12/17/2022 - tarheel17 wrote:

Tired, “mostly dead” to quote a favorite movie. Tasted like cider, not bad cider, but definitely not good champagne. Cest la vie.

11/8/2021 - tarheel17 wrote:

This was a lovely surprise . Chris told me he bought “mystery wine” from a wine text site for budget price ($16?) and to say I was skeptical would be an understatement. But when I tasted it I congratulated him on finding the absolute best $16 pinot in the world. Definitely California fruit, my notes are from day 3 since it held up well for 3 days (corked) on the sideboard. I agree with the $40+ price tag.
Nose: berry & spice
Palate: elegant yet hefty. Smooth, substantial tannin. A little darker and a little more burly than the average.

11/25/2017 - tarheel17 wrote:

With all the subtlety of a rich fat kid in a boutique candy store, this tasted like sour patch candy in wine form. I wouldn't call it unpalatable, though I wouldn't pay the asking price ($30?). Not as unctuous as the Rombauer, the high acid at very cold temperature enabled me to finish the glass, but this isn't exactly my kind of wine. I see the appeal, though.

5/7/2018 - tarheel17 Likes this wine:

Ready to drink. Plummy, rich and mature. I will be drinking this sooner rather than later.

12/24/2017 - tarheel17 Does not like this wine:

I am almost ashamed to admit to the wine drinking public that I paid $40 for a glass bottle of wine with a plastic cork. But this shouldn't be my embarrassment, this should be the producer's. WTF, people? Plastic? Seriously? Are your consumers not even worth a cork composite? Who buys this slop anyway? I've no idea how it found it's way into my K&L cart. I think I searched "Napa cab under $50" or something akin during a holiday gift-giving spree.

OK, closure aside, the wine is still a disappointment. The nose is intriguing: herbal and menthol-lite, with ripe dark fruit to compliment. The attack is strong and confidently tangy and got my hopes up, but the midpalate is like a big fat kick in the face with both sour and over ripe fruit, unwelcomingly abrasive tannin and an unmistakable greenness. To add insult to injury, it tails off with a finish of nail polish remover. AVOID. I'd give it an 80 with a real cork.

1/21/2018 - wgoelen Does not like this wine:

Oxidized. 5 bottles out of 6 for thr sink. And the sixth was only average ...

12/31/2017 - tarheel17 Likes this wine:

THIS is what I hope and dream of when I open prestige champagne. And so young! Terrific stuff. (It was NYE so I don't have better notes than that, too busy saying goodbye to 2017!)

6/10/2017 - drwine2001 wrote:

Champagne Flight (K&L Wines, San Francisco): Slighter deeper color than the 2005, relatively few bubbles. Pear and far less oxidative notes. Medium weight, brighter, high toned citrus, excellent minerality, lots of soil, and the oxidative tone just provides an additional touch of complexity toward the finish. Truly excellent and I preferred it to the 2005 hands down. Should keep well given its focused core.

3/23/2014 - MagnumGourmet Likes this wine:

Popped and decanted. Consumed over a few hours to see how it developed. Really interesting nose on this with aromas of soy sauce, red currant, mushroom and salted caramel. The palate was very fruit forward (but not sweet) with flavors of currants and raspberries along with a hint of coriander. Well structured body without being aggressive with the tannin. For the most part I think that 2007 wines are destined for early drinking, but this is one that I will tuck my last bottle into the corner of the cellar to see what it does "someday". Would purchase again.

5/18/2015 - tarheel17 wrote:

As before, this performed admirably on day one with coffe and dark fruit, but after 2 days it was barely drinkable.

2/5/2015 - tarheel17 wrote:

Fantastic. Mis en cave 2008, disgorged 2012. Going back to buy more.

11/1/2014 - tarheel17 Likes this wine:

yay! back to drinking real wine!
In celebration of daughter #2, we opened this with family and take-out Thai.
The wine has a rich, sensual nose, with aromas softened in intensity, though still defined. There is bread, apple, citrus, and something spicy smeared across a blurred pastel palette of aroma (yes, the painter's palette - this is a metaphor, not a misspelling). I am reminded of something candied at first taste, but the mid-palate and finish are fruited without being fruity. The finish is long and, again, sensual. At room temperature a light caramel sensation emerges and it is super yummy. While a pretty amazing glass, this tastes like it has its entire life ahead of it. So an appropriate bottle to celebrate a 2-day old baby, I guess!

