it had softened a bit, which was most welcome. However, it lacks the perfume, richness, and complexity I would expect from the man who made so many terrific vintages of chardonnay at Peter Michael; this Ma Princesse just didn't get beyond pretty, light tropical notes and a gentle lemon creaminess. I don't know this for certain, but if I'm honest, I think that Morlet was trying for something different here than I expected based on provenance. Give me the 2012 Peter Michael chards in the same price range (about $100), please. The 2012 La Carriere which I've had twice recently was just terrific.

4/15/2014 - edwilley3 wrote:

I would simply reference the Parker comments on this wine. It's definitely a bit unlike other PS bottlings I've tried. I loved the pure fruit nature of this wine; it really is reminiscent of a blueberry liqueur. Although it's a pretty big wine, I didn't think it was overdone in the least and to be sure it is not sweet (no additional residual sugar). They picked the grapes at precisely the right time. The oak level is just perfect to my palate, giving it roundness to balance against the appealing spiciness. In a way, this is a PS that has something for everyone, including both beginners (lovely fruit makes it accessible) and snobs (lovely balance, terrific purity of flavor). I expect this wine to improve 1-2 points with age. Congratulations to Biale for yet another excellent wine.

3/30/2014 - edwilley3 Likes this wine:

Second bottle in a couple months with a generally consistent score (91-92). This wine needs at least 5 hours of air to show its depth due to the sheer scale of the wine (fruit and alcohol). 8-10 would be my recommendation. Not my favorite of the Martinelli zins, yet this is a rewarding bottle with a large fruit bouquet and - provided it gets air - a certain grace. There are subtle spice notes for me, but this game is all about the broad fruit profile with medium intensity and a fairly long finish. Not jammy (Welch's), unlike the Rombauer tasted the same day. This doesn't play in the league of Turley, but it's a cut above some Ridge bottlings. Also, I didn't think that the alcohol was overwhelming after it was decanted. However, this is *not* a wine that should be drunk on a pop and pour basis. It would be overwhelming and not entirely harmonious, although frankly the nasty Rombauer zin (15.99%) tasted at the same time was more alcoholic in a side by side tasting. I've also had the 2005 Brogan zin with a similar alcohol level (about 17%) and I thought the same thing was true of it. Just don't pop and pour a big zinfandel.

3/31/2014 - edwilley3 Likes this wine:

This is an 88.5 for me. I accidentally purchased this instead of the 2012 vintage. Despite being a relatively old bottle, it's not past the drinking stage. Needed air to yield the residual fruit flavors, not unlike some French wines. An unfiltered wine, this picked up a dark gold color with age. Fruit had unmistakeably started to fade, but with a few hours in the decanter it showed a lovely lemon cream and pineapple on the palate; there was still some acid which made it fresh tasting on a warm day plus there was a lingering honey note on the nose (much more prominent in newer bottlings, though). To those who've tasted across California, this is unmistakeably Sonoma in style. Despite being an older bottle not stored in optimal conditions, I think that the unmistakeable quality of Fort Ross ensured that it still was a pleasant wine. Remember that Fort Ross is in the same general area (southwestern area of the AVA) as other well known wines such as Marcassin, Peter Michael (Seaview Vineyard), Flowers, etc. While these wines are not all equal in quality, there seems to be something very good happening in the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA.

3/30/2014 - edwilley3 Does not like this wine:

Bottle not flawed, just an unremarkable wine. I am used to drinking properly decanted Ridge, Martinelli and Turley zins (and even some Tobin James), so big fruit and alcohol aren't a deterent, especially when fully decanted. Yet this tastes like someone put Welch's grape jelly in a blender with some Everclear. All tasters (not coached) picked up bitterness on the finish and said it came across as hot. If you seriously think this is good wine, do yourself a favor and pick up a bottle of Ridge zinfandel for about the same price. You will find a massive difference in quality, complexity, and finesse. I have to take off my hat for Rombauer's marketing department, however, as they seem to be good at promoting their products no matter how inferior they really are.

