11/3/2019 - BabaPerson Does not like this wine:

Simple, sweet and fruity with little varietal quality, but robust alcohol.

5/27/2019 - BabaPerson wrote:

Simplistic, one dimensional.

11/23/2018 - BabaPerson Likes this wine:

A nice wine but not a great value. It's virtues are subtle. A bit of fruit fragrance on the approach, nice clinging tannins, but not memorable.

12/14/2017 - BabaPerson Likes this wine:

I was first taken aback by the lightness of this wine. A floral nose, a thin color, very dry, and a tannic astringency. Overall, as it opened up, I came to appreciate the balance and character. It will never be a big Bordeaux. The label describes it as "full-bodied", which is not accurate, to
my taste. There is however a certain finesse which is often lacking in wines at this price range (I paid US $15).

11/14/2017 - BabaPerson Likes this wine:

Enjoyed this more than I thought. Good mouth feel, medium finish. Nice nose. The 15% alcohol is noticeable, but not obnoxious. At $20, reasonable QPR.

11/3/2017 - BabaPerson Likes this wine:

Getting on a bit. I had with (and before) a curry meal, so don't overweight this review. In fact I'll defer to the pros with my rating.

This strikes me as a typical, good, French merlot blend. Not thrillingly complex, and not exceptionally long in the finish, but well-done.

10/26/2017 - BabaPerson wrote:

Very light on the palate, almost watery, pleasant enough nose in a light way, berries. More bitter than tart, to my taste, but the alcohol is noticeable. Not one to seek out.

Revised (up to 85 from 80): Day 2. This definitely opened up and became much more enjoyable. The implied warning is to be careful about "pop & pour."

8/8/2017 - BabaPerson Likes this wine:

This is a good qpr. Nice clean exposition. Good fruit. Reasonably light body, but with a good tannic base. Not complex. Tastes just a bit hot.

7/13/2017 - BabaPerson Likes this wine:

Color: transparent red with orange tones. Very dry when bottle first opened, so I carafed it briefly and returned it to bottle. After 1/2 hour was enjoyed by everyone. Very balanced. Dry but fruit present. A hit.

7/3/2017 - BabaPerson wrote:

Very typical Ventoux. Somewhat hot. Nothing exciting.

4/20/2017 - BabaPerson Likes this wine:

Simple but has slightly dusty tannins, and not too sweet. Really not bad for an inexpensive everyday quaff.

8/3/2014 - BabaPerson wrote:

Smooth and tasty, but very hot. Strong alcohol content mars experience.

5/1/2014 - BabaPerson Does not like this wine:

Intense carbonation wit associated off-flavors was odd and very off-putting.

4/26/2014 - BabaPerson Likes this wine:

Refined, balanced, reasonable finish. Lacks a bit on the mid-palate.

1/5/2014 - BabaPerson Does not like this wine:

Being a fan of ordinary Cotes du Rhone, my expectations were moderate. I paid $14, admittedly marked up at my local small grocery store, and hoped the "reserve" label connoted some indication of a quality bump. The wine opened very flat. Both fruit and acidity were so restrained as to surprise me. More or less tasted like a very inexpensive Languedoc.

9/16/2013 - BabaPerson Likes this wine:

Classic right bank Bordeaux, restrained. Decent body. Mid palate fruit dances in an elegant way, but is not complex. Moderate finish. At around $15 with shipping (I bought a case) it was a "very good" wine. I like the Cellar Tracker designation of "B+". As far as QPR, I think it stands up well against offerings here locally.

7/23/2013 - BabaPerson Likes this wine:

Concentrated, good fruit, strong alcohol, decent finish. Good!

3/7/2013 - BabaPerson wrote:

I found this on my basement floor next to my wine rack, covered in spider webs. It is fruity, a bit hot, and simple. I think it's holding up reasonably well for what it is.

2/22/2013 - BabaPerson wrote:

My second rating. I vinturied and sipped. It showed a new level of sophistication, with a nice nose, and a little flourish on the end. Balanced, witth an extended fish. Some tannins. At the 13 I paid, great QPR.

11/18/2012 - BabaPerson wrote:

Hooray for bottle variation! Bottle number 3 was elegant, concentrated, rich, and reminiscent of dark cherries. Acidity was pleasing, alcohol seemed balanced, and I totally understood the previous higher rankings. This is the wine I was hoping for! Very different from my first two bottles.

