Tasting Notes for Oenecnist

(584 notes on 496 wines)

1 - 50 of 584 Sort order
White
3/31/2020 - Oenecnist wrote:
Bought 3 bottles for 13/b from a local restaurateur last week; this is #1. Light gold; fragrant white tree fruit, some honeysuckle; juicy white fruits, honey, very good mouthfeel. Delicious. Some loss of fruit after 24 hours vacuvin-ed in the frig but still enjoyable. Glad I have more. Stored horizontally in a cool, dark basement since purchase. My evaluation: For me, scores on a "100-point scale" are misleading. I use a 4-category scale (perhaps with +/-)--not including flawed--which runs outstanding/notable/drinkable/poor. This is notable+ when considering quality, age, and price.
Red
4/2/2020 - Oenecnist wrote:
Bought 6b for approx 18/b (including all fees and taxes) in two mixed lots from Michael Davis auctions 23 years ago; this is #4. Decanted with normal (heavy) sediment for its age. Medium purple with a hint of amber edge; some funkiness on the nose initially, then mature cassis, bit of black cherry; good red fruit core, some old leather. Reminded me of an everyday mature Left Bank Bordeaux. Past prime but still tasty and noteworthy for its 32+ years. Bottles from 15-20 years ago were impressive as round Napa cabs with delicious fruit. By the way, the '86 sells for 150/b and the '88 for 140/b at the winery, according to Wine-searcher--glad I bought when I did. Stored horizontally in a cool, dark basement since purchase. My evaluation: For me, scores on a "100-point scale" are misleading. I use a 4-category scale (perhaps with +/-)--not including flawed--which runs outstanding/notable/drinkable/poor. This is notable when considering quality, age, and price.
Red
3/28/2020 - Oenecnist wrote:
Bought 5b for 12/b at a local independent (expensive) wine shop's bankruptcy auction 13 years ago; this is #1. Decanted with normal sediment for its age. Purple; fragrant simple cab sauv, hint of tartness (cranberry?); young cassis berries, some red cherry, some tartness, pretty good mouthfeel; bit of persistence. Tasty with some complexity; won't improve, glad I have more. Joint project between superstar and Indiana winemaker Larry Bird and real winemaker Mitch Cosentino. I am wary of celebrity wines, but this one's worth it at bankruptcy pricing. Stored horizontally in a cool, dark basement since purchase. My evaluation: For me, scores on a "100-point scale" are misleading. I use a 4-category scale (perhaps with +/-)--not including flawed--which runs outstanding/notable/drinkable/poor. This is notable+ when considering quality (including small allowance for novelty), age, and price.
Red
3/27/2020 - Oenecnist wrote:
Records not handy. Bought several at least 15 years ago--probably less than 20/b (I recall buying halves for less than 10/hb) and probably from Binny's or Sam's; this is not #1. Decanted with normal sediment for its age. Dark purple; reticent cassis nose, some tar; black fruits, subtle, hint of sorghum, good mouthfeel. Serious but not complex, thoroughly enjoyed but not easy. Older La Cardonnes I've tried have this style. Stored horizontally in a cool, dark basement since purchase. My evaluation: For me, scores on a "100-point scale" are misleading. I use a 4-category scale (perhaps with +/-)--not including flawed--which runs outstanding/notable/drinkable/poor. This is notable when considering quality, age, and price.
Red
3/26/2020 - Oenecnist wrote:
Further to my Note of July 23 '18: This is #7 and continues to please. Consistent notes of mature nose, rich and dark fruit, good mouthfeel, almost portlike. It was gone before it had time to fade. Certainly notable and may deserve better because of its durability.