(Two family members said it was the best champagne they had ever tasted, but that might be my fault for not sharing amazing bottles with them on a regular basis...)

6/27/2014 - MC2 Wines Likes this wine:

Pnp'ed. Very tight upon opening. Ended up getting distracted and not coming back to it until a few hours later and amazing the difference. It was a very meaty Syrah. Still too young, but we were craving something Washington and onsite and so not a ton of choices. Great value. Will hold on our other one for a few more years.

10/20/2012 - Winestein wrote:

Dark purple. Truffles. Rich forest fruits. Tasted all 9 Chambertin grand crus and this was the best of the night.

2/10/2014 - tarheel17 wrote:

nose: dust, dried fruit. not too exciting.

palate: most surprising (not having tasted the producer before) is the med-high/high acid. It has a straightforward palate that is neither heavy/plush nor light/dynamic - rather staid, really. The long finish brings mostly tart red fruit with just the faintest bit of spice. Low-ish alcohol for a zin, though it is not entirely minimized.

I don't know that I would peg this as zinfandel necessarily. I like the low-octane persona, but the wine is just kinda boring. Perhaps travel-shocked - received it in the mail 2 days ago. Will hold final judgement until it has "settled" (although I'm not entirely sure that travel shock exists in wine, I remain willing to be disproven).

7/1/2013 - tarheel17 wrote:

unfortunately, notes are from 3 days open in the fridge (corked with a FAT CORK re-usable champagne cork which exploded to the ceiling upon opening, so I can at least attest to its ability to maintain pressure). Don't ask why we left previously opened champagne in the fridge that long...

Anyway, the wine has lost some oomph in that time, and tastes watered down compared to what I remember from last week. Though the nutty, Sherry-light almond flavor is present, it is weak and easily overcome by an unexciting lemon citrus that only toys with herbal complexity. It is not wonderful now. It was better then, but not good enough for me to rush to writing a tasting note. Ah well, you can't win them all.

12/31/2010 - tarheel17 wrote:

nose: both red and dark fruits. Also slate and a touch of funk/barnyard, though it's not distracting.
palate: very tight. offering hardly anything. I get some coffee, some fruit, and a mouthful of tannin. This needs a lot of time sideways. Boo. Eric said it would be fun baby-killing! I'll try this again tomorrow (it was a virtual pop & pour...so sue me).

9/18/2013 - tarheel17 wrote:

nose: pretty intense, with apple, orange rind and a festive, holiday nuttiness.
palate: high acid, but with a very plush and fruity feel to it, this was really quite lovely. The fruit was full and bouncy, like a happy 2008 should be. Long, long finish of nutmeg and lemon. Well done. .... at $65 this is a little on the high side for me, but it is so tasty the other drinker in the house doesn't even realize it is low dosage (shh...don't tell!). 91+

disgorged Oct 2012.

9/8/2013 - rocknroller wrote:

Dark red color. PNP, followed 1 glass plus over 2-3 hours. To call this an utter disappointment would be a gross understatement. Upon opening this was an alcoholic nightmare. The nose reeked of alcohol and the palate was alcohol, oak and more oak. Placed in decanter and checked at various points over the next 2 plus hours in addition to the original glass. After about 40 minutes this improved to the point where the nose became better, somewhat Port-like with raisin, plum, kirsch and some earth with oak and spices. The palate became marginally better, thin on the palate, medium body at best, heat, pepper, black raspberry, red plum, oak, firm tannins. Day 2 was mildly better, the nose improved, showing cedar, tobacco, red plum, spice, oak. The palate was still thin but had a bit nicer mouthfeel, pepper, heat, kirsch, plum, oak. 87 may be pushing it. not quite sure what to make of this, hopefully an aberration with this bottle, we shall as there are more to come.

9/7/2013 - Eric wrote:

Wow, simply stellar. A very full, rich and easy vintage of Dom that reminds me a great deal of the 1996. Unusually toasty and bready and, well, easy. Approachable and round and vinous. Where Dom is usually edgy, a little creamy and fairly citric, this was expansive, complex and incredibly approachable. Truly delicious.

8/26/2013 - Charlie Pendejo Does not like this wine:

Tarheel17, it's not your cellaring. This was less enjoyable than my bottle of a couple years ago, more of a hot mess, a victim of the vintage - and perhaps also of pop 'n pour, though it didn't improve appreciably over 2-3 hours. Came across to the missus and me as a a bit of a boozy, pruney mess, without any of the acidic tension that would've stood this in better stead with the tomato-sauced pasta and meatballs. Ah well, 'twas my last bottle of this, and I have only two more European '03s.