3/29/2014 - edwilley3 Likes this wine:

This was my first Le Caprice. With a full day decant (8+ hours) this bottle was deeply flavorful but elegant and not heavy-handed. Alcohol weighs in about 15%, but it was not noticeable. Loads of spice on the back end pair with lavender and sweet vanilla. The fruits on the nose began with strawberry and developed a broad bouquet of red fruits with sweet toned florals woven through. However, there are still tannins and it does taste young. This wine has a long life ahead. I like it very much. Don't be afraid of this even though it's admittedly a large scale pinot - with a full decant event his youthful full bodied pinot is very rewarding. Note: The nose really bloomed after 9 hours. I highly recommend a serious decant if you are going to pop for this price point. If you don't want to make the effort, don't waste your money. I had the 2010 Calera Mills last weekend and let's just say that it tasted thin and dull in comparison to this with only a fraction of the floral and spice qualities. But that's about $50.

3/22/2014 - edwilley3 Does not like this wine:

There is literally nothing good about this wine. I left the partially consumed bottle in the Eurocave overnight. What was about an 80 point wine became a 60-something point wine that smelled like decaying fruits/veggies in the fridge and tasted like cardboard with a light jalapeno pepper on the finish. When it was popped initially I barely got fruit which quickly disappeared with almost no time in the glass. Tropical fruit? Butter? It was just wood and alcohol with only a hint of fruit and pepper...yes, pepper...on the finish. Seriously, unless this batch was an aberration, the 2012 Rombauer chard simply is not a wine worth buying at any price. If they could not make a great chard in 2012 - a terrific vintage - I don't have any hope for them. I would rather spend $35 on a Fort Ross chard, which really impressed me this week. If you really think that the Rombauer is great stuff, I highly recommend trying the 2012 Fort Ross to get an idea of what can be done with 2012 fruit, or perhaps reverting to Sutter Home. I also think that I must have dramatically different wine tastes.

3/22/2014 - edwilley3 Does not like this wine:

I'm not a PN fan and approached this from the perspective of wanting to try PNs considered to be very fine. The 96 point rating from Wine Advocate coupled with a $50-something price compelled me. I almost fell asleep drinking this and was tempted just to pour it out. It got worse with air. The nose had some nice notes (although I'm not a huge fan of menthol and musty wood) but the palate collapsed quickly and the finish was short and a little sour. Look, this is thin, insipid wine with a few nice aspects on the nose fighting against some funky notes. You can tell me all you want about the nuances and subtlety, but if I have to work this hard to enjoy a wine that, after all, is thin (not voluptuous), non-linear (disjointed as opposed to seamless), and low in aromatics, I just don't see the excitement. I'm being quite generous at 87 points. Why should we make excuses for thin, dull wine simply because it's PN?

3/10/2014 - edwilley3 Likes this wine:

Let me start by saying that I detest SBs dominated by grapefruit and cat pee. I recently tried the quite expensive 2012 Arietta "On the White Keys" and was very disappointed. The tropical fruit-dominated Jonata Flor is much better than most and I would have no problem drinking lots of that. But as others have noted, L'Apres-Midi is unlike any California or New Zealand SB I have sampled and to be honest might fool some people into thinking it's not an SB. This has a lot of the perfume of Peter Michael's fabled chardonnays and probably almost as much oak. Yes, I got some grapefruit on the nose, but it goes beyond that with some of PM's traditional chardonnay fruit notes (lychee, etc.), although there is no creaminess. This 2010 was decanted over 8 hours. There is enough packed into this bottle to make a long decant helpful. L'Apres-Midi is filtered unlike their chardonnays, but it still has a relatively high intensity, which is characteristic of Peter Michael. Is this lush, oaked, and fragrant SB for everyone? Probably not. If someone really enjoys the lighter, grapefruit-intensive style of SB, then they absolutely should look elsewhere. However, for people who claim not to like SB because it's simple and grapefruity, L'Apres-Midi is a fine choice. It's also cheaper than the PM chardonnays.

2/28/2014 - edwilley3 Likes this wine:

Decanted 12 hours and drunk room temperature. Magnificent wine with impressive depth of flavor, long finish, and a remarkable freshness for a wine now dating from 2007. Consumed blind, I'm sure that a person would think it was younger than its stated age. I won't give it a 100 score simply because it is certain to get a bit deeper as it evolves in the cellar, but this is clearly at the pinnacle of California chardonnay and makes a strong case for being among the very, very best chards produced anywhere. It's difficult to describe how fully saturated the bouquet and mid-palate are and the the structure is entirely seamless with a beautiful balance between decadence and elegance.

