2/26/2010 - Fat Hobbit wrote:

Popped and poured with Thai, good bit of fine sediment in bottom of bottle.
Tasty raspberry fruit, made tart by strong acidity, in a medium-light bodied presentation. A gamey quality, hard to describe, that I get with some Loire and Beau gamay. With food the acidity seemed more balanced. Likewise, after being open a few hours the acidity seemed to have integrated and the fruit lost the tartness.
Tasty gamay, good with food, and fairly priced.

9/26/2009 - Fat Hobbit wrote:

Popped and poured - delicious right out of the bottle. Terrific red fruit on nose and palate that was delicious if a bit simple, a bitter note that reminded me of sun tea, slight minerality. Terrific mouthfeel - medium bodied, but the combination of light red fruit flavors, finely integrated acidity and juiciness gave this a sense of lightness, very Chambolle.
After being opened a couple hours, the remainder became more serious - dark cherry, more minerality. Still fine, but not as enjoyable as when first opened.

6/26/2009 - Fat Hobbit wrote:

Popped and poured and kept chilled. Light bodied and low alcohol, citrus fruit aromas and flavors, refreshing on a hot evening. This bottle didn't have the co2 of years past. Even without the slight fizz, the combination of flavors and refreshing quality reminded me of the soda Fresca.

6/26/2009 - Fat Hobbit wrote:

Popped and poured. Small pours over about three hours were all the same: sour fruit, noticeable chewy tannin. Acidity didn't seem pronounced, could that sour fruit profile have been a reflection of high acidity? After being open for a few hours with pizza, this became a lovely burg: the sour fruit became sweet red fruit - primarily cherries; and the texture went from showing angular structure to being almost creamy. A very nice food wine, still mostly primary, not nearly as nice to taste by itself.

6/13/2009 - Fat Hobbit wrote:

6/12/09: screwcap. Very light color, nose suggested reduction. Palate the first night was incredibly dry and not giving up much, but was enjoyable with food. Second day and the acidity is slightly more pronounced, making this racy and more refreshing. The fruit is now more present as well, creamy apple/pear/citrus, with some bitterness on finish. Much nicer on second day and now a rebuy.

6/6/2009 - Fat Hobbit wrote:

Popped and poured. Odd showing here: first glass was wonderful cherry/strawberry/watermelon fruit with an interesting bit of garrigue type spice - and relatively dry for so much yummy fruit. But this quickly veered off into too much acid and/or too sour fruit. Mid-bottle, with a pizza, and it smoothed back out again. From glass to glass, this went from ideal summertime rose to a harsh mess. There are too many other cheap roses to taste to want to suffer through the bad parts of this bottle again.

5/30/2009 - Fat Hobbit wrote:

Popped and poured, typical bright purple Beau color, and quite easy to see through a full glass. Nose had some funk, fruit and baking spice - nose was like an expressive red burg. Sweet red fruit and baking spice again on the palate - like a puree of strawberry cake batter. Relatively little structure - no tannins, no alcohol, modest acidity. The combination of sweet fruit/spice and relative lack of structure combine for a delicious guilty pleasure type of wine. Great by itself and also with a variety of cheeses, I'm going to grab some more of this for summer consumption.

2/13/2009 - Fat Hobbit wrote:

Popped and poured, kept at cellar temp and consumed within a few hours: A hot mess, with alcohol on nose and palate. More heat on palate that I would describe as charred oak (no idea about use of oak here.) The fruit that was present was not nearly capable of keeping up. Good bit of sediment in last pour. Barely drinkable and terribly overpriced. Closed or cooked? Not pleasant in any case.

10/3/2008 - Fat Hobbit wrote:

Popped and poured over two nights. First night this had acidity and tannins sticking out, some typical Beau fruit, but flavors were thin in mid palate. Second night and the tannins are gone, acidity has receded to leave a nice juicy impression but no longer tart or astringent. And the fruit emerged to show a delicate impression of roses and strawberries - delicate and haunting. Still a bit thin on mid palate, but on night 2 a very pretty taste.

