12/31/2008 - messiahmoose wrote:

I was looking for more from my first real Champagne. Very very dry, which I liked, but I was looking for more flavor.

10/21/2008 - messiahmoose wrote:

A little lighter than I remember.

7/3/2008 - messiahmoose wrote:

I definitely got some of the funkiness that has been mentioned, and it absolutely put me off at first. Wine ended up being good, but unsure of the value.

6/4/2008 - messiahmoose wrote:

Not an enormous fan. Sort of a vegetable component on the nose for me, and a tarty taste. Definitely interested to see was a true Musar could bring.

5/28/2008 - messiahmoose wrote:

The wine itself was not overly-tannic as you might expect from a wine called Tannat. Noticeable oak, but notice I didn't say "over"-oaked. Good and interesting fruit. I got it for $15, it is probably offered cheaper in store, which makes this a great buy.

5/16/2008 - messiahmoose wrote:

Very serviceable. The blend is 60% Sangiovese and 40% Montepulciano. Smooth and quaffable.

5/14/2008 - messiahmoose wrote:

This was not very good... sort of funky on the nose and awkward on the palate, only got worse.

5/4/2008 - messiahmoose wrote:

This wine was a pleasure to come back to and I'm sorry we don't have more.

5/3/2008 - messiahmoose wrote:

I couldn't get past the oak and did not enjoy as much as others have indicated. Hoping it will have expanded for the 2nd night.

4/28/2008 - messiahmoose wrote:

Decent and okay. Sort of had a mediciney Pledge-like hint to it that we really couldn't place. Okay quaffer, nothing special, forgettable.

4/21/2008 - messiahmoose wrote:

Decent but did not blow me away. Would be interested to try other offering by the producers.

4/22/2008 - messiahmoose wrote:

The Villanyi Zweigelt was a bit musty I thought, but balanced and good. I'm unsure whether I would buy this wine again, but I would absolutely include it in a lineup of a few zweigelts, perhaps getting a better sense of the grape.

4/20/2008 - messiahmoose wrote:

Very fruit forward. Not overly oaked though a hint is present. Smooth tannics. Would absolutely purchase again for the price I paid ($15) though undoudtedly you'd be able to find it for less.

4/15/2008 - messiahmoose wrote:

Better than last time, smoothed out a bit, but for $20 you can easily find MUCH better wines in many many varieties. Recently had a Greek Xinomavro/Merlot and a Rosso di Montalcino both for about $15 that were heads and shoulders above this wine.

4/13/2008 - messiahmoose wrote:

Very tannic, not a lot of fruit. Good value if a deal is found. Curious as to what a 100% Xinomavro would be like.

4/1/2008 - messiahmoose wrote:

Although I am mostly a red drinking, I do drink the occasional white for palate's sake, and I do enjoy. This wine was good, with notes of pears and as my wife said "white grape juice". Can't say she's wrong. This wine was VERY fruit forward, not dry at all. This was a wine from the Garden State Wine Club that I was supposed to return, but they were supposed to tell me when to put the wine on my front porch and never did. I'll chalk it up to customer service so we popped it when we needed some cooking wine. Anyway, I wouldn't pay $15 for a Pinot Grigio usually, and I wouldn't pay $15 for this wine, but that's just my normal purchasing habits. If you drink Pinot Grigio and always buy the same stuff, try this, it's tasty.

3/17/2008 - messiahmoose wrote:

Holy sweetness!! I loved it, but I love the sweet stuff. The raspberry actually took a back seat to the honey, which was beautiful.

3/25/2008 - messiahmoose wrote:

Obvious vanilla notes on the nose, very nice, along with red fruit. Taste is simpler and bit a more alcoholic, will probably smooth out with some time. Good wine and a good value.

3/18/2008 - messiahmoose wrote:

Not as dry as I thought it was going to be, but this wine was tasty and pretty complex A good value.

3/20/2008 - messiahmoose wrote:

Apples and pears on the nose. Folks drinking PG will definitely enjoy it. Comparable and a good value.

3/17/2008 - messiahmoose wrote:

Hints of old world charm, but overall pretty closed and simple to me. Light on the palate. Tasty, maybe more expressive after laying down for a couple years?

3/14/2008 - messiahmoose wrote:

Decant, lots of sediment. Excellent. Really good fruit not a lot of oak. Smooth drinking worth every penny.

3/13/2008 - messiahmoose wrote:

Strong vegetal characteristics, it reminded me of asparagus. Color was light, which according to GV is a good thing in Pinot Noirs and I agree. This wine was different and not a flavorful explosion. Oregon Pinots are expensive and at $20 this was certainly no steal. On the second day there is much more fruit... so this will probably do well with some time.

3/11/2008 - messiahmoose wrote:

Unsure if it was worth the price of admission. Was smooth and easy-drinking.

3/9/2008 - messiahmoose wrote:

Color: Almost fake-looking, a beautiful ruby-like purple. Flavor, very fruit forward with lots of oak in balance. Screw-top. A decent value for fans of this sort of thing.

3/5/2008 - messiahmoose wrote:

Very dry, not really worth $20 to me.Much more needs to be going on.

3/3/2008 - messiahmoose wrote:

Really opened up the 2nd day. A value but I wasn't blown away. I think it will definitely improve over the next few years.

2/29/2008 - messiahmoose wrote:

An excellent value. A nice alternative to people used to drinking inexpensive chianti or montepuliano d'abruzzo.

