3/7/2020 - JRDillon wrote:

I am a huge Big Basin fan, and this wine doesn't really fit the portfolio. Meh. Cariignane makes for an excellent blending grape. Probably best not to leave it at that.

12/31/2019 - JRDillon wrote:

Wanted a 2000 Bordeaux to drink on the turn of the decade eve, so I selected this. It was really terrific even after 18 years in my cellar. A bright, tingly palette of abundant fruit. Not very weighty, but a nice balance of all the good stuff. Absolutely delicious. Very nicely done.

4/8/2018 - JRDillon Likes this wine:

I have been critical of what has happened to Pride over the last 10 years. Pretty much since Foley left, I've felt the cabernet has not been up to par. But this vintage gets them back on track. This is a delicious, succulent wine and I enjoyed it very much. More like this please.

12/4/2017 - JRDillon wrote:

This was my third and final bottle of this wine, and it was unquestionably the best. If this is Alban's cheap stuff, I can't imagine what the good stuff tastes like. Gorgeous example of Cali syrah.

11/23/2017 - JRDillon Likes this wine:

For Thanksgiving dinner I decided to open my three oldest bottles of Pegau, a 2001, a 2003 and a 2004. All three were excellent choices for a massive turkey and dressing meal with sweet potatoes, green-bean casserole with bacon, and numerous other food choices. All three vintages were in very different phases. The 2001, unfortunately, had moved well past its prime and definitely had a muted quality that despite three hours of decant would not allow the primary flavors that were so present in its youth to emerge. It was still delicious in its subtle way, but disappointing in that it had faded so far. Hints of fruit and terroir clearly were hiding in there somewhere, but overall there was very little, if any, tannic structure left. Nevertheless, two of the women in our party cited this wine as their favorite of the three. Even so, if you still have any of these, I highly recommend drinking up as soon as possible. The 2003 was the winner, imo, and was still singing with a delicious fruity tartness and gobs of earthy, barnyard terroir. This one, like the 2001, had dropped a weight class even though the decline was not nearly as pronounced. I just remember this wine at the five-year mark being one of the greatest wines I have ever tasted, but, despite its complex brilliance, this particular bottle did not come close to replicating that experience. That it shone above the others was not a surprise considering the high marks this vintage received. Moving on to the 2004, I found this one to be a bit clipped, with less depth and complexity, though still in fine shape and carrying a healthy weight. This vintage just does not stack up with the other two, and even at its peak was a substandard representation of Pegau, imo. I don't want to convey that these wines were not delicious; they all were, and most importantly, all three were a perfect complement to the outstanding meal. But none of them reached the sublime level I have experienced so many times in the past with Pegau and have almost come to expect. Thankfully, these were not the only bottles of these vintages I have owned, so I have tasted all three at much younger ages. To be honest, I have not had much luck with aged wines (10+ years) of any kind lately, and I am becoming more and more of a proponent of drinking them early, or earlier anyway. Whether Bordeaux, Cali cabs, or CDPs, I am finding the five-year mark to be a sweet spot for maximum enjoyment as a general rule, but feel free to disagree.

11/23/2017 - JRDillon Likes this wine:

