11/4/2008 - sol wrote:

Golden color, smelled young on first pour, with a nice not overwhelming yeast bouquet. Honeysuckle, apple blossom, and a little citrus follow. In the mouth, some tang -- still plenty of bubbles with solid acidity and a long smooth finish. Not sure it will get much better than this, but I don't see it fading anytime soon. Good stuff!

7/25/2008 - sol wrote:

Terrific! The best ATP zinfandel since the 02 Stone Ranch. Fruit as it should be in a great zinfandel, minerals, earth. A great mouthfeel, pretty soft for such a young wine, and a really good finish. Perfect with steamed pork chops with soy ginger sauce.

7/25/2008 - sol wrote:

Doh! Corked horribly!

5/13/2008 - sol wrote:

A winner among the Ridge ATP selections, and strangely enough, not a zinfandel. Almost 6 years old, and still very dark in color, just starting to fade at the rim. Aromas of dark berry and stone fruits, some leather, hints of cigar. No alcohol apparent at all. Very well balanced in the mouth, tasting quite nice. Tannins still mildly apparent, good go several more years. Medium finish.

4/30/2008 - sol wrote:

Really dark purple. In my glass, there's still a lot of bright dark fruit going on, with some black pepper and clove as well. The nose chagnes over time, with less fruit and more leather and spice with air. Soft mouthfeel, with tannins present but in balance, and a smooth finish. Very very good. I have seen prior notes on this wine that it is going over the hill, but my impression is that it's just entering its drinking window. I do keep my cellar at about 53-54 though...

3/13/2008 - sol wrote:

My first Greek wine, I believe. Fairly translucent, no sediment in the bottle. Initially, the nose is muted, if not a little stinky. This blows off, and actually improved with time quite a bit. Bright red fruit, some floral aromas, just a hint of cough syrup, kind of a unique nose actually. Acidic in the mouth, not terribly so, with a short finish. 12.5% alcohol (or so it says). Not a bad wine, and a nice change of pace from many of the "bigger" wines I've had lately. Not sure how this will age -- lighter tannins and not terribly structured.

3/11/2008 - sol wrote:

Still very primary. Lots of ripe dark fruit, cloves, allspice, and cigar smoke. Very full bodied, low acidity, a small astringent note, good long finish. Will hold my few other bottles for a few years.

3/10/2008 - sol wrote:

Acquired recently from a cold cellar, I opened this at the recommendation of Mitch Hersh, who felt it might be close to over the hill, if not already there. Fortunately, it was still showing quite well. Definitely some bricking showing, but still relatively opaque for a 16 year old wine. The nose shines, with raspberries, soil, minerals, coffee, and chocolate. A relatively high acid wine with good structure on the palate. The finish is medium. In my very limited experience with Burgundy, this is one of the better ones I've had. Enjoyed with mushroom-crusted halibut with black truffle sauce.

3/9/2008 - sol wrote:

Really singing at this point. Still quite dark on the rim, just starting to show some tranlucency at the edges of the glass. On the nose, black pepper, clove, leather, bacon fat, some faint tar. In the mouth, soft, decent attack, good mid-palate, with a medium long finish. Drinking window on "cellartracker" says drink by now, but this has several more years of drinkability if stored well.

2/25/2008 - sol wrote:

I was worried this was well past its prime, but it still had quite an exciting nose, with no evidence of oxidation or going downhill. Soft in the mouth, great with salmon.

2/25/2008 - sol wrote:

Not really trying to weigh in on the whole Aussies do or don't age thing -- I don't have enough experience with older ones -- but boy was this good. On the nose, there is still some primary fruit -- plums, black cherries -- but it has also picked up secondary characteristics of soft campfire smoke, leather, and earth. The tannins are still forward but not overwhelming, and there is a sweet but not cloying finish. I think this could go several more years, and potentially get better.

2/5/2008 - sol wrote:

From 375 ml. Purchased a few years ago, I expected this to mature a little faster given that it's a half bottle. Wrongo. Still tough as nails. Some baking bread on the nose, but not much else. In the mouth, tons of acidity that makes it a little tough to drink. The finish though, is smooth and long. Certainly potential, but I won't open any more of this for a while.

1/21/2008 - sol wrote:

The reason to have a wine cellar. Tannic, one dimensional, not very interesting on release. Now, 5 years later, it has evolved into a nice perfume on the nose with a really silky smooth mouthfeel. Highish acidity, but well balanced. Wish I had a few more.

12/10/2007 - sol wrote:

A really intriguing wine. Garnet and very clear visually. The nose is really quite explosive, with scents of roses, cherries, and white pepper. Perfect balance in the mouth, really smooth, great finish. A very easy wine to drink that is not your everyday pinot.