2/16/2014 - edwilley3 Likes this wine:

Is there an 'I love it' button? I need to start and to end this with one word of advice: Decant. Seriously. I'm not quite at Parker's 98 points. The group of 3 - all of us quite experienced wine drinkers - gave this a 96+ with the expectation of getting to a 97 without a problem. This rating is based on a 10 hour decant, which showed a surprisingly fragrant bouquet bursting with violet and a combo of delicious berries. Really compelling palate and nose here and not what we expected from a Foley. The over 15% alcohol level didn't overwhelm this wine after decanting, although candidly it was big and alcoholic when I first opened it and my rating then would have been nothing like a 96/97. If I didn't know better, I would have thought it could be the L'Esprit version of Peter Michael's benchmark Les Pavots Bordeaux-style blend, as PM wines are characterized by a pronounced violet on the nose. Appealing notes of tar, licorice, and graphite ground the this admittedly fruit driven wine and some chocolate and a big dollop of tactile sweetness (especially after hour 10...it was relatively hedonistic) add to the succulent mix. This wine have, overall, a super lush profile with surprising finesse and a big time finish, provided that one decants properly. In short, to me anyway, this tastes more like Sonoma than Napa and I would have thought it was simply not 100% cabernet. Clearly the cab grapes in this wine are of truly exceptional quality to be able to achieve this level of complexity without some extra varietal assistance. We all thought that it merited many more years of careful cellaring and expect it to age effortlessly another 10-15 years. This goes against the advice of one early professional reviewer who advised drinking by 2017. It's my opinion that anyone who didn't find this to be a mid-90s or higher wine has not afforded it sufficient time in a decanter or simply has a bad bottle. I am tempted to say that this wine may end up better than the blockbuster 2002 Verite La Joie. For $129, this wine actually turns out to be a pretty good deal. If you can't hold off drinking it, be sure to do a decant of at least 8 hours and preferably 10+. Your patience will be greatly rewarded. I have to admit to thinking going in that I would find it good but not great, but I am going to eat my words. That's ok. I can deal with that as long as I get to drink another.

1/31/2014 - edwilley3 wrote:

I wanted to revisit this wine after not having it for a year. I believe that the bottle I had was a 2011. I did enjoy the old White Star, but my preference was the Imperial. Now that WS is gone, I still believe that Imperial is a great classically proportioned NV that is frankly a benchmack wine in the Champagne sector. Recently attended a large scale Champagne tasting and came away thinking that at all price points Moet has Veuve and Roederer beat, at least currently. (I keep hoping that VC will restore their quality.) This NV lacks the finesse of the vintage Moet bottles (very good, in my view, and a strong value), but it is reasonably complex, moderately intense bubbly with candied fruit notes, maybe some lychee, and moderate creaminess but still a distinct freshness and clarity. Instantly recognizable as a Moet product. This is not for the crowd who like straightforward lemony or apple-y bubblies, which do have their place, too. Works well as an aperitif but it also good with a range of appetizers and would pair well with some fish preparations. Overall this continues to be a satisfying drink and is an excellent buy if you can get it for $35 or so. At $40 it's more than fair.

2/1/2014 - edwilley3 wrote:

Rating this a 91 without a decant and not in an optimal glass; with a little decanting and a better glass it easly could have earned a higher score, although it is not a "classic" wine. Paul Hobbs allowed the fruit to ripen nicely for this wine. Major league notes of honeysuckle lept out of the glass. The midpalate was not as expressive as I guessed based only on the nose, but overall this is an elegant Sonoma chardonnay in a moderately intense style. Moderate, graceful finish followed a candied pear-esque palate that had a lovely tactile sweetness although not a huge depth, i.e. it didn't really have a huge range of secondary flavors. (I didn't take notes, so I don't have the complete description.) Consumed with Mediterranean food and it played reasonably well with the cold items. I think that with my typical white wine glass (a crystal mid-sized Beaujolais glass that helps to focus the nose) this would have been in the 93 range. Blows away the revolting Patz and Hall I had last week which was $10 more. If you tend to like Sonoma chardonnay, this is a good choice in the affordable range (being half the price of a big boy Sonoma chardonnay like Aubert). If you like steely, racy whites, avoid this.