2/27/2008 - messiahmoose wrote:

Very fruit forward with more than a hint of oak. My wife thought it overpowered but I didn't think so. Folks who are scared of oak should not purchase otherwise it was very good.

2/26/2008 - messiahmoose wrote:

This wine was tasty for the price. I received this wine [2 of them] from the Garden State Wine Club and have heard of the wine discussed on the WLTV forums so was excited to try it. For example, in a thread on the "perfect $100 case" this wine came up many times. I must say I was not overly impressed, though the wine is good. I couldn't get past the oak on the palate and had trouble picking up any other flavors [this will probably chance upon tasting on the 2nd night tonight]. The nose was better, noticeable fruit and what reminded me of a woody basement, sort of a musty smell, NOT unpleasant, that may have been what is referred to as leathery. Like I said the wine is good and I recommend it to people not afraid of oak, it's just not my style.

2/24/2008 - messiahmoose wrote:

An excellent wine, bringing back what I loved about some early zinfandels I've had and was worried were the exception after a couple of average offerings [Starfire, Amazin]. Definite cherry notes and what could possibly be light light currant though probably not. Definitely fruit forward, a bit acoholic but no overly. Like I said, excellent. Some time will probably smooth it out.

2/18/2008 - messiahmoose wrote:

Not really sure about this one, all I could taste was the alcohol.

1/18/2008 - messiahmoose wrote:

Holy sediment, Batman!! No lie there was about a tablespoon of GUNK in the bottle, not to mention the cloudiness of the wine itself. That said, the wine was decent and actually very very good. A bit alcoholic on the nose and pallette, light in flavour but very quaffable. Will lay my other down for at least several weeks to get the sediment taken care of, and will definitely decant it.

2/13/2008 - messiahmoose wrote:

Bottle stored poorly, like the rest of the bottles given to me a month or so ago. This bottle held up the best, though, which is saying something.

2/13/2008 - messiahmoose wrote:

Using for cooking, but tasted. Had some serious soy sauce notes. Drinkable, but it's really for cooking. Intriguing in that it makes me want to try some good sherry.

2/13/2008 - messiahmoose wrote:

Stored poorly buy giver.

1/22/2008 - messiahmoose wrote:

Sort of a gasoline smell [not a bad thing, might have been imagining it]. Taste is sweet, dried apricots.

2/9/2008 - messiahmoose wrote:

Has quite a kick, which isn't a good thing. Smell is excellent, taste... not so much. Definitely not worth the $20, to me, anyway.

1/27/2008 - messiahmoose wrote:

The other reviews are right on point. Upon opening was a bit alcoholic on the nose and pallett. Opened up a bit but for me nothing more than a decent and inexpensive quaffer. Have had more interesting Bourdeaux at this price point.

1/21/2008 - messiahmoose wrote:

Fruit forward and excellent. Heads and shoulders above the mass-marketed Australians shirazes money-challenged wine drinkers like myself are used to. Strong dark fruit but nowhere near overpowering.

1/21/2008 - messiahmoose wrote:

Not fruit forward, sort of had a bourdeaux quality without any of the stinkiness [NTTAWWT]. Overall a good value and I'm looking forward to getting into my others a bit more thoroughly.

1/18/2008 - messiahmoose wrote:

Holy sediment, Batman!! No lie there was about a tablespoon of GUNK in the bottle, not to mention the cloudiness of the wine itself. That said, the wine was decent. A bit alcoholic on the nose and pallette, light in flavour but very quaffable. Will lay my other down for at least several weeks to get the sediment taken care of, and will definitely decant it.

1/14/2008 - messiahmoose wrote:

Funkiness to it that probably resulted from poor storage. That said the wine was light but good, and if stored properly would probably have warranted some good drinking.

1/16/2008 - messiahmoose wrote:

Another case of a wine not stored properly. Nothing WRONG with the wine but there is a funky hint to it that could be oxidization. Marking as flawed because I think the wine would be good otherwise... I get that impression.

1/12/2008 - messiahmoose wrote:

Hint of oak, very good value. Pleased.

1/9/2008 - messiahmoose wrote:

This wine is likely way past its drink date, received free from someone who likely didn't store it well. Had a distinct "grapey" smell and taste, along with a nose of something like ammonia. Drinkable, but not good. If anything it's a valuable lesson in what happens to an old cheap wine.

1/7/2008 - messiahmoose wrote:

Received this wine free in a bundle someone was getting rid of. Opened more for the experience than actually enjoying it. On the nose, possible peachy notes and something else that's not altogether appealing. This wine is completely oversugarfied, even moreso than most. The wine leaves an unpleasant aftertaste that my tongue got mad at me for... rub the back of your tongue with some sandpaper and that's kind of the damage my pallette suffered. I would not visit this winery, nor would I buy this wine at any price, nor would I open the bottle if given to me for free, right down the drain. In full disclosure it is probably an old bottle that was not cared for properly, but I did not catch evidence of oxidizing, unless sucking is evidence.

1/5/2008 - messiahmoose wrote:

I got black fruit on the nose, a bit alcoholic on the pallette. Decent.

12/26/2007 - messiahmoose wrote:

Surprisingly drinkable considering the Merlot made my nose squinch. It was a gift and therefore free... and therefore worth the price I paid. Hehe.

12/26/2007 - messiahmoose wrote:

Blech.