Red

2012 Tusk Estates Cabernet Sauvignon

Cabernet Sauvignon

  • USA
  • California
  • Napa Valley
Drink between 2018 - 2036 (Edit)
CT95.3 14 reviews
2012
2012
2012
2012
N.V.
Label borrowed from 2011
2011
Label borrowed from 2013
2013
Label borrowed from 2013
2013
Label borrowed from 2013
2013
Label borrowed from 2013
2013
Label borrowed from 2011
2011
Label borrowed from 2010
2010
Label borrowed from 2014
2014
Label borrowed from 2014
2014
Label borrowed from 2014
2014
Label borrowed from 2014
2014
Label borrowed from 2009
2009
Label borrowed from 2009
2009
Label borrowed from 2015
2015
Label borrowed from 2015
2015
Label borrowed from 2015
2015
Label borrowed from 2009
2009
Label borrowed from 2015
2015
Label borrowed from 2015
2015
Label borrowed from 2008
2008

Community Tasting Notes 11

  • msuwine wrote: 95 points

    February 7, 2021 - This ripe and round Cabernet is incredibly powerful and tasty right now, but it may need a few more years to hit its stride. Dark purple in color and full in body, the wine offers aromas of blueberry, fruit cake, anise, and menthol. Flavors of boysenberry, gravel, anise, and cherry pie, with a layered and sweet finish that has tannin and acidity. 15.6% alcohol. Decant an hour.

    I have my doubts if this is worth the $600 price tag. To be clear, I think there are a handful of wines, given their track record or uniqueness, that can justify this price. The 2012 Tusk is really good - but not really unique. It is ripe, fleshy, polished, and delicious, but so are a lot of Napa 2012s. In the past six months or so, I’ve tasted several 2012s that are more compelling and original (e.g., Futo Oakville, Ovid, VHR) at a half or even a third of the price. 95 at the moment, with potential upside in a few years.

  • LiteItOnFire Likes this wine: 93 points

    February 2, 2020 - Same notes apply but this time PnP which proves needs more time.

  • LiteItOnFire Likes this wine: 94 points

    September 25, 2019 - What Csimm said although it opens up muted and tight. Open and give it air. Agree 2012 was a more elegant (not the right word but compared to 2014 works) than the 2014. Great wines- as good as other $500+ wines, jury is still out. Will hold my final opinion until then. Preferred 2014 to 2012. 2013 over both.

  • csimm1161 wrote: 95 points

    September 14, 2019 - Tusk vertical - 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 (Seven Hills restaurant, SF + Tusk party - with Cristal2000): Plum-dominant, with accompanying flavors of black cherry and black/purple berry fruit; wild, macerated raspberry makes a brief appearance, but is pushed over by the earthy plum note that elbows its way through the entire profile from start to finish. More medium-bodied than the other vintages, but sharing a similar (yet much softer) profile with the 2014. Finishes plush and lush, if not a hair flat and fading. It has a little bit of chewiness on the tail, which helps to elongate the experience of a stretched back end, but it is primarily operating with a “medium all the way around” type of demeanor and drive currently.

    Full disclosure, temperature was a little warm on service, which surely added to the flavors fanning out in a more horizontal fashion, but after cooling down a bit, it still didn’t show that type of traction and verve the others were able to exhibit. 2012 is an approachable and beautiful wine, if but more soft and feminine overall. With time, this will hopefully fill out even more, but it will likely not have the intensity of its younger siblings. Hold for another few years; it almost seems to be transitioning into a more nuanced and tertiary profile, but it’s not there quite yet.

  • Cristal2000 wrote: 94 points

    September 13, 2019 - Tusk Vertical 2011-2015 plus 2016 L'Orange - W/CSIMM1161; 9/13/2019-9/14/2019 (Seven Hills Restaurant, SF & Tusk Party): This showed the poorest in the lineup of 12-15 vintages. As CSIMM mentions in his note, there was a lot of plum and raspberry. Like the 13 edition, it was missing the trademark silky texture. Unlike the 13 however, this didn't have a big core the unwind, and instead was a bit soft and didn't have a lot going on. Where I can see the 13 coming out of a "dumb" phase here and rocketing back up to great heights, I have a hard time seeing the 12 doing so. That said, this was served warmer than ideal, so that could have played a role.

    Plums, raspberries, red licorice and forest floor on the nose. This seemed more red fruited than the others, with soft and approachable tannins. Good level of concentration, but not on the level of the other Tusk wines. Hints of mushroom and a mineral streak run through the core. A bit more medium than full bodied, the energy and freshness was lacking in comparison. Solid if unremarkable finish.

1 - 5 of 11 More notes

Pro Reviews 0

Add a Pro Review

Professional reviews have copyrights and you can view them here for your personal use only as private content. To view pro reviews you must either subscribe to a pre-integrated publication or manually enter reviews. Learn more.

Manage Subscriptions
  • No pro reviews found.

Wine Definition

  • Vintage 2012
  • Type Red
  • Producer Tusk Estates
  • Varietal Cabernet Sauvignon
  • Designation n/a
  • Vineyard n/a
  • Country USA
  • Region California
  • SubRegion Napa Valley
  • Appellation Napa Valley

Community Holdings

  • Pending Delivery 3 (0%)
  • In Cellars 612 (51%)
  • Consumed 580 (49%)

Food Pairing

No food pairings available.

Who Likes This Wine

100% Like It  5 votes

More About This Wine

Articles

Report a Problem

Close
© 2003-21 CellarTracker! LLC.

Report a Problem

Close