8/28/2013 - Papies wrote:

For us this wine is a story of one good bottle and 5 bottles looking for a repeat of that experience but to no unveil. We tried we promise.
Today the wine was light in colour and looked way older than a 91. Sweet Rioja core, good fruit , spice, delicate wine. A lot of earthy, mushroom notes. Good wine but given bottle variation we are not sure how characteristic of the wine this bottle was.

8/12/2010 - phenricsson wrote:

1988 Opus One. This was unfortunately slightly corked. Still possible to drink and OK in the mouth but there was definitely the wet cardboard smell on it. 70p.

7/19/2013 - AndrewSGHall Does not like this wine:

Had dominant notes of spoiled apple cider. Yuk.

4/14/2009 - tarheel17 wrote:

nose: strawberry milkshake, menthol cherry (normally that would be an unpleasant aroma for me, but it was quite nice in this instance)
palate: strawberry tart, lemon finish. Brisk, refreshing and delicious.

8/6/2012 - Epic Tale wrote:

3/18/13 - another bottle, opened a day ago - taste: like licking tart strawberry essence from a (very clean) rock, to paraphrase a previous review, and followed by a medium-length vegetal flinty finish; overall: while I respect that this pour may please other palates, it's not a style I favor

8/6/2012 - 86 points - color: bright raspberry x light purple -- nice! nose: faint floral and candy; taste: lean mouth feel, cranberry taste, medium-length finish consisting of tart apple and chalk; overall: balanced Old World pour, probably better served with food (smoked salmon or cheese?) than by itself -- but, ultimately, neither my style nor a great value ($19).

4/30/2011 - Racer117 wrote:

Tarheel17 described it perfectly, ".... appley goodness...." I had this along with the NV Pol Roger. This had a brilliant golden color, much darker than the NV. I found sweet apple (fuji?) aromas along with a wonderful mushroom note. Acidity is apple based with a good dose of minerality in there. Still moderately bubbly. I find this wine very complex but also singular (regarding a distinct aroma and/or flavor). A perfect match with oysters. Slurp, sip, repeat. I could get used to drinking this.....

2/16/2011 - Vinsant wrote:

Ok, went in with an open mind still looking for my Betz aha moment. Not a lot of luck with his Syrahs or Grenache. Lots of concentrated fruit, oak, and a little heat after a short decant. Tons of other wines at the table so I moved on. Well...took the leftovers (about a half full bottle) home the next day to share with the wife at dinner. AHA!!! The fruit had mellowed and tasted perfectly ripe with nice florals weaving in and out. The oak/chocolate had melted into the background to become a nice second or third thought instead of my first. An enjoyable enough bottle that I look forward to my next Betz experience.

1/23/2011 - Amerique wrote:

Tight, full-bodied blackberry fruit with toasty, smokey, and plum flavors, excellent structure, ample tannins, was much better and more expansive one day after openning, seemed to lack the clearly distinctive Walla Walla terroir flavors of other Washington wines, i.e. Cayuse

4/17/2010 - traderspartan wrote:

Nasty, nasty stuff. Purnes and raisins. If you like prune and raisin juice, you will love this wine. Terrible. Was going to bring to dinner with friends, but it was so bad, I took another bottle after decanting for 2 hours.

4/27/2010 - z_willus_d wrote:

Today seems a good time to evaluate this wine, despite a prevailing head-cold. Purchased over a year and a half ago for $68 and stored in a Eurocave since arrival.