Red
3/25/2020 - Oenecnist wrote:
Bought 4b from Sam's for 14/b 17 years ago; this is #3. Decanted with normal sediment for its age. Bit of amber edge around dark purple core; after a few minutes, overripe black cherry and plums following on the palate, some old leather, good mouthfeel; some persistence. Certainly past prime but enjoyable with sauteed chicken legs and much better than expected; was delicious 10 years ago. Much better than the '98 Vistorta merlot from five nights ago: one year younger, lower price from same retailer, better vintage, similar region...producer? Stored horizontally in a cool, dark basement since purchase. My evaluation: For me, scores on a "100-point scale" are misleading. I use a 4-category scale (perhaps with +/-)--not including flawed--which runs outstanding/notable/drinkable/poor. Based on earlier bottles and hints from this one, this is notable+ when considering quality, age, and price.
Rosé
3/24/2020 - Oenecnist wrote:
Further to my Note of July 22 '19: Opened another bottle to complement simple sauteed fish filets. Holding well: pale pink, some delicate red berry fruit and tartness, good mouthfeel. No detectable decline over the past eight months and still at least notable.
Red
2003 Marchesi Mazzei Chianti Classico Fonterutoli Chianti Classico DOCG Sangiovese Blend, Sangiovese (view label images)
3/23/2020 - Oenecnist wrote:
Further to my Note of Sept 21 '18: First bottle in 18 months. Not so sure about any amber edge this time; but dark purple is certainly there. Dark red fruit nose, some black cherry, bit of tar, very good mouthfeel. Won't improve, should last another 1-2 years Still notable+.
Red
3/20/2020 - Oenecnist wrote:
Bought 6b from Sam's for 17/b 17 years ago; this is #3. Decanted with normal sediment for its age. Broad amber edge with ruby core; old leather, tea, some red berry fruit that followed on the palate. Interesting and mildly pleasant with food but well beyond prime. Overlooked for too long in a dark corner. Stored horizontally in a cool, dark basement since purchase. Since this was well past prime, I'm not evaluating it.
White
3/4/2020 - Oenecnist wrote:
Further to my Note of Jan 29 '20: Another bottle during half-price wine night, thoroughly enjoyed and well priced on sale. Yum.
Red
3/23/2020 - Oenecnist wrote:
Bought a 12b case for 12/b 8 years ago from a local independent gourmet grocer; this is #7. Decanted with light sediment for its age. Medium purple; mature red fruits, some spice; mature red fruits, some tartness, good mouthfeel; some persistence. Tasty but suffered from pairing with surprisingly spicy food--ultimately mea culpa. Quality showed, but deserved a better match; will try again. Stored horizontally in a cool, dark basement since purchase. My evaluation: For me, scores on a "100-point scale" are misleading. I use a 4-category scale (perhaps with +/-)--not including flawed--which runs outstanding/notable/drinkable/poor. Based on earlier bottles and hints from this one, this is notable+ when considering quality, age, and price.
Red
3/18/2020 - Oenecnist wrote:
Records not handy. Bought 4b for under 30/b at least 10 years ago; this is #1. Decanted with normal sediment for its age and drunk soon thereafter--perhaps an error. Medium purple; some black cherry, some chocolate, some earth; good fruit, good mouthfeel...but I think this suffered from being last in line--did not get the attention it deserved. Certainly enjoyed--at least notable--but I'll defer a final evaluation until next time.
1 person found this helpful Comment
White
2017 Crnko Premium Cuvée Maribor White Blend
2/23/2020 - Oenecnist wrote:
Bought last month for 13 from a local eclectic independent retailer; 1-liter bottle with bottle cap. Very pale green-gold; fragrant grassy sauvignon-ish nose; grassy, citrus, some green herbs, rounder than pure SB, not crisp, good mouthfeel; some persistence. Tasty, lasted 2 more days with vacu-vin in the frig. Interesting Slovenian entry, but not a re-buy. My evaluation: For me, scores on a "100-point scale" are misleading. I use a 4-category scale (perhaps with +/-)--not including flawed--which runs outstanding/notable/drinkable/poor. This is notable when considering quality, age, and price.
