9/11/2016 - CTuttle wrote:

All four bottles purchased from Crush NYC were seriously contaminated with brett.

6/15/2015 - CTuttle wrote:

I hate jumping on bandwagons! I really wanted to be a little disappointed because the last thing I need is a new sparkling obsession. However, this wine exceeded all of my expectations. It's not even fair to compare it other Cali sparkling. It exceeds everything else I've ever tried from the U.S. and ranks up there with P. Peters, Ruinart, and Taittinger CdC. Concentration, complexity, and the acid whip are all here.

2/13/2015 - CTuttle Does not like this wine:

This bottle was the second that I've tried of the four I purchased. Both have exhibited extreme brett. The underlying material seems incredible, however, with great balance. Unfortunate.

11/22/2014 - CTuttle wrote:

Ex-domaine. Quite fragrant - black cherry, plum, and some earthy quality. Palate is flat initially. I was expecting more acid. Wait. Give it 20 minutes in the glass. Puts on nice weight and the acid arrives. Adolescent. Well balanced, but still mostly primary. Very good.

4/19/2014 - CTuttle Does not like this wine:

Nail polish remover. Sweet, medicinal cherry fruit. Big blast of licorice. Not a good bottle or not the right time to open this wine.

8/15/2013 - CTuttle wrote:

Tropical fruit nose. Full and round with a sweet, caramel finish. Not my wheelhouse.

11/19/2012 - CTuttle wrote:

The sweetness is over the top for me. Way less perceived acid than I was expecting, given this is a 2010. Maybe I was just hoping to love it since a few other 10's I've tried have had that acid cut that really played well with the fruit. I guess that's what I'm missing here. My thoughts perceive the sweetness as sugary instead of fruit-driven. Lacks even the youthful complexity that I was hoping for.

11/8/2012 - CTuttle wrote:

Way more ready than any other very young Thivin I've ever had. Incredible typicity, texture and balance. Ridiculous value.

10/29/2012 - CTuttle wrote:

Powerful in all respects. Fruit is prominent and then the tannins lock this down. Very good and very RM. Revisit in 5 years or so.

9/28/2012 - CTuttle wrote:

Very one dimensional the first day, to the point of boredom. The second day, with lots more air, the complexity finally started emerge a bit. Hold for at least another year or so.

9/3/2012 - CTuttle wrote:

Reductive. Burnt rubber immediately assaults your nose. The fruit is shrinking in the background while the acid is prominent and the tannin is adequate. Needs some time to come into balance. No overt wood.

7/13/2012 - CTuttle wrote:

Way too young for me to judge this wine well. It got better with time, but was still a quite tannic young wine. No obvious Rioja character, this wine delivers an abundance of licorice and tannin at this point, but little pleasure.

7/9/2012 - CTuttle wrote:

Not advanced here. Stunning depth of fruit. Oak completely integrated. I don't see how this wine will get any better.

6/24/2012 - CTuttle wrote:

Wow! Was worried about this wine given the notes, but there was no need. Very intense, but well balanced wine. Still young, but quite approachable. Really great Cali syrah.

6/3/2012 - CTuttle wrote:

Really restrained compared to most other 2007 CdP's I've tried. Nice balance, but unexciting in the end.

6/1/2012 - CTuttle wrote:

Good stuff but the least ready of any RM SC pinot I've tried this early.

5/21/2012 - CTuttle wrote:

Still younger than I'd like. I enjoyed this more a couple of years ago and I suspect I'll enjoy my last bottle in a few years from now. Very nice wine.

5/21/2012 - CTuttle wrote:

Corked!

5/19/2012 - CTuttle wrote:

Nice nose of lemon & wet stones. However, the palate is fairly one dimensional. Crisp acidity finishes. Nothing really special about this chablis, at this time.

5/9/2012 - CTuttle wrote:

The nose is cherry/cranberry/citrus and a bit of horse stable. Dominated by tannin right now, the fruit is still not shy. Would like to see more acidity, but that may just be a balance issue with the tannin right now. I would wait a few years to try another.

5/4/2012 - CTuttle wrote:

The wine is well made for those who like this style. For me, very sappy, disgustingly sweet fruit and very low acid. The tannins show up after a few hours of air. The alcohol doesn't stick out for me, but you certainly feel it. No sign of the "garrigue" that I like in CdP.

4/29/2012 - CTuttle wrote:

More extracted than any other 2009 I've tried. Some VA on the nose, and the alcohol sticks out a little at this point. Bitter tannins bring up the finish. Not a bad wine at all. Just not a wine for enjoying now.

4/13/2012 - CTuttle wrote:

A modern rioja. Very polished. Excellent balance, but the oak phobes should beware. I find this currently dancing on the razor's edge of balance between fruit and wood. I think five years from now, this wine will be outstanding. Started out very spicy and could have fooled me for southern Rhone. Later, the tempranillo characteristics started peeking out. Sadly none left for day 2. Next time.

3/31/2012 - CTuttle wrote:

This wine is decent now. However, it still has serious tannic structure for the amount of fruit present. Hopefully, it can balance out a bit while the fruit persists. Nice acidity.

3/2/2012 - CTuttle wrote:

Classic GC on the nose. Definitely mid-weight on the palate. Excellent cherry fruit and perfectly balanced, finishing with very nice cut. I may not have ever had a better GC village level wine.

2/14/2012 - CTuttle wrote:

Pretty, typical Rioja nose. A bit of cedar stands out, but it's pleasant. A mid-weight wine, but with perfect balance for drinking in the short term. Given its polish, probably a tad on the modern side of Rioja, but lovely. Drink now.