11/11/2007 - sol wrote:

Still dark purple, just starting to get some translucency at the edge. A dark fruit blast on the initial bouquet. Hints of clove, allspice, and black pepper, but the fruit really shines through. In the mouth, practically no tannins or acidity apparent, really supple and well integrated. The finish quite smooth. I don't think this is going to get any better, so drink up, but this is what zinfandel is all about!

7/15/2007 - sol wrote:

This one looked like a leaker, with a mid shoulder fill, and after taking off the capsule, it was. Lots of goo. Fortunately, this was no problem. Initially on the nose there was some licorice and spice, giving way to leather and forest floor. I also got some floral notes, particularly rose petals. A hint of glycerin, which was actually not off-putting but added to the complexity. I know there's been some controversy with the amount of brett in this wine but I got none. Silky silky silky in the mouth and the finish kept coming and coming. Seamless. Drink it now or drink it later -- it will be great either way.

7/11/2007 - sol wrote:

Not bad stuff. Initially not much on the nose but it opened a bit and was quite silky in the mouth. Could go a few more years and possibly get better.

6/26/2007 - sol wrote:

The best Ridge I've had in a while (which is saying something, given that Ridge is practically our house wine...), this shoots out of the gate with an explosive nose of briar patch, cloves, oregano, and black cherries. This wine is right at that point where fruit is still quite forward but it has developed numerous secondary characteristics, becoming more exotic with leather, tobacco, and anise with some time in the glass. Minimal heat. The mouthfeel is seamless and the finish is LONG. After opening it, we read the back label, in which Paul Draper (who is not given to hyperbole) compared it to the legendary 1974. I'm glad I have some more. Terrific with sausage lasagna.

5/10/2007 - sol wrote:

Yeah. Just relieved that it kept well and no heat damage, etc. Just moved the cellar from Fort Collins to Denver, and this is terrific. Earthy, meaty, medium to full bodied, and damned silky! A great finish. I haven't been downing too much 2000 CdP lately, but this is open and ready for business, and it should be around for quite a while yet too. Good stuff Maynard.

4/13/2007 - sol wrote:

Dang, my last bottle. This stuff rocks. Has the nose of a really nice young Cote Rotie, but with no harsh tannins. Could easily go another 8-10 years, but drinking well now.

3/27/2007 - sol wrote:

Black cherry, pepper, tarragon and a little vanilla. A little clove as it opens a bit. Highish acidity, which worked tonight as we were having grilled mahi mahi. A solid finish. Too bad I only have one more, as I'd really like to see this one evolve... Hartford Court makes some great pinots, and they seem to fly a bit under the radar.

3/7/2007 - sol wrote:

Initially there was a really powerful fruity nose, different than what I remember of this wine. As it evolved, complexity emerged, still with fruit, but also earth and spice. The nose was quite young, but in the mouth, the tannins were really silky, showing the wine's age. After about an hour, an amarone-like aroma emerged. The finish was medium long. A fun wine.

3/3/2007 - sol wrote:

Dagnabbit! I thought this would be just hitting maturity, but it's still too young yet. Lots of primary fruit with a little oak apparent, but hasn't quite developed the complexity that I so love about Geyservilles. Good to very good now, this wine has a lot of potential. I'll wait another year or two before opening another.

1/30/2007 - sol wrote:

Not bad. Not much left in the way of fruit, but silky smooth in the mouth with a decent finish. This ain't goin' anywhere. I'd drink any remaining bottles.

1/28/2007 - sol wrote:

A solid Champagne, really quite a bargain for under $30

1/28/2007 - sol wrote:

Gold, in more than just the color. The tiniest of bubbles. Amazing, unique nose. I rarely say this with Champagne, but I think I could nail this blind if I had it again, it's that unusual. The nose is explosive, with pumpernickel, apricot, and cherry blossom. Really smooth in the mouth, very effervescent. On the full bodied end of the spectrum. I could see this being a "controversial" Champange, a la Aussie reds, but I love it. FWIW, my most trusted wine merchant gets misty eyed when I ask about this wine. Buy more.

1/28/2007 - sol wrote:

Dark. My wife was shocked that this was an almost 10 year old wine. Obviously old world, straight out of the gate (and the horse analogy is intentional). Meaty, saddle leathery nose, with some darkish fruits as you probe deeper. A very slight green pepper streak, but for me not overwhelming. I assume there is some viognier in this blend, as with time there were some very floral aromas. Tannins are beginning to soften, and the finish is quite smooth. I'm impressed with Guigal's consistency with this relatively new endeavor. My personal opinion is that these d'Ampuis bottlings tend to be underrated by the major critics, and that they are a relative bargain. Good juice.