2/1/2014 - edwilley3 Likes this wine:

This is another wine where I don't detect all the alcohol of which others complain. Perhaps I am too used to drinking single malts neat as well as Cognac and Armagnac. Anyway, this was a pop and...air, the circumstances not supporting my usual longer decanting. My companion and I drank a chardonnay first while allowing this pinot to air in glass and bottle. On the open it was dense, sweet (not necessarily sugary, but a fruit sweetness), and jammed with cooked fruits among other things. I tried to leave it alone. With another hour and switching to only a mid-sized glass (restaurant's options were poor) the potential of the wine showed. These big Sonoma wines **must** be given time to breathe. If you decant this wine, you should be able to find both that unctuous Turley midpalate (remember who set up the Martinelli program a decade ago) that still manages to seem focused along with a pretty nose, with moderately high intensity and a moderately long finish. This wine started to become broad, rich, and supple, with the fruit and alcohol balancing nicely. On the palate we have a range of black fruits, including some delicious blackberry, with some licorice. This is no cherry bomb and would stand up well to highly seasoned food. If you are not patient enough to decant, I would recommend buying a less intense wine. If you doubt me, I would ask you to try decanting one of these Martinellis (any varietal) for at least 5 hours just once, being sure to taste at the beginning. I drink a variety of wines, but the two rules I follow religiously are: (a) Don't drink whites and Champagnes too cold; and (b) decant all the more intense wines - whether Bordeaux or Super Tuscans or Sonoma - for 3+ hours, and ideally 5 or more, with 8 being helpful on the biggest examples.

1/25/2014 - edwilley3 wrote:

On the open I enjoyed the nose, but found the palate somewhat disappointing. The finish was quite short and the transition from mid-palate to finish was quick and a shock with a certain sourness. Not a seamless wine at all and the nose and palate were not consistent. However, it was not bad. Yet with some decanting it worsened greatly; the finish became sour...and something else I cannot pin down. I would have been fine with it before it turned, even if not really excited. Oak? Not really much going on here in that department. Fruit was not particularly compelling, either. If anything, I'd say that the fruit was underripe (not just a sugar issue...a lack of maturity) and they didn't get the right acid balance. Not a wine capable of aging at all and don't bother decanting if you want it to be a pleasant drink. This is a rip off at 60 bucks. For the same money you can buy a Martinelli Zio Tony which does NOT have a nasty finish and shows serious focus and intensity. I'm struggling to see how anyone could find this wine "well made". One of the worst chardonnays I've had in the last 12 months. The nose probably fools people, but ultimately doesn't make it a good wine.

12/30/2013 - edwilley3 wrote:

2nd bottle in December 2013. Both were very enjoyable wines, being rich and complex but also highly approachable at what is a very young age for a giant Bordeaux blend from Sonoma. Sinuous, velvety chocolate and blueberry on the palate with beautiful violet and other floral tones on the nose. In the glass it opened up in 10 minutes to show a gorgeous nose jammed with fruits and sweet spiciness. As always, this had a full daytime decant, which is my norm for all blockbuster wines and de rigeur for big Sonoma reds. This is very drinkable now but of course will improve with age.

1/10/2014 - edwilley3 wrote:

I struggle to give this a firm rating now, as in my view this is nowhere near ready for drinking, especially in comparison to the succulent, approachable 2008. This is an enormous, complex wine that showed - after 10+ hours of decanting - a lot of potential. Hallmark notes of violet, blueberry, mocha, etc. were easy to pick out. If you must drink this now, please for the love of Dionysus do not "pop and pour". I recommend another 5+ years of aging. I would not be surprised if this is a 25+ year wine. I'm giving this a 97 as the top of the Excellent range. With time and serious decanting I expect it to be 98+.