7/3/2008 - Fat Hobbit wrote:

Popped and poured and kept on ice: This is exactly my idea of an ideal summertime wine. Flavors and aromas of watermelon, strawberries, and a slight bit of funk. Perfect amount of acidity on palate makes this terrifically thirst quenching and contributed to an impression of lightness in the mouth. Great with food, great by itself, and inexpensive. My new summertime favorite.

3/7/2008 - Fat Hobbit wrote:

Popped and poured, 14% abv. Nose was mostly mute and not exciting. Palate was terrific with cherry fruit, spices, roses, bit of decayed leaves. Medium bodied, with very nicely integrated juicy acidity and powdery tannins and absolutely no trace of the alcohol. Terrific with food, but rustic by itself. Notable for me also in that it showed none of the negative porty/pruney characteristics I've experienced with pricier nebs recently. For the price, a terrific neb qpr.

12/8/2007 - Fat Hobbit wrote:

Popped and poured, no sediment. Clear ruby color, and a very pleasant nose of fresh red fruits. Medium bodied, palate features more delicious red fruits, terrific juicy acidity, and a slightly bitter note (which I would guess to be stems?) offering some complexity. Simple, but yummy and the fruit/acidity provided nice impression of energy. Some chewy tannins appeared in the last few glasses. And while there the bitter note was present (it also helped compliment the meal) I would in no way describe this as green or vegetal. No need to decant this, it was just right by the second glass and was a perfect compliment to wild mushroom lasagna. And terrific qpr to boot - wish I had a lot more of this.

12/7/2007 - Fat Hobbit wrote:

Popped and poured, no sediment, 14.5 abv. Everything about this reminded me of a young Aussie grenache: nose of sweet fruit, spice and pine forest; thick in the mouth with glycerine and gobs of fruit; palate of sweet fruit, warm spice, noticeable alcohol (but not out of line compared to other Calipinots), acid that felt manipulated, and a note of licorice. A pleasant drink for this style, but relatively expensive and not very pinot-like to my tastes.

11/3/2007 - Fat Hobbit wrote:

Decanted for 3 hours before pouring, no sediment.
Nose was mute throughout. The first half of bottle lacked integraton, acid/tannin sticking out just slightly and fruit missing from mid-palate. After a few more hours of air the second half of the bottle really sang: burgundian texture as the elements all integrated, wonderful spiced cherry fruit emerged - it all came together in an elegant, understated fashion. This needs a LOT of air to show well right now.

8/10/2007 - Fat Hobbit wrote:

8/10/07: popped and poured over a few hours, kept at around 60 degrees. Color was faded rose, nose featured red fruit, bit of funk not quite rhone nor burg - gamay funk?; roses and just a slight whiff of banana note. Mouthfeel is terrific: absolutely no alcohol nor tannins sticking out; a perfect amount of acidity gives the nice fruit wonderful juiciness. Palate features red fruits, baking spices, and watermelon? And the fruit is juicy/sweet, but this doesn't have the sense of sugar that soemtimes seems to be present in the roses I've tasted this summer. Wonderfully juicy and refreshing - my new favorite hot weather red. Super qpr.

6/9/2007 - Fat Hobbit wrote:

Popped and poured over about 5 hours. Nose had sweet fruit and slight bit of funk. Palate featured gobs of sweet red fruit - strawberry and cherry. Pie filling description seems apt. There is modest acidity and very mild tannins that only appeared after a few glasses. There was a slight bitter note that wasn't consistently present. The structure is modest and the fruit is far too sweet - is this completely dry? Hard to imagine that cellaring will eliminate the impression of residual sugar here. I won't buy again.

6/8/2007 - Fat Hobbit wrote:

Popped and poured and followed over about 8 hours the first night. Huge, fullbodied, brawny wine with enormous, overhwhelming structure. There is fruit present, but it is buried by mouth drying tannins and toasted oak. Fruit seemed scorched as if from a very hot vintage/region. The finish shows quite a bit of heat - combination of alcohol and oak spice mostly. This became more enjoyable when paired with a grilled burger. A last glass saved for the next night showed the fruit pushing towards raisiny/porty. Not enjoyable now - far too young.