85-min open in wide Riedel glass @70F--
COLOR- dark ruby red with a galaxy of particulate grape-must matter floating around and clinging to the glass sides (must be unfined/unfiltered); looks like a picnic on the beach, glass buried to the stem in sand when the wind blows hard on it all. NOSE- perceptible from 2 feet away. This smells of something serious and something a bit different from the usual Spanish fare -- great depth to the sweet cherry candy nose; floral aromas in the vein of wash detergent; plum-cherry reduction of a high-caliber restaurant style, red-meat or veal demi-glace in the saute pan; no perception of heat; makes you feel like you need to open your mouth on sniffing. PALATE- ho! this is interesting and, to be honest, exactly what I expected per reviews. Tangy, sour red cherry flavors dominate the palate and promote a copious amount of mouth-watering -- the focus of these flavors is rail-straight front-to-back. This is the kind of wine where you really need to keep your nose open through entry on sipping -- the transition from nose to palate is really quite remarkable. This is medium bodied, and I like it that way. Stated otherwise: "there's absolutely no fat in this wine. The mouthfeel is pristine and just a tad silty owning less to any perceived tannins and more, I think, to that galaxy of wine particles hanging around. I want to call the finish medium+ to long, but when you factor in the salivation response where the flavors rejuvenate themselves over and over with each gush, this really deserves to fall in the long-finish category. To recap on the flavors, besides the sour cherry bonanza, this expresses a nice flair for the floral in ways that make me think of fresh violets. What I don't get much of are dirt components or too much mineral. On full disclosure, I should mention the empty-glass sniff produced obvious sweaty, men's locker-room aromas that weren't apparent to me when there was wine in the glass (a serious funk that might turn the head of your lady friend or woman; kind of like an old a dying Christmas tree). This wine would be amazing with so many foods -- baked chicken of various sorts really pops to mind. I have to keep sniffing the empty glass -- it continues to evolve in such interesting ways! I can see how this scored in the lower 90's with the Pro's... tasting this alongside any number of other Spanish or "New World" derived wines, this one could easily be lost and only noted for it's spectacular finish. That's too bad, because this strikes me as a unique style (or perhaps one lost in recent times) most worthy of exultation. I've only had one wine in memory that showed similarly styled to this, and that was an older Rioja that I purchased at a restaurant for ~$45-. (Oh wait, I found it in my notes history - thank you all powerful CT. It was the 2001 R. López de Heredia Rioja Crianza Viña Cubillo.) That wine wasn't as well made as this, but it had a similar expression. As far as age-ability and relative drink-ability, I'm not sure... this wine has undeniable balance, but I don't pick up much in the way of tannin-structure. But there's all kinds of other structure here, so I could easily imagine this sailing on for many years, but I'm not the one to make the call. I think I'm addicted to the sour cherry. 94 points now; I'll check back in on it later tonight.

5-hours open in decanter @67F--
N: even more expressive, prettier, more floral (like expensive hand-soap), same serious depth and meatiness. P: t ta Ta Tangy sour cherry and very dry. Love the acid. Other than the outward exploding bouquet, this palate seems about the same as at init tasting; if anything, perhaps a touch more dry and austere. This is just screaming for a nice plate of cheese – high-end blue in particular would seem a good pairing, despite the more obvious Spanish cheese alternatives. This is one of those wines that boggles the mind in a search to explain just exactly how it was that GRAPE fruits were somehow managed in such as way as to produce such a thing. 93+ points now.

Day2, evening (having stored a half-glass at the bottom of a vacuumed-sealed decanter in the frig)--
N: At first, not popping as much, probably due to the cold liquid temp. As it warmed, the nose started to open back up, although never to the explosive levels displayed yesterday. But this is in no way tired or oxidized, and all the familiar aromas of cherry, bloody meat, violets, plum, and sweaty socks remain in motion. P: seems meatier and more integrated. The sourness persists but with less obvious fruit character (previously cherry), darker oriented. Long sour finish. Black currant. Bitter juice. Very, very dry. Overall, slightly less beguiling than yesterday with less pop and obvious fruit specificity, yet still a virtuoso of a wine. 92-points for the dregs on day2. I'm so glad I have more of this. Everything considered, this was a 93+ point bottle of wine. It can be fully enjoyed now (if this is your style), but I bet this will stay great and perhaps evolve some over the next decade.

9/23/2010 - tarheel17 wrote:

sweet and one-dimensional after a pop and pour, as others have noted. I will set aside and re-taste tomorrow. It's not bad, just not an embodiment of rocks, gravel, terroir, or anything particularly remarkable, except perhaps a California fruit stand.

8/8/2010 - tarheel17 wrote:

nose: clear, precise fruit. Bit of dusty slate to complement the red raspberry and blackberry
palate: tannin holds steady as fruit easily glides down the tongue. Berry flavors are more pronounced, with a forthright acidity down the middle. I think this is a very nice effort, with much more potential down the road. Very well done. 90+

8/18/2010 - ChinonRouge wrote:

I don't get it. My palate must lack the chemoreceptors for whatever people love about this wine.