1/12/2014 - edwilley3 Does not like this wine:

I'm giving this a 75 to indicate that it is *not* "good". In fact, there was almost no fruit on the palate; the acid and tannins completely dominated it. The nose was a little better than the palate with hints of plum, but that hardly makes a difference when the wine tastes more like watered down young red wine vinegar than anything else. Extremely disappointing wine. This was not obviously a flawed bottle - it just tasted like it was awful from the get go. I would guess that the fruit was seriously underipe, as the wine wasn't high in alcohol either. My mother told me it was the worst wine I had ever poured for her, beating out cheap Hungarian wine. Not kidding, folks. Are other bottles better? I really don't know. However, I have to advise others not to waste their money. If it had been a flawed bottle, I could have taken it back to the store. Sadly, I just got taken for $27. It's the only wine I've ever had in response to which I felt like writing the winery to chastise them for releasing a really terrible product under the guise of a good name. I'm still trying to understand how anyone could give this an 80+ rating.

12/21/2013 - edwilley3 Likes this wine:

I do not understand the negative remarks about this wine, especially the comments from the likes of Meadows. This was my first ever Marcassin pinot noir, sampled just to see what the hype was about. As a major league pinot skeptic, I was prepared to find the wine overhyped, overblown, and not worth the money. I was dead wrong on all three counts. With a full daytime decant (which is the norm for me on blockbuster reds and whites) this pinot was surprising in every way. A stunning concentration of fruit on the nose was combined with a huge wave of perfume coming out of the glass. I will add that a mid-sized Riedel "Overture" red glass was used. I tried a few different glasses and discovered that the taller glass with greater air space over the liquid brought out the most perfume; I would not use a balloon-shaped glass of any kind for this wine. That's food for thought and is consistent with my experiments on spirits glassware as well. Going back to the wine, the nose showed an array of florals including beautiful rose notes and sweet spiciness. The alcohol level was totally unremarkable, i.e. I didn't note the alcohol at all. I wouldn't say that it was sweet per se, but the lusciousness of the fruit gave it a "sweet" flavor appropriate to the really beautiful and complex palate of red fruits. Also, I would not call the wine "thin", but it did have a surprisingly light, finessed mouth feel, while not lacking concentration of flavor. This is something that I specifically appreciate about really well made wines, i.e. with a proper decant they become satisfyingly complex and intense but still approachable and elegant in the mouth. In sum, I was shocked to come to the conclusion that the wine was worth the money. I will admit quite freely that this tastes nothing like a French Burgundy or, say, PacNorthwest pinot. However, I don't consider this a negative at all. These are clearly very well farmed grapes and, at least in the bottle I drank, very well handled as far as the final product is concerned. I look forward to trying more and do hope that I won't end up disappointed like the others here.

12/7/2013 - edwilley3 Likes this wine:

Not as good as the 2001 vintage, but my second relatively recent bottle of this 2003 was still good and had evolved quite a bit over the last year. I am not sure that it really needs a lot more bottle time, which I actually thought it did last year. Big decant needed on this wine - don't drink it without a couple of hours at least and if you can give it more. The nose on this particular bottle is more robust than I recalled and I could swear that the finish is "savory" with more than a hint of salinity and minerality. Figs are prominent on the nose. A moderate palate and finish keep it from being great. Still, it's a tasty bottle that would pair well with meats.

9/2/2013 - edwilley3 wrote:

From a 750ml with evidence of minor seepage, although cork was 85% and holding quite well. I'm not sure exactly what happened, but the high quality cork saved this wine as it was not corked at all. Perhaps excessive heat in transport? (I live in Texas after all.) Excellent fill level considering it was not cellar stored. On the open it was massive, broad-shouldered, fairly tannic, earthy, full of licorice and tobacco, and not unlike a big, powerful Bordeaux or, say, the 2004 Peter Michael Les Pavots which is pretty far on the muscular end of California wine. Time for major decanting, folks - I was glad that I opened it around lunch. Drank half the bottle after 8 hours in decanter and it was starting to show the fruit and finesse that I was hoping to find, but it still wasn't where I wanted it to be. At 11 PM the slightly more than half full bottle was recorked and put back in the Eurocave to slumber overnight. The next day around 1 PM I uncorked it again. Wow! Supple fruit, lovely mouthfeel (not heavy at all), and great balance were the reward for my patience. My mother and friends loved it. I loved it. In my view, many drinkers do not properly decant these huge wines (Saxum, PM Les Pavots, Verite, big zins, etc.). If you are going to drink this wine at all, I would recommend committing to at least 8 hours of decanting. I have one more to drink for Christmas and can hardly wait.

