Community Tasting Notes 49

• dlf-48 wrote:

  June 29, 2023 - Good NAPA valley wine mellow with some nice fruit drink it alongside the Austin. Hope. both were good, but Austin had a lot more fruit forward flavor

  Comment

• Sonoma-W Likes this wine: 93 points

  May 26, 2023 - excellent -- some oak at first -- lots of life left but drinking very nicely now

  Comment

• Justin S Likes this wine:

  April 28, 2023 - On day 1, I respected this wine more than finding it tasty. After a few hours decant, the balance is there. Good acidity, tannins not intrusive, Maybe a bit of spice on the back end. Full bodied. The fruit was very dark and subdued. I like savory wines at times but this still needs years to develop more flavor. Nothing distinctive about it at present. On day 2, the fruit uncoiled a bit and turned more red. I think this needs a few more years and/or a longer decant.

  1 person found this helpful Comment

• red freddy Likes this wine: 92 points

  April 20, 2023 - Received a partial bottle
  2012: Cabernet Sauvignon- 79%; Petite Verdot - 10%; Merlot - 6%; Cabernet Franc - 5%
  14.1% abv
  
  Gift of a partial bottle from my Oenophile neighbor. Served with BBQ Pulled-pork. Another Quality wine from a California Napa Valley winery.
  
  Dark Ruby-red on the pour and in the glass. Heavenly aroma of Blackberry and Dark red fruit on the nose. Dark Cherry with raspberry and cassis on the palate, along with some earth/bramble. Smooth, yet intense, flavor with ample tannins providing a little pucker and slightly fuzzy tooth feel. Full, round, mouth feel, hint of pepper. Nice acidity for a pleasant, lingering, slightly minerally finish. An Elegant Wine!

  Comment

• sfwinelover1 Likes this wine: 94 points

  October 17, 2022 - One off ($51.99) from the big box winestore a few years ago. On the nose and palate, moderately robust notes of blackberries, blueberries, black raspberries, black plums, and black currants, cedar, earth, mixed spice bouquet, incense, menthol, smoke, dark roast coffee and tar. Impenetrable magenta, full bodied, thick legs. Medium++ tannins and acidity, no heat. VG++ complexity, persistence and intensity. If it’s possible to approach a bottle of wine at this price point with near existential dread, this was it, as its ‘10 sibling I had about a month ago was positively inert, when, by rights for this cuvée, it should have been in its prime. I wasn’t sure if that turkey was just a spoiled bottle or if somehow the winemaking philosophy had change dramatically at SMV since I polished the off of a case of ‘05s, which I’d thoroughly enjoyed, several years ago. I’m pleased to say it seems to have been the former (although with all of the discounted bottles floating around for multiple vintages, including at Costco, it does make me wonder a bit about quality control), as this was at or above the quality I’d experienced from this producer previously. Drinking more than passably off the pour, a couple of hours of air helped the large elements, already pretty well balanced, integrate into a fulsome but highly structured wine, one tasting like it’s far closer to the start than the end of its drinking window (the fact that it held well, and probably deepened and lengthened a bit over the 3 days I had it open bodes well.). More savory than sweet and equally good with burgers and grilled vegetables as on its own, this wine feels like what I want from a BDX but rarely get, in terms of the fruit, particularly at this price point. Solidly recommended at what I paid and above, and drink now or hold with confidence—at least not flawed bottles—for 3-5+ years. 93-94+
  
  As a wine geek aside, I rarely have more than one bottle open at a time unless I have/had had company, and when I do, it’s usually 2 completely different things, like a ‘10 Napa cab and a ‘16 Sonoma chard, but since I was finishing a bottle of ‘12 Hartwell Estate (not reviewed, since my review would have been pretty much identical to that from just a couple of months ago), I thought it worthwhile to save my last glass of that to go against my first glass of this, as 2 CS-dominant wines from the same vintage. They were a fascinating compare-contrast that presented a good Rorschach test of what I’m really looking for in a wine. The Hartwell was rich, delicious and voluptous, although per my earlier TN, without a ton of structure and drinking at or slightly post-peak. The SMV, while in no way ungenerous with its fruit, offered lots of underbrushy-foresty notes and far more savoriness than sweetness. I found the 2 wines, while not quite Stony Hill vs. Venge Bone Ash, so different in attributes while, for my taste, so similar in overall quality, I guess that I’d say it was a virtual dead heat, with perhaps the nod going to the SMV on a price basis. While this was a long way away from the Harlan vs. Scarecrow bucket list tasteoff CT friend csimm et al generously invited me to that, alas, I had to miss when my lungs pretty much stopped working in June, it was fun and interesting to have these 2 rock solid Cabs side by side. If I had more of these 2 in my cellar—which I don’t of either—I’d choose based on mood, with or without food, and the shorter fuse on the Hartwell, but in either instance, but very glad to have, both showing different sides of the strength of Napa winemaking in the sub $100 CS range.

  1 person found this helpful Comment

Pro Reviews 2

Wine Definition

• Vintage 2012
• Type Red
• Producer Spring Mountain Vineyard
• Varietal Cabernet Sauvignon
• Designation n/a
• Vineyard n/a
• Country USA
• Region California
• SubRegion Napa Valley
• Appellation Spring Mountain District
• UPC Codes 608780202067, 608780271124, 608780272060

Community Holdings

• Pending Delivery 0 (0%)
• In Cellars 894 (51%)
• Consumed 856 (49%)

Food Pairing

Who Likes This Wine

More About This Wine