3/9/2007 - Fat Hobbit wrote:

Popped and poured over 3 hours. Nose was enjoyable, with soft fruit, funky earth (not barnyard), hints of spices and minerals, the nose seemed to weaken over the course of the bottle. Velvety mouthfeel. The palate had modest cherry/raspberry fruit, and nothing else. Midpalate was absolutely watery, like one of the new flavored-water products. Finish was very short. These palate characteristics were present from first glass to last. Disappointing.

10/21/2006 - Fat Hobbit wrote:

Popped and poured. Light, clear ruby color. Nose offers red fruit and freshly sliced apple. Palate features red fruit and that apple note again. Fruit isn't sour here, but does have some element - stems? - offering some complexity. Tannins present but almost invisible, acidity is low for a burg but still juicy. This is delicious, cheap bourgogne.

9/29/2006 - Fat Hobbit wrote:

Bit of funk/dirt on the nose, strawberries and other red fruit on palate, dry. Great qpr.

9/23/2006 - Fat Hobbit wrote:

Popped and poured. Simple nose of raspberry and a trace of earthiness. Palate featured nice fruit, primarily raspberry and plum - but not too sweet. Modest acidity and tannins are nicely integrated. Bit of pepper on the finish. Pleasant, simple, fruit driven, balanced wine - and strong qpr for $5. I had another bottle of this a few months ago that was too acidic, so there might be some bottle variation.

8/26/2006 - Fat Hobbit wrote:

screwcap, popped and poured. Inky purple color, nose mostly muted. Mouthfeel is full bodied. Palate offers sweet black fruits, licorice, some smoke. Acidity and tannins are barely present, but on the plus side alcohol isn't showing at all. This is acceptable for a $12 shiraz. But its not like any of the higher level Kilikanoon wines - where all these elements are much bigger.

8/19/2006 - Fat Hobbit wrote:

Popped and poured, some slight sediment in bottle. Inky colored, full bodied, and a very expressive nose of dark fruit. Palate is extracted: loads of dark fruit, alcohol is showing in this bottle (first time in 3 bottles I've noticed it this much), nice acidity, integrated tannins, peppery/spicy elements throughout.
A very enjoyable Aussie fruit/booze bomb and highly recommended qpr if you like that style. All others should stay away.

7/22/2006 - Fat Hobbit wrote:

Nose and palate were both remarkably similar to a cotes du rhone - the fruit on the nose and palate, slightly chewy tannins, even notes of smoke and meat on the nose. The overall impression was much more like a rhone than a typical fruitbomb Aussie wine. A lack of pepper spice on the finish was all that seemed out of profile for this blend.

7/22/2006 - Fat Hobbit wrote:

opened then left for a couple hours - later decanted and double decanted. This is my second bottle of this and both times I've struggled to get it to show well. Tonight's first glass was most typically grenache - then it closed up and wouldn't open to extended airing or vigorous decanting. It likewise seemed very reactive to temperature changes: from cellar it had little flavor, slightly too warm (and I'd guess the bottle never got above high 60s in temp) and it got syrupy and alcoholic. Over the course of several hours each glass showed differently - ranging from a combination of pleasant fruit/acidity to an unbalanced mess.

5/5/2006 - Fat Hobbit wrote:

Decanted, no sediment seen. Muted nose, full bodied with lots of glycerine. Strong, focused and sweet blackberry fruit, with modest pepper spice on the finish. Tannins almost non-present, with some modest acidity. This was in the style of an aussie fruit bomb. But in that style, this was yummy. And quite a bit better than it was a year ago.

4/22/2006 - Fat Hobbit wrote:

Popped and poured. This started as a simple, soft fruity wine with no real structure. By mid-bottle, a nice earthy note developed on mid palate and finish. But then alcohol heat quickly took over on the finish and this became harsh. The fruit also changed and took on the profile of a burly petite syrah. Not very pinot-like at all, and not the qpr that a bogle or castle rock p.s. offer.

3/21/2006 - Fat Hobbit wrote:

First night this had an outrageous nose of roasted meat and fruit, which followed on the palate. Too much acidity made it unpleasant. This was better on the second day and even better the third. By the third day all the elements had settled down and showed much better balance. Acidity is still present, but no longer unpleasant. And tannins grip the wine on the third day. Which makes me think this will be much better in a year or more.