For Thanksgiving dinner I decided to open my three oldest bottles of Pegau, a 2001, a 2003 and a 2004. All three were excellent choices for a massive turkey and dressing meal with sweet potatoes, green-bean casserole with bacon, and numerous other food choices. All three vintages were in very different phases. The 2001, unfortunately, had moved well past its prime and definitely had a muted quality that despite three hours of decant would not allow the primary flavors that were so present in its youth to emerge. It was still delicious in its subtle way, but disappointing in that it had faded so far. Hints of fruit and terroir clearly were hiding in there somewhere, but overall there was very little, if any, tannic structure left. Nevertheless, two of the women in our party cited this wine as their favorite of the three. Even so, if you still have any of these, I highly recommend drinking up as soon as possible. The 2003 was the winner, imo, and was still singing with a delicious fruity tartness and gobs of earthy, barnyard terroir. This one, like the 2001, had dropped a weight class even though the decline was not nearly as pronounced. I just remember this wine at the five-year mark being one of the greatest wines I have ever tasted, but, despite its complex brilliance, this particular bottle did not come close to replicating that experience. That it shone above the others was not a surprise considering the high marks this vintage received. Moving on to the 2004, I found this one to be a bit clipped, with less depth and complexity, though still in fine shape and carrying a healthy weight. This vintage just does not stack up with the other two, and even at its peak was a substandard representation of Pegau, imo. I don't want to convey that these wines were not delicious; they all were, and most importantly, all three were a perfect complement to the outstanding meal. But none of them reached the sublime level I have experienced so many times in the past with Pegau and have almost come to expect. Thankfully, these were not the only bottles of these vintages I have owned, so I have tasted all three at much younger ages. To be honest, I have not had much luck with aged wines (10+ years) of any kind lately, and I am becoming more and more of a proponent of drinking them early, or earlier anyway. Whether Bordeaux, Cali cabs, or CDPs, I am finding the five-year mark to be a sweet spot for maximum enjoyment as a general rule, but feel free to disagree.

11/23/2017 - JRDillon Likes this wine:

For Thanksgiving dinner I decided to open my three oldest bottles of Pegau, a 2001, a 2003 and a 2004. All three were excellent choices for a massive turkey and dressing meal with sweet potatoes, green-bean casserole with bacon, and numerous other food choices. All three vintages were in very different phases. The 2001, unfortunately, had moved well past its prime and definitely had a muted quality that despite three hours of decant would not allow the primary flavors that were so present in its youth to emerge. It was still delicious in its subtle way, but disappointing in that it had faded so far. Hints of fruit and terroir clearly were hiding in there somewhere, but overall there was very little, if any, tannic structure left. Nevertheless, two of the women in our party cited this wine as their favorite of the three. Even so, if you still have any of these, I highly recommend drinking up as soon as possible. The 2003 was the winner, imo, and was still singing with a delicious fruity tartness and gobs of earthy, barnyard terroir. This one, like the 2001, had dropped a weight class even though the decline was not nearly as pronounced. I just remember this wine at the five-year mark being one of the greatest wines I have ever tasted, but, despite its complex brilliance, this particular bottle did not come close to replicating that experience. That it shone above the others was not a surprise considering the high marks this vintage received. Moving on to the 2004, I found this one to be a bit clipped, with less depth and complexity, though still in fine shape and carrying a healthy weight. This vintage just does not stack up with the other two, and even at its peak was a substandard representation of Pegau, imo. I don't want to convey that these wines were not delicious; they all were, and most importantly, all three were a perfect complement to the outstanding meal. But none of them reached the sublime level I have experienced so many times in the past with Pegau and have almost come to expect. Thankfully, these were not the only bottles of these vintages I have owned, so I have tasted all three at much younger ages. To be honest, I have not had much luck with aged wines (10+ years) of any kind lately, and I am becoming more and more of a proponent of drinking them early, or earlier anyway. Whether Bordeaux, Cali cabs, or CDPs, I am finding the five-year mark to be a sweet spot for maximum enjoyment as a general rule, but feel free to disagree.

4/22/2017 - JRDillon Likes this wine:

I would rate this wine a little lower than some of the other reviewers. Yes, it's delicious. Yes, the fruit content is almost overwhelming. And yes it's the blackest purple color you'll ever see in a wine (my tongue was still jet black the next morning, even after brushing my teeth twice!). But overall this wine is kind of messy, imho. It's almost as if the winemaker just threw everything in the bottle and ran with it. This wine is so sugary thick and heavy it's like a fruit compote – something you should spread across a piece of toast. The problem, to me, is that it falls short in complexity and sophistication. When you drink a fine Bordeaux or a classic Cali cab, there's a quality of terroir that defines that wine, that gives it it's character. There's also a tannic structure that supports the wine and gives it a backbone. To me, the Buccella is missing that terroir component and that backbone. Maybe it will begin to emerge after a couple of years in the cellar, but I'm not sure. It doesn't strike me as a wine that's going to age very well, but I may be wrong. All that said, the Buccella cabernet is still utterly and undeniably delicious, oozing sweet blackberry in waves. I found the nose to be a little muted, but the fruit quality is absolutely phenomenal. We drank it with grilled tuna steaks and while it didn't detract from the food, I wouldn't say it complemented it either. It's almost a meal in itself. My only complaint is that taken as a whole, the entire package seems a little sugary soft, and, well, lacking in sophistication. I gave it a 92 because it's just so darn tasty, but to me it doesn't rise to the level of an extraordinary wine that merits a mid-90s score. I have two more bottles, so it will be interesting to revisit this wine in a few years and see if it has developed any more structure.