7/17/2010 - NTR wrote:

My first Quilceda Creek wine...nice nutty and cassis nose with a deep solid red color....a little astringent...perhaps young still...while a blend, the cab really comes out. I would expect with 10% cab franc and merlot that it would be a bit softer. This is a solid young wine. Blackberry pronounced...still tight...I really like this. If you see it one a wine list and you are eating steak, order it....you will not be disappointed...I for one will not open another until next year and review...this may be a 93 or a 94

As an aside, has anyone else noticed that CT score avg are far far more harsh than the wine critics. I am not sure what kind of lightening in a bottle the avg drinker expects. In my opinion this particular wine has scored too low on avg. Why I am not sure...perhaps everyone is incredibly particular but if this is a 91 whatever these people see as 99 or 100 must be unworldly. I have tasted and drunk hundreds of wines...some damn near awful in my younger less affluent days when I would buy a $12 wine I know would be OK and then augment it with a few throw aways at $6-$12 to expand my palate..every now and then you would hit a winner but boy were most just awful..now..a few years later and a few years more experiene and wealth... some wines I drink are off the charts and very exclusive..I am only now trying to attempt to comment more on the wines I drink....for this wine..it is borderline 93...and I have a feeling it may be 94....my grades are what a wine is NOW....not it's potential....

4/18/2005 - Eric wrote:

Low-key Tasting Group does Champagne at Le Pichet (Seattle, WA, USA): This was just too sweet, too weighty, fairly awkward. What does a Demi-Sec match well with?

6/12/2010 - hankj Does not like this wine:

Wrote and lost a long critique but needed to say what some others seem to be implying but not saying out right. I'm going to be much shorter this time.

Apparent flaws (and I mean apparent): H2S (more than should be forgiven, even in Syrah); vinegar from acetobactor infection; too much sulfite (ostensibly to control the previous flaw)

issues: alcohol out of balance to level that will never fade before the fruit does; aroma/flavor profile dominated strongly by coffee and grape/wood tannins (too much French oak and on the skins too long). These components do not balance one another but rather push each other more out of balance; the fruit is cooked, stewed and muddled. A fresh component might have saved this wine.

On the plus side: nice anise and brush tones well-integrated.

Day 2: flattened out, but then was totally unremarkable and ordinary if big.

5/16/2010 - WaWineFan in TX wrote:

What the heck happened? Had this wine about a year ago and it was wonderful, would have given it around a 95 at that time. Opened another today with a steak and decanted for a couple of hours. It was flat, unidimensional, and completely uninspiring. Not at all the wine I remembered and definitely not worth the $65.00. I hope that the 3 I have left turn around with time or I am going to be very unhappy.

11/30/2009 - Alex H wrote:

Spritzy olive oil and fishy tomatoes and mature cherries.Got some rotten eggs too. On the palate though, it is fresh with tomatoes and chickadees. More focused tasted out of a flute than a normal glass. A bit short but rather balanced effort.Towards the end, this really changed to a different beast and displayed weigthier red fruits and satisfying mouthfeel.

4/15/2010 - jbfitts wrote:

As a fan of Loring this bottle fell a little short for me. The wine was very one dimensional and didn't have the "slow burn" I would like to see in a good Pinot. Admittedly I drank this on the young side but I don't see it developing in to anything special with aging. For the money it was a decent buy.

4/4/2010 - tarheel17 wrote:

nose: very cranberried. Simple.
palate: Drinks above it's $8 price point. Dirty and earthy, it still features tasty, though pruney fruit. Food wine.

3/2/2010 - tarheel17 Likes this wine:

The good: straightforward, bright fruit, silken texture. Handled its own with steak tip chili. Simple, but simply pleasant.
The bad: At times, akin to metallic cherry juice, with a slight alcoholic edge.
The summary: very nice for $26. Makes me wonder why I shell out for 'regular' Lorings for $20 more. Definitely worth the $. 88-89 pts

3/7/2010 - tarheel17 wrote:

K&S shared this with us over dominoes. THere was a LOT of sediment in the bottle, just FYI for anyone preparing to drink one in the future.
Good stuff all around, a little smokiness and mocha-like oak flavors. I would definitely drink again.

3/12/2010 - tarheel17 wrote:

minerals, meet strawberry. strawberry, meet minerals. now have a blast, you two, locked up in this bottle, and try not to fight too much amongst yourselves OK? You're both equally delicious, I assure you.