11/8/2012 - BabaPerson wrote:

Having opened my second bottle, I continue to struggle to identify the heavy dark aromas from this wine. Coffee, molasses, ? I think I've got it. Could it be that it was massively over-oaked? Almost as if too much liquid oak essence was poured into the must. Add that to the high alcohol,and consider underneath that there is a wine of reasonable flavor and acidity, but a coarse, in-your-face quality.

11/2/2012 - BabaPerson wrote:

I just bought 7 bottles. Oops, is my first thought: probably a bit past it. almost a coffee taste predominates, somewhat bitter. I get dust and a kind of pruney sense. The bitterness on the finish is not a refined tannin, but something else, less pleasant. Also a bit hot. I went bottom-fishing for french merlot with a few years on it, and bought this for $6.90. When I give it a 75 for "Average" I guess it's average for a sub-$7 bottle of wine, but only if you are limiting the field to French merlot. I wonder what it tasted like in 2008?

11/2/2012 - BabaPerson wrote:

Bought for $6.90. Typical Bordeaux probably about right for QPR. Enjoyable, but lack of bite leaves it a bit hollow at mid-palate. Best with food.

10/7/2012 - BabaPerson wrote:

Very good to excellent. Tasted next to a 2002 Cotes du Bordeaux. Is darker, richer, better nose, fuller mouth feel, and reasonable finish. The 2002 is smoother and simpler.

10/5/2012 - BabaPerson wrote:

Paired with M & M peanuts. Popped and poured. At $4.49, a great QPR. Smooth, likeable merlot. Nothing too complex but just at its peak.

5/25/2012 - BabaPerson wrote:

Vinturied. Very delicious. Wasn't sure what to expect from an Haut Medoc, being more used to right bank. This was quite open, color beginning to redden, soft tannins.

4/10/2012 - BabaPerson wrote:

Initial presentation was nice, but it faded a bit. Maybe reaching the end of its prime?

3/13/2012 - BabaPerson wrote:

Okay, my high ranking is the outlier, and as I said, I bought a case at bargain rates. On return tasting, I am not as enthused. Smooth, not uninteresting, a tad hot, tannic, and definitely French, but let's face it, not exciting. I don't regret my purchase for the price I paid, but not as I earlier said, a very good wine. As I write this in the afternoon and wait in my steamy house for maple sap to boil down, the qualities added up to just enough to make me go back and pop the cork on the Moueix, however. I double venturied it.

1/26/2012 - BabaPerson wrote:

Wow. (I had the 2007 recently and enjoyed it so much, I ordered a case of the 2009 and 2010. The 2007 was easy and delicious, while still unequivocally old world. Sort of paradoxical, to my mind.) My impression of this was it is bigger. Concentrated, high alcohol, but very young. It feels less like a value wine: more ambitious. It isn't clear yet, though, where it's going. Still pretty tight. I would say it is the kind of wine you can nurse a glass for a while. I'll be interested to see where it is in a couple of days.

Right now, 87 for very good to excellent.

1/13/2012 - BabaPerson wrote:

I was blown away by the sheer pleasure of this wine. Dark, concentrated, dry, but fruity. not oaky. Definite new world sensibility, but in a good way. I admit I'll often drink a glass of wine and say to myself, "What more could I ask for?" It isn't altogether rare for me, and I don't drink $50 wine, but this was one of those wines. It was balanced, youthful, but not 9overly complex, I suppose. I may be overly high, but Parker gave it a 90, so I'm not way off.

1/6/2012 - BabaPerson wrote:

Very balanced, polished. Good sipper. Reasonable value.

12/21/2011 - BabaPerson wrote:

Wine Spectator had this at 88.

To my palate this was a refined, $25 value with balance and sophistication, just starting to open up. Stunningly, I found it on sale for $7, and bought a case. Long live classy negotiants!

11/23/2011 - BabaPerson wrote:

Mmmmmm. Very satisfactory. Everything I wanted from a right bank merlot. Popped and poured.

11/5/2011 - BabaPerson wrote:

Not maybe an average to high average meritage for the $8 (at Sam's) I paid. Appears thin to average concentration in the glass. Agreeably dry, but has a sweet thing hiding in the shadows. Alcohol does not burn, but its fairly high. Some fruit, hint of almond on the nose. 81 for good, rather than average, though this wine is very average.