10/30/2016 - JRDillon wrote:

No need to elaborate here with over-the-top taste metaphors. Suffice to say this wine is simply a delicious blend of syrah and cabernet. The cab softens the syrah perfectly, and the result is so tasty you'll be tempted to swig this instead of sipping it. Nice work by the good folks at Big Basin – again.

4/23/2016 - JRDillon wrote:

Wow, this one blew me away. For a 2011 I wasn't expecting much, but this Coastview outperformed to say the least. It was in a great spot with delicious layers of fruit and firm-enough grip that reflected an overall harmonious balance. Outstanding. Only negative is that it was my last one. Really wish I had more.

3/5/2016 - JRDillon Likes this wine:

This is the bomb. Decanted for two hours before serving. I let the bottle sit upright for about an hour before opening, then poured it very gently into the decanter, but the last 25 percent or so had a huge amount of sediment that covered the neck of the decanter, and there was still a large amount of sediment left in the bottle.

I am writing this note a couple of days later and did not take notes while tasting, so this is going to be short on specifics. The nose was not overpowering, but wafted from the decanter, deliciously hedonistic, with rich floral and fruit components – so tempting. The first sip confirmed this wine is a monster. The term "hefty" doesn't do it justice. It had so much body that rolled over the tongue with a luxurious touch, so smooth, round and weighty. Despite a two-hour decant the first sip was still super tight, with powerful tannins and even a hint of alcohol which I had never before detected in other vintages of Materium. But no worries as it was just a bit high-strung having just escaped the bottle a couple of hours prior. In short time all of the components began to integrate, and when it all came together, Wow! Three of us drank the bottle over the course of a two-hour dinner (yes, we drank it slowly), and by the end of the meal the wine was a very different beast.

To me, one indicator of a great wine is how it evolves in the glass over time – not just changing for change's sake, but changing for the better so that each taste gets better and better and the last swallow leaves you yearning for more. This Materium was no exception and kept improving sip after sip until the three of us who shared the bottle all were overwhelmed with just how tremendous it was by the end. Layers and layers of dark, velvety fruit, with an undercurrent of loamy terroir and a profound structure holding it all together. I have enjoyed several vintages of the Materium, but this was my first 2008 and probably the most powerful Materium I've had. If I were to do anything differently I would recommend decanting for at least four or five hours before drinking to give it the time it needs to truly evolve. I still have two of these left, and don't plan to open another for several years. For anyone who has the time, I could see this wine aging gracefully for decades.

9/8/2015 - JRDillon wrote:

A few years in the cellar hasn't done this wine any favors. I preferred its youthful bombast. Now it has become a bit muted and round. In fact, pretty dull right out of the bottle, but after an hour left alone in the glass it began to open up and reveal some of the powerful fruit that made it more appealing as a youngster. Finished off nicely.

8/29/2015 - JRDillon wrote:

When this wine was released I liked it a lot. For an inexpensive wine from Argentina, it had this undercurrent of seriousness that was hard to define, but really caught my attention. I ended up buying a case and put a few of them in the cellar to see what would happen. I figured that as a Michel Rolland wine it was probably micro-oxygenated and wasn't likely to age well, even though it was far from an over-extracted "Drink Me Now!" wine that is often associated with his name. Long story short, I drank my last bottle of this Saturday night and while it wasn't great, it certainly wasn't bad, either. Age definitely has not improved this wine, but a few years in the cellar didn't kill it, either. It was very muted on opening, but after an hour of air it opened up nicely and I could still catch just the slightest whiff of that good stuff that got my attention in the first the place – that chalky Bordeaux tannin grip that you wouldn't expect from a wine from South America. Good stuff, and worth every penny I paid for the case six or seven years ago.