12/3/2013 - edwilley3 wrote:

From magnum with decent cork and high fill. No obvious bottle problems and not corked or spoiled, but stored upright in a continuously 70-something degree room. This wine had lost its body and vivacity, tasting something like an amarone. Remaining flavors were pleasant so we suspected that cellared bottle would have done much better. It was hardly unpleasant, but overall didn't meet expectations.

12/3/2013 - edwilley3 Likes this wine:

A mature shiraz, this Dead Arm has big jam going on and - to my palate -only moderate depth. We didn't decant properly, so it may have developed more secondary flavors with another hour of air. Nonetheless it's friendly, fruity, integrated, and overall a very easy drinking shiraz. I can't imagine waiting longer to drink this wine as it lacks the structure to evolve much further. Drink up!

12/1/2013 - edwilley3 wrote:

I'm probably being too generous with a rating of 83. This cellared 1998 was not corked and two of us who are huge fans of DSD Gigondas were excited to try it. Sadly, it had developed a strong metallic edge and was like Swiss cheese on the palate, i.e. it had some decent flavors coming up for air (simple fruits) but overall it was toast. If you have any and your bottles are drinking decently, drink up...yesterday...lest they go the way of this bottle. This baby is gone. Thankfully I can drink more of the 2010 to remind me just how good the Prestige bottle is.

12/1/2013 - edwilley3 Does not like this wine:

Strange vegetal funk on the nose that became more of an Italian cheese as it got some air. No obvious physical flaw on this bottle, but there could have been a problem with it at the beginning. Or it could be an issue with the oak demi-muids that they use. Palate was aperitif-esque with basic citrus notes and I wouldn't have guessed that the pinot noir proportion is about 3/4. If you like PN-heavy NV champ with a measure of reserve wine/character, Charles Heidsieck Brut Reserve and Duval Leroy Brut (nearly identical proportion) are much, much better. The Morlet sons make terrific wine in California and I really wanted to like this. I just can't see my way to it. I will try once more from a different year/batch to see if it can be redeemed. If Nicolas made a sparkler from the chardonnay that goes into some of the Peter Michael whites it would blow away this Grande Reserve.

9/29/2013 - edwilley3 Likes this wine:

Decanted an hour before the initial sip and drunk over the next 2.5 hours. Good with an hour of air but really came alive with huge aromatics by the end. Roses and violets especially. Lovely red fruits still present, although not as full as the 1996. I was quite impressed. If we had not preserved some to sample at the end, I would not have believed the nose was from the same wine. Tannins completely resolved though so no need to keep further. Drink up, but give it plenty of air first.

9/29/2013 - edwilley3 Likes this wine:

From a bottle with a totally disintegrating cork in a friend's collection; we feared it was gone. On the open it was unyielding, woody, and reminiscent of very old tobacco. After 1.5 hours it started to open up. Nose still a little woody, but tasted sweet fruit on the palate with a light weight. We gave it another 15 minutes and some swirling to unlock it further. WOW. Black truffle and forest emerged. Then another 15-20 minutes into airing the wine balanced out and became very good. Powerful but balanced, earthy, layered - it's exactly what I'd want. Yes, the fruit had faded to the point where I couldn't give it a mid 90s rating. However, with the right amount of air and despite a challenging cork, we thought that this off vintage Latour was very much worth drinking. The trouble most likely is that finding an appropriately preserved '77 Bordeaux is not easy.

8/23/2013 - edwilley3 Does not like this wine:

Second tasting of the 1991 in about 6 months. Previous bottle was lovely after several hours of decanting with delicious, delicate fruits and an easy quality that was very appealling. This bottle - with a high fill and no cork issues - had all the structure I expected (tannins, tar, minerals) but tasted flat. Not corked or cooked, but flat. Fruit mostly gone. If you get some that's been well preserved, has a good cork, and is a "good" version, you will enjoy it (89-90 pts), but I suspect that bottle variation makes this a crap shoot. I guess that's the way things work with lovers of mature wines.

8/5/2013 - edwilley3 Likes this wine:

Honestly I could not quite believe the Parker rating. I still didn't when I opened it. After 2 hours I did believe it. If you taste it in less than 30 minutes it may come across as a little too simple and fruit forward for all the hype. But there is a surprising amount of complexity lurking in this bottle. With air you will get spices, cedar and/or sandalwood, hints of leather, and abundant cherries, with a relatively full mouth feel and a moderate finish. Totally enjoyable. Before the air it seemed thinner and less complex. Yes, it's young, but don't fail to decant. Paid $37.99 in Dallas. It's going on my list of "best value" bottles, which includes Domaine Santa Duc "Cuvee Tradition" Gigondas and the Saint Cosmes Gigondas.