9/22/2011 - BabaPerson wrote:

Agreed with comments below. My first impression was faded, or over the hill. As a hint of former tannins, acidity, but now just the memory. Not distasteful as such, not an embarrassment, but intrinsically just a letdown.

9/11/2011 - BabaPerson wrote:

I'm with Daver. This was that rare find: a $6 bottle that surprised on the upside. Nothing fancy, color was transparent, but a fair balance between acidity, fruit, and tannins. a slight nod to old world sensibilities.

9/6/2011 - BabaPerson wrote:

This last bottle was smooth and delicious, with tannins that dry the mouth pleasantly. Nice. Must be coming into its window.

9/2/2011 - BabaPerson wrote:

Thin body, rather sweet. Always looking for a $6 quaff, but this offers nothing. Some faint intrigue, maybe, on the back palate, but its a stretch.

8/28/2011 - BabaPerson wrote:

This is fine. balanced, everything I could want from a Cotes du Rhone.

8/27/2011 - BabaPerson wrote:

Sweet: I would call it "off-dry" in my experience. I found this terribly off-putting. It has none of the qualities I would look for in a Bordeaux claret. At $7.99, I guess I shouldn't expect much. For someone looking for a sweetish quaff with limited acidity and limited tannins, I suppose there are worse drinks out there. Unfortunately I had higher hopes, since I've recently had some decent, inexpensive South American dry reds. Here in Michigan there are off-dry reds that some people like. This was probably cheaper.

7/17/2011 - BabaPerson wrote:

Pleasant, light bodied, smooth. My wife liked it. One extra point for that.

Unfortunately the sommelier recommended it to go with lamb chops and a heavy rosemary/mushroom gravy. The wine came across with a discordant light, almost sweet flavor that couldn't match the rich rustic flavors of the food.

7/14/2011 - BabaPerson wrote:

Little on the nose, but surprisingly refined fruit in the mouth. Truncated finish. Light tannins. Not bad at $8.99 in my expensive boutique grocery.

7/7/2011 - BabaPerson wrote:

Strong cedar taste predominated. Very elegant, balanced. Tasted with a decent Cal 2005 Merlot: this was preferred.

5/29/2011 - BabaPerson wrote:

Popped, vinturied, and tasted. The last time I had this, I was put off by it. When I had the chance to get more, however, I couldn't resist. The fruit is more forward to me now, and there is a very pretty taste with the swallow. The tannins still bite, but I'm less put off by them, and the alcohol burn is quite noticeable. I have six more bottles of this. It contrasts with a nice Bordeaux Superieur I bought at the same time (Croix Mouton). Less expenditure, simpler, and more hedonistic. I think I can experience this as better, but only just. It would be in the seriousness this brings.

I'd love to put this up against a Beau Sejour Becot and do a head to head. I think they both could easily go another five years before that meeting, however.

5/21/2011 - BabaPerson wrote:

As I accommodate to this wine, I realize my previous higher score was linked to its French quality. By CT standards, where 80 to 84 is good, and 75 to 79 is average, my impression today might be as low as 81, but I have the impression that in practice, most people will give a score in the low '80's for 'average' wine, sometimes while complaining about it. So, 84. Today I'm inclined to agree that the body is light, and the finish undistinguished, but for my palate it is still a decent QPR $11 bottle (as long as you get a bottle that isn't corked!).

5/14/2011 - BabaPerson wrote:

Pretty nose. Hedonistic. Delicious!

5/9/2011 - BabaPerson wrote:

Too sweet and unbalanced for my taste.

5/8/2011 - BabaPerson wrote:

Corked! The fourth bottle of the case was stinky. Three good ones, then.... I notice this wine seems to show up corked quite regularly. Buyer Beware! (The uncorked bottles were pleasant quaffs, however.)

4/23/2011 - BabaPerson wrote:

This was an $11 bottle that I bought locally. It had the tight, tannic quality that I associate with French merlot, but was enjoyable. It was listed as 13% alcohol, but the burn suggested more. At the QPR for locally bought French, it was okay, much like a Bordeaux Superieur. Not a whiff, however, of transcendence.

3/29/2011 - BabaPerson wrote:

Drinking this next to the pool in San Miguel de Allende. Paid a bundle from the hotel, more than $30. Not exceptional, but good flavors. Short finish. Burn from the 14% alcohol. Seems like a decent $12 bottle. The courtyard, air temperature, and company makes up for the lack of QPR.