2/5/2012 - CTuttle wrote:

Pop & pour. Strong smell of burnt rubber, but you can tell the fruit is pretty nice underneath. I'm assuming this wine is reduced. Poured glass back bottle to try the next day. Next day -> bouquet has disappeared altogether so the air either caused it close up, or I may have a defective bottle. Pretty nice acidity for a 2009.

2/1/2012 - CTuttle wrote:

Argghhh! Musty, musty, nose. Guessing this thing is corked.

1/26/2012 - CTuttle wrote:

I found this a bit disjointed/angular on first pour. The second day it displayed more elegance. Just not showing any of its true possibilities right now, I hope.

1/3/2012 - CTuttle wrote:

One of the weaker 2009's that I've had. Faint banana on the reticent nose. Muted fruit on the palate, but balanced with nice acidity. Much weaker on day 2. Not a trait that I've seen with other 2009's.

12/29/2011 - CTuttle wrote:

Needs time. Took awhile to give up anything, unlike the 2009's. Once it did, it was very good in a restrained way. I liked it.

12/21/2011 - CTuttle wrote:

Not at all what I was expecting from a burgundy or a 2008. I thought this was a Cali pinot. Some alcoholic burn on the finish.

12/4/2011 - CTuttle wrote:

Quite primary. The gamay overwhelms any nuance from the pinot at this point. Remarkable structure compared to most 2009 cru beaujolais (which is what you would think this is). Excellent balance. Very one-dimensional at this point however. I'd rather drink this than many 2009 cru beaujolais, however.

11/15/2011 - CTuttle wrote:

Not ready yet. Some heat at first, and then the tannins build and build. Cherry cough syrup upon opening as well. Gets lets abrasive with air, but more tannic. Give a few years.

10/5/2011 - CTuttle wrote:

Bit of banana on the nose initially, but disappears within a few minutes. Tart, one-dimensional, lighter-weight than 2009. Still, an enjoyable wine right now. If you loved 2009, this may not be your cup of tea.

9/27/2011 - CTuttle wrote:

Well-made, mid-weight, modern, generic, and uninspiring. Has the bones to keep going so let's see what a few more years will do.

9/12/2011 - CTuttle wrote:

Enjoyable, but pretty one dimensional. All fruit and little structure. Not sure how more bottle time would help it when I could detect almost no acidity now.

9/7/2011 - CTuttle wrote:

This bottle was fun! Was it way too primary? Yes. A little over the top for me? Probably. Hard to say how long you should hold these since the structure is difficult to gauge with all of that beautiful fruit in your face. Compared to the 2008 at the same stage, this wine has a much less prominent acid cut. Really enjoyable if you haven't had this style in a while.

8/26/2011 - CTuttle wrote:

First sniff reminded me of candied 2009 beaujolais without any banana. With a little air the nose turns more toward the darker fruit spectrum with a little tar. No noticeable oak. Tannins are mildly astringent but finishes with ample acidity. Going to be better down the road.

8/17/2011 - CTuttle wrote:

My score is for where this will be in a few more years. This wine is still very young, very primary, but with structure to back it up. Going to be an incredible syrah someday. It was still very enjoyable even now if you like big wines.

8/3/2011 - CTuttle wrote:

Pretty accessible for a GC burgundy from 2005. I'm not thinking this is a wine built for age. Really nice balance overall right now. Plum & cola on the nose, much like RRV pinots. Kind of surprising, actually, but I don't have a lot of experience with Charmes-Chambertin. Finishes with decent acidity. A food friendly wine for sure. I don't see this getting better.

7/31/2011 - CTuttle wrote:

Fantastic stuff. The nose is sweet & floral. A hint of bourbon on the palate. Seems like some residual sugar. Well balanced, with a nice acidic cut on the finish.

7/29/2011 - CTuttle wrote:

I think what I like about this wine is how approachable it is very young. I don't drink much cab, but like the 2007, this wine is just great right off the bat. I love the hedonistic qualities of this wine, while it's not over the top. The nose is killer. I don't know about aging, but I can't see why I'd ever want to. If you want balance, you might want to wait a few years. The structure is there, but right now it's all about the fruit.

7/13/2011 - CTuttle wrote:

Pop & pour. Pretty shut down for me. Very little nose, and dominated by structure. Fruit is in hiding, so better to wait on opening more.

6/24/2011 - CTuttle wrote:

Nose is turned earth and charred rubber. Really, I was expecting some lemons, but no. The palate is all lemon and white peach, with a nice acidic cut. Medium finish. Very pleasant wine. I'm not sure the nose doesn't indicate some flaw, but I don't find it offensive. My first romorantin.

6/19/2011 - CTuttle wrote:

Heavy nose of licorice and a little plum. Fruit forward, but still young and heavily tannic. Very one dimensional. Hard to see if this wine will take me anywhere new in the future.

5/24/2011 - CTuttle wrote:

Love the acid. Wonderful balance and not a trace of oak to me. Pretty, unadulterated expression of chardonnay. I'd hit it again for sure.

5/28/2011 - CTuttle wrote:

Gave it a two hour decant but still just massively tannic. Still needs a bit of time for the oak to integrate a little more, too. Very good potential, however, and should improve in the next few years.

5/11/2011 - CTuttle wrote:

I have little experience with rosé, but this wine is my favorite so far. Beautiful nose of strawberries crushed with a tiny bit of tangerine. Roses and a faint earthy component also appear. The palate is mainly about strawberries with a sideways glance from a tart cranberry. Balance is impeccable. Remember to slow down and enjoy. This goes too fast.

5/9/2011 - CTuttle wrote:

Still much too young. Licorice and herbs on the nose but more than a little subdued. Fruit heavy on the palate with a strong, astringent tannic finish. The power is there, but it took lots of time in the glass for the nuances of good CdP to come out. I'm pretty confident that they will in time.