6/17/2015 - JRDillon Likes this wine:

Outstanding bottle of wine, and so sad that it was my last 2004. So much depth and pure pleasure – was really singing. Remarkably reminiscent of a fine Bordeaux. All I have left is a couple of 2006s, and they just don't even compare.

2/14/2015 - JRDillon wrote:

I drank one of these a few weeks ago and have to agree with Cellarpalate's note, although I disagree with his overall assessment of Maybach. This was my first 2009, but I have had all previous vintages going back to 2005 and this one did not rank with the others. I will say that the other Materiums I have had (probably 10 bottles) from earlier vintages have all been extraordinary. Maybach is a different kind of top-shelf wine. It's softer, rounder, and less tannic than many high-end wines, even though it still carries a great deal of weight. But it isn't an in-your-face bombshell – which I actually appreciate. I love the nuanced flavors that almost tease you, and the craftsmanship is sublime. But that's my take on the previous vintages. The 2009 was just too flabby, and there was nothing exciting about it at all. Very disappointing for a $150 wine. I'm going to write this one off as being in a "dumb" phase right now, and hoping that it gains some complexity with a few more years of age before I open my two remaining bottles. I hope to not have this experience again with a $150 wine, or else I'll be leaving my annual allocation for some other sucker. Coincidentally, I just got my first offer from Myriad and placed my first order for this similarly priced cab that has off-the-chart reviews. If it's as good as the hype, it may be replacing Maybach in my cellar, because one can afford only so many $150 wines.

UPDATE: After re-reading my note, I think it ends a little harsher than I intended. The 2009 Materium was still a good bottle of wine; it just wasn't on a level with the others I have had and it wasn't, imo, worthy of the hefty price tag. I went back and counted and that was my ninth bottle of Maybach, and the previous eight I would all rank in the 95-98 point range. I have no qualms with Maybach except for this one bottle. I should not have implied that those of us on the buying list are suckers, because I know that the good folks at Maybach are committed to producing extraordinary wines, so committed, in fact, that they dumped the entire 2011 vintage because it wasn't up to snuff. To do something like that and forego a full year's revenue from the Materium says a lot about a winery. That's why I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume this one bottle of 2009 was an anomaly.

4/18/2009 - JRDillon wrote:

Big disappointment. I was expecting a massive, concentrated Aussie-style shiraz. Instead, it turned out to be a bunch of nothing. Flabby, unfocused, lacking fruit and structure, some heat and oak, but no character. And it wasn't a flawed bottle – just a disappointing one. Opened alongside a Big Basin Rattlesnake Rock and there just wasn't any comparison. No one even finished a glass of this. Waaaay overpriced. This should be a $15 wine.

5/12/2008 - JRDillon wrote:

Oh, man. This is just tremendous.

4/20/2008 - JRDillon wrote:

I could tell there was a lot of fruit and complexity underneath, but it never made it to the surface. Consumed over about three hours and it just never opened up. Still, one of the most regal Spanish wines I've ever had.

4/12/2008 - JRDillon wrote:

Wow. One of my all-time favorites, and just as good as I remember. Continued to open and evolve over the course of the bottle. The Draper perfume is so distinct. This one seemed like it would have at least 15 more years of quality life left in it. Glad I've got one left. I may save it another 10 years, if I can be that patient.

3/16/2008 - JRDillon wrote:

Overwhelming oak on open. Oak was so dominant I had to put the glass down. After 45 minutes or so in glass the fruit began to come out. Last few sips were terrific.

1/29/2007 - JRDillon wrote:

I'd read many reviews that said this was an oak-bomb, but I didn't think so at all. My first 707, but I wouldn't hesitate to try another. Nice fruit, strong tannin that indicates this one had many years left, and some floral oak - not overpowering. Even with the tannin the finish is a bit short. Still, a nice cabernet.