1/25/2007 - sol wrote:

This is the blackest wine I've seen in a while, right up to the edge. After one hour in the decanter, it was still really closed. Pouring into glasses and swirling for a bit, it started to show some dark fruit, maybe a hint of oak. In the mouth, this is a young tannic beast. Good structure, silky smooth, with a really long finish, but it took a good 3 hours before this baby was givin' up anything. Eventually, more fruit and some floral aromas emerged. If served blind, I would have guessed Oz shiraz all the way (in a good way!), a la Dead Arm or Amon-Ra. A well built wine, but I won't touch another for several years.

1/20/2007 - sol wrote:

The color was darker than I expected for this wine. Initially, all I could smell was meat. Lots of meat (and no, we hadn't gotten to the food yet). This gave way to forest floor, pencil lead, cassis, and saddle leather. Really supple in the mouth, silky smooth, a very soft attack. Mid palate was tasty, nice structure here. Very long finish. Terrific stuff. Probably at its peak but should last for quite a few years yet with no noticeable decline. Fill was in the neck, capsule still spinning, well stored. With the 1983 this good, I can't imagine what the 82 and 86 will be like when they are at their peak.

1/19/2007 - sol wrote:

Some bricking, but not much for a 16 year old zin blend. Still some fruit on the nose, classic LS, with some earth, saddle leather, and a hint of pepper. Really supple, exciting mouthfeel, the best part of this wine. A long solid finish. This actually got better and better in the glass over a few hours. What a great wine. Better than the last bottle I had, which I thought may be on the downslope, I think this still has some legs to it.

1/17/2007 - sol wrote:

Deep purple. Blackberries, raspberries, pepper, vanilla (not overwhelming) and a little raisin. At times a bit hot, but for the most part, good balance. Tannins are soft, medium acidity, this is a medium bodied wine. Some astringency on the finish, but mostly pleasant. This will probably be better in a year or two. Good, but I wouldn't back up the truck on this one. Popped and poured, served with chicken stuffed with mushrooms and wild rice.

1/11/2007 - sol wrote:

Nice stuff. I must admit, I was initially a little scared by the 15% alcohol, but this wine is in balance. A nose of apricot, lemon, and melon. Smooth attack with medium acidity and a very sweet finish. I paired it with popcorn shrimp, Maryland crab cake, and Indian rice (cardamom, saffron, clove, cinnamon, and onions). It paired nicely with all, but best, surprisingly for me at least, with the Indian rice.

12/26/2006 - sol wrote:

Garnet with slight bricking at the edges, boy does this wine throw some sediment! Oil of orange, clove, pepper and just a hint of vanilla. Light to medium bodied, very slightly astringent, a little lean in the mid palate but a decent if not good finish. Somewhat surprisingly, still some noticeable tannins. Well made, but I'm not all broken up that this is my last bottle...

12/20/2006 - sol wrote:

Wow. Well, after swearing I wouldn't open another for at least 2 years 6 months ago, I went ahead and opened another. This time I decanted for a few hours beforehand, and I think that made more difference than the extra 6 months in bottle. Really aromatic this time with leather, saw dust, rosemary, cloves, and some forest floor. Cherries and blackberries with a little vanilla as it evolves. Oak is noticeable but by no means overwhelming (I don't know the oak regimen on this one). The tannins have really softened. Although still noticeable, silky and enjoyable as opposed to hard like the last time I had this. The finish is quite pleasant and long. Definitely will last quite some time, but really beginning to shine at this point.

12/20/2006 - sol wrote:

Very floral, fruity. Soft in the mouth with basically no noticeable tannins, but a nice finish.

12/7/2006 - sol wrote:

Initially really closed, with nothing but minerals. That opens into a briary, earthy aroma with some plums and blueberries. Nice structure, surprisingly with some soft but noticeable tannins for a 92% zinfandel blend (8% petite sirah). An elegant style, as opposed to a lot of the current zins out there. Medium, pleasant finish. I would drink this up over the next couple of years, as I don't think it's going anywhere, but is quite good now.

11/8/2006 - sol wrote:

Nice nose, but a bit dry in the mouth, with a weak attack and mid-palate, decent finish. Pretty high acidity.

