5/29/2019 - jdtonic Likes this wine:

I drank one glass on the property. Stunning! Just Stunningly good. I swear to god, I think Ms. Fleming must somehow engineer these (based on my first ever bottle): LUDICROUSLY LOW scores/empty reviews.

Q:: BUT WHY???

I had really wanted to ambush the maker before reporting this, with suitable cash and fair wine trades in hand, but it’s an injustice to THE TRUTH itself to not leave anyone looking here with a taste of reality. (Pardon)

We drank the other glasses over dinner at SOLAGE, where my not easily impressed vampire companion made big goggle-y bug eyes at sip #1.

Likewise the sommelier. Fleming is His workplaces’ neighbor. He asked for the bottle and tapped into his phone a changing priority...
And one sip to the not expressly vinous waiter got the same wide-eyed amazement. I had to chew (ample) sediment (in both the bottle and then in my pie-hole to find a taste anywhere NEAR 92 pts.

MAYBE ITS A SLEEPER.
WIDE AWAKE NOW, Bud.
Fabulous purity. Superb flavor. Beyond notes
Not a millimeter into stew, heat, flab or twilight.

97-98 points.

A::: MORE FOR THE CASA!
(Duh)

Am very truly and dead seriously contemplating this instant a run up to Calistoga with treats from my cellar to get more TODAY.

I’m going up.
Life is short.
Napa close.

3/31/2019 - studleytrey wrote:

1st of 6 and this is not as complex or enjoyable as the '02 vintage Robert Hunter (this wine), so I'm not sure if it's just difference of vintage, or needs more time or what, but it's still enjoyable enough for $5 less I guess ($19). Straw yellow color with medium fine bubbles. Aromas of lime and slate. Mouth-filling mousse, medium acidity, and flavors of lemon, lime, iron, toast, and minerals.

11/12/2018 - WineBurrowingWombat Does not like this wine:

Nose: Earth, some mushroom, leather, dried wood (almost a very, very subtle spice) and light red fruits. With time in the glass, tobacco becomes more prevalent.

Palate: Oak, more tobacco, minerality, bitterness. High acidity.. with the oak and tobacco flavors it makes it pretty close to sour tasting.

Dark garnet. Very dry with light, fine tannins. Medium body. Decent finish of about 4 seconds but finishes bitter, minerally, oaky, sour tobacco leaf.. this takes away from the fruit a lot, if there is any. If you're going to enjoy this, please decant for at least an hour. After letting it sit in the glass for over an hour or two really helps it. It becomes more earthy with some soft, dark fruits. A lot less of the oak, sour tobacco leaf, bitterness and minerality (it's still there but just a lot less harsh after some airing out).

2/18/2017 - MrOctoberfest Likes this wine:

Delicious champagne; definitely my best champagne purchase from Last Bottle. Toasty almond and bread on the nose lead to just wonderful prototypical champagne notes on the palate. This will never be confused with even regular Krug or Bollinger, but it still punches way above it's weight.

6/19/2018 - Yack Man wrote:

Conservatively rated in my book. Nice, decently constructed and a reasonably price wine, but not very exciting for me. This wine shows more on the dry side, light on the palate, medium bodied with tart dark cherry and dark berry fruit. Tannins show on this wine and it's pretty acidic. Who knows perhaps this will develop with sometime, but 97 points Decanter? I think not.

6/2/2018 - JLuch1 Likes this wine:

Opened and left in bottle, poured a glass and recorked. Tasted after about an hour in glass and then consumed more throughout the evening.

Nose was dried cherries, cocoa, tar. Palate is more cherry (mostly red cherries than black), tea leaves, some herbs. Decent finish that is still pretty gripped with tannins.

Day 2 it was a drinking a bit more mellowed, although the secondary flavors of tea/cocoa that I was getting on day 1 had dissipated to more of a primarily fruit and mineral experience.

Received this as part of the GaryVee monthly wine club where it was touted as a $50 wine. I would have been pretty miffed if I had paid 50 bucks for this. $15 dollar wine at best, and judging by the previous vintages of this wine on CT and their average prices, that seems to be what it was retailing for.

4/7/2017 - Ianjaig Likes this wine:

Well this surprised me. Liquorice dominant with dark berries. A tad astringent on day one so will see if it mellows out a bit. Day 2 and it had improved considerably. Liquorice still prevalent but rich, luscious reaspberries also coming through. Excellent value.

11/27/2016 - Zo65 Does not like this wine:

I have no idea what wine the rest of the reviewers were drinking. This wine is thin, astringent and not pleasant at all to drink.

It tastes like bad homemade wine.

Given heft of bottle, 97 point score and Winelibrary hype I expected much, much more.

Glad I only bought 2 bottles as it is literally the worst bottle of wine I've had in some time.

8/5/2016 - stags22 Likes this wine:

Liquid sky??? More like liquid gold. Excellent find by wine spies. In an informal blind tasting of 4, this was a favorite. Extraordinary nose and a long delicious finish. Creamy dark chocolate. Loved
BUT fast forward 3 months and this one might have just gone past its prime. Like 2 completely different wines so removing my rating.