Red
3/22/2020 - Oenecnist wrote:
Bought 8 from WinEx for 30/b 12 years ago; this is #1. Decanted with normal sediment for its age. Medium brick red; some kind of fragrant mature plum; mature plum, some caramel on the palate, very good mouthfeel; good persistence. Delicious, held well over 2h, wish I'd left some to try in 24h. Glad I have more, see no need to hurry. Stored horizontally in a cool, dark basement since purchase. My evaluation: For me, scores on a "100-point scale" are misleading. I use a 4-category scale (perhaps with +/-)--not including flawed--which runs outstanding/notable/drinkable/poor. This is notable+ when considering quality, age, and price.
White
3/17/2020 - Oenecnist wrote:
Further to my Note of Sept 28 '19; this is #5: Another reliable tasty bottle, held up reasonably well over 3 days with frig storage; slight loss of fruit by the end.
White - Sparkling
3/18/2020 - Oenecnist wrote:
Further to my note of Dec 10 '19: Another tasty bottle, though this might be showing a bit of age--slight hint of oxidation. Could have been served colder.
1 person found this helpful Comments (2)
Red
3/18/2020 - Oenecnist wrote:
Bought 4b for 20/b from a local independent retailer about 10 years ago; this is #1. Decanted with normal sediment for its age. Dark purple; cassis, some spice; mature cabernet sauv, some cherry, good mouthfeel; some persistence. From trying other vintages, I think this benefits from several years of aging. Delicious, glad I have more. Stored horizontally in a cool, dark basement since purchase. My evaluation: For me, scores on a "100-point scale" are misleading. I use a 4-category scale (perhaps with +/-)--not including flawed--which runs outstanding/notable/drinkable/poor. This is notable when considering quality, age, and price.
Red
3/18/2020 - Oenecnist wrote:
Bought 4b for 30/b about 12 years ago from a local independent store; this is #1. Decanted with normal sediment for its age. Dark purple; fragrant red fruit, some spice; mature fruit, mildly tart cherry, some spice, very good mouthfeel; good persistence. Delicious, glad I have more. Good complement to gourmet lasagna. Stored horizontally in a cool, dark basement since purchase. My evaluation: For me, scores on a "100-point scale" are misleading. I use a 4-category scale (perhaps with +/-)--not including flawed--which runs outstanding/notable/drinkable/poor. This is notable+ when considering quality, age, and price.
Red
3/19/2020 - Oenecnist wrote:
Further to my note of Oct 10 '19: Decanted with light sediment for its age. Dark ruby; mature nose, some ripe cranberry that follow on the palate, some tartness. More Burgundian than I recall. Certainly notable.
Red
3/6/2020 - Oenecnist wrote:
Bought a 12b case for 20/b from a local independent eclectic wine ship; this is #1. Med-dark purple; reticent nose with some Rhone fruits down in there; subtle Rhone fruits, good mouthfeel; bit of persistence. Develops some over 24h; needs time. Stored horizontally in a cool, dark basement since purchase. My evaluation: For me, scores on a "100-point scale" are misleading. I use a 4-category scale (perhaps with +/-)--not including flawed--which runs outstanding/notable/drinkable/poor. This is notable when considering quality, age, and price.
White - Sparkling
3/16/2020 - Oenecnist wrote:
Bought 12b case for 7/b from a local eclectic independent shop. Pale gold, ample effervescence; light white stone fruit; stone fruits, hint of sweetness (chenin blanc?), good mouthfeel. Not complex but refreshing and enjoyable. Stored horizontally in a cool, dark basement since purchase. My evaluation: For me, scores on a "100-point scale" are misleading. I use a 4-category scale (perhaps with +/-)--not including flawed--which runs outstanding/notable/drinkable/poor. This is notable+ when considering quality, age, and price.
Rosé
2018 Revelry Vintners Rosé Columbia Valley Grenache Blend, Grenache (view label images)
3/17/2020 - Oenecnist wrote:
Bought a 12b case for 5/b from a local eclectic independent shop; this is #2. Pale pink; subdued but semi-complex red fruit nose, some tartness that follow on the palate, good mouthfeel. Worth savoring. Fades some over 24h, though still enjoyable. Stored vertically (screwcap) in a cool, dark basement since purchase. My evaluation: For me, scores on a "100-point scale" are misleading. I use a 4-category scale (perhaps with +/-)--not including flawed--which runs outstanding/notable/drinkable/poor. This is notable+ when considering quality, age, and price.