3/11/2006 - Fat Hobbit wrote:

double decanted, no sediment seen. A wonderful pinot that was different with each glass: fruit varied from tart cherry to creamier cherry and even an apple note(?). Other notes likewise were different with each glass: wonderful spice ranging from baking spices to mildly hot. Alcohol heat was occassionally noticeable and reminded me of diluted brandy. Structure was buried with only an earth note on the finish.

2/17/2006 - Fat Hobbit wrote:

Not decanted. The nose was typical pinot earth/funk/fruit. The palate was not as nice as the previous bottle: the fruit was more sour here. There was another element - smoke? The mouthfeel was nice silky pinot. But the finish included something I can only describe as dirt. Not pinot earth/funk - but dirt. It was not some tannin effect - it was in the taste, not the texture or mouthfeel.

1/20/2006 - Fat Hobbit wrote:

decanted, with the glass poured from bottom of bottle quite cloudy. Nice plums on the nose as it was decanted, but nose was more subdued in the glass. More plums on the palate. This was tasty but not complex. Good with pizza this night.

1/14/2006 - Fat Hobbit wrote:

Decanted, no sediment, but significant cloudiness at bottom of bottle. The nose featured red fruit and something besides typical pinot funk - some mineral or spice. Palate was very simple, but tasty - primarily red fruit. By the end of the bottle, the fruit had developed into very focused and sweet raspberry, with the slightest note of cedar. Blind I would have guessed this was grenache. Not sophisticated Burgundy, but decent qpr and tasty enough to buy again.

1/13/2006 - Fat Hobbit wrote:

Interesting nose with something like animal fur detected - but not unpleasant. Slightest tannins and small amount of acidity amount to only a minimal amount of structure - none of the wood I expected. The fruit was pleasant enough but a bit simple. It reminded me as much of recent malbecs than a merlot from any other country. By the end of the bottle it began to turn into a blueberry milkshake type wine.

1/7/2006 - Fat Hobbit wrote:

Decanted, with significant sediment. Dark in color, nose offers almost nothing. The palate is very pleasant: soft cherry liquer with some spice appearing on the mid palate and finish. Slight acidity, tannins are very fine and wonderfully integrated. Glycerin and the lack of rough tannin give this a very pleasant mouthfeel. Very nice.

12/25/2005 - Fat Hobbit wrote:

not decanted, no sediment noted. This was dominated by acidity and a bitter earthy note throughout the palate. Slight pinot funk and fruit, but it was dominated by these less attractive elements.

12/24/2005 - Fat Hobbit wrote:

Decanted for two hours: the nose is shy and not offering much. This is full bodied and coats the mouth. The palate features abundant fruit, a sweetness that doesn't seem associated with the fruit (glycerol?); spices that begin sweet and finish warm, and fine tannins. Even while keeping it slightly chilled, alcohol is present and hot. A bottle consumed this summer struck me as a mid-90s wine; the overall effect tonight is a very tasty wine, but one that feels over the top, with every element trying to be as big as possible. Not that there's anything wrong with that....

12/23/2005 - Fat Hobbit wrote:

decanted, slight sediment found. Quite dark in color, with the nose offering strong fruit, a variety of spices that changed slightly over the evening. The palate repeats the fruit and spice - with the spices hard to identify. There is acidity present, slight mineral notes, and some fine tannins. Overall, this has a rustic/masculine quality, but was very pleasant.

12/16/2005 - Fat Hobbit wrote:

decanted, no sediment seen. Nose offered great aromas of various red fruit and pinot earth/funk. Palate offered the same variety of nice red fruits, earthy notes, and acidity. The mouthfeel started very silky. Over the course of the bottle, some very slight tannins became apparent which affected mouthfeel. But they were very well integrated. A small bit of spice also emerged on the finish.
Overall, this had so many of the pinot elements which I hope for from this varietal, and they were present in wonderful balance. The best sub-$20 pinot I've tasted in 2005.

12/10/2005 - Fat Hobbit wrote:

Lightest colored red I've ever poured. If served blind, I'd have called it a rose. No nose to speak of - very faint earth/funk after a while. Palate also very reminiscent of a rose - bright, light fruit and some acidity. Little else present. Very simple, but very refreshing. This would be a nice summer wine to serve lightly chilled on a hot day.