3/2/2016 - UpfromtheCellar wrote:

Aged Cherry cough syrup. The 14.8% came through loud and clear (just like cough syrup.....) and the lack of acid and other fruits only exacerbated the remaining savory-ness of this hot mess.

I'm not really blaming anyone but myself for this one - I mean I knew when I bought it I was probably making a BIG mistake but I wanted to see what the new turks were doing at the time so I pretty much (totally) ignored common sense and joined the long line of lemmings marching over the cliff. Somehow there is a certain undefinable comfort in numbers (I mean if X zillion are lining up to buy this it must be good, right?!). Umm, no.

Storage conditions were perfect since I obtained this at release from the winery (underground, commercial refrigeration system, yada yada yada).

OK so is it just my particular palate or this particular bottle (I mean the reviews, even recent ones have been strong)? With respect to the particular bottle all I can say is that an earlier one tasted a few years back was just as bad so...... and as for my palate, ok, I get it - we're all different so I shared my newly opened bottle with several others, WITH NO PRIOR COMMENTS, HINTS, EYE ROLLING, SNICKERS, WHATEVERS. The first person said tasted like some kind of bad youngish port wine or something and they refused to drink more. The second person said it smelled burnt or cooked and mentioned the cherry cough syrup which I had already picked up on.

So what do I think is behind the ratings disparity? I'll save those thoughts for another day, but we just went back to the cellar and brought up a nice O-noir to drink with dinner instead!

2/24/2016 - RajivAyyangar wrote:

Clos Saron / Gideon Bienstock @Terroir (Terroir Wine Bar, SF): Carignan. Slight peanut (mousiness?). Fresh on the palate with red fruit and slight bitterness on the finish. Diminished tannins.

10/15/2009 - East of Napa wrote:

This wine is past its time. I will no longer buy any Sonoma wines to cellar. they just can't last. No fruit, musty and slight hint of manure.

4/23/2016 - Trolson wrote:

Still too young: green. And, love and adore Clio of any vintage!

8/23/2015 - kalissa Likes this wine:

This is more than adequate value for what it costs, but I find the wine somewhat flabby and jammy. It could just be that I prefer a more old-world taste profile. I nevertheless would recommend this wine to fans of the style.

2/14/2015 - nietzschephilosopher Likes this wine:

Needs more time. Lots of potential though.

1/24/2011 - Scruff wrote:

corked / flawed. Definitely got strong wiffs of TCA / wet cement & cardboard on this. Yes it is a screwcap so can only guess it came from the winery.

12/27/2013 - kcsteve Likes this wine:

Very surprised at the amount of funk upon opening; reminded me of a Bordeaux. Recommend decanting. It was very closed for at least an hour. Blackberries, spice, some funk, and a bit of petrol. Inky. Interesting wine to say the least. Consumed with an '07 Turnbull Cabernet. It was a split decision from the group on which was the best.

2/26/2014 - kcsteve Likes this wine:

Bottle was leaking from under foil and dripping on other bottles. Opened and cork had no wine around edges...it was leaking through the cork itself, a first for me. Poured to examine and wine was garnet and clear. No sign or taste of oxidation. Still has very present but soft tannins and nice acidity. Get some black cherry, blackberry and spice. Nice long finish. Forced to drink early in the afternoon....some days are just good days.

3/26/2014 - Cmainardi wrote:

Remarkably drinkable in its youth. Very classical barolo, perhaps more of the modern style. Good nose, solid mid palate and fine tannins. Drink or hold. 91 points. Great deal from the Wine Library at 19.99 case price.

3/2/2013 - DaveZack Likes this wine:

Wow, this is a FANTASTIC Australian Shiraz (with 5% Viognier added to make things even more interesting). First thing I noticed: this wine doesn’t just pour dark; this wine is practically black (and that is NOT an exaggeration). If you like dark, rich, creamy, smoky, spicy, fruity Australian Shiraz, this is YOUR wine!

There is an abundance of dark/black/blue fruits up front (plums, black berries, blueberries), along with a basketful of savory herbs like sage, rosemary, and a truckload of black pepper. Being 10-years-old-ish, this wine is beautifully well-aged, with smooth, silky tannins, mellow, perfectly-structured acidity, with a smoky, slightly oaky backbone.

This wine is a perfect example why people should properly age/cellar their red wines. One of my biggest pet peeves in the world: restaurants that are selling 2011 red wines, which, no matter the varietal and no mater what region they come from, are WAY too young to be drunk in March, 2013. In a perfect world, most (practically all?) red wines should be aged/cellared for at least five to ten years. Most wines that have had time to mature and mellow-out (like the wine under review here) exhibit creamy, silken tannins that aren’t as exuberant and obnoxious as they were when they were only two or three-years-old. Young wines can be fruitier, more acidic, and more astringent. In my humble opinion, that’s NOT a good thing. I prefer the more mellow and creamy reds that show maturity and depth-of-flavors (like this shinning example).

3/11/2012 - Cycledoc wrote:

This was probably drank too early, not worth $40 for my taste, but I should have waited 5 years or more