Red
1997 Attilio Ghisolfi Langhe Carlin Langhe DOC Nebbiolo Blend, Nebbiolo (view label images)
3/15/2020 - Oenecnist wrote:
Records not handy. Probably part of an Italian assortment purchased from Sam's 18 years ago--bought several, probably less than 12/b. Decanted with normal sediment for its age; some amber edge around a dark purple core; mature plum, some old leather that follow on the palate, hint of dusty cocoa, good mouthfeel; some persistence. Past prime but a tasty complement for "supreme" pizza. Stored horizontally in a cool, dark basement since purchase. My evaluation: For me, scores on a "100-point scale" are misleading. I use a 4-category scale (perhaps with +/-)--not including flawed--which runs outstanding/notable/drinkable/poor. This is notable when considering quality, age, and price.
White
3/11/2020 - Oenecnist wrote:
Bought 6b for 11/b from a local suburban independent shop last week. Pale gold; white tree fruit that follows on the palate, subtle oak, round, good mouthfeel. Held well for 24h but decline after that. Simple, tasty, glad to have more as an everyday Burg blanc. Not for keeping more than 1-2 years. Stored horizontally in a cool, dark basement since purchase. My evaluation: For me, scores on a "100-point scale" are misleading. I use a 4-category scale (perhaps with +/-)--not including flawed--which runs outstanding/notable/drinkable/poor. This is notable when considering quality, age, and price.
Red
3/13/2020 - Oenecnist wrote:
Further to my note of Aug 20 '19: This is the third of three more bottles that we've enjoyed--this one as a carry-in at a neighborhood casual restaurant. Notes consistent with last Aug with added comment that the fruit is a pleasure, though the wine lacks complexity--still notable+.
Red
3/12/2020 - Oenecnist wrote:
Bought 4b for 10/b from Sam's about 17 years ago; this is #3. Decanted with light sediment for its age. Broad amber edge with ruby core; some fruit, old leather, tea that follow in the palate. Well past its prime but interesting and enjoyable with a hearty pasta sauce of roast chicken, peppers, and onions. My notes from the last bottle 13 years ago say that this was lean then and good of its type but not special. Stored horizontally in a cool, dark basement since purchase. My evaluation: For me, scores on a "100-point scale" are misleading. I use a 4-category scale (perhaps with +/-)--not including flawed--which runs outstanding/notable/drinkable/poor. This is drinkable+--and interesting--when considering quality, age, and price and probably never better than notable.
Red
3/10/2020 - Oenecnist wrote:
Bought 4b for 20/b from a local eclectic independent shop; this is #1. Almost opaque purple; black fruit, tarry nose; rich, mature black fruit, tarry but not sharp, with more fruit emerging with time in the glass; some persistence--tasted "serious", though not austere. Delicious but not for everyone. Good pairing with Italian herbed chicken. Glad I have more. Stored horizontally in a cool, dark basement since purchase. My evaluation: For me, scores on a "100-point scale" are misleading. I use a 4-category scale (perhaps with +/-)--not including flawed--which runs outstanding/notable/drinkable/poor. This is notable+ when considering quality, age, and price.
Red
3/9/2020 - Oenecnist wrote:
Bought a 12b case last week for 5/b after rebate from a local chain's nearby shop; this is #1. Dark purple; spicy, briary nose, some oak that followed on the palate, red berry fruit, good mouthfeel; some persistence. Delicious as an everyday partner for hearty dishes. ABV of 14.8% does not interfere. Drinkable but getting flabby when we finished the bottle after 48h. Stored horizontally in a cool, dark basement since purchase. My evaluation: For me, scores on a "100-point scale" are misleading. I use a 4-category scale (perhaps with +/-)--not including flawed--which runs outstanding/notable/drinkable/poor. This is notable+ when considering quality, age, and price (after rebate).