11/2/2006 - sol wrote:

Well... I had to pop one. Having gotten a great deal, considering the review, and all the hype, I couldn't resist. Decanted this pup for about an hour prior to drinking, then consumed over about 2 hours with my better half, it was wide open to begin with, but if anything got bigger with air. Dark, dark purple, with obvious viscosity. The first hint on the nose was violets and yes blueberries, but this gave way to to black pepper and rosemary with some chocolate and cloves thrown in. My wife said it smelled like Pez, which wasn't far off. In any case, a really pleasant, terrific nose.
The real strength of this wine, though, was its mouthfeel and finish. Velvety in the mouth, this just kept on coming. A really long finish, with virtually no heat (shocking given the 16.5% alcohol).
As an aside, we had this with beef tenderloin with cracked peppercorn and sweet potato frites. There have been many indictments of "over-the-top" Oz shirazes being not food friendly, but this match, at least, worked. I've recently been reading a book called "What to drink with what you eat" which has kind of a neat system of rating pairings, using regular print for good pairings, bold print for very good, bold print/all caps for great pairings, and bold print/all caps with an asterisk for the best possible pairing. This one worked out to a BOLD PRINT pairing.
Thinking about the score for this wine, I think I see where RMP is coming from: first of all, the wine is complex. It changes in the glass. It is well balanced and structured, but the most striking thing for me, anyway, was the length and quality of the finish.
I was a bit surprised at the restraint of the wine, at least relative to what I was expecting. 99 points for winemakers known for highly extracted, "over-the-top" wines must mean that magnified, right? Well, not in this case, at least not for me. Don't get me wrong, no one will mistake this for 15 year old Rostaing Cote Rotie, but I didn't get any potential "offensiveness" on this one as opposed to some of the so-called Aussie fruit bombs that many wine lovers avoid.
I have no idea where this wine will go, though. It is very forward at this point, truly enjoyable, and has so much going on I really don't know if this is going to pick up much in the way of secondary or tertiary characteristics. Enjoy!

10/31/2006 - sol wrote:

Not quite as youthful as the last bottle I had, this one is starting to show a bit of stewed tomatoes, but still comes through with clove, black pepper, and some cinnamon, with some violets, plums, and prunes. Silky stuff, it's got an excellent mouthfeel with a medium finish. Based on this bottle, I'd say drink up over the next couple of years.

10/14/2006 - sol wrote:

Terrific stuff, probably at its peak, but should last 3-5 more years. Lots of fruit and spice, like a good zin should be, with enough acidty to stand up to a little spice.

10/12/2006 - sol wrote:

Whoa. This stuff might be as good as the 02, if not better. Really sweet nose, with black fruits, cherries, and a little leather. Silky in the mough with a smooth finish. Bargain bargain.

8/19/2006 - sol wrote:

Dark purple, really thick. A very intense nose, floral while at the same time earthy. Huge structure, long finish. Has many years ahead of it.

8/16/2006 - sol wrote:

A controversial wine the night we had it (I think it was a combination of Rob's grumpy mood and his general fussy-pants attitude towards Bordeaux in general : )), I have no doubt this is a profound wine. It was poured after a number of great wines, and more than held its own. The initial sensation on the nose was extremely pleasant, and as one delves deeper, there is graphite, forest floor, cloves, and tobacco. Excellent structure in the mouth with many years ahead of it. No controversy for this taster.

8/16/2006 - sol wrote:

Peaches, apricots, some flint and petrol. Thick in the mouth, with almost an oily feel. There was some discussion among the tasters over how much -- if any -- residual sugar there was. I thought minimal. A very good wine.

8/16/2006 - sol wrote:

Yikes! Powerful nose, no mistaking this for a Burgundy or Barolo ; ), but I have to admit it is almost restrained for a high end Oz shiraz. Although there is big fruit, there is also minerals, cigar box, and some leather. Tasted next to the 2003 Amon Ra, this was smoother with better balance at this point, although I can't say which wine will be better in the long run. It's drinking very well now, but there is a lot to this wine, and it could have a future with secondary and tertiary characteristics.

8/16/2006 - sol wrote:

Amazing expressive nose. Peppery, fruity, leathery, (insert your superlative here). Velvety in the mouth with minimal noticeable tannin and a smooth finish. Drinking great now, and has at least 5 years of life. Actually paired very well with salmon burgers.

8/16/2006 - sol wrote:

Blind, I would have guessed this was a well aged Bordeaux. Pencil lead, black currants, and some plums. Pretty tasty, but not quite what I was expecting given the other Quilceda Creeks I've had.

8/16/2006 - sol wrote:

This wine is better every time I have it. Orange color. Initially very expressive on the nose, while it seemed a bit tight the last time I had it. Silk in the mouth. It kept getting better with air, and pouring a second glass revealed even more, with some rye bread, apples, apricots, cinnamon, and maple syrup. Yum yum.

8/16/2006 - sol wrote:

A great classic vintage port. Smells great, tastes great, great finish. My only bottle, which is a bit of a disappointment, as this wine has a lot of years ahead of it.

8/16/2006 - sol wrote:

Well, this wine was still a bit tight. I've heard that this vintage is way backward, but 20 years and still not givin' it up? There was flint and pencil lead on the nose, and it improved in the glass. There was still noticeable tannins in the mouth, tasty but not stupendous. I have to say I expected a bit more. Very very good, but not great.