2/5/2021 - ewqcsl wrote:

Opened but not poured for two hours. Full bodied, ripe, with a too-strong vanilla front palate that fades to a pleasant vanilla oak with some time in the glass. Feels a bit manipulated, but pleasant nonetheless. Would not suggest pop-and-pour.

7/29/2020 - ewqcsl wrote:

89? Good but feel like it is in an unremarkable phase.

7/9/2020 - ewqcsl wrote:

The window on this is probably accurate. It’s in an unbalanced phase right now. Persimmon nose, but sour on the front palate, and then the finish is stewed stone fruits. If you drink it right now, decant.

4/16/2020 - ewqcsl wrote:

Drinking very well right now. Smooth dark berry notes, calm, medium tannic finish. Drinking window of 2018 was conservative. I would guess 2022, maybe sooner.

1/24/2020 - ewqcsl wrote:

Drank brown-bagged against a Leoville-Poyferre. This showed well - more expressive but slightly less complex.

11/10/2019 - ewqcsl wrote:

Mostly cab and PS, some PV, 18 mos in French oak.

11/9/2019 - ewqcsl wrote:

92? This is drinking really well right now. Drink them if you have them.

10/6/2019 - ewqcsl wrote:

Excellent. Structured and smooth.

3/17/2015 - ewqcsl wrote:

This is my last bottle, and the best so far. Earlier in the evolution of this bottle, the drinking window was 2013 or 2014. The extension is warranted. Though the bottle is in a good spot now, there's a lot of fruit left and enough oak to continue to develop. Excellent.

3/17/2015 - ewqcsl wrote:

Didn't take notes, but I recall lots of vanilla, cedar, some oak but rather thin on the finish. Still a good wine; probably just needs some time for its character to develop.

1/5/2015 - ewqcsl wrote:

This wine starts out so promising. Fruit and a hint of oak on the nose. Palate starts out fruity, but not overly so, but then it just falls off and finishes tart with thin tannins. The tannins aren't green, just not present enough to give this wine a backbone.

3/4/2013 - ewqcsl wrote:

Maybe I just don't understand what the winemaker was going for here. I'm not a fan of fruit-bomb pinots that lose all varietal character, but this is too much in the other direction. Almost no fruit, no nose, and a bitter finish. Disappointing, especially for the price.

2/23/2013 - ewqcsl wrote:

No specific notes, but really excellent flavor and depth.

2/5/2013 - ewqcsl wrote:

Wonderfully balanced. This has a muted floral nose, dark berries on the palate and marked acidity giving it a sour cherry finish.

1/24/2013 - ewqcsl Likes this wine:

My first unoaked tempranillo. Good but simple, a creamy texture that I certainly do not associate with tempranillo.

1/24/2013 - ewqcsl wrote:

Although the blend delivers in taste and texture, the pieces have yet to integrate. The varietals progress across the palate in fits and stops.

9/13/2012 - ewqcsl wrote:

P&P. Cork has plastic wrap over top and bottom. Seepage about halfway up cork but not completely compromised. Initial funk on the nose, also reflected on the palate, blew off after about 30 min. Ripe red berries and integrated tannins. I agree with Giggs that this is a tiny bit overextracted, so it was missing the more delicate floral notes and acidity suffered tad bit as well. In other words, this tends towards a more modern style and thus reflects Lirac a little less.

5/1/2012 - ewqcsl wrote:

Tart cherry, orange peel, strong muddling spice on the finish. Tannins not remarkable. Medium-bodied, medium-high acidity expected of Corvina. Drinking sans food but would pair it with a spicy-sweet bbq.

3/29/2012 - ewqcsl wrote:

Cherry cola with vanilla oak, so a great flavor profile, but high acidity cuts short the finish.

1/16/2012 - ewqcsl wrote:

Characteristic Napa cab but with earthy, tannic nose and palate more typical of Bordeaux.

1/3/2012 - ewqcsl wrote:

Tasted blind with a '99 Insignia and '04 Hall. The Montelena most typified Napa Cab, with a big nose, lots of tobacco and dark chocolate, and firm, fairly noticeable tannins.

12/12/2011 - ewqcsl wrote:

Didn't take notes, but I recall a very smooth, slightly tannic syrah with medium acidity that is drinking very well now.

11/11/2011 - ewqcsl wrote:

About two years ago, I noted this wine was young but it would integrate. Well, this is drinking very well now. Baked blueberries and raspberries, very smoothe texture, very pleasant overall. This will somewhat disappoint those who like a higher acidity, and I think you have to be careful about pairing it with food, but I like it.

11/11/2011 - ewqcsl wrote:

This is a good Carneros pinot that is true to its terroir - dark berries, remarkable tannin, and spice, as opposed to the floral you get from Sonoma Coast or the cherry cola from Oregon. I'd say this is what its supposed to be, in a good way. The only criticism is that it is not particularly complex, but then, it is not particulary expensive, either. Will buy more.

11/7/2011 - ewqcsl wrote:

No specific notes, but I opened this about an hour before pouring, and it was still very tight. Integrated but still pronounced tannins. I think this is still young, believe it or not.

11/4/2011 - ewqcsl wrote:

Exceptional. No specific notes, but this is complex, not a fruit bomb, great flowery bouquet. I would compare it to, say, a Belle Glos, which I mean as high praise.

9/19/2011 - ewqcsl wrote:

No specific notes, but this has improved significantly in the past year or so. Between the somewhat difficult vintage, and Ravenswood's fondness for oak, this needed some time in the cellar to balance out.