12/9/2005 - Fat Hobbit wrote:

Decanted, no sediment, but the glass poured from bottom of bottle was very cloudy. Nose is dominated by kirsch. Palate also offers kirsch, raspberry - focused throughout and lingering on the finish. The taste is so much like liqueur, but the alcohol isn't 'hot' here. There is some spice on the finish which changed subtlely over the course of the evening. Tannins are very fine - very subtle. Acidity is notable and well integrated. Very focused set of elements here - good stuff. At this price, great qpr too.

12/3/2005 - Fat Hobbit wrote:

Decanted, no sediment seen. Nose of dark fruit. More dark fruit on the palate - plums - very rich and sweet. There are fine tannins which produce a powdery effect in the mouth. Mild spice in the finish. Fruit lingers on the finish - very pleasant.

11/16/2005 - Fat Hobbit wrote:

Quite a bit of structure here: tannins immediately on the palate; some acidity; powdery tannins on the finish. But all is well balanced. There is also nice fruit, but not the spice I would have expected at the finish. In mid palate I noticed a licorice/mineral note. On the second night, some wood elements also appeared. I think it will be even better in a couple of years - 88/89.

10/28/2005 - Fat Hobbit wrote:

Palate primarily of sour cherries. Nose features pine and earth. Acidity is noticeable. Tannins are strong enough to affect mouthfeel, but overall are integrated. Overall, just a bit thin to my taste.

10/19/2005 - Fat Hobbit wrote:

Dark in color, medium/heavy bodied, this has a nice mouthfeel. The nose doesn't offer much. The palate features dark fruit mingled with smoke, slight mineral note that emerges midpalate, and a meaty/gamy note that develops on the finish. The fruit disappointed somehow - perhaps a palate preference more than a real problem with the wine. Tannins are well integrated, and acidity is also present, but no noticeable wood. I thought this was quite sophisticated for an $8 bottle.

10/15/2005 - Fat Hobbit wrote:

Decanted, no sediment seen. The nose doesn't offer much, but the palate is very pleasant. Good fruit, tannins are well integrated, modest acidity, and mild version of syrah pepper spice on the finish. Pleasant wine with tremendous qpr.

10/14/2005 - Fat Hobbit wrote:

Disappointing compared to the '02, there was a tough quality to the palate similar to tannin or oak - greenness? In any case, typical pinot fruit and spice remained muted behind this other quality. The mouthfeel was similarly affected by this 'tough' presence and never developed the smoothness of most pinots. The nose yielded very little. This was full bodied, but I didn't note the alcohol extremes noted by others. A slightly corked bottle here?

9/23/2005 - Fat Hobbit wrote:

A first bottle tasted seemed tainted - possibly brett? In any case, barnyard dominated the nose and the fruit on the palate never emerged.
A second bottle was very pleasant. Dark for a pinot, medium/light bodied, this needs decanting - both bottles had noticeable sediment. The nose featured typical pinot earth/funk (not nearly as overwhelming as in the first bottle), along with some floral and spice notes. The palate featured sweet fruit, including strawberries near the end of the bottle, sweet tannins, good acidity (which diminished towards the end of the bottle) and a variety of spice notes in the mid palate and on the finish.
Very nice.

9/9/2005 - Fat Hobbit wrote:

This bottle seemed disjointed compared to one consumed earlier. The oak, fruit, slight mineral note were all pleasant but not integrated. Good bit of chunky sediment (barrel?) was revealed when decanted.

9/7/2005 - Fat Hobbit wrote:

First night: huge amount of oak on the nose and palate, even after decanting. So much so I only had a couple glasses before giving up for the night. Second night the oak had subsided somewhat. But the fruit was still struggling to emerge from the chewy tannins, oak, and perhaps a tobacco note? Simply way too much wood here. Perhaps this would show improvement after a couple years of cellaring.

9/4/2005 - Fat Hobbit wrote:

This offers the spice and fruit and earthiness that I expect from Pinots costing over $20 - but this costs less than half that. The total is a modest package, the finish is a bit clipped, but this went well with food and offers plenty of pinot pleasure - a real QPR winner.