Rosé
3/11/2020 - Oenecnist wrote:
Further to my Note of July 24 '19: Drank this with grilled ahi tuna this evening. Modest decline in fruit and tartness, still tasty but rose' character won't last much longer.
Rosé
2/29/2020 - Oenecnist wrote:
Gift from a neighbor who bought it from a local gourmet grocer for 5/b. Very pale pink/gray; fragrant floral, white tree fruits that follow on the palate, good mouthfeel; some persistence--more like a Rhone blanc than a rose'. Almost as good after 24h. Stored vertically (screwcap) in a cool, dark basement. My evaluation: For me, scores on a "100-point scale" are misleading. I use a 4-category scale (perhaps with +/-)--not including flawed--which runs outstanding/notable/drinkable/poor. This is notable when considering quality, age, and price.
Red
3/7/2020 - Oenecnist wrote:
Recently bought 6b for 10/b from a local independent and eclectic shop. No decant but should have after finding considerable sediment in the second pour. Med dark purple; red fruit nose, some pie spice; mature red fruit, bit of tartness, some spice; some persistence. Solid and tasty, glad I have more. Stored vertically (screwcap) in a cool, dark basement since purchase. My evaluation: For me, scores on a "100-point scale" are misleading. I use a 4-category scale (perhaps with +/-)--not including flawed--which runs outstanding/notable/drinkable/poor. This is notable+ when considering quality, age, and price.
Red
2016 Château de Clotte Castillon Côtes de Bordeaux Red Bordeaux Blend (view label images)
3/5/2020 - Oenecnist wrote:
Bought a 12b case 4 months ago for 11/b from a local chain store: this is #1. Decanted because of its youth (no sediment). Dark purple; cassis, some blackberry, some oak that follow on the palate; good mouthfeel; some persistence. Drank over 4 days: best was Day 2, but it was still solid on Day 4. Delicious and promising for the future; glad I have more. Stored horizontally in a cool, dark basement since purchase. My evaluation: For me, scores on a "100-point scale" are misleading. I use a 4-category scale (perhaps with +/-)--not including flawed--which runs outstanding/notable/drinkable/poor. This is notable+ when considering quality, age, and price.
1 person found this helpful Comment
Red
3/6/2020 - Oenecnist wrote:
Bought 3 magnums for 40/mag from Garagiste about 10 years ago; this is #2. Decanted with very light sediment for its age. Dusty rose; some ripe red berries, some red cherry, some floral, some crabapple, hint of nuttiness; mature red tree fruits, nuttiness, very good mouthfeel; good persistence. Improved some over 2-3 hours. Delicious. Stored horizontally in a cool, dark basement since purchase. My evaluation: For me, scores on a "100-point scale" are misleading. I use a 4-category scale (perhaps with +/-)--not including flawed--which runs outstanding/notable/drinkable/poor. This is outstanding- when considering quality, age, and price.
Red
3/6/2020 - Oenecnist wrote:
Bought a 6-pack for $100 about 15 years ago from a small IL chain of beverage shops so about 17/b; this is #3. Decanted with heavy sediment for its age. Dark purple, no amber edge; after initial off-odor, developed rich red fruit nose, hint of oak; rich mature cassis, plum, some oak, very good mouthfeel; good persistence. Delicious, remarkably good for a relatively modest 20-year old. Stored horizontally in a cool, dark basement since purchase. My evaluation: For me, scores on a "100-point scale" are misleading. I use a 4-category scale (perhaps with +/-)--not including flawed--which runs outstanding/notable/drinkable/poor. This is outstanding- when considering quality, age, and price.
White
2/18/2020 - Oenecnist wrote:
Records not handy. Bought 6b for 12-15/b about 20 years ago from the former evineyard; this may be the last one. Gold; modest nose, still just a hint of fruit; bit of honey, hint of fruit, modest all around but drinkable, not unpleasant. Long gone but interesting. Stored horizontally in a cool, dark basement since purchase. My evaluation: For me, scores on a "100-point scale" are misleading. I use a 4-category scale (perhaps with +/-)--not including flawed--which runs outstanding/notable/drinkable/poor. This was notable+ 12-14 years ago when considering quality, age, and price--just interesting now.