7/20/2011 - ewqcsl wrote:

3rd of 3 blts. Two were corked/cooked. This one was fruit forward w/dark berries, not as much spice as you might expect from syrah, but decent acidity. Paired well with flat iron steak from the grill. Must have been problems somewhere in the process to produce so many bad bottles, but the good bottles are good.

7/19/2011 - ewqcsl wrote:

Superb. Not so much on the nose, but the palate is blackberries and anise, and creamy texture. I wouldn't call it great QPR at $40, but it's certainly worth that. I have three more bottles, which I will drink sooner rather than later, as it is drinking so well now that I see no reason to wait.

5/22/2011 - ewqcsl wrote:

This wine shows great terroir. Lightly colored, floral nose, and light bodied with cherries and dried mushroom. This is not an in-your-face Pinot, nor is it meant to be. This followed a Belle Glos Las Alturas (Santa Lucia), and I think the Selyem shows how refined a Central Coast Pinot can be while staying true to it's roots.

2/1/2011 - ewqcsl wrote:

Sonoma Coast cherry-cola is evident. Higher acidity distinguishes it from a garden-variety American pinot. Definitely some complexity here. The earthiness is also atypical, in that it is more dusty than damp. Winemaker's effort to show terrior but also individual style is evident. Overall, very good and worth trying. Glad I have three more bottles.

1/29/2011 - ewqcsl wrote:

Cab/merlot, 64/36 respectively. Good texture and balance. Good dark berry and some spice, but a bit shallow, especially for the price.

1/26/2011 - ewqcsl wrote:

My first purchase from what should be a very interesting venture. No specific notes, but this is a balanced wine with fruit and tannin and does not dissappoint in complexity and length of finish. I will certain look for more.

1/26/2011 - ewqcsl wrote:

Moderate but balanced fruit, acidity and tannins. Very drinkable, but ultimately it lacks the complexity I expect of Bordeaux in general and the texture I expect of St. Julien in partucular.

1/20/2011 - ewqcsl wrote:

One of the early professional reviews noted this bottle was "out of balance" and scored it very low. I drank the first bottle and agreed but still thought it was good. However, it has gotten progressively more out of balance and I didn't even finish my last bottle. I know Franciscan better than to judge the winery by just this wine, but this is definitely a miss.

1/5/2011 - ewqcsl wrote:

Ordered a number of these direct from the winery at a very good price, but a several have been corked. When the bottles were not corked, they are sublime, but they clearly had a problem with a batch of this particular bottle. Never had this problem with any of their other wines.

12/13/2010 - ewqcsl wrote:

Well built in terms of balance of fruit, oak, acidity. But, very tight at this stage. It needs time in the bottle, but I'm not sure it will ever be as expressive as I've come to expect from this wine.

12/3/2010 - ewqcsl wrote:

Not much to add to kdawg's discription, which I think is right on, except to say this has high acidity and has improved even in the last year. This is the last of my 1/2 case and I'm bummed because it's really coming into its own now.

10/18/2010 - ewqcsl wrote:

Corked.

7/12/2010 - ewqcsl wrote:

I've had seven of these over the course of the last four years. Although this continued to develop, it is still vegetal and has unintegrated tannins. Glad to be done with it, I'm sorry to say.

7/12/2010 - ewqcsl wrote:

Excellent. Decanted for about an hour, prominent but not overbearing tannins, lots of earth, and a moderate to complex finish. A surprise in that this is very Bordeaux in style; in a blind tasting I would not have guessed Napa.

5/30/2010 - ewqcsl wrote:

very good even though the cork showed seepage. I will look out for this on other bottles

2/13/2010 - ewqcsl wrote:

Lots of fruit, pepper and a some earth. Good and very true Spanish expression of grenache. Not as rustic as I, personally, prefer (like the '07 Las Rocas) but at $8/btl, really good wine. I think the authors of the very low scores may not appreciate that this wine is almost everything it is supposed to be.

2/6/2010 - ewqcsl wrote:

Definitely not an American syrah-copycat pinot. Nice acidity, a decent forest floor finish. My only hesitation is that it is too acidic and earthy for an American pinot but does not have enough robust oak for a Burgundy. King of caught between the continents.
,

12/19/2009 - ewqcsl wrote:

Fruit on the nose and palate, fades to a tart cherry with a touch of menthol... with a short finish. Overall, a bright pinot made better by a more balanced acidity than is typical new world wines. Ultimetely its only fault is that I wish it were more complex.

12/11/2009 - ewqcsl wrote:

Drank tonight because we're thinking purchasing more - agree it is young but I taste black baked berries, some barnyard and noteworthy tannins. Overall, balanced and will integrate.

11/12/2009 - ewqcsl wrote:

Not a pop and pour wine. Strong nose, mostly black licorice and some funk and same on the initial palate, but with a better finish. With half an hour of air the funk blew off, and the licorice became burnt cobbler. On the palate dark berries, heavy with a strong finish. I'd say this needs another year or lots of decanter time.

11/1/2009 - ewqcsl wrote:

fruit forward, medium acidity, medium finish. A good zin,

3/26/2009 - ewqcsl wrote:

Bought five bottles; first four OK, but I concluded the Cab/Merlot/Shiraz blends were just not to my liking; decided to clear out the last bottle . . . and it's spectacular. Excellent texture, tastes like a big bite of blackberry cobbler with the filling a little burnt around the edges of the pan, and a long, complex finish. This is the kind of evolution that keeps me addicted to collecting.

3/23/2009 - ewqcsl wrote:

Did not take tasting notes, but for cellaring time: first few bottles of a case were ok, but a month in the cellar and this is a smooth, representative CDR.