7/14/2013 - edwilley3 Does not like this wine:

Bought from my friend's store, where it was always kept in the cellar. Fruit was nearly completely faded, leaving the "skeleton" of syrah but without the "meat" (really fruit) I was expecting. The 1994 I had from the same cellar several months ago was much, much better with a delicious, elegant balance of fruit and structure. Big disappointment and a real waste of money even at a discounted price of $82. Bottle condition: Flawless cork, relatively high fill, no leakage.

5/3/2013 - edwilley3 wrote:

Bottle drunk at Hillstone (aka Houston's) on Preston in Dallas, which has a great if relatively small wine list for comparatively good prices. This bottle was $98 whereas it's $88 at my local Spec's. On opening, this 2008 is a pretty big wine, but the alcohol doesn't dominate (unlike somehighly extracted zin). As others noted, this wine is mostly about fruit. However, after some time, it begin to show more complexity - some earth (although not a lot), a little more tobacco, some meatiness, and those tannins that give it a bit more weight. I know it's a bit too fruit forward for some, but I felt compelled by the richness and texture of this wine. It's downright decadent and masculine, not unlike some other 2008 Napa Valley cabs I've tasted. On pure technical criteria - prior to aging - I'm inclined to call this 93. But honestly I find it to be too enjoyable and to have too much aging potential not to award it another point.

12/22/2011 - edwilley3 wrote:

Grand cru rose...luscious style...super drinkable...under $100. Love it. In fact, I really enjoy the entry level white version, too. I get big, ripe blood orange on the nose. Palate follows with a lips-smacking red fruit and natural seeming sweetness (in the way of fresh fruit juice). This is an honest, well made wine that's 100% about the fruit. It should appeal to the American palate. If you are looking for an elegant, toasty Champagne with nuts, graceful honey, creaminess, and a citrus backbone, this is just not the bottle for you. If you like your rose bubbly fruit-forward and luscious, buy it. I can see some people giving it a 93.

12/26/2012 - edwilley3 wrote:

Love it? No. Like it quite a bit? Yes. I drink a variety of bubbly, typically favoring vintage bottles with some cellar aging, but also enjoying more straightforward lighter styles. I had the most recent bottle of this on Boxing Day and will follow up later this week with Vilmart Cuvee Rubis while my mind is fresh. Best description I can give is elegant and dry, with that typical BS lightness (and mineral!) and good acid-fruit balance. Would prefer a bit of toast to round it out, but that's not the mission of this wine. Best to drink a little on the warm side, as flavors are easily masked if too cold. Definitely food-friendly. Having had some exceptional bottles recently, I just can't give this more than 91, but I really feel it goes past 90.

12/5/2012 - edwilley3 Likes this wine:

Give this a little time in a decanter (or glass if you are not able to decant) and you will be rewarded with a fruity merlot with reasonably well integrated jammy notes and a lovely sweet nose. This is a great wine to pair with food. Bell's merlot varietal bottles tend to have some life to them, so I would recommend holding back a few to revisit in half a decade.

11/25/2012 - edwilley3 wrote:

Picked up a 1998 in a clearance aisle at a clearance outlet of a chain in Texas over Thanksgiving. For $37.99 and given the location, I had really low expectations. The last 1996 I had was fading really fast and that was a couple of years ago. Again...lowered expectations. Boy was I wrong. Beautiful balance of fruits and bread. I didn't have a chance to make notes, but I remember get a nice combination of apple (I was NOT thinking sour green apples) and a bit of pear with a really nice touch of sweetness to round out the palate. Really sort of a playful nose. Juicy bubbly with an elegant side and a playful side. This is a wine that could win over your snobby guests and equally please the philistines. Solid quantity of bubbles remaining. I plan to pick up more. As noted in my La Grand Dame review, I drank out of what I think are inferior glasses, so I am sure that I missed something. Giving this bottle a 93 and hoping that the others were similarly well kept.