Red
2/20/2020 - Oenecnist wrote:
Bought 2b for 6/b from a local gourmet grocery chain about three months ago; this is #1. No decant. Dark purple; dark berry nose (black, boysen), some spice; dark fruits, bit of briar, some oak, bit of sweetness, good mouthfeel; some persistence. Not complex but almost delicious, relatively low zin ABV of 14%. Glad to have more. Stored vertically (screwcap) in a cool, dark basement since purchase. My evaluation: For me, scores on a "100-point scale" are misleading. I use a 4-category scale (perhaps with +/-)--not including flawed--which runs outstanding/notable/drinkable/poor. This is notable+ when considering quality, age, and price.
Red
2/12/2020 - Oenecnist wrote:
Bought a bottle recently for 10 from a local eclectic shop. Dark purple; some ripe cherry nose (red, black); cherry, bit of barnyard, good mouthfeel. Drank another glass after 24h and the last glass after 48h, using vacu-vin. Cherry receded, but not much character left. Never seemed like a caricature Rhone--fruity but not much more (e.g., no pepper, garrigue). My evaluation: For me, scores on a "100-point scale" are misleading. I use a 4-category scale (perhaps with +/-)--not including flawed--which runs outstanding/notable/drinkable/poor. This is notable- when considering quality, age, and price.
Red
2/5/2020 - Oenecnist wrote:
Further to my Note of Aug 22 '19: We have had two more bottles over the last 10 days, and this continues to please, even leaving some for 24h. Still finding the Burgundian character, esp. with some time after opening.
White
2/11/2020 - Oenecnist wrote:
Bought 6b for "free" about 6 weeks ago from a local gourmet grocery chain: $50/6b case with $50 mail-in rebate. Light gold; some pineapple and pear, some oak that followed on the palate, oak is there but not overdone, good mouthfeel. Left some for 24h, and it held up very well. Certainly a Cali Chard--tasty of its type. Glad to have more and would take more "free" but not at 8-9/b without rebate. Stored horizontally (traditional cork) in a cool, dark basement since purchase. My evaluation: For me, scores on a "100-point scale" are misleading. I use a 4-category scale (perhaps with +/-)--not including flawed--which runs outstanding/notable/drinkable/poor. This is notable+ when considering quality, age, and (remarkable) price--notable without rebate.
White
2/2/2020 - Oenecnist wrote:
Bought a 12b case for 6.5/b after $36 mail-in rebate from the neighborhood shop of a local chain about two months ago; this is #1. Light green-gold; some citrus, savory herb, hint of mulberry aromas that follow on the palate; crisp, good mouthfeel--an attractive, more subtle alternative to NZ SB. Enjoyed this more than the '17 tried the day before, but that may be freshness--may suggest that this is for early consumption. Stored vertically (screwcap) in a cool, dark basement since purchase. My evaluation: For me, scores on a "100-point scale" are misleading. I use a 4-category scale (perhaps with +/-)--not including flawed--which runs outstanding/notable/drinkable/poor. This is notable when considering quality, age, and price.
Red
1/17/2020 - Oenecnist wrote:
Odd name for a wine--might confuse some buyers--but "founder" got started with beer and tea, according to the label. Bought several for 5/b last fall from a local independent and eclectic shop; this is #1. No decant--not absolutely necessary, though there was some sediment in the last pour. Dark purple; big blackberry, cassis nose, some oak that follow on the palate, more refined than a "fruit bomb" but ample fruit, good mouthfeel; good persistence. Fruit mellowed some after 24h with vacu-vin, more enjoyable--overall, delicious. Label says "cellar for 10-15 years": I might manage that for one bottle. Bordeaux varietals (52% cab sauv), but clearly New World style--NOT traditional. Glad I have more. Stored horizontally in a cool, dark basement since purchase. My evaluation: For me, scores on a "100-point scale" are misleading. I use a 4-category scale (perhaps with +/-)--not including flawed--which runs outstanding/notable/drinkable/poor. This is notable+ when considering quality, age, and (remarkable) price.
Red
2000 Fugue de Nénin Pomerol Red Bordeaux Blend (view label images)
2/2/2020 - Oenecnist wrote:
Bought a 12b case for 18/b from a Chicago chain about 15 years ago; this is #5. Decanted with normal sediment for its age. Dark purple; blackcurrant nose, hint of yeast; rich fruit-filled palate, not quite complex, some tannins (still!), good mouthfeel; good persistence. Saved some for 24h using vacu-vin, and the tannins seemed to have mellowed: remarkably delicious and durable, esp. for a second wine (of Ch Nenin) at this price. Stored horizontally in a cool, dark basement since purchase. My evaluation: For me, scores on a "100-point scale" are misleading. I use a 4-category scale (perhaps with +/-)--not including flawed--which runs outstanding/notable/drinkable/poor. This is notable+ when considering quality, age, and price.
Red
1998 Château Fonroque St. Émilion Grand Cru Red Bordeaux Blend (view label images)
2/1/2020 - Oenecnist wrote:
Records not handy. This was lying on the basement steps and it looked like a good candidate for a prime rib dinner. It shows no indication of an importer and has no gov alcohol warning so my hunch for now is that it was part of a mixed auction lot so it's difficult to know what I paid for it (though highly likely less than 30/b). My auction records suggest that I've had it at least 15 years. Decanted with normal sediment for its age. Dark purple with perhaps the slightest hint of amber edge in the decanter; fragrant blackcurrant nose, graphite; black fruits, graphite, likely some fade from peak, very good mouthfeel; good persistence. Delicious! I hope I have more (somewhere). Stored horizontally in a cool, dark basement (incl steps) since purchase. My evaluation: For me, scores on a "100-point scale" are misleading. I use a 4-category scale (perhaps with +/-)--not including flawed--which runs outstanding/notable/drinkable/poor. This is at least notable+ when considering quality, age, and (unknown) price. Postscript: After looking at the three most recent CT notes, NiklasW from Aug '18 seems much closer to my evaluation (though how far "past peak" is highly subjective) than Wine Canuck from Dec '12 or Andice in Oct '11. Wow? Was this the same wine?
1 person found this helpful Comments (1)
Red
1/29/2020 - Oenecnist wrote:
Records not handy. I think this is the last of a 12b-case I bought at a silent auction at the end of a wine trade conference about 12 years ago--maybe 10/b or $120 for the case. Decanted with normal sediment for its age. Dark purple; fresh and ripe plum and black cherry, hint of old leather that follow on the palate, good mouthfeel; some persistence. Delicious, more like syrah than aged PN. I've enjoyed this over the years but not as varietally correct PN. Stored horizontally in a cool, dark basement since purchase. My evaluation: For me, scores on a "100-point scale" are misleading. I use a 4-category scale (perhaps with +/-)--not including flawed--which runs outstanding/notable/drinkable/poor. This is notable+ when considering quality, age, and price.
Red
1/31/2020 - Oenecnist wrote:
Bought off the wine list for $35 at a local cozy garden restaurant, though they weren't serving in the garden tonight at the end of January. Best US Searcher Pro is $17 so reasonable restaurant markup by local standards. Darker purple; plum and black cherry that follow on the palate, good mouthfeel but flabby, overall simple. Tasty but not delicious; reminded me of an entry-level Salice Salentino. We enjoy the restaurant but are unlikely to order this again. My evaluation: For me, scores on a "100-point scale" are misleading. I use a 4-category scale (perhaps with +/-)--not including flawed--which runs outstanding/notable/drinkable/poor. This is notable- when considering quality, age, and (restaurant) price.
White
1/29/2020 - Oenecnist wrote:
Note: This is not the Classico. Several vendors on Searcher Pro are careless about what they have vs what they advertise. Bought a bottle last night for $21 during half-price wine night at our unusual neighborhood self-described "social house" (veg-centric menu, eclectic drinks list): $1 over the lowest US retail price on Searcher Pro. Noisy with low light so not the best tasting conditions. Pale gold; fragrant nutty, honey nose, some hay; some honey, some nuttiness, straw, very good mouthfeel; some persistence. Saved half for 24h, and it held up well. Screwcap. My evaluation: For me, scores on a "100-point scale" are misleading. I use a 4-category scale (perhaps with +/-)--not including flawed--which runs outstanding/notable/drinkable/poor. This is notable+ when considering quality, age, and (restaurant) price.
1 person found this helpful Comment
Red
1/29/2020 - Oenecnist wrote:
Further to my note of Nov 6 '19 on the '15: Bought a bottle last night for $21 during half-price wine night at our unusual neighborhood self-described "social house" (veg-centric menu, eclectic drinks list) and saw they'd had a vintage change: now $5 over the lowest US retail price on Searcher Pro. Still noisy with low light so not the best tasting conditions. Dark purple; cab-dominant nose, oak less prominent than the '15; mature fruit that tends to Bordeaux, very good mouthfeel, more balanced than the '15 so more enjoyable upon opening. None saved this time; will try next time. My evaluation: For me, scores on a "100-point scale" are misleading. I use a 4-category scale (perhaps with +/-)--not including flawed--which runs outstanding/notable/drinkable/poor. This is notable+ when considering quality, age, and (restaurant) price.
1 person found this helpful Comment
Red
1/28/2020 - Oenecnist wrote:
Bought 6b for 20/b from a Cali vendor about 9 years ago; this is #1. Decanted with normal sediment for its age. Dark purple; black cherry, fresh plum that follow on the palate, good mouthfeel; some persistence. Almost delicious but a clear notch below the '03 from last night (see my note from Jan 27). Vitanza has tended to be good value in a BdiM over the years but with considerable vintage variation and differences in effects of aging. Glad I have more but would trade some for more '03. Stored horizontally in a cool, dark basement since purchase. My evaluation: For me, scores on a "100-point scale" are misleading. I use a 4-category scale (perhaps with +/-)--not including flawed--which runs outstanding/notable/drinkable/poor. This is notable+ when considering quality, age, and price.
Red
1/27/2020 - Oenecnist wrote:
Bought 4b for 20/b about 10 years ago from a Cali vendor; this is #2. Decanted with normal sediment for its age. Almost black-purple; rich black cherry/black fruit nose, some tar; deep fruit flavors, some tar, very good mouthfeel; good persistence. Delicious! Paired well with garlic chicken pasta. No sign of decline, but doubt that it will improve. Glad I have more, wish I had even more. Stored horizontally in a cool, dark basement since purchase. My evaluation: For me, scores on a "100-point scale" are misleading. I use a 4-category scale (perhaps with +/-)--not including flawed--which runs outstanding/notable/drinkable/poor. This is outstanding- when considering quality, age, and price.
White
1/24/2020 - Oenecnist wrote:
Bought for $32 from the wine "specials" at a cozy local family restaurant after a sample taste. Pale gold; fresh white fruit nose; stone fruits, hint of citrus, good mouthfeel. Enjoyable that night, simple; saved half the bottle and enjoyed it at home the next night but would not hold longer. Profitable for the restaurant: Searcher shows that Total Wine's retail for this runs about $7-8; others sell for less. Fortunately, food is good value here. Also, the owner allowed us to have one of our own wines for the red without charging (house corkage = $15). Note that corkage policies vary widely here, thanks to pressure from the restaurant industry; but some restaurants allow it because of spotty enforcement, driven often by competitor complaints according to my sources. My evaluation: For me, scores on a "100-point scale" are misleading. I use a 4-category scale (perhaps with +/-)--not including flawed--which runs outstanding/notable/drinkable/poor. This wine is notable- when considering quality, age, and restaurant price. However, I would rate the lessons learned from the visit outstanding.
1 - 50 of 584
More results
  • Tasting Notes: 584 notes on 496 wines
© 2003-20 CellarTracker! LLC.